So I'm reading the Cincinnati paper, to see what their take was on tonight's FlaccoRape, and I trip over this "My Experience" piece.
I sooo want to hear what Languish has to say about this one.
Quote25 and deep in debt
MY EXPERIENCE
I am honored to be a daughter of Cincinnati and am humbled to have grown up in such a wonderful community. I attended St. Margaret of York grade school and then matriculated from the reputable Ursuline Academy. After high school, I earned degrees from Miami and Xavier universities. Because of my local education, Cincinnati is more than my hometown – she is the mother who raised me into the woman I am now. I am Cincinnati.
My pursuit in excellent education is rooted in a value system that promotes progressive thought for the betterment of the individual as well as society. Education is a core tenet and vested interest of the functioning democratic society. Upon that basic assumption and principle, I am overwhelmingly incensed by the silent epidemic of crippling student debt.
At 25 years old, I have $188,307.22 in student debt, all of which is my sole financial responsibility.
That exorbitant number was abetted by easy lending with a co-signer, negligence and lack of awareness, over-borrowing and the exponential growth of tuition.
I work both a full-time and part-time job, and abide by a strict budget. Yet, I still sleep in my parent's basement and am dependent for food, gas and health insurance.
I am told I am not alone.
However, this particularly sensitive conversation is being ignored by our mainstream consciousness. Perhaps I should be ashamed for buying such an unaffordable education and internalize my debts as personal failures. Perhaps my mistakes warrant pained silence. But silence breeds apathy, and in regard to the welfare of the American economy, I want to humanize the numbers and give voice to this reprehensible problem.
Due to reckless neglect, student debt will be the financial ruin of my generation, and there is an incredible need for a public discourse addressing this reality and its grave consequences.
I want answers and clarity as to why this happened. How did I arrive at this position in life so financially handicapped and disenfranchised? I followed societal expectations, earned an education and am employed. I will gladly repay my debts within the comfortable reason of affordability. Yet, my wants and needs are disproportionate, and I can barely afford a PB&J sandwich, let alone the peace of mind to sleep at night.
There is great irony in pursuing freedom through education only to be shackled by crushing debt. My current financial situation prohibits any fantasies of owning a home, getting married or starting a family.
My future and dreams are six feet under, and I am still digging my grave. I want to fight and reclaim my American and Cincinnatian identity, even if the only thing I can afford is the sound of my voice and tears.
I am owed answers simply because I have the right to pursue happiness. And since I am not alone in this debilitating epidemic, my peers deserve their voice as well.
Oh, and the "comments" section is priceless.
Should have gone to public school. Jesus.
Well, one thing I notice is that she can't be bothered to tell us what her degree is in.
Not that that matters.
She's owed answers? Really?
Wow.
I will say that I hope she uses birth control. Because if I am any judge of humanity, her end of the gene pool is fucking shallow.
Quote from: Scipio on September 10, 2012, 10:48:34 PM
Well, one thing I notice is that she can't be bothered to tell us what her degree is in.
Creative Writing.
QuoteMy current financial situation prohibits any fantasies of...getting married...
:lol:
Maybe she shouldn't have gone to two universities? :huh:
That said, it definitely is terrible the amount of debt one can accumulate in one's 20s because of school...especially during a decade of life where people almost expect you to goof off. :D
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 11:03:26 PM
Maybe she shouldn't have gone to two universities? :huh:
:D
Damn Republican anti-intellectualism. <_<
Quote from: katmai on September 10, 2012, 11:07:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 11:03:26 PM
Maybe she shouldn't have gone to two universities? :huh:
:D
Damn Republican anti-intellectualism. <_<
Really though - taking loans enough for two degrees at non-elite universities that add up to nearly 200,000? Someone along the way should have stopped her or at least given her better advice.
Not all of us can be half Indian geniuses Garbon :weep:
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 11:12:55 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 10, 2012, 11:07:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 11:03:26 PM
Maybe she shouldn't have gone to two universities? :huh:
:D
Damn Republican anti-intellectualism. <_<
Really though - taking loans enough for two degrees at non-elite universities that add up to nearly 200,000? Someone along the way should have stopped her or at least given her better advice.
She's a precious and unique snowflake. Nobody tells her what to do. After all, nobody puts baby in the corner.
Quote from: katmai on September 10, 2012, 11:24:30 PM
Not all of us can be half Indian geniuses Garbon :weep:
That's why I was suggesting it wasn't all her fault as a late teen/early 20-something. Adults in her life (up to including said adults that authorized a loan) should have served her better and it is a shame that they didn't.
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 10, 2012, 11:24:30 PM
Not all of us can be half Indian geniuses Garbon :weep:
That's why I was suggesting it wasn't all her fault as a late teen/early 20-something. Adults in her life (up to including said adults that authorized a loan) should have served her better and it is a shame that they didn't.
I dunno man. I was pretty cautious about accumulating student debt, and graduated with maybe 5% of her debt (with two degrees!). IT not exactlt rocket science to know that owing $200k is very, very bad.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 10, 2012, 11:01:33 PM
QuoteMy current financial situation prohibits any fantasies of...getting married...
:lol:
Her debt isn't her only problem in that particular regard. The piece has a pic...
Quote from: Scipio on September 10, 2012, 10:48:34 PM
Well, one thing I notice is that she can't be bothered to tell us what her degree is in.
Xavier? Oh, I could hazard a guess. And contrary to your collective gasping, if my hunch is right, it's not too far from the median debt.
Anyway, yeah, you can pile a lot of blame on recent grads' shoulders. Hindsight being what it is, of course it was a bad idea to go to professional/graduate school for many.
So, it follows, of course, tbat it's 100% the hapless students' responsibility; lenders profiting off of government-guaranteed, nondischargeable, near-zero-risk loans on one hand and institutions engaged in naked fraud and the massive transfer of wealth based on lies and access to legally-sanctioned cartels, on the other, should bear absolutely none.
Or is your libertarian sense tingling?
Shit, dude, even I can admit that a pure free market would be better than the Soviet chandelier factories we've got instead of higher education; it's not my preferred solution, but despite my politics I still recognize that nothing can possibly be worse than what we have. This is not, or should not be, a liberal weenie issue. It's a market distortion of incredible magnitude, and a burgeoning catastrophe.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 11:51:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 10, 2012, 11:24:30 PM
Not all of us can be half Indian geniuses Garbon :weep:
That's why I was suggesting it wasn't all her fault as a late teen/early 20-something. Adults in her life (up to including said adults that authorized a loan) should have served her better and it is a shame that they didn't.
I dunno man. I was pretty cautious about accumulating student debt, and graduated with maybe 5% of her debt (with two degrees!). IT not exactlt rocket science to know that owing $200k is very, very bad.
She had a co-signer, so at the very least that person is complicit.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 11:51:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 10, 2012, 11:24:30 PM
Not all of us can be half Indian geniuses Garbon :weep:
That's why I was suggesting it wasn't all her fault as a late teen/early 20-something. Adults in her life (up to including said adults that authorized a loan) should have served her better and it is a shame that they didn't.
I dunno man. I was pretty cautious about accumulating student debt, and graduated with maybe 5% of her debt (with two degrees!). IT not exactlt rocket science to know that owing $200k is very, very bad.
Good thing you A)live in Canada and B)graduated from law school like fifteen years ago. ;)
Things have changed radically. Tuition has exploded over the past decade. (Not just at law schools, but also for undergraduate programs.) $188k is still pretty extreme, but it's not that far out of line for someone debt-financing undergrad and a grad/professional degree.
I mean, South Carolina is one of the cheaper law schools in the country, and it's still like $20k a year.
I'm not that old. I graduated from law school 12 years ago. :mad:
Nevermind my math was off, I may correct it later.
Heh, I know at least one of the people who commented on her article. :cool:
What's the interest rate on one of these loans?
that is a crazy amount of loan money. I should have taken a lot more than I did, then I could have done just what I wanted and perhaps been in a better position now. I couldn't imagine topping 10,000 though. That's some damn pricey tuition.
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 11:58:07 PM
She had a co-signer, so at the very least that person is complicit.
So Mommy and/or Daddy are along for the ride as well.
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 05:55:24 AM
that is a crazy amount of loan money. I should have taken a lot more than I did, then I could have done just what I wanted and perhaps been in a better position now. I couldn't imagine topping 10,000 though. That's some damn pricey tuition.
It's a bit high but not too far off normal for here.
My daughter is going to a public university here as an in-state resident. The estimated cost for this year is almost $20K. That includes things besides tution like room and board, books and some incidental spending money but all of that can get covered by financial aid loans.
:wacko: Go get two-years of Community College while working then transfer to a four year and use your high GPA to get a scholarship or only take two years of debt. For Godsake it is not like this is a rare and untrodden path to get a cheap degree.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 08:20:27 AM
:wacko: Go get two-years of Community College while working then transfer to a four year and use your high GPA to get a scholarship or only take two years of debt. For Godsake it is not like this is a rare and untrodden path to get a cheap degree.
Worked for me. Once I got my AA, I got into every university I applied to, and managed to skip the undergrad gen-ed requirements to boot.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 08:20:27 AM
:wacko: Go get two-years of Community College while working then transfer to a four year and use your high GPA to get a scholarship or only take two years of debt. For Godsake it is not like this is a rare and untrodden path to get a cheap degree.
Indeed though I have to say that they never talked about that method at my high school.
I am 28 years old & I have no student debt.
God Save the Queen.
Stupid girl. She should have lived in Wyoming then attended the University. Tuition is only $4300.00 a year for instate, and many students get half of that paid for by an education trust fund.
Quote from: PDH on September 11, 2012, 08:34:05 AM
Stupid girl. She should have lived in Wyoming then attended the University. Tuition is only $4300.00 a year for instate, and many students get half of that paid for by an education trust fund.
Of course, there's the whole negative that she would have had to live in Wyoming which sounds rough even for a professed Cincinnatian.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 08:43:45 AM
Of course, there's the whole negative that she would have had to live in Wyoming which sounds rough even for a professed Cincinnatian.
What do you know? You only saw Wyoming from speeds as high as 95mph on I-80.
Quote from: PDH on September 11, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 08:43:45 AM
Of course, there's the whole negative that she would have had to live in Wyoming which sounds rough even for a professed Cincinnatian.
What do you know? You only saw Wyoming from speeds as high as 95mph on I-80.
And I saw enough. :yes:
Wyoming winters are the best. The finest 11 months of the year.
I don't blame her nearly as much as the system/banks who are mad to be lending that sort of money. Over the entire system it looks like a bailout waiting to happen.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 11, 2012, 08:53:49 AM
I don't blame her nearly as much as the system/banks who are mad to be lending that sort of money. Over the entire system it looks like a bailout waiting to happen.
You think? I just hope I can get out of here before the educational bubble bursts.
And education loans are the worst, you cannot default or go bankrupt.
The funny part is, just like the real-estate bubble, when it does burst everybody will act surprised and call it a crisis...when it has been obviously coming down the road for years.
Problem here is that in this economy there are few sure ways to a future. Kids are gambling that if they pay for a prestigious university - hard to get into and expensive - it will pan out in the form of a high-paying career that will allow them to pay off those loans and then some. Their parents keep telling them that education is the key, and tuitions keep getting more expensive. But getting such a career is increasingly impossible.
So kids are caught in a frustrating trap. If they gamble with buying an expensive education, chances are they will see no return (financial that is) other than a huge debt, and will like this author be ridiculed for piling up a debt they can't afford. This is particularly true if they go on to graduate school. OTOH, if they don't gamble, and just go for the manual-labour type jobs you can get without higher education, they will be seen as underacheiving slackers. Meanwhile, even entry level jobs require university degrees, simply as a matter of screening - why not ask for it when you have 500 applicants for every position?
Personally, I welcome this trend. :D It keeps the young desperate and ready for manipulation. When I create my new, all-powerful cult of personality, it ensures a ready supply of recruits for my underground army of terror. :)
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 09:01:01 AM
Problem here is that in this economy there are few sure ways to a future. Kids are gambling that if they pay for a prestigious university - hard to get into and expensive - it will pan out in the form of a high-paying career that will allow them to pay off those loans and then some. Their parents keep telling them that education is the key, and tuitions keep getting more expensive. But getting such a career is increasingly impossible.
So kids are caught in a frustrating trap. If they gamble with buying an expensive education, chances are they will see no return (financial that is) other than a huge debt, and will like this author be ridiculed for piling up a debt they can't afford. This is particularly true if they go on to graduate school. OTOH, if they don't gamble, and just go for the manual-labour type jobs you can get without higher education, they will be seen as underacheiving slackers. Meanwhile, even entry level jobs require university degrees, simply as a matter of screening - why not ask for it when you have 500 applicants for every position?
Personally, I welcome this trend. :D It keeps the young desperate and ready for manipulation. When I create my new, all-powerful cult of personality, it ensures a ready supply of recruits for my underground army of terror. :)
Yeah I had this discussion with my mother and one of my sisters. My sister was relating how a decent percent of people she knows have now sort of given up and working menial jobs as they don't really see any hope. That's sad. :(
Tuition and fees will continue to go up, especially in states where governments are cutting back on payouts to public universities and colleges. in the meantime from junior high on kids are told they have to go to college if they want any kind of future. Mega loans are the new economic reality. You can deride the kids who go for fine arts or whatever, but it has been hammered into them since they were 12 that the need a four year degree at least if they don't want to be working at McDonalds. I had teachers telling me that it didn't matter if my degree was in basket weaving so long as I had one.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 09:01:01 AM
This is particularly true if they go on to graduate school. OTOH, if they don't gamble, and just go for the manual-labour type jobs you can get without higher education, they will be seen as underacheiving slackers.
Out here in oil country (or up north in mining country) people in manual labour jobs are definitely not seen as underachieving slackers.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 09:09:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 09:01:01 AM
This is particularly true if they go on to graduate school. OTOH, if they don't gamble, and just go for the manual-labour type jobs you can get without higher education, they will be seen as underacheiving slackers.
Out here in oil country (or up north in mining country) people in manual labour jobs are definitely not seen as underachieving slackers.
Yes, but we can't export our entire young population to Alberta to become roughnecks. Though you do raise an important point: ambitious people have to be willing to move about to go where the jobs are.
Unfortunately that can be a kind of trap as well - see for example how many have gone abroad to teach English. The risk is that, unless they want to live there permanently, their experience isn't translatable into future job expectations.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 09:01:01 AM
Problem here is that in this economy there are few sure ways to a future. Kids are gambling that if they pay for a prestigious university - hard to get into and expensive - it will pan out in the form of a high-paying career that will allow them to pay off those loans and then some. Their parents keep telling them that education is the key, and tuitions keep getting more expensive. But getting such a career is increasingly impossible.
So kids are caught in a frustrating trap. If they gamble with buying an expensive education, chances are they will see no return (financial that is) other than a huge debt, and will like this author be ridiculed for piling up a debt they can't afford. This is particularly true if they go on to graduate school. OTOH, if they don't gamble, and just go for the manual-labour type jobs you can get without higher education, they will be seen as underacheiving slackers. Meanwhile, even entry level jobs require university degrees, simply as a matter of screening - why not ask for it when you have 500 applicants for every position?
There's nothing wrong with grad school, but this approach of getting the undergrad and then getting the grad/professional degree before having any work experience beyond Starbucks really doesn't make sense.
Why the fuck young people think that employers--real employers--want somebody with an MBA by the time they're 25 when they haven't worked anywhere more than the occasional semester internship in a mail room or the morning shift manager at the local Denny's doesn't make sense.
Get your undergrad degree, join the work force, then progress as a working adult for a graduate/professional degree, and your career mobility will parallel your education.
Going for the shortcut to a six-figure salary with just an education under your belt, with no real work experience, is really short-sighted. Doesn't make any sense. No wonder they can't get jobs: they're not qualified.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2012, 09:14:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 09:01:01 AM
Problem here is that in this economy there are few sure ways to a future. Kids are gambling that if they pay for a prestigious university - hard to get into and expensive - it will pan out in the form of a high-paying career that will allow them to pay off those loans and then some. Their parents keep telling them that education is the key, and tuitions keep getting more expensive. But getting such a career is increasingly impossible.
So kids are caught in a frustrating trap. If they gamble with buying an expensive education, chances are they will see no return (financial that is) other than a huge debt, and will like this author be ridiculed for piling up a debt they can't afford. This is particularly true if they go on to graduate school. OTOH, if they don't gamble, and just go for the manual-labour type jobs you can get without higher education, they will be seen as underacheiving slackers. Meanwhile, even entry level jobs require university degrees, simply as a matter of screening - why not ask for it when you have 500 applicants for every position?
There's nothing wrong with grad school, but this approach of getting the undergrad and then getting the grad/professional degree before having any work experience beyond Starbucks really doesn't make sense.
Why the fuck young people think that employers--real employers--want somebody with an MBA by the time they're 25 when they haven't worked anywhere more than the occasional semester internship in a mail room or the morning shift manager at the local Denny's doesn't make sense.
Get your undergrad degree, join the work force, then progress as a working adult for a graduate/professional degree, and your career mobility will parallel your education.
Going for the shortcut to a six-figure salary with just an education under your belt, with no real work experience, is really short-sighted. Doesn't make any sense. No wonder they can't get jobs: they're not qualified.
None of this has to make any sense. In the past, a graduate degree was in fact a possible key to a professional-type job - even though it made no more sense then than now. Similarly, employers now will demand a university degree for entry jobs they would never have required one for 30 years ago - just because they can.
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
That's all well and good, and it's fine to pursue one's intellectual interests--but don't bitch about the reality of the situation living in Mom's basement with no prospects for marriage and $188,000 of debt.
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
Those people are suicidally stupid or fantastically wealthy. If you are dumping 100+ thousand dollars on an education you better be thinking about your career or be heir to a used car lot empire.
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
Which is perfectly fine so long as they have some plan to pay for it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 09:32:40 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
Those people are suicidally stupid or fantastically wealthy. If you are dumping 100+ thousand dollars on an education you better be thinking about your career or be heir to a used car lot empire.
Ann Romney convinced me that, no matter how difficult they had it when Mittens went to Harvard for his law degree and his MBA at the same time, they still persevered. So hard work can create miracles.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 08:48:03 AM
Wyoming winters are the best. The finest 11 months of the year.
Winter in this case being defined as "any day where the temperature drops below 70"
Quote from: PDH on September 11, 2012, 08:34:05 AM
Stupid girl. She should have lived in Wyoming then attended the University. Tuition is only $4300.00 a year for instate, and many students get half of that paid for by an education trust fund.
There were less expensive options that still would have given her a good education. She went to Xavier, a private school with tuition unsubsidized by the state (runs about $15k per semester), when the University of Cincinnati is right next door for an in-state tuition of about $5k per semester.
At Miami, tuition is subsidized, but in-state is still more expensive than most (all?) state schools.
My deal with my kids will be that they can pick whichever state school in Ohio they want to attend, and I'll foot the bill. If they want to go to an out of state school, they better load up on scholarships and grants. They will not attend Xavier <_<
This really shows the problem with the system in the US.
Worries about whether you're smart enough for a certain program, will be able to get in, etc.... have to take back stage to money.
It just seems thoroughly wrong to me that a very smart guy who could easily get by at one of the best schools in the country might have to go to one of the worst schools just because he can't afford it (yes, I'm aware of scholarships and all that sort of thing, they tend to be limited in number however and with all sorts of strings).
I missed out on going to a certain good uni once upon a time due to money concerns- that was purely living costs however, and it was just for a semester so not that overwhelmingly much lost. For tuition to be such a concern that it will make you lower your sights and have to pick a totally different path in life however....yeah, it needs fixing.
That would be concerning Tyr, if it were remotely true.
Luckily, it mostly is not, and hence largely irrelevant.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2012, 09:55:22 AM
That would be concerning Tyr, if it were remotely true.
Luckily, it mostly is not, and hence largely irrelevant.
Indeed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2012, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
That's all well and good, and it's fine to pursue one's intellectual interests--but don't bitch about the reality of the situation living in Mom's basement with no prospects for marriage and $188,000 of debt.
I don't know I mean if you are a teen and your parents are all like its a good idea to take on those loans, honey - what real hope of success do you have? You're a teen so you're already likely to do something foolish and then when encouraged by parents and lenders - pretty awful.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 10:25:18 AM
I don't know I mean if you are a teen and your parents are all like its a good idea to take on those loans, honey - what real hope of success do you have? You're a teen so you're already likely to do something foolish and then when encouraged by parents and lenders - pretty awful.
When I floated the idea of film school to my Dad, he told me I didn't need to go to film school to refill his iced tea at TGIFriday's like every other film school grad not named Scorsese.
Pops is a sensitive cat that way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2012, 10:28:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 10:25:18 AM
I don't know I mean if you are a teen and your parents are all like its a good idea to take on those loans, honey - what real hope of success do you have? You're a teen so you're already likely to do something foolish and then when encouraged by parents and lenders - pretty awful.
When I floated the idea of film school to my Dad, he told me I didn't need to go to film school to refill his iced tea at TGIFriday's like every other film school grad not named Scorsese.
Pops is a sensitive cat that way.
Some people have sensible parents (like my mother who said she wouldn't hire a man who had a fem studies minor :D) - unfortunately many do not. :(
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 10:29:36 AM
(like my mother who said she wouldn't hire a man who had a fem studies minor :D)
:lol:
What are her degrees?
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:45:45 AM
For tuition to be such a concern that it will make you lower your sights and have to pick a totally different path in life however....yeah, it needs fixing.
Yeah ok that is not what I am saying but there is a way do it while giving yourself crippling debt and ways to do it where you don't. Be smart don't be an idiot. But I thought you just said you should use college to delay your life and goof off and not because you picked a path you want to pursue.
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
There are indeed lots of people who do that. I call them stupid people.
Quote from: Legbiter on September 11, 2012, 10:35:55 AM
What are her degrees?
She won't tell us. So naturally we can safely assume the worst.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2012, 10:28:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 10:25:18 AM
I don't know I mean if you are a teen and your parents are all like its a good idea to take on those loans, honey - what real hope of success do you have? You're a teen so you're already likely to do something foolish and then when encouraged by parents and lenders - pretty awful.
When I floated the idea of film school to my Dad, he told me I didn't need to go to film school to refill his iced tea at TGIFriday's like every other film school grad not named Scorsese.
Pops is a sensitive cat that way.
My eldest nephew graduated high school this year. He's off to study
theatre. :bleeding:
He's somewhat sensible about it - attending a local college for two years, then plans to transfer to university. His parents are reasonably well off so he's not going to accumulate a lot, or any, debt. And he knows acting jobs are hard to come by, so instead he's aiming to be a drama professor. Apparently no one told him jobs in academia are almost as hard to find as acting jobs. :(
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
There are indeed lots of people who do that. I call them stupid people.
And they probably all support marijuana legalization. Coinkydink? I THINK NOT
Quote from: derspiess on September 11, 2012, 10:43:15 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 11, 2012, 10:35:55 AM
What are her degrees?
She won't tell us. So naturally we can safely assume the worst.
If it's in the humanities, she should go to Alberta and work in the tar sands. Or fake her death or something. I don't suppose she can just declare bankruptcy and make the debt go away?
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
There are indeed lots of people who do that. I call them stupid people.
I cop to being one of them. :D Major in anthropology = not a great career move. Or maybe it was, because I got excellent marks (since I was doing what I liked anyway that wasn't hard) that helped me get into law school later. If I'd taken something dreary like business administration I could easily have flunked out.
Of course, in my case undergrad tuition was free at U of T - profs don't get paid very well, but they get great perks. Free tuition for your kiddies was one my dad got that I made use of ...
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:45:58 AM
, so instead he's aiming to be a drama professor. Apparently no one told him jobs in academia are almost as hard to find as acting jobs. :(
:bleeding:
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
There are indeed lots of people who do that. I call them stupid people.
I cop to being one of them. :D Major in anthropology = not a great career move. Or maybe it was, because I got excellent marks (since I was doing what I liked anyway that wasn't hard) that helped me get into law school later. If I'd taken something dreary like business administration I could easily have flunked out.
Of course, in my case undergrad tuition was free at U of T - profs don't get paid very well, but they get great perks. Free tuition for your kiddies was one my dad got that I made use of ...
Indulging in learning for the sake of learning when you have free tuition doesn't qualify as stupid to me. :hug:
Quote from: Legbiter on September 11, 2012, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:45:58 AM
, so instead he's aiming to be a drama professor. Apparently no one told him jobs in academia are almost as hard to find as acting jobs. :(
:bleeding:
I know, I know. But I'm only his uncle. When he was younger he inquired a few times about what it was like to be a lawyer. I'd be happy to encourage him that way, but nothing doing.
Quote from: derspiess on September 11, 2012, 10:43:15 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 11, 2012, 10:35:55 AM
What are her degrees?
She won't tell us. So naturally we can safely assume the worst.
Yeah, she's got some squirrelly degrees, I'm sure. Your usual humanities degree from Miami, and God knows what grad degree at X.
QuoteGraduate Programs, Xavier University
Graduate Programs
Master of Business Administration
MBA Programs
Executive MBA
Master of Education
Administration
Elementary Education
Montessori Education
Multicultural Literature for Children
Reading
Secondary Education
Special Education
Sport Administration
Master of Health Services Administration
Long-Term Care
Dual Degree with M.B.A.
Master of Arts
Community Counseling
English
General Experimental Psychology
Industrial-Organizational Psychology
School Counseling
Theology
Health Care Mission Integration
Doctor of Psychology
Master of Science in Criminal Justice
Master of Science in Human Resource Development
Master of Science in Nursing
Nursing Administration Concentration
Education Concentration
Forensics Concentration
Informatics Concentration
School Nurse Concentration
Health Care Law Concentration
RN to MSN
MSN Clinical Nurse Leader Concentration
MSN/MBA Dual Degree
MSN/MED Dual Degree
MSN/ MSCJ Dual Degree
Direct Entry Second Degree (MIDAS) Program
Master of Occupational Therapy
It sure as hell isn't Nursing, or she'd have a job by now.
My guess: Industrial-Organizational Psychology :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:50:31 AM
Indulging in learning for the sake of learning when you have free tuition doesn't qualify as stupid to me. :hug:
No shit; I knew plenty of people at Hopkins that were collecting degrees like fucking baseball cards over there.
"I'm in Billing Supervision, but I'm wrapping up my MLA this semester."
Quote from: Legbiter on September 11, 2012, 10:47:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 11, 2012, 10:43:15 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 11, 2012, 10:35:55 AM
What are her degrees?
She won't tell us. So naturally we can safely assume the worst.
If it's in the humanities, she should go to Alberta and work in the tar sands. Or fake her death or something. I don't suppose she can just declare bankruptcy and make the debt go away?
She has to stay here. She's a Daughter of Cincinnati!!!! And no, student loans are unique in that they can't be wiped away by bankruptcy. You gotta pay. IIRC if you still have a balance left after 25 years (?) that balance is forgiven.
Anyway, for some fun we can try to figure out her major. I'm guessing she went to Miami for her undergrad since she mentioned it first. Here are all their undergrad majors:
A–D
Accountancy
American Studies
Anthropology
Architecture
Art (see Studio Art)
Art and Architecture History
Art Education (Grades preK–12)
Athletic Training
Biochemistry
Bioengineering
Biological Physics
Biology (see Botany, Microbiology, Zoology)
Black World Studies
Botany
Business Economics
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Chinese Education (Grades preK–12)
Classical Humanities
Classical Languages (Greek and Latin)
Computer Engineering
Computer Science
Diplomacy and Global Politics
E–H
Early Childhood Education (Grades preK–3)
Earth Science
East Asian Languages and Cultures
Economics
Economics (Quantitative)
Electrical Engineering
Engineering (General)
Engineering Management
Engineering Physics
Engineering Technology
English/Creative Writing
English/Literature
English/Professional Writing
English Language Arts Education (Grades 7–12)
Environmental Earth Science
Environmental Principles and Practice (co-major)
Environmental Science (co-major)
Family Studies
Finance
French
French Education (Grades preK–12)
Geography
Geology
German
German Education (Grades preK–12)
Gerontology
Graphic Design
Health Promotion
History
I–M
Individualized Studies
Interactive Media Studies (co-major)
Interdisciplinary Business Management
Interior Design
International Studies
Italian Studies
Journalism
Kinesiology
Latin American, Latino/a, and Caribbean Studies
Latin Education (Grades preK–12)
Linguistics
Management Information Systems
Management and Leadership
Manufacturing Engineering
Marketing
Mass Communication
Mathematics
Mathematics Education (Grades 7–12)
Mathematics and Statistics
Mechanical Engineering
Medical Laboratory Science
Microbiology
Middle Childhood Education (Grades 4–9)
Music
Music Education (Grades preK–12)
Music Performance
N–Z
Nursing
Nutrition
Philosophy
Physics
Political Science
Pre-Professional Study (e.g., law, medicine)
Psychology
Public Administration
Religion (Comparative)
Russian, Eastern European, and Eurasian Studies
Science Education (Grades 7–12)
Social Justice Studies
Social Studies Education (Grades 7–12)
Social Work
Sociology
Software Engineering
Spanish
Spanish Education (Grades preK–12)
Special Education (Grades K–12)
Speech Communication
Speech Pathology and Audiology
Sport Leadership and Management
Statistics
Strategic Communication
Studio Art
Supply Chain and Operations Management
Theatre
Urban and Regional Planning
Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Zoology
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 11, 2012, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:45:58 AM
, so instead he's aiming to be a drama professor. Apparently no one told him jobs in academia are almost as hard to find as acting jobs. :(
:bleeding:
I know, I know. But I'm only his uncle. When he was younger he inquired a few times about what it was like to be a lawyer. I'd be happy to encourage him that way, but nothing doing.
I honestly can't say I'd be all that enouraging to someone wanting to get into the profession these days - it is so goddam tough to make it. And if you do, young lawyers are treated like slaves even worse than when we went through it. Though of course, I'm thinking of the big firms here.
The heartbreak of going through law school and articling just to be tossed aside is a tough sell to me, and its increasingly common I think - though I have no figures to base it on.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:51:33 AM
I know, I know. But I'm only his uncle. When he was younger he inquired a few times about what it was like to be a lawyer. I'd be happy to encourage him that way, but nothing doing.
Academia: Take Hell, add professors.
I believe this is her so she got a BA but I don't know in what:
http://www.miami.muohio.edu/cdp_lists/pdfs/12_09/Commence_Ohio.pdf
Katherine Elizabeth Brotherton
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 11, 2012, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:45:58 AM
, so instead he's aiming to be a drama professor. Apparently no one told him jobs in academia are almost as hard to find as acting jobs. :(
:bleeding:
I know, I know. But I'm only his uncle. When he was younger he inquired a few times about what it was like to be a lawyer. I'd be happy to encourage him that way, but nothing doing.
I honestly can't say I'd be all that enouraging to someone wanting to get into the profession these days - it is so goddam tough to make it. And if you do, young lawyers are treated like slaves even worse than when we went through it. Though of course, I'm thinking of the big firms here.
The heartbreak of going through law school and articling just to be tossed aside is a tough sell to me, and its increasingly common I think - though I have no figures to base it on.
I remember thinking the same when I graduated though. I did have the good fortune to secure an articling job in '99 in the midst of the tech boom - I suspect it's rougher this year. But its hard to plan your career based on year to year economic fluctuations.
But if I was graduating high school today, in 2012, what else are your options? Thinking of my nephew - despite growing up on the farm he has no interest in farm work, or oilfield (his younger brother, on the other hand...). He's smart, does well in school, enjoys working with people and helping people. And of course he likes talking in front of groups of people. In terms of reasonable career goals I think law would be a strong choice for him.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:50:31 AM
Indulging in learning for the sake of learning when you have free tuition doesn't qualify as stupid to me. :hug:
Well yeah but a useless degree is a useless degree even if you didn't pay for it. :lol: I still remember the shock I got when graduating. I had been totally, willfully blind to the fact I had nothing whatsoever lined up - all I had were applications to graduate school, and even then I knew that was a pathetic excuse for a plan. I went back to working in the pottery studeo.
At that point the sensible part of my mind rebelled. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
There are indeed lots of people who do that. I call them stupid people.
I call them highly successful. It is only you government worker types and mono cubicle dwellers who had their whole life plotted out at the age of 2. One of the richest me I know (and he is very very rich) didnt stumble upon what made his millions until life took him in a very different direction from where he thought he would end up.
University eduction should not be about following a plan. People at that age do not have the experience, knowledge or foresight to figure that out - some people never do. University is supposed to be a place where you get exposed to a number of different things to help you decide what you want to do.
The cost of university now makes that sort of experience much more risky as Malthus pointed out early on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 11:43:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Plus lots of people don't plan their life around their career. Lots of people do masters and phds and all that because they love the subject and want to learn more. Or they can't face the real world and want to put it off as long as possible
There are indeed lots of people who do that. I call them stupid people.
I call them highly successful. It is only you government worker types and mono cubicle dwellers who had their whole life plotted out at the age of 2. One of the richest me I know (and he is very very rich) didnt stumble upon what made his millions until life took him in a very different direction from where he thought he would end up.
University eduction should not be about following a plan. People at that age do not have the experience, knowledge or foresight to figure that out - some people never do. University is supposed to be a place where you get exposed to a number of different things to help you decide what you want to do.
The cost of university now makes that sort of experience much more risky as Malthus pointed out early on.
There's a difference between having a plan, and then having that plan and sticking with it no matter what.
You should absolutely go to university with some plan or idea for the future. Hell maybe that plan is "get an anthropology degree because it won't cost me anything, then figure things out". But to rack up $100k+ in debts while having no idea how you'll pay it off is staggeringly foolish.
Don't forget my career didn't go according to plan either. If I had followed my plan I'd still be at Malthus' firm (or one like it) doing securities work.
Quote from: derspiess on September 11, 2012, 10:55:46 AM
IIRC if you still have a balance left after 25 years (?) that balance is forgiven.
The balance is not forgiven completely. You no longer owe the money to the Dept. of Ed., but Ed declares the final unpaid balance to the IRS as income in that year. So you then owe the IRS taxes on the balance.
I have $126,000 in student loans to date and I have to take out another 45 grand for my final year. At least I'll start earning a paycheck soon. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 11:02:45 AM
But if I was graduating high school today, in 2012, what else are your options?
If I were graduating high school today, my plan would be:
1: Watch a metric fuckton of Khan Academy videos.
2: Take CLEP tests for college credit.
3: Finish out the remainder of whatever I might need at whichever school accepts the highest percentage of my accumulated credits toward my degree of choice.
I'm fairly sure I could get almost all of it done at next to no cost that way.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 11:02:45 AM
But if I was graduating high school today, in 2012, what else are your options?
Surely it cannot be the case that the
only reasonable option for clever, articulate young people these days is ... to become a lawyer? :( I mean, I love my profession and all ...
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 11:51:28 PM
I dunno man. I was pretty cautious about accumulating student debt, and graduated with maybe 5% of her debt (with two degrees!). IT not exactlt rocket science to know that owing $200k is very, very bad.
What were your tuition fees? $500/semester? $3000/semester?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 11, 2012, 01:17:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 11:02:45 AM
But if I was graduating high school today, in 2012, what else are your options?
If I were graduating high school today, my plan would be:
1: Watch a metric fuckton of Khan Academy videos.
2: Take CLEP tests for college credit.
3: Finish out the remainder of whatever I might need at whichever school accepts the highest percentage of my accumulated credits toward my degree of choice.
I'm fairly sure I could get almost all of it done at next to no cost that way.
I was going to do the CLEP thing but soon realized that those would be my easy A classes.
Personally, I think it's a pretty big issue for the US.
It looks like a significant number of young people are coming out of university with huge debt, no prospects, and little hope. These are the people who're supposed to be building the future of the country.
I mean, sure, it's satisfying to blame individuals for their foolish choices, but when the numbers are that high I think it indicates a systemic issue. What's going on that so many people make such bad choices? It seems like that might be worth addressing.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
I mean, sure, it's satisfying to blame individuals for their foolish choices, but when the numbers are that high I think it indicates a systemic issue. What's going on that so many people make such bad choices? It seems like that might be worth addressing.
You're obviously right about that. If it's going to make you successful, then making the huge investment of getting those loans makes perfect sense. These kids are expecting that payoff to be bigger than the debt. But it isn't.
It's not their fault they think that way. They grow up hearing that the only way to succeed is to get a good education, and so they go get a good education expecting to be successful. It's what's expected of them. Everyone around them puts pressure on them to do it their whole lives. Our politicians are constantly drumming on it and telling us that the path to prosperity is through investing in education. Which it is. But that only goes so far.
Unfortunately, we've reached the wrong end of the bell curve there. We have too many people with degrees as it is. So much so that jobs that should not require degrees are requiring them. And I don't mean a little bit. I'd say a majority of the jobs out there which require degrees should not require them. We have schools offering 4-year degree programs in masonry, carpentry and welding.
Now, we're in a situation where all the available jobs require them and we don't have enough people with them. So what should we do? More education for everyone! It's a self-feeding machine.
So degree mills are churning, drinking down cash in federal loans to students that the students have to pay later but the schools get to pocket that cash now. The money is easy to get, and plentiful, so tuition goes up. Tuition goes up, people demand more money for education. Now tuition goes up some more. Another self-feeding machine.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
I mean, sure, it's satisfying to blame individuals for their foolish choices, but when the numbers are that high I think it indicates a systemic issue. What's going on that so many people make such bad choices? It seems like that might be worth addressing.
As others have pointed out, she attended a private university which is much more expensive than other alternatives. I think Malthus said it best when he compared the choice to go to an expensive top rated school vs a less expensive school as a kind of gamble.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
I mean, sure, it's satisfying to blame individuals for their foolish choices, but when the numbers are that high I think it indicates a systemic issue. What's going on that so many people make such bad choices? It seems like that might be worth addressing.
As others have pointed out, she attended a private university which is much more expensive than other alternatives. I think Malthus said it best when he compared the choice to go to an expensive top rated school vs a less expensive school as a kind of gamble.
But as Jacob kinda said and I spoke to anecdotally earlier, the kids that go to the cheaper schools don't seem to have much hope either. After all, employers still often like to select those that went to better schools - so on average you get a kid who spent 4 years at a cheap school who then finds himself without many appealing job prospects.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 02:44:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
I mean, sure, it's satisfying to blame individuals for their foolish choices, but when the numbers are that high I think it indicates a systemic issue. What's going on that so many people make such bad choices? It seems like that might be worth addressing.
As others have pointed out, she attended a private university which is much more expensive than other alternatives. I think Malthus said it best when he compared the choice to go to an expensive top rated school vs a less expensive school as a kind of gamble.
But as Jacob kinda said and I spoke to anecdotally earlier, the kids that go to the cheaper schools don't seem to have much hope either. After all, employers still often like to select those that went to better schools - so on average you get a kid who spent 4 years at a cheap school who then finds himself without many appealing job prospects.
That is a different argument. Jacob's point was that high debt loads was a systemic problem. It is a problem of high cost institutions but I dont know that it is systemic across all insitutions.
Your argument is that education is worthless anyway which I am also doubtful is correct.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
Personally, I think it's a pretty big issue for the US.
It looks like a significant number of young people are coming out of university with huge debt, no prospects, and little hope. These are the people who're supposed to be building the future of the country.
I mean, sure, it's satisfying to blame individuals for their foolish choices, but when the numbers are that high I think it indicates a systemic issue. What's going on that so many people make such bad choices? It seems like that might be worth addressing.
Nobody sits them down and says, "After five years your monthly payment will be $$, and rent in this area is around $$$, so between loan payments and normal cost of living you should plan on making around $$$$ per month."
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 11, 2012, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
Personally, I think it's a pretty big issue for the US.
It looks like a significant number of young people are coming out of university with huge debt, no prospects, and little hope. These are the people who're supposed to be building the future of the country.
I mean, sure, it's satisfying to blame individuals for their foolish choices, but when the numbers are that high I think it indicates a systemic issue. What's going on that so many people make such bad choices? It seems like that might be worth addressing.
Nobody sits them down and says, "After five years your monthly payment will be $$, and rent in this area is around $$$, so between loan payments and normal cost of living you should plan on making around $$$$ per month."
Actually that is not true. There are some professional programs that do exactly that to ensure the students kow exactly what they are getting into in terms of financial obligations before they accept their offers of admission.
The practice may not be widespreed but it is not accurate to say that nobody does it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 02:44:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
I mean, sure, it's satisfying to blame individuals for their foolish choices, but when the numbers are that high I think it indicates a systemic issue. What's going on that so many people make such bad choices? It seems like that might be worth addressing.
As others have pointed out, she attended a private university which is much more expensive than other alternatives. I think Malthus said it best when he compared the choice to go to an expensive top rated school vs a less expensive school as a kind of gamble.
But as Jacob kinda said and I spoke to anecdotally earlier, the kids that go to the cheaper schools don't seem to have much hope either. After all, employers still often like to select those that went to better schools - so on average you get a kid who spent 4 years at a cheap school who then finds himself without many appealing job prospects.
That is a different argument. Jacob's point was that high debt loads was a systemic problem. It is a problem of high cost institutions but I dont know that it is systemic across all insitutions.
Your argument is that education is worthless anyway which I am also doubtful is correct.
My argument is not that education is worthless but rather that...
QuoteIt looks like a significant number of young people are coming out of university with huge debt, no prospects, and little hope.
That if you remove the huge debt piece of Jacob's statement - you still have kids coming out of cheaper universities with no prospects and little hope. And if anything they have even less hope/prospects as they don't even have a flashy degree as a signifier.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:02:41 PM
Actually that is not true. There are some professional programs that do exactly that to ensure the students kow exactly what they are getting into in terms of financial obligations before they accept their offers of admission.
The practice may not be widespreed but it is not accurate to say that nobody does it.
Of course that rather misses his point which is that there is a widespread lack of knowledge about handling such basic finances - especially for teens who are entering into such financial quagmires.
Garbon, how can you say you are not making the argument education is useless when in the next breath you say that people graduating have no hope.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
Garbon, how can you say you are not making the argument education is useless when in the next breath you say that people graduating have no hope.
Because that is how they feel. I don't really think it can be the reality that none or even most of them have no hope, but feelings don't have to accurately reflect reality.
Besides does education exist solely to net one a good job? If that's the case, why isn't education more closely targeted to actual job skills?
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:02:41 PM
Actually that is not true. There are some professional programs that do exactly that to ensure the students kow exactly what they are getting into in terms of financial obligations before they accept their offers of admission.
The practice may not be widespreed but it is not accurate to say that nobody does it.
Of course that rather misses his point which is that there is a widespread lack of knowledge about handling such basic finances - especially for teens who are entering into such financial quagmires.
No the point he was making is that nobody tries to explain such things and that is false. You also assume that people are incurring these debts out of some kind of negligence or ignorance. Not sure what evidence you base that on other than your own prejudices and preferences.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:10:04 PM
No the point he was making is that nobody tries to explain such things and that is false.
Why would he want to make such an easily refutable point? It's more sensible to take his statement as conveying that there is a widespread lack of knowledge.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:10:04 PMYou also assume that people are incurring these debts out of some kind of negligence or ignorance. Not sure what evidence you base that on other than your own prejudices and preferences.
I base that on the fact that no one actually provided my sisters and I on any training like that except for my parents. And then all of the people I know who have made poor decisions as they didn't really think through / thoroughly understand everything they were getting themselves into (and who does). I mean really its sort of endemic to America's whole culture of credit and I don't think its because we just don't care but rather that few people are given good instruction on some of this stuff. I think I'm pretty well equipped to speak about 20somethings. :P
I mean look at the girl who wrote this article. She managed to get two degrees and if my search was correct was on the dean's list for undergrad. And yet, she thought it was a good idea to take out $200,000 in loans before she was 25. I'm not sure what else could be the cause there beyond fundamental ignorance on what would be a good idea as far as her life and finances.
And I'm not blaming her but rather those around her who let her down which include her earlier education, her cosigner and the lenders.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 09:01:01 AM
Kids are gambling that if they pay for a prestigious university - hard to get into and expensive - it will pan out in the form of a high-paying career that will allow them to pay off those loans and then some.
That wasn't her problem, but rather paying for a non-prestigious university that was just as expensive. :P
Anybody who pays to go to a private school that isn't on the Ivy/Stanford/Chicago tier is wasting their money. State schools will do just as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:10:04 PM
No the point he was making is that nobody tries to explain such things and that is false. You also assume that people are incurring these debts out of some kind of negligence or ignorance. Not sure what evidence you base that on other than your own prejudices and preferences.
Not much really. Garbon only has a highly documented and endlessly discussed social and economic problem that is slowly reaching crisis proportions to back him up.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 10:45:58 AM
My eldest nephew graduated high school this year. He's off to study theatre. :bleeding:
He's somewhat sensible about it - attending a local college for two years, then plans to transfer to university. His parents are reasonably well off so he's not going to accumulate a lot, or any, debt. And he knows acting jobs are hard to come by, so instead he's aiming to be a drama professor. Apparently no one told him jobs in academia are almost as hard to find as acting jobs. :(
Where is he doing this? I hope in Toronto or some other urban center where a career in theatre is viable. Hopefully he can do lots of work in theatre while he is studying. Also there are lots of things to do in theatre besides just be an actor.
@teach
Damn straight. Went to two public universities that also happen to be top 50 schools in nation. And did it all for 1/10th of what this girl took out on loans.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2012, 03:33:14 PM
Anybody who pays to go to a private school that isn't on the Ivy/Stanford/Chicago tier is wasting their money. State schools will do just as well.
Some people want an education tailored to their particular religious affiliations.
I sincerely doubt Mormons that go to BYU, Catholics that go to Notre Dame or Georgetown, or Baptists that go to Baylor think they're wasting their money.
Quote from: katmai on September 11, 2012, 03:38:39 PM
@teach
Damn straight. Went to two public universities that also happen to be top 50 schools in nation. And did it all for 1/10th of what this girl took out on loans.
How long ago?
Quote from: sbr on September 11, 2012, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 11, 2012, 03:38:39 PM
@teach
Damn straight. Went to two public universities that also happen to be top 50 schools in nation. And did it all for 1/10th of what this girl took out on loans.
How long ago?
:lol: Probably when George Michael was still in a group.
Quote from: Fate on September 11, 2012, 01:08:33 PM
I have $126,000 in student loans to date and I have to take out another 45 grand for my final year. At least I'll start earning a paycheck soon. :lol:
Clearly you're just some lazy ne'er-do-well and not nearly as clever, organised and successful as the older wise men in this thread. :hmm:
Quote from: katmai on September 11, 2012, 03:38:39 PM
@teach
Damn straight. Went to two public universities that also happen to be top 50 schools in nation. And did it all for 1/10th of what this girl took out on loans.
Yeah, I have been doing a lot of research about universities now that my boys are getting to that age and that is the conclusion I am coming to - especially for undergraduate degrees. UBC is in the TOP 40 of all universities and the top 20 of all public universities in the world. That is plenty good enough. Even if Garbo sees no future for people educated in something less than Ivy league schools.
Who knows what they might want to do after that - it really depends on what turns their crank in the first four years. That is really going to be the determining factor. Imo nobody really cares where someone got their undergraduate degree - its what you do with it after in terms of where you go and what you do for your post grad or post doc or work experience that really counts.
Quote from: mongers on September 11, 2012, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 11, 2012, 01:08:33 PM
I have $126,000 in student loans to date and I have to take out another 45 grand for my final year. At least I'll start earning a paycheck soon. :lol:
Clearly you're just some lazy ne'er-do-well and not nearly as clever, organised and successful as the older wise men in this thread. :hmm:
According to Garbo he is either ignorant or negligent with his finances or both.
Quote from: sbr on September 11, 2012, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 11, 2012, 03:38:39 PM
@teach
Damn straight. Went to two public universities that also happen to be top 50 schools in nation. And did it all for 1/10th of what this girl took out on loans.
How long ago?
Oh I know the prices have gone up (ucsd is now budgeted at $14,600 For year in tuition/books/fees, 28,000 when factor rest of living expenses for off campus not living at home)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2012, 03:38:53 PM
I sincerely doubt Mormons that go to BYU, Catholics that go to Notre Dame or Georgetown, or Baptists that go to Baylor think they're wasting their money.
They probably don't think they're wasting their money when they put it in the collection plate either. :rolleyes:
Of those, Georgetown is the best buy, as people recognize it for academics rather than football.
Quote from: mongers on September 11, 2012, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 11, 2012, 01:08:33 PM
I have $126,000 in student loans to date and I have to take out another 45 grand for my final year. At least I'll start earning a paycheck soon. :lol:
Clearly you're just some lazy ne'er-do-well and not nearly as clever, organised and successful as the older wise men in this thread. :hmm:
Nice strawman. Most of us are talking from our own mistakes or from our observations.
And besides I am still in school.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:45:15 PM
According to Garbo he is either ignorant or negligent with his finances or both.
An MD is worth accruing a bit of debt for.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:45:15 PM
According to Garbo he is either ignorant or negligent with his finances or both.
Not necessarily. But that woman clearly is. If he has a job lined up and a plan to manage the debt then good on him. It depends on what you are going into debt FOR. Shocking concept I know.
But I guess you think it is awesome to get $200,000 in debts to secure that $12 an hour job alot of BAs will get you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2012, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 11, 2012, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 11, 2012, 03:38:39 PM
@teach
Damn straight. Went to two public universities that also happen to be top 50 schools in nation. And did it all for 1/10th of what this girl took out on loans.
How long ago?
:lol: Probably when George Michael was still in a group.
When I started at Marshall in 1991 tuition was less than $1,000 a semester. I remember they raised it by like $100 the next year & there were almost riots :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2012, 03:48:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2012, 03:38:53 PM
I sincerely doubt Mormons that go to BYU, Catholics that go to Notre Dame or Georgetown, or Baptists that go to Baylor think they're wasting their money.
They probably don't think they're wasting their money when they put it in the collection plate either. :rolleyes:
Yada yada yada, stop being Martinus, douche. For some people, shit like that matters.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:44:29 PM
Even if Garbo sees no future for people educated in something less than Ivy league schools.
Seriously? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 03:50:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:45:15 PM
According to Garbo he is either ignorant or negligent with his finances or both.
Not necessarily. But that woman clearly is. If he has a job lined up and a plan to manage the debt then good on him. It depends on what you are going into debt FOR. Shocking concept I know.
But I guess you think it is awesome to get $200,000 in debts to secure that $12 an hour job alot of BAs will get you.
Indeed. :D
I keep forgetting of course that CC really using Languish as a space to troll - probably because his attempts aren't as bombastic and silly like Marti's.
All the people saying that the author was foolish for going to a private university and paying the high tuition, when she could have gotten the same value by going to a state school - that doesn't really change the point, does it?
If there's no discernible difference between going to a cheaper state school and a non-Ivy-level private school, why are there so many expensive private schools? And why is the system set up to allow young people to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree that's no better than one they can get at 1/5th the price? If it's so obviously a foolish choice, why does the system mislead so many people into make such foolish choices? Who benefits from this?
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 04:37:30 PM
Who benefits from this?
Lots of people...but very few of them are students. And you ask very good questions.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
Yada yada yada, stop being Martinus, douche. For some people, shit like that matters.
Awww, can't I at least be Viking? :(
And yeah, I understand that some people want to cloister themselves away with like-minded individuals. Doesn't mean I agree it's worth thousands of dollars to do so.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 03:50:47 PM
If he has a job lined up and a plan to manage the debt then good on him.
If that is the critieria then nobody should ever go into debt for their education. Unless they are some kind of Mitt Romney clone and know going in that they have a job lined up.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 04:37:30 PM
Who benefits from this?
The Robber Baron universities presumably.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 05:01:44 PM
If that is the critieria then nobody should ever go into debt for their education.
Over 100 thousand dollars in debt? Yes. But that is just common sense.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 04:17:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:44:29 PM
Even if Garbo sees no future for people educated in something less than Ivy league schools.
Seriously? :rolleyes:
Remmeber, making up stupid shit and claiming someone else said it is a Languish staple.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 04:37:30 PM
If there's no discernible difference between going to a cheaper state school and a non-Ivy-level private school, why are there so many expensive private schools? And why is the system set up to allow young people to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree that's no better than one they can get at 1/5th the price? If it's so obviously a foolish choice, why does the system mislead so many people into make such foolish choices? Who benefits from this?
Why are there market forces that allow so many private expensive private schools to thrive? The hope parents and students have that paying for that education will give them a better future. The system you are referring to is called capitalism. It is set up so that profits can be maximized.
The system does not mislead people. People can make the bet Malthus referred to that it will work out. Imo it is a bad bet and there are better choices to make. That that does not make their decision foolish - they are just more risk tolerant than I am.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 05:02:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 05:01:44 PM
If that is the critieria then nobody should ever go into debt for their education.
Over 100 thousand dollars in debt? Yes. But that is just common sense.
Really. If someone going into medical school knows they are going to be 100k in debt (at minimum) they should not start their education unless they have a job already lined up? I dont think that is really what you mean.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 05:06:01 PMThat that does not make their decision foolish - they are just more risk tolerant than I am.
Alternately, they are under-educated about the risks and are making uninformed decisions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 05:07:58 PM
Really. If someone going into medical school knows they are going to be 100k in debt (at minimum) they should not start their education unless they have a job already lined up? I dont think that is really what you mean.
No I do not mean that of course. If you are getting your degree from medical school you know you are going to have a job, maybe not a super amazing job, but at least a job with enough earning power to manage your debt. In getting any degree you are going into debt for you need to be working on lining up your employment. I meant, in Fate's case, that he had his job lined up before graduation because he knew his degree would provide him with that chance. I never at any time said you need to have a job lined up before you even start school.
BTW CC, do you prefer the Canadian post-secondary setup or the American one?
I'm a little confused by your arguments, CC.
On one hand you seem to be saying that people who end up in educational debt with little to show for it except a degree knowingly took a risk, their gamble didn't pay out, and now they're living with the consequences; this is called capitalism. It seemed to me that you think that's fine?
On the other hand, you're also dismissing the notion that you should make your educational choices purely based on your career prospects once you're done.*
I'm not sure how to square those two positions. Did I misunderstand something?
--------
*as an aside, I'm with you there; and even if you do do that, it doesn't solve the problem of people who make decisions based on the wrong information or those who get caught out when the job market shifts, like the indebted American graduates from various law programs whose numbers apparently outnumber the available jobs by an order of magnitude or more.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 05:21:07 PM
On the other hand, you're also dismissing the notion that you should make your educational choices purely based on your career prospects once you're done.*
Just to clarify I don't think so either. Just that it should be a consideration or you may ruin your life without meaning to. The system can really screw you if you are not careful, particularly in situations where you are taking on six figures of debt. In situations where you are taking on that sort of financial burden I do think it should be the primary, if not only, consideration. Tuition is ridicously high for anybody who doesn't have a state subsidized (by being instate at a state school) or sponsored in some way so while before you could perhaps take a more easy going attitude towards education today that can be a disaster that can haunt you for the next 20+ years.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 05:25:33 PMJust that it should be a consideration or you may ruin your life without meaning to. The system can really screw you if you are not careful, particularly in situations where you are taking on six figures of debt. In situations where you are taking on that sort of financial burden I do think it should be the primary, if not only, consideration. Tuition is ridicously high for anybody who doesn't have a state subsidized (by being instate at a state school) or sponsored in some way so while before you could perhaps take a more easy going attitude towards education today that can be a disaster that can haunt you for the next 20+ years.
Yeah.
I expect that the next generation of students in the US may learn that lesson (from the abundant examples we see today), and I suspect that for the previous generation that trap didn't really exist (harder to get to university, lower costs, and better prospects upon graduation).
It's the current generation that seems to have gotten themselves fucked from the lack of examples to avoid (previously, few people fucked their futures over by getting as much education as they could) and the presence to the trap.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 05:13:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 05:06:01 PMThat that does not make their decision foolish - they are just more risk tolerant than I am.
Alternately, they are under-educated about the risks and are making uninformed decisions.
Only if you assume that they are making poor decisions. Again that is very much a judgment coloured by your own experiences, values etc. It is much like Garbons overgeneralization that people who dont go to top ranked skills have no hope.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 05:14:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 05:07:58 PM
Really. If someone going into medical school knows they are going to be 100k in debt (at minimum) they should not start their education unless they have a job already lined up? I dont think that is really what you mean.
No I do not mean that of course. If you are getting your degree from medical school you know you are going to have a job, maybe not a super amazing job, but at least a job with enough earning power to manage your debt. In getting any degree you are going into debt for you need to be working on lining up your employment. I meant, in Fate's case, that he had his job lined up before graduation because he knew his degree would provide him with that chance. I never at any time said you need to have a job lined up before you even start school.
But most people entering into professional schools have no guarrantee that they will end up with a job that will justify the debt they have taken. That is the gamble. All medical students do not end up with well paying jobs. Not all of them even end up practising medicine. Some people even fail at the point they enter resident programs - it is rare but it happens. And of the ones that dont fail very few end up where they want to be doing what they want to do.
Your notion that it is just common sense to have things lined up before one goes heavily into education related debt simply isnt practical for many many students. It is a gamble. If any facutly was a sure thing please let me know so I can point my kids in that direction.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 05:41:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 05:25:33 PMJust that it should be a consideration or you may ruin your life without meaning to. The system can really screw you if you are not careful, particularly in situations where you are taking on six figures of debt. In situations where you are taking on that sort of financial burden I do think it should be the primary, if not only, consideration. Tuition is ridicously high for anybody who doesn't have a state subsidized (by being instate at a state school) or sponsored in some way so while before you could perhaps take a more easy going attitude towards education today that can be a disaster that can haunt you for the next 20+ years.
Yeah.
I expect that the next generation of students in the US may learn that lesson (from the abundant examples we see today), and I suspect that for the previous generation that trap didn't really exist (harder to get to university, lower costs, and better prospects upon graduation).
It's the current generation that seems to have gotten themselves fucked from the lack of examples to avoid (previously, few people fucked their futures over by getting as much education as they could) and the presence to the trap.
Sure, they will eventually "learn the lesson", but then us "entrepreneurs" (perhaps in collusion with government, finance, and industry players) will set up the next trap for new future "lessons". :contract:
Also, nobody here has mentioned the military as an avenue towards professional work experience, technical certifications, and free education. Though, it is now entering a period of force contraction, but there are still opportunities.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 05:21:07 PM
I'm a little confused by your arguments, CC.
On one hand you seem to be saying that people who end up in educational debt with little to show for it except a degree knowingly took a risk, their gamble didn't pay out, and now they're living with the consequences; this is called capitalism. It seemed to me that you think that's fine?
On the other hand, you're also dismissing the notion that you should make your educational choices purely based on your career prospects once you're done.*
I'm not sure how to square those two positions. Did I misunderstand something?
--------
*as an aside, I'm with you there; and even if you do do that, it doesn't solve the problem of people who make decisions based on the wrong information or those who get caught out when the job market shifts, like the indebted American graduates from various law programs whose numbers apparently outnumber the available jobs by an order of magnitude or more.
My point is that people should be free to choose. If they want to take the gamble that a high priced education at a top rated university is going to pay off then they should be able to choose that. The alternative is for that State to step in and regulate education cost. History has shown in this province and elsewhere that such a move is disasterous and hurts everyone. One would hope that people would see over priced educations for what they are - but that is the market for you.
I do think that university education should be not take primarily with career aspirations in mind. Imo it is the one chance a person has to fully explore their academic interests. That may well lead to great career opportunites - and often does.
I dont see anything inconsistent with those two views. Others are willing to make choices I would not make and that I will guide my kids away from making. But I cannot say that because I think they are wrong choices that they are objectively wrong or silly the way others here seem to think - well ok only really Garbon.
But I do think the OP cannot complain now that she made her gamble and lost - which is perhaps Valmy's point.
Miami (OH) is an excellent school BTW. That's nothing to scoff at. It's not like she went to Bowling Green or Toledo.
And Jaya--The military is certainly an option, but no different than any other profession really. Many if not most employers offer some sort of tuition assistance like the military does. Perhaps the point should be more along the lines of getting out in the workforce first for a while before committing to an educational choice. Or simply altering the character of the experience entirely. Why do we need to go live at a university anymore? Why must it take 4 years? How much of it can be replaced by technology rather than brick and mortar, and do we need so many teachers once that happens?
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 05:14:12 PM
BTW CC, do you prefer the Canadian post-secondary setup or the American one?
It is hard to compare. The good Canadian schools are a bit of a hybrid between the US state and private institutions. We get government funding but large chunks of the budget (particularly the building budget) comes from donors. But the kinds of donations Canadian universities recieve pale in comparison to the major US schools.
After comparing the various US and UK options I would be quite happy for the boys to attend a good Canadian school as I think the quality of education is at least equivalent and probably better than most other options.
On the whole I think we got it right. But it wasnt through any good planning. Its just that Canada didnt have the same kind of donors the US had to set up private universities in the early days.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 06:17:30 PM
well ok only really Garbon.
When you say things like "really" you're supposed to actually be representing the views of the person mentioned. ;)
QuoteYeah ok that is not what I am saying but there is a way do it while giving yourself crippling debt and ways to do it where you don't. Be smart don't be an idiot. But I thought you just said you should use college to delay your life and goof off and not because you picked a path you want to pursue.
I didnt say you should, I said some people do.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2012, 09:55:22 AM
That would be concerning Tyr, if it were remotely true.
Luckily, it mostly is not, and hence largely irrelevant.
How?
A lot of people here have been saying not to go to a pricey uni and to instead go somewhere cheaper.
Going to the best school you can should never be a gamble, it should be just plain common sense, that money rears its head even with regards to living costs is already enough of an impediment, but that tuition would be such a major concern....its just wrong.
Tyr, don't. This is a waste of your time.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 11:01:56 AM
I believe this is her so she got a BA but I don't know in what:
http://www.miami.muohio.edu/cdp_lists/pdfs/12_09/Commence_Ohio.pdf
Katherine Elizabeth Brotherton
She's a librarian.
Quote from: Caliga on September 11, 2012, 07:38:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 11:01:56 AM
I believe this is her so she got a BA but I don't know in what:
http://www.miami.muohio.edu/cdp_lists/pdfs/12_09/Commence_Ohio.pdf
Katherine Elizabeth Brotherton
She's a librarian.
Librarians make tons of money. If I had to do it all over again I'd have gotten a Masters in Library Science.
Apparently this one doesn't. :sleep:
I'm usually all about making fun of people who got silly degrees and super indebted, but to be honest I feel it's really misplaced. Most of these people are simply being ignorant at a time in their lives when basically everyone is ignorant. And truthfully the decisions they have made are not materially different from the generation before, save for one big exception: the massive debt.
In the 70s and 80s people who wanted to become solidly middle class, maybe even have a chance at working their way into an upper class lifestyle, went to college. They got degrees in all kinds of things, B.A.s in Economics, English Literature, Sociology, History, B.S. in Physics, Geology, even more "practical" degrees like Business Administration and Accounting. But you know what happened next? They got good jobs, they became mid level managers at Fortune 500 companies, bank managers, etc. Just a few generations ago, having any college education was such a big bonus that you could get hired by Proctor & Gamble as an introductory level manager just off the fact you graduated college. Having an English degree didn't make you unhireable for such a role. In fact if you ever read about the backgrounds of some CEOs of major Fortune 500 companies today, many of them are guys in their 50s-60s whose undegraduate degrees were in something "silly" like English or History. [That is slightly off point, as when talking about high level CEOs you're talking about 1%er types who got those "silly" degrees from Harvard and Princeton and also probably have their MBAs and / or J.D.s.]
To all the blue collar types who lived through that time and had children, and even the white collar types, they grew up basically thinking "college = good job." By and large their understanding of the system is lacking, and they only pass on to their children the importance of going to college, not everything else. Back in that generation, college was much less expensive per capita. If you didn't have scholarships or wealthy parents you did go into debt, and some people took a decade or more to pay it off...but it was "reasonable."
Now, it is so easy to pay so much for tuition, and thus go so far into debt, that even if you get a good job it can be almost impossible to pay off. At loan balances like the 25-year old mentioned, with some student loan interest rates 6.5% even up to 9.5% (some loans issued by Sallie Mae and other non-FAFSA lenders actually are that high) you could be looking at $1200 a month in payments. Imagine a student graduating and getting a $55,000 a year job--great starting pay for someone with a four year degree (basically middle class income), after taxes they will only be bringing home something like $3500 a month $1200 of which is going to repay student debt? That is essentially an intolerable ratio unlike anything seen in prior generations.
For those who do not immediately go into jobs that allow them to make payments, they enter years of forbearance--during which interest continually accumulates. That can essentially make the student loan impossible to ever pay off without the borrower essentially becoming wealthy.
That's the other thing, the past was not roses and flowers. New college graduates have always had high unemployment rates. College always has paid off relative to high school graduates over the long term, but in the first few years college grad employment rates have never been "great." Some people network and get lucky and have a job lined up right out of college, but a decent number don't and there has always been a decent number that take six months to a year or even longer to find a good job out of college. That used to just be part of life, but now that fairly normal circumstance has crushing consequences because of the need to immediately be able to make massive student loan payments or face lifelong financial ruin.
There are absolutely, 100% ways around it, but it involves on kids being educated about realities that the companies issuing loans and the universities aren't interested in teaching students about. Oh, and in case any of you missed it the "private" student loan industry in the United States is almost non-existent now, having been almost entirely Federalized. So this isn't just Bank of America and Chase on the hook, while private lenders still hold billions in student loan debt, almost all new issue student loans since the 2008 market collapse have been made by Uncle Sam. (And the biggest player still in the private market is Sallie Mae, who is about as likely to never be taken back over by the government as we were to not bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which.)
The world is so different now, that the best advice kids from non-wealthy families can give students is this:
1. If you're seriously, seriously, seriously interested in becoming an Academic, or a high power lawyer, skip this section.
2. If you want to be anything else, go to a State school. There are many that are very, very good. If the one you really want to go to is in another state, move there and work for one year to get in-state tuition prior to starting. Work at Denny's or McDonald's, they're still hiring. Parents, feel free to subsidize this as it is a great ROI and probably teaches kids a few things about life.
3. If you absolutely must go private, recognize some actually are affordable. Just as a crazy example some people may be unaware of, Harvard after all the grants and discounts they give to people of lower income levels can be more affordable that out-of-state tuition at some of the better public schools. But if you can't go private without the massive tuition, don't do it.
4. As much of your degree as possible should be taken at community college, which is always much, much cheaper. You can even in many cases take entire years at community colleges, some of which feed into some of the most prestigious four year public schools in the country. Even if you do not go that route there is virtually no reason not to go to community college in the summer and etc to speed graduation and load up on general education credits.
5. It is a myth and a lie that you should not work at all during college. College is easy and anyone should be able to take 12-15 hours a semester while still working part time. Use this part time money to subsidize living expenses, don't take out tens of thousands of dollars to live in the trendiest apartments on campus, that is madness.
6. "It takes everyone 5 years" is for stupid people. It is easy to graduate in 4 years and doable in 3.5 for many, many majors if you take summer courses. Universities benefit immensely from 5th year seniors who pay just as much tuition in their 5th year to get the same degree someone who does it in 3.5 or 4 does.
If you are serious about going into academia or want to be a big shot at a big law firm, that's basically the only career where undergraduate degree really matters. Academic programs are big on referrals from professors and networking, and each field has flagship schools that serious doctoral candidates are expected to come from. But you need to be 100% aware that academia is a field almost no one succeeds in, it has decent payoffs but almost no one succeeds in them.
Likewise if you want to be the next big time lawyer, you have to go to a prestigious school, a top 10 law school, and graduate high in your class. Almost everyone else can follow the advice above and live happily ever after.
On the issue of becoming a lawyer, I suspect the tuition is so different in America Canadian impressions are essentially useless. It's possible as a middle class kid who isn't funded by mommy and daddy to come out of undergrad with a reasonable $15-20k in debt. But it is nigh impossible to get out of law school without being over $100k in, and many will be $150k or more in debt. Joining the military is one of the few ways I can immediately think of you can get out of that easily.
Lawyer income is still good in America, with median pay in the $115k+ range, but it has a lot more variance than medicine (which is the far more lucrative profession on average.) The problem with that median income, is it takes years to get to the median for an average law student recently graduating. Most people who go into law school in America are not told that the six-figure out of school jobs almost all go to kids at the extreme top of their class in normal law schools or in the top 30-40% at the super-prestigious law schools. Everyone else is fighting desperate for $60-80k out of school, and some will end up making $40k a year working in some hell hole field like social security benefit law (which has legal caps on payouts to the representing attorneys making it extremely bad to be an associate at one of those firms.)
Also, the median income for lawyers in America doesn't factor in the large number of people with J.D.s who are not gainfully employed as lawyers. I don't mean the CEOs who have a J.D. like Mitt Romney but have never practiced law, but rather the J.D.s working at Barnes & Noble who drink themselves to sleep every night when they think about having to pay back six figures in debt on a $9 / hour wage.
Law in America is one of those fields that, again, the experiences of prior generations has lead to an improper perspective for the present generation. Getting your J.D. used to be a good shot at basically becoming one of the 1%, but these days it compares unfavorably in risk v reward to becoming say, an engineer or just a regular B.S./B.A. holder. Especially if you follow my above advice on doing undergrad. The seeming guarantee of joining the 1%, combined with the fact medical school is inordinately harder than law school (which virtually any idiot can and does graduate if they choose) has attracted far too many people into that path in America dooming an entire generation of fools into huge debt for no returns in their lifetimes.
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 07:16:57 PM
but that tuition would be such a major concern....its just wrong.
Maybe but that is just how it is these days for whatever reason.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2012, 07:37:19 PM
Tyr, don't. This is a waste of your time.
How is that? I mean more than any other post on Languish.
Medical school still almost always pays off, though. Speaking from personal experience (I started dating my wife when she was in medical school), virtually everyone who gets into medical school graduates and passes their boards. This is not because medical school is easy, but because (for various reasons) we have a very small number of open spots each year at American medical schools. This means it is extremely hard to get in, the hardest part about med school really is admissions. If you don't have at least a 3.85 then you need to get a second degree or a graduate degree to come back with a higher GPA. (Or you can go to the Caribbean...there are four Caribbean medical schools that allow you to become licensed in the United States and that admit at lower standards.) If you realistically want in you really need to plan on getting a 4.0 undergrad and doing very well on the admissions test.
Once you get in, the first two years are hellish on studying. The second two years you actually make some money but you work a lot and still study a lot. After graduating it is virtually unheard of to not immediately begin making good money. At least $100,000. It mike take a few years to really ratchet it up, but unless you really desperately want to be a PCP you can easily be making $150-225k/yr just as a guy with an M.D. and no specialization working in a hospital.
PCP is a bit of a different world, and people that want to go that route and work in rural areas might not even clear $100k...but that is basically a lifestyle decision. It is so much so that the lack of rural doctors has actually lead to many states and communities subsidizing rural medicine such that even rural PCPs now make good money in some places.
If you have the aptitude to actually go into surgery or a specialty after medical school, the money gets unreal. Even non-surgical specialties like dermatology or pathology you can be talking easy $300k+ a year. People that go into one of the higher paying surgical specialties and get board certified can legitimately make $600k/year, at which point $250k in debt is a joke as you'll own multiple houses that cost more than that. There are surgeons who work with my wife who make $650k+ for the work they do as surgeons, and then lecture part time and other random stuff like that and clear another $100k off jobs that they only do a few hours a month.
If you aren't already part of the elite, that really is the best, most realistic way you have of becoming ultra wealthy. But even if you lack the drive, aptitude, and intelligence to become a surgical specialist you still will have no problems paying off your medical school loans by your 40s as a PCP, and then you can work for 15 years and retire at 55 with $5m in the bank just by living smart (most doctors don't, though...but most doctors strangely really enjoy their jobs and work until they fall over dead.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
If you are serious about going into academia or want to be a big shot at a big law firm, that's basically the only career where undergraduate degree really matters.
Gosh I hope not or I am going to be really sad once I finish my engineering degree.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
5. It is a myth and a lie that you should not work at all during college. College is easy and anyone should be able to take 12-15 hours a semester while still working part time. Use this part time money to subsidize living expenses, don't take out tens of thousands of dollars to live in the trendiest apartments on campus, that is madness.
It depends on what you study. I went to an engineering college, and I was spent just from studying. I did work as a tutor/TA, but that was at most 10 hours a week. If I worked part time, my grades would've suffered, and a lower GPA would definitely hurt my chances of getting hired (which was a difficult enough process as it was).
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 02:44:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
I mean, sure, it's satisfying to blame individuals for their foolish choices, but when the numbers are that high I think it indicates a systemic issue. What's going on that so many people make such bad choices? It seems like that might be worth addressing.
As others have pointed out, she attended a private university which is much more expensive than other alternatives. I think Malthus said it best when he compared the choice to go to an expensive top rated school vs a less expensive school as a kind of gamble.
But as Jacob kinda said and I spoke to anecdotally earlier, the kids that go to the cheaper schools don't seem to have much hope either. After all, employers still often like to select those that went to better schools - so on average you get a kid who spent 4 years at a cheap school who then finds himself without many appealing job prospects.
Meh, I don't even think that is largely true. Maybe for some small fraction of jobs, but mostly employer want you to have a relevant degree, and not be an obvious douchebag in the interview.
Once you get your first job, where you went to school in most cases doesn't mean a damn thing anymore - what matters is how you perform and what you can do.
The idea that you MUST go to some elite and private university to succeed is largely bullshit.
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 07:16:57 PM
QuoteYeah ok that is not what I am saying but there is a way do it while giving yourself crippling debt and ways to do it where you don't. Be smart don't be an idiot. But I thought you just said you should use college to delay your life and goof off and not because you picked a path you want to pursue.
I didnt say you should, I said some people do.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2012, 09:55:22 AM
That would be concerning Tyr, if it were remotely true.
Luckily, it mostly is not, and hence largely irrelevant.
How?
A lot of people here have been saying not to go to a pricey uni and to instead go somewhere cheaper.
Going to the best school you can should never be a gamble, it should be just plain common sense, that money rears its head even with regards to living costs is already enough of an impediment, but that tuition would be such a major concern....its just wrong.
How?
You said that people have to make "major life choices" or something like that based on their ability to afford this school or that school.
That is simply not true.
A "major life choice" is not deciding between Stanford and UCLA, it is deciding what career you want to be in, and in 99% of cases, you can go to a variety of different schools and do just fine in your career. If you cannot afford Stanford, but you can afford UC - San Diego, then go to UCSD. Your long term prospects are not going to be largely different, assuming you are academically accomplished enough to get into Stanford to begin with.
It is a false dilemma - you don't have to go to a super expensive school to get an excellent education and go on to be successful. Whether or not you are successful in the US has very little to do with which school you got your degree from anyway. It helps some, certainly, but is hardly determinative.
Don't think medicine is a panacea. They still have to pay a hundred grand a year for malpractice insurance. Plus, they aren't all making owner-practice money. There are tons of docs who cannot pay their student loans.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 11, 2012, 07:53:50 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 11, 2012, 07:38:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 11:01:56 AM
I believe this is her so she got a BA but I don't know in what:
http://www.miami.muohio.edu/cdp_lists/pdfs/12_09/Commence_Ohio.pdf
Katherine Elizabeth Brotherton
She's a librarian.
Librarians make tons of money. If I had to do it all over again I'd have gotten a Masters in Library Science.
Like law school, the ML(I)S market is totally swamped now. It's definitely not easy to find a decent library job these days.
I went out on a date once with a fourth year medical school student, who just discovered that she absolutely hated medicine and couldn't see herself working as a doctor. :pinch: I bet her student loans wouldn't be paid off so quickly.
That median lawyer salary is deeply misleading. First, that's all lawyer salaries; the median starting is more like $60k. Second, te legal market is sorted into two tiers, one with a median starting salary at $40ish and one at $130ish. Legal work is not a good bet.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 03:05:48 PM
Garbon, how can you say you are not making the argument education is useless when in the next breath you say that people graduating have no hope.
Because that is how they feel. I don't really think it can be the reality that none or even most of them have no hope, but feelings don't have to accurately reflect reality.
Besides does education exist solely to net one a good job? If that's the case, why isn't education more closely targeted to actual job skills?
A shockingly good fucking question.
Quote from: katmai on September 11, 2012, 03:38:39 PM
@teach
Damn straight. Went to two public universities that also happen to be top 50 schools in nation. And did it all for 1/10th of what this girl took out on loans.
OK, but, like I told Beeb, you're an Old.
Of course what you paid is peanuts in comparison to the average new grad, let alone the average matriculant, in 2012.
That said, I wish they'd get more representative people to feature in these stories. Someone with $50k or $60k in debt and washing dishes is a little more median, but highlights the same problem. I think news idiots prefer the sensationalism and comment-generating features of top quintile debt. It's all the same problem--but unfortunately you get this, no offense, frankly stupid reaction from 40 year olds who went to college in 1990. I DIDN'T PAY THAT MY GOD WHAT A RIDICULOUS HUMAN BEING. Try applying high single and often two figure percentage increases per year for over a decade, mathemagician, see what happens to your obviously more responsibly borrowed tuition.
And to CC, while I'm at it: it's not solely that people don't understand the debt they'll be in before they take it out, they just don't understand how fiercely, monstrously competitive and indeed hostile the employment market for new grads is and has been for five years (or more). It's not that someone gets a liberal arts degree and thinks they can pay it off comfortably waiting tables. They assume that if the product is being offered, at a pretty high price, it must be worth something--why else would the authorities they've trusted all their lives be offering it to tens and hundreds of thousands of people?
To rephrase, what people expect are fucking jobs commensurate with their education level and their debt level. They ain't getting them. And it can be argued that they're pretty dumb for getting degrees that have negative returns on investment. Fine, but 18-22 year olds are known for being pretty dumb. Do we really want a society that rewards educators and lenders for preying on the stupidest parts of our society? Do we want a society where the government helps them do it?
Because that's where we're at now.
Quote from: ulmont on September 11, 2012, 10:56:14 PM
That median lawyer salary is deeply misleading. First, that's all lawyer salaries; the median starting is more like $60k. Second, te legal market is sorted into two tiers, one with a median starting salary at $40ish and one at $130ish. Legal work is not a good bet.
Your forgot about the tier with a median starting salary at $0ish.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 11, 2012, 10:56:14 PM
That median lawyer salary is deeply misleading. First, that's all lawyer salaries; the median starting is more like $60k. Second, te legal market is sorted into two tiers, one with a median starting salary at $40ish and one at $130ish. Legal work is not a good bet.
Your forgot about the tier with a median starting salary at $0ish.
That's what you get for going to SC school of law.
Quote from: katmai on September 11, 2012, 11:25:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 11, 2012, 10:56:14 PM
That median lawyer salary is deeply misleading. First, that's all lawyer salaries; the median starting is more like $60k. Second, te legal market is sorted into two tiers, one with a median starting salary at $40ish and one at $130ish. Legal work is not a good bet.
Your forgot about the tier with a median starting salary at $0ish.
That's what you get for going to SC school of law.
And for not taking the bar.
I make the exact same as the 150 or so people around me who have their licenses. Actually, thanks to the bonus structure for my team, I make about 10% more. ;)
Anyway, I just filed to take it in February. What could go wrong?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 11:34:41 PM
What could go wrong?
You could pass it and become a lawyer. :P
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 11, 2012, 10:52:16 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 11, 2012, 07:53:50 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 11, 2012, 07:38:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 11:01:56 AM
I believe this is her so she got a BA but I don't know in what:
http://www.miami.muohio.edu/cdp_lists/pdfs/12_09/Commence_Ohio.pdf
Katherine Elizabeth Brotherton
She's a librarian.
Librarians make tons of money. If I had to do it all over again I'd have gotten a Masters in Library Science.
Like law school, the ML(I)S market is totally swamped now. It's definitely not easy to find a decent library job these days.
Now yes, but back in the mid 90s it was sought after. :(
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2012, 10:27:42 PM
Once you get your first job, where you went to school in most cases doesn't mean a damn thing anymore - what matters is how you perform and what you can do.
Well of course but we're talking about getting those first "real" jobs and the perceptions that a lot of 20-somethings have at the moment.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2012, 10:27:42 PM
The idea that you MUST go to some elite and private university to succeed is largely bullshit.
If that's what it sounded like, I'm sorry as that's not what I meant. It's more akin to what Otto said about the previous notion that going to college = good job which is less of a tenable notion today.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 11:21:29 PM
To rephrase, what people expect are fucking jobs commensurate with their education level and their debt level. They ain't getting them. And it can be argued that they're pretty dumb for getting degrees that have negative returns on investment. Fine, but 18-22 year olds are known for being pretty dumb. Do we really want a society that rewards educators and lenders for preying on the stupidest parts of our society? Do we want a society where the government helps them do it?
Because that's where we're at now.
I'd agree though I'd suggest that the solution isn't having the government step in, at least not in a regulatory fashion, but rather a re-adjustment on thinking/learning about finances while in K-12. Because after all, college loans aren't the only type of financial mistakes that people make.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 07:25:47 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 11:21:29 PM
To rephrase, what people expect are fucking jobs commensurate with their education level and their debt level. They ain't getting them. And it can be argued that they're pretty dumb for getting degrees that have negative returns on investment. Fine, but 18-22 year olds are known for being pretty dumb. Do we really want a society that rewards educators and lenders for preying on the stupidest parts of our society? Do we want a society where the government helps them do it?
Because that's where we're at now.
I'd agree though I'd suggest that the solution isn't having the government step in, at least not in a regulatory fashion, but rather a re-adjustment on thinking/learning about finances while in K-12. Because after all, college loans aren't the only type of financial mistakes that people make.
The problem we have now is largely a function of the government stepping in in the first place, creating the guanranteed student loan program, which has had the entirely predictable effect of driving tuition prices through the roof while at the same time giving access to insane amounts of lending to people who have no need to show that they actually have a real need for it or can pay it back.
It is ironic that those complaining about this now are almost certainly the same people or the same type of thinking that in the past said "Hey, it isn't right that some people cannot afford elite universities! The government ought to guarantee their ability to borrow any amount of money necessary to pay for any school they might wish to attend! It is the only fair thing to do!".
Well, now they have their more fair system, and the result has been a disaster from an economic standpoint. Year over year constant double digit increases in the cost of attending universities as schools do their best to grab as much of that sweet government cash possible, and the "consumer" once again detached from the immediate consequences of their purchasing decisions, and we all act shocked, SHOCKED I SAY! that a bunch of them make bad choices and the cost for everyone goes through the roof.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 07:25:47 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 11:21:29 PM
To rephrase, what people expect are fucking jobs commensurate with their education level and their debt level. They ain't getting them. And it can be argued that they're pretty dumb for getting degrees that have negative returns on investment. Fine, but 18-22 year olds are known for being pretty dumb. Do we really want a society that rewards educators and lenders for preying on the stupidest parts of our society? Do we want a society where the government helps them do it?
Because that's where we're at now.
I'd agree though I'd suggest that the solution isn't having the government step in, at least not in a regulatory fashion, but rather a re-adjustment on thinking/learning about finances while in K-12. Because after all, college loans aren't the only type of financial mistakes that people make.
On a different tack, I don't think the solution to any systemic problem like this is ever "Gosh, we should educate people more, so they don't do such dumb things!". That never works in any large group.
There is a much more fundamental problem here. The fact that schools can sustain year over year over year double digit price increases vastly greater than the rate of inflation indicates there is something broken in the basic funding model for higher education in the USA, and it isn't the ignorance of the people taking out student loans.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 07:55:38 AM
There is a much more fundamental problem here. The fact that schools can sustain year over year over year double digit price increases vastly greater than the rate of inflation indicates there is something broken in the basic funding model for higher education in the USA, and it isn't the ignorance of the people taking out student loans.
They can sustain it because people are willing to pay/take out loans.
The fundamental problem with student loans is that you can't go through the bankruptcy process with them. You can't liquidate someone's education after they already acquired it, so writing off the student debt during bankruptcy is like leaving someone with the house after they default on a mortgage. On the other hand, having debts that can't be discharged is very damaging as well, because then you can literally create indentured servants for life. It may be that government guarantees didn't explode this situation, but rather helped driving it to the inevitable and unsustainable conclusion faster that it would've gotten there normally.
One solution may be to have garnishment of a percentage of salaries of the graduates for X years after graduation, with the percentage determined by the price of the university and the fraction of tuition not paid for. However, this solution has to be almost forced on everybody Obamacare-style, because otherwise you have adverse selection going on, with future social workers agreeing to garnishment, and future investment bankers taking out loans instead.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 07:55:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 07:25:47 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 11:21:29 PM
To rephrase, what people expect are fucking jobs commensurate with their education level and their debt level. They ain't getting them. And it can be argued that they're pretty dumb for getting degrees that have negative returns on investment. Fine, but 18-22 year olds are known for being pretty dumb. Do we really want a society that rewards educators and lenders for preying on the stupidest parts of our society? Do we want a society where the government helps them do it?
Because that's where we're at now.
I'd agree though I'd suggest that the solution isn't having the government step in, at least not in a regulatory fashion, but rather a re-adjustment on thinking/learning about finances while in K-12. Because after all, college loans aren't the only type of financial mistakes that people make.
On a different tack, I don't think the solution to any systemic problem like this is ever "Gosh, we should educate people more, so they don't do such dumb things!". That never works in any large group.
There is a much more fundamental problem here. The fact that schools can sustain year over year over year double digit price increases vastly greater than the rate of inflation indicates there is something broken in the basic funding model for higher education in the USA, and it isn't the ignorance of the people taking out student loans.
Some of the more elite schools track tuition rates and increase theirs accordingly since the perception is, "more expensive = better".
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:06:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 07:55:38 AM
There is a much more fundamental problem here. The fact that schools can sustain year over year over year double digit price increases vastly greater than the rate of inflation indicates there is something broken in the basic funding model for higher education in the USA, and it isn't the ignorance of the people taking out student loans.
They can sustain it because people are willing to pay/take out loans.
Yeah, but that is inevitable if you give enough people access to cash.
It is like blaming the mortgage meltdown on people who took out loans they could not afford. Sure, they should not do that, and if nobody did that there would not be a problem...but of course people WILL do that if you let them.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 08:06:20 AM
The fundamental problem with student loans is that you can't go through the bankruptcy process with them. You can't liquidate someone's education after they already acquired it, so writing off the student debt during bankruptcy is like leaving someone with the house after they default on a mortgage. On the other hand, having debts that can't be discharged is very damaging as well, because then you can literally create indentured servants for life. It may be that government guarantees didn't explode this situation, but rather helped driving it to the inevitable and unsustainable conclusion faster that it would've gotten there normally.
One solution may be to have garnishment of a percentage of salaries of the graduates for X years after graduation, with the percentage determined by the price of the university and the fraction of tuition not paid for. However, this solution has to be almost forced on everybody Obamacare-style, because otherwise you have adverse selection going on, with future social workers agreeing to garnishment, and future investment bankers taking out loans instead.
A better solution would be to cap student loans at some amount driven by the cost of attending a public, mid-level school.
You can borrow enough to attend a decent university, but you cannot borrow enough to go to Xavier.
Still has the problem that those mid level schools will just keep on increasing their tuition though in order to get more and more cash.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
If you are serious about going into academia or want to be a big shot at a big law firm, that's basically the only career where undergraduate degree really matters.
Gosh I hope not or I am going to be really sad once I finish my engineering degree.
Are you going into crushing debt to be an engineer? I know many engineers that graduated from relatively unknown schools and make more than the average compensation for engineers. Unless you're wanting to work for a small cadre of employers in highly specialized fields of engineering (like going aerospace because you want to work for NASA) then there is no reason to bankrupt yourself to go to MIT. Now if you can go to MIT affordably through scholarships or whatever, that's fine. But there is little evidence that for people just wanting to enter industry a Top 10 Engineering school is worth going into massive debt over.
And I mean "massive debt over and beyond average engineering school debt." If you're going to a good school and aren't doing that, there is no problem.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:11:05 AM
Yeah, but that is inevitable if you give enough people access to cash.
It is like blaming the mortgage meltdown on people who took out loans they could not afford. Sure, they should not do that, and if nobody did that there would not be a problem...but of course people WILL do that if you let them.
I guess though I still think a bit of that is getting people to actually understand what they are getting into. I doubt many students entering into students loans are having serious discussions about how said loans will crush them after school. Clearly the writer of this article wasn't very aware and she's from all accounts a fairly bright girl.
Besides not everyone has insane students loans like what has been discussed here. So what is it about the groups of people that don't have much parental financing that manage to get done with school without owing 200k? What is it about those individuals that make them so different?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2012, 08:16:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
If you are serious about going into academia or want to be a big shot at a big law firm, that's basically the only career where undergraduate degree really matters.
Gosh I hope not or I am going to be really sad once I finish my engineering degree.
Are you going into crushing debt to be an engineer? I know many engineers that graduated from relatively unknown schools and make more than the average compensation for engineers. Unless you're wanting to work for a small cadre of employers in highly specialized fields of engineering (like going aerospace because you want to work for NASA) then there is no reason to bankrupt yourself to go to MIT. Now if you can go to MIT affordably through scholarships or whatever, that's fine. But there is little evidence that for people just wanting to enter industry a Top 10 Engineering school is worth going into massive debt over.
Bingo.
My degree is from the University of Arizona. Not a bad Comp Sci school, but hardly anything nationally recognized.
Would I have been better off with a degree from Stanford or Cal? Only if I wanted to go into academia or something like that. Even then, it isn't that important unless I want to go into academia at an elite school.
If you want to work in industry, it largely does not matter as long as it is a decent school.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:13:29 AM
Still has the problem that those mid level schools will just keep on increasing their tuition though in order to get more and more cash.
You forgot to add "to offset the budget cuts from state governments".
O'Malley slashed over $5 million from the state university system budget as well as removing an additional $5 million from their reserve funds; they're upping tuition by 3% to stay inline with COLA increase, but are really passing the savings on to out-of-state student applications with the tuition increase. I think that's going to start happening more often, hitting out-of-state applications for the real tuition increases.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 07:55:38 AMOn a different tack, I don't think the solution to any systemic problem like this is ever "Gosh, we should educate people more, so they don't do such dumb things!". That never works in any large group.
There is a much more fundamental problem here. The fact that schools can sustain year over year over year double digit price increases vastly greater than the rate of inflation indicates there is something broken in the basic funding model for higher education in the USA, and it isn't the ignorance of the people taking out student loans.
Education is the job of parents and that is what I believe more parents should do. I do not believe parents (and to a lesser degree school guidance counselors and educators) have kept up with the changes in college. I still talk to people my age who are dumbfounded college at some in state schools might cost $17k+ a year, because just in 1990 (around the time I was at that age...although my education was fully taxpayer financed) it might have been $2500 a year or less. People from our generation simply are largely ignorant of the changes in education and the job market and have failed in advising their children appropriately.
But that being said, from a regulatory standpoint you are absolutely correct. The problem with FAFSA is its award is basically [Cost of Attendance] - [Expected Family Contribution]. That COA figure is basically fully variable and to a degree FAFSA essentially "allows" the school financial aid office to report how much the student's costs will be. There is little in terms of reigning in the spiraling costs. Instead, FAFSA awards should be based on a national average tuition (or some figure) and that figure should only be allowed to increase either at the rate of inflation or slightly higher. The difference between that figure and the actual cost of attendance will have to be covered by:
1. PLUS Loans (These loans are taken out
by the parent and are based on the parent's creditworthiness and are the sole responsibility of the parent.)
2. Private Student Loans - But these loans should be treated the same as any personal, unsecured debt. Which means lenders will issue a hell of a lot less of them, require creditworthy cosigners, and will in general pony up far less cash.
Only then will the free market primarily take over and people start looking at what they can actually afford in regard to college.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:23:36 AM
Bingo.
My degree is from the University of Arizona. Not a bad Comp Sci school, but hardly anything nationally recognized.
Would I have been better off with a degree from Stanford or Cal? Only if I wanted to go into academia or something like that. Even then, it isn't that important unless I want to go into academia at an elite school.
Really? Stanford or Cal's computer sci programs aren't practical degrees like Arizona's? Is it all esoteric computer science theory there?
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:22:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:11:05 AM
Yeah, but that is inevitable if you give enough people access to cash.
It is like blaming the mortgage meltdown on people who took out loans they could not afford. Sure, they should not do that, and if nobody did that there would not be a problem...but of course people WILL do that if you let them.
I guess though I still think a bit of that is getting people to actually understand what they are getting into. I doubt many students entering into students loans are having serious discussions about how said loans will crush them after school. Clearly the writer of this article wasn't very aware and she's from all accounts a fairly bright girl.
Besides not everyone has insane students loans like what has been discussed here. So what is it about the groups of people that don't have much parental financing that manage to get done with school without owing 200k? What is it about those individuals that make them so different?
Basic sense of personal responsibility? I don't know.
Of course, lets be honest here - lots and lots and lots of people go to school, use the student loan system in a perfectly reasonable manner (or at least not egregiously irresponsibly) and graduate with perfectly manageable loans.
How big is the problem, really? This chick is obviously an outlier, and hardly representative. There is a danger in "solving" the extreme problem to the detriment of everyone else.
I don't know her, so cannot really comment beyond speculation about her issues. I would guess that being "pretty bright" doesn't get you past the emotional sense of entitlement that makes people think that taking out hundreds of thousands in student loans without considering how they are ever going to repay them is a fine plan.
Lord knows I know plenty of people from college who basically took out as much in loans as they could, not matter what they actually needed. Some of them were plenty smart enough to know better.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:27:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:23:36 AM
Bingo.
My degree is from the University of Arizona. Not a bad Comp Sci school, but hardly anything nationally recognized.
Would I have been better off with a degree from Stanford or Cal? Only if I wanted to go into academia or something like that. Even then, it isn't that important unless I want to go into academia at an elite school.
Really? Stanford or Cal's computer sci programs aren't practical degrees like Arizona's? Is it all esoteric computer science theory there?
No, I am sure Stanford and Cal have outstanding CS programs, actually. Almost certainly much better than Arizona's.
But if you are the kind of person who can get into Cal and Stanford in the first place, you are going to do just fine with a degree from any top-50 school in industry. Because industry doesn't much care where your degree is from after the first job, outside of academia of course.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:27:52 AM
Basic sense of personal responsibility? I don't know.
Of course, lets be honest here - lots and lots and lots of people go to school, use the student loan system in a perfectly reasonable manner (or at least not egregiously irresponsibly) and graduate with perfectly manageable loans.
How big is the problem, really? This chick is obviously an outlier, and hardly representative. There is a danger in "solving" the extreme problem to the detriment of everyone else.
I don't know her, so cannot really comment beyond speculation about her issues. I would guess that being "pretty bright" doesn't get you past the emotional sense of entitlement that makes people think that taking out hundreds of thousands in student loans without considering how they are ever going to repay them is a fine plan.
Lord knows I know plenty of people from college who basically took out as much in loans as they could, not matter what they actually needed. Some of them were plenty smart enough to know better.
But is this what you wrote a message commonly expressed?
QuoteBingo.
My degree is from the University of Arizona. Not a bad Comp Sci school, but hardly anything nationally recognized.
Would I have been better off with a degree from Stanford or Cal? Only if I wanted to go into academia or something like that. Even then, it isn't that important unless I want to go into academia at an elite school.
If you want to work in industry, it largely does not matter as long as it is a decent school.
I don't remember anyone teaching this in school. It was more like the best school you can get into, find a way! :w00t:
I'm not sure there is any danger in teaching K-12 students some basic financial sense. :P
People are very uncomfortable when you talk to them about how a degree at any "normal" university probably pays off (tuition cost adjusted) just as much as a degree from elite universities. The elite universities have done a very good job creating the impression that you need a degree from their school to have any hope of any success in life. Further, the students who go to school there are loathe to ever admit that maybe they could have done just as well if they had gone to Virginia Tech instead of Harvard.
There are real benefits to the elite schools, but most of them are intangible and aren't reflected in the salaries in average graduates going into most career fields, the small percentage of fields and small percentage of people where it makes a big difference often are from top 1% families anyway and already know the ways in which the elite schools are important. But most college students simply do not fit that profile in regard to their actual needs.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:30:15 AM
But if you are the kind of person who can get into Cal and Stanford in the first place, you are going to do just fine with a degree from any top-50 school in industry. Because industry doesn't much care where your degree is from after the first job, outside of academia of course.
I'm not sure that's clear. After all, the kinds of things that get one accepted to Cal/Stanford - good grades and standardized test scores don't really mean that you'll get along well in a professional workplace environment. There's a lot more to that than high school achievement.
Also, I'm not sure how easy it is for that Framingham State to get that first relevant job vs. the Boston University student.
Maybe the US is different but certainly in the UK a lot of graduate jobs outright demand as a minimum for even bothering to apply, good grades from a top 20 university.
In Japan too the name of one of the good universities carries a huge amount of weight in job hunting.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:30:15 AM
Because industry doesn't much care where your degree is from after the first job, outside of academia of course.
Concur. Academic pedigree only matters in academia. Saw that at Hopkins up close; even in the non-clinical arena, there were Hopkins grads and then "everybody else"--from Nursing to Communications. It was rather ridiculous, actually.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:41:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:30:15 AM
Because industry doesn't much care where your degree is from after the first job, outside of academia of course.
Concur. Academic pedigree only matters in academia. Saw that at Hopkins up close; even in the non-clinical arena, there were Hopkins grads and then "everybody else"--from Nursing to Communications. It was rather ridiculous, actually.
Actually I've applied for jobs where it was suggested that I'd really not be interested because of where I went to school. :D
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:44:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:41:50 AMConcur. Academic pedigree only matters in academia. Saw that at Hopkins up close; even in the non-clinical arena, there were Hopkins grads and then "everybody else"--from Nursing to Communications. It was rather ridiculous, actually.
Actually I've applied for jobs where it was suggested that I'd really not be interested because of where I went to school. :D
I tried to transfer out to Communications. I got the hint.
Quote from: Tyr on September 12, 2012, 08:37:48 AM
Maybe the US is different but certainly in the UK a lot of graduate jobs outright demand as a minimum for even bothering to apply, good grades from a top 20 university.
In Japan too the name of one of the good universities carries a huge amount of weight in job hunting.
It's not really like that to be honest, in the United States. If you show up with a degree from the University of Phoenix Online it is unlikely you'll get a great job, but most of what determines your first job in America will be based on what internships you lined up and how well you interview. Most employers here don't even request transcripts these days and many don't even ask about GPA. There is a recognition that grades have mostly fallen victim to "grade inflation" and are a meaningless predictor of professional performance.
The perspective in industry is basically that graduating college students are babies who need at least 6 months of unproductive, paid work time to become productive. Some will never become productive and have to be cut and that's just part of your "recruiting costs." To try and minimize the risk of that happening overwhelming preference is given to those who have good practical internship experience relevant to their field.
Now keep in mind, going to a school like Arizona or Virginia Tech which have tens of thousands of alumni and a big career office, there are tons of local and national companies that the university has established a recruiting relationship with. They will have career fairs at these schools and they emphasize getting internships, too. We shouldn't act like schools like Arizona are dregs employers don't care about, because nothing is further from the truth.
Let's take as an example Texas Tech, which I believe is not even a top 120 nationally ranked school.
Graduates from its engineering school have an 89% one year job placement rate. Some of the large companies that regularly hire TTU grads are Dell, Lockheed Martin, BP, Chevron, Raytheon etc. These grads aren't going to work at some no-name company (well, some are.)
Of course rankings of prestige are a bad way to evaluate a school because all the rankings I'm aware of (Princeton Review, U.S. News) actually don't rank at all based on graduate performance. Maybe some weight is given now in response to the economic downturn, but the last time I looked at those rankings virtually 100% of the score was based on incoming freshman class GPA, incoming freshman class ACT/SAT, and acceptance rate.
So basically the more exclusive, the higher than ranking. No attention was given to post-graduate performance on any form of standardized test or etc (for most fields there is no standardized test to take after graduation so these metrics do not exist.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2012, 08:49:54 AM
Most employers here don't even request transcripts these days and many don't even ask about GPA.
Not to mention, as we have before re: background verification, all you get is a "Did he graduate: Yes/No" verification anyway.
QuoteNow keep in mind, going to a school like Arizona or Virginia Tech which have tens of thousands of alumni and a big career office, there are tons of local and national companies that the university has established a recruiting relationship with. They will have career fairs at these schools and they emphasize getting internships, too. We shouldn't act like schools like Arizona are dregs employers don't care about, because nothing is further from the truth.
Alumni can be worse than Masons in that regard. Or better, depending.
At least with LinkedIn, you usually have a tip off as to where your potential boss/interviewer/HR mongrel went to school.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:36:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:30:15 AM
But if you are the kind of person who can get into Cal and Stanford in the first place, you are going to do just fine with a degree from any top-50 school in industry. Because industry doesn't much care where your degree is from after the first job, outside of academia of course.
I'm not sure that's clear. After all, the kinds of things that get one accepted to Cal/Stanford - good grades and standardized test scores don't really mean that you'll get along well in a professional workplace environment. There's a lot more to that than high school achievement.
Of course - but that is true whether you actually attend Cal/Stanford or not. Being lazy or unsociable isn't cured at Cal.
Quote
Also, I'm not sure how easy it is for that Framingham State to get that first relevant job vs. the Boston University student.
I am sure it depends on the job market of course. But the point is that you are going to have a career for some 30+ years. The FIRST job, while it may seem critically important when you are trying to get it...really isn't in the long run.
Quote from: Tyr on September 12, 2012, 08:37:48 AM
Maybe the US is different but certainly in the UK a lot of graduate jobs outright demand as a minimum for even bothering to apply, good grades from a top 20 university.
In Japan too the name of one of the good universities carries a huge amount of weight in job hunting.
Reall? Have you got a source for this?
They may require a 2.1 orr better but I've never, ever seen any company advertise specifically for graduates of a "top 20 unievrsity" (whatever that is). And I really doubt that any of them do.
Quote from: Gups on September 12, 2012, 09:03:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 12, 2012, 08:37:48 AM
Maybe the US is different but certainly in the UK a lot of graduate jobs outright demand as a minimum for even bothering to apply, good grades from a top 20 university.
In Japan too the name of one of the good universities carries a huge amount of weight in job hunting.
Reall? Have you got a source for this?
They may require a 2.1 orr better but I've never, ever seen any company advertise specifically for graduates of a "top 20 unievrsity" (whatever that is). And I really doubt that any of them do.
I've seen lots of ads that ask for a 2.1 from a red brick.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2012, 08:54:45 AM
Let's take as an example Texas Tech, which I believe is not even a top 120 nationally ranked school.
Graduates from its engineering school have an 89% one year job placement rate. Some of the large companies that regularly hire TTU grads are Dell, Lockheed Martin, BP, Chevron, Raytheon etc. These grads aren't going to work at some no-name company (well, some are.)
Of course rankings of prestige are a bad way to evaluate a school because all the rankings I'm aware of (Princeton Review, U.S. News) actually don't rank at all based on graduate performance. Maybe some weight is given now in response to the economic downturn, but the last time I looked at those rankings virtually 100% of the score was based on incoming freshman class GPA, incoming freshman class ACT/SAT, and acceptance rate.
So basically the more exclusive, the higher than ranking. No attention was given to post-graduate performance on any form of standardized test or etc (for most fields there is no standardized test to take after graduation so these metrics do not exist.)
Well I don't think universities are trying to position themselves as primarily vocational centers. As I said earlier, a lot of re-tooling would need to be done if the point of college was to prepare one for work.
Also..I'm not trying to shit on elite schools. Most of them have some genuine reasons for being elite. But most people who go to college go to get a job that doesn't require them to wash their hands when they get home from work and that pays a middle class or better wage. With that goal, unless you're from an elite family or are a special project (poor, minority etc) and can get special benefits I do not believe the economics of elite schooling make sense.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 09:06:30 AMWell I don't think universities are trying to position themselves as primarily vocational centers. As I said earlier, a lot of re-tooling would need to be done if the point of college was to prepare one for work.
I agree, but that reason the government started giving the big loans and guaranteeing the private ones wasn't out of some lofty academic goal, but to improve job prospects. Since that is the goal of government and almost all families sending kids to college that is how those families and government should approach the issue. Schools will respond appropriately if society adjusts.
College didn't emerge as a vocational system intentionally, but basically happened incidentally when people noticed "hey, college graduates make more money" a few decades ago and the government started subsidizing it for everyone. Since most people's goals are vocational that is how families and government need to make college financing decisions. The colleges that don't respond to the inevitable market forces would face declining enrollment.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2012, 09:06:34 AM
Also..I'm not trying to shit on elite schools. Most of them have some genuine reasons for being elite. But most people who go to college go to get a job that doesn't require them to wash their hands when they get home from work and that pays a middle class or better wage. With that goal, unless you're from an elite family or are a special project (poor, minority etc) and can get special benefits I do not believe the economics of elite schooling make sense.
It's a lot easier to shit on elite school graduates, for good reason.
Hiring-wise, I'd take a well-motivated community college grad than some of the colossal dimwits I've met with Harvard or Yale degrees.*
* Never met a bad Princeton grad, though. Brown grads, a little flaky. Pointers and Annapolis trump them all, though.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:56:09 AM
Of course - but that is true whether you actually attend Cal/Stanford or not. Being lazy or unsociable isn't cured at Cal.
You're more likely to fool that first place with a shiny degree though.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:56:09 AM
I am sure it depends on the job market of course. But the point is that you are going to have a career for some 30+ years. The FIRST job, while it may seem critically important when you are trying to get it...really isn't in the long run.
Except that I do believe there has been work to show that there are economic consequences to putting off "real" (I guess in this case meaningful career type positions) work till later ages - as well as quality of that initial work.
Here are some quick links I could find though not great as one is about Japan and the other is more about the effects that entering into the workforce during bad economic times can have on wages.
http://www.esri.go.jp/en/archive/new_wp/new_wp020/new_wp020-e.pdf
http://mba.yale.edu/faculty/pdf/kahn_longtermlabor.pdf
In Japan that is a HUGE deal and a well observed problem- not getting a graduate position right after uni. Leave it more than a year or two and you are pretty much screwed for life.
I've no idea how things are elsewhere but I hope its not the same, for my own sake at least....It does seem though that the early years are vitally important. Don't manage to get (/afford <_<) internships during/just after uni, don't meet the right people in uni when they're there and interested in you, etc.... and that's that.
But garbon, you are missing my point.
I am sure that if you overall look at how students from Arizona do in their career compared to students from Stanford, the ones from Stanford do better. But that is because Stanford by its nature selects only high achievers to begin with.
But that is not what we are comparing - what we are comparing is how students who could get into Stanford but go to a more affordable school do compared to those who go to Stanford.
The people who can get into Stanford are high achievers, as a group. I submit that as a group they do well because as a group they are smarter, more motivated, and generally going to do well regardless of where they actually go, because after that first job, what matters is how you perform, not what school you attended.
If you are in that high achieving group out of high school, your long term results will be driven by your performance on the job. You can be lazy and unsociable, and that shiny degree might get you in some doors the lazy and unsociable guy from Arizona could not get in...but it won't help you stay there. You will be gone, or not progressing, no matter where your degree was from if you cannot perform.
And if you can, you will progress and have a good career regardless. Because nobody will care you went to Arizona vice Stanford if you are productive.
Quote from: Tyr on September 12, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
In Japan that is a HUGE deal and a well observed problem- not getting a graduate position right after uni. Leave it more than a year or two and you are pretty much screwed for life.
I've no idea how things are elsewhere but I hope its not the same, for my own sake at least....It does seem though that the early years are vitally important. Don't manage to get (/afford <_<) internships during/just after uni, don't meet the right people in uni when they're there and interested in you, etc.... and that's that.
You do realize that all someone has to do to refute this claim is find one example where it isn't true, right?
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 09:29:26 AM
You do realize that all someone has to do to refute this claim is find one example where it isn't true, right?
Which claim? I've not made any claims.
And generally a few exceptions don't disprove general rules.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 06:17:30 PM
well ok only really Garbon.
When you say things like "really" you're supposed to actually be representing the views of the person mentioned. ;)
I can understand why you would want to deny saying such a thing
QuoteBut as Jacob kinda said and I spoke to anecdotally earlier, the kids that go to the cheaper schools don't seem to have much hope either. After all, employers still often like to select those that went to better schools - so on average you get a kid who spent 4 years at a cheap school who then finds himself without many appealing job prospects.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 08:13:29 AM
A better solution would be to cap student loans at some amount driven by the cost of attending a public, mid-level school.
That is the way we do it here. There is a basic amount of aid which is available in the form of government backed student loans that will assist some but not all of the cost of an undergraduate degree. Students need to make up the balance through burseries, scholarships, work or parents and for the expensive professional degrees likely other non government backed loans.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2012, 08:16:15 AM
Are you going into crushing debt to be an engineer? I know many engineers that graduated from relatively unknown schools and make more than the average compensation for engineers. Unless you're wanting to work for a small cadre of employers in highly specialized fields of engineering (like going aerospace because you want to work for NASA) then there is no reason to bankrupt yourself to go to MIT. Now if you can go to MIT affordably through scholarships or whatever, that's fine. But there is little evidence that for people just wanting to enter industry a Top 10 Engineering school is worth going into massive debt over.
I am going to a top 10 Engineering School (UT Austin) but I am not going into debt to do it. I work here and the school gives me a certain number of free credits every semester as a benefit...I just hope I can finish before they take that away. The rest of the tuition is about $1,000.00 a Semester which even little old me can afford to pay in cash.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2012, 08:21:40 AM
And I mean "massive debt over and beyond average engineering school debt." If you're going to a good school and aren't doing that, there is no problem.
I was more reacting to the idea that those were the only careers where the undergrad degree mattered :P
I think I know what you were trying to say now. Gotcha.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 06:17:30 PM
well ok only really Garbon.
When you say things like "really" you're supposed to actually be representing the views of the person mentioned. ;)
I can understand why you would want to deny saying such a thing
QuoteBut as Jacob kinda said and I spoke to anecdotally earlier, the kids that go to the cheaper schools don't seem to have much hope either. After all, employers still often like to select those that went to better schools - so on average you get a kid who spent 4 years at a cheap school who then finds himself without many appealing job prospects.
Yeah you bolded the bit with either. Meaning that no one really has any hope as what I quoted was Jacob mentioning those with debt with no hope.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 09:28:25 AM
But garbon, you are missing my point.
I am sure that if you overall look at how students from Arizona do in their career compared to students from Stanford, the ones from Stanford do better. But that is because Stanford by its nature selects only high achievers to begin with.
But that is not what we are comparing - what we are comparing is how students who could get into Stanford but go to a more affordable school do compared to those who go to Stanford.
The people who can get into Stanford are high achievers, as a group. I submit that as a group they do well because as a group they are smarter, more motivated, and generally going to do well regardless of where they actually go, because after that first job, what matters is how you perform, not what school you attended.
If you are in that high achieving group out of high school, your long term results will be driven by your performance on the job. You can be lazy and unsociable, and that shiny degree might get you in some doors the lazy and unsociable guy from Arizona could not get in...but it won't help you stay there. You will be gone, or not progressing, no matter where your degree was from if you cannot perform.
And if you can, you will progress and have a good career regardless. Because nobody will care you went to Arizona vice Stanford if you are productive.
I'd agree that those driven will always find a way to make it work (even without school) but I'm not sure I'm prepared to agree that in the long-term the average individual who was accepted to a top school but went to a middling school instead will have the same outcome. Not that they can't and not that their outcome will be bad but that it won't typically align with what would have happened had they went to the top school.
Of course that does indeed vary greatly based on the field they choose to enter and their aspirations in their field - so for many actual individuals going to the middling school instead will suffice...especially if we're looking at future salary as the sole metric.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2012, 07:53:24 AM
The problem we have now is largely a function of the government stepping in in the first place, creating the guanranteed student loan program, which has had the entirely predictable effect of driving tuition prices through the roof while at the same time giving access to insane amounts of lending to people who have no need to show that they actually have a real need for it or can pay it back.
It is ironic that those complaining about this now are almost certainly the same people or the same type of thinking that in the past said "Hey, it isn't right that some people cannot afford elite universities! The government ought to guarantee their ability to borrow any amount of money necessary to pay for any school they might wish to attend! It is the only fair thing to do!".
Agreed it is really simple economics in action.
By subsidizing student loans, the government increases their consumption and thus the demand for the services that can be purchased with such financing, i.e. college. So price goes up. The only other angle I would add is the rise of the "for profit" colleges which are basically designed to exploit the government financing programs.
At the same time, many of the "elite" unis enjoyed such enormous gains to their endowments over the last three decades that they are in a position to offer extensive scholarships and aid out of their own resources. So in a sense the problem that the loan programs were designed to solve (only Thurston Howell IV to afford to go to Harvard) has been solved.
Once you get a tier or two below the well-endowed elite, the superiority vis-a-vis the state schools is questionable. So from a policy perspective, the rational response would seem to be to scrap the loan programs and put those resources into making the state systems more affordable (or establishing a national-level "state" school with federal funding).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2012, 01:47:36 PM
the rational response would seem to be to scrap the loan programs and put those resources into making the state systems more affordable (or establishing a national-level "state" school with federal funding).
What are Obama's and Romney's policies on this?
Quote from: Zanza on September 12, 2012, 01:50:19 PM
What are Obama's and Romney's policies on this?
None. The plan is to continue the failed policies until disaster occurs.
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2012, 01:55:24 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 12, 2012, 01:50:19 PM
What are Obama's and Romney's policies on this?
None. The plan is to continue the failed policies until disaster occurs.
I wonder how one unrings that bell now that the costs of operating a university have inflated along with the money to fund the expansion of that cost.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2012, 02:14:06 PM
I wonder how one unrings that bell now that the costs of operating a university have inflated along with the money to fund the expansion of that cost.
That's the real question. Too many interests involved now. Nobody wants to be "against" education. Politically it seems impossible to me.
You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.
:)
I missed a goodie. Xavier and Miami? What a bitch. I guess doing your first two years at a CC to save money was too good for her highness.
Squeeze's comments make me think of the interview scene from Trainspotting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hWIr9_noRo
Ya suspect.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 05:06:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2012, 04:37:30 PM
If there's no discernible difference between going to a cheaper state school and a non-Ivy-level private school, why are there so many expensive private schools? And why is the system set up to allow young people to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree that's no better than one they can get at 1/5th the price? If it's so obviously a foolish choice, why does the system mislead so many people into make such foolish choices? Who benefits from this?
Why are there market forces that allow so many private expensive private schools to thrive? The hope parents and students have that paying for that education will give them a better future. The system you are referring to is called capitalism. It is set up so that profits can be maximized.
The system does not mislead people. People can make the bet Malthus referred to that it will work out. Imo it is a bad bet and there are better choices to make. That that does not make their decision foolish - they are just more risk tolerant than I am.
The market forces are distorted because the Feds guarantee repayment to the universities, even if the poor fuckers can't get a job at Mickey Dees.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.
:)
Why exactly should we do this?
QuoteAt 25 years old, I have $188,307.22 in student debt, all of which is my sole financial responsibility.
I'm just wondering when the nation is going to address the exorbitant cost of college tuition! No reason for the costs to be so high. Colleges are raking in the cash, professors are getting wealthy as are the administrators, and students start out broke. Even the government can't help much as the more govt gives for student loans the less incentive for colleges to keep down costs, since students are still able to attend their overpriced fleece joints.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 06:54:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.
:)
Why exactly should we do this?
To laugh at the history majors.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 07:58:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 06:54:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.
:)
Why exactly should we do this?
To laugh at the history majors.
:glare:
Quote from: katmai on September 13, 2012, 08:13:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 07:58:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 06:54:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.
:)
Why exactly should we do this?
To laugh at the history majors.
:glare:
:nelson:
Quote from: katmai on September 13, 2012, 08:13:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 07:58:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 06:54:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.
:)
Why exactly should we do this?
To laugh at the history majors.
:glare:
Hey, you beat the odds... and now you have to live in a frozen wasteland. Ok, not the best example :P
Have to?
I don't think so.
Keep paddling down that Egyptian river ;)
Actually, Alaska looks nice. Or at least like 3 months out of the year it does :D
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2012, 10:55:28 PM
I went out on a date once with a fourth year medical school student, who just discovered that she absolutely hated medicine and couldn't see herself working as a doctor. :pinch: I bet her student loans wouldn't be paid off so quickly.
:huh:
I honestly thought you were gay.
Someone should have shared articles like this to silly girl.
Best Value Schools (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-value-school-151035838.html)
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2012, 08:30:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2012, 10:55:28 PM
I went out on a date once with a fourth year medical school student, who just discovered that she absolutely hated medicine and couldn't see herself working as a doctor. :pinch: I bet her student loans wouldn't be paid off so quickly.
:huh:
I honestly thought you were gay.
:lol: No, just Russian.
:mad:
Quote from: HVC on September 13, 2012, 08:29:12 PM
Keep paddling down that Egyptian river ;)
Actually, Alaska looks nice. Or at least like 3 months out of the year it does :D
Alaska is beautiful 12 months out of the year. :wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 08:52:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2012, 08:30:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2012, 10:55:28 PM
I went out on a date once with a fourth year medical school student, who just discovered that she absolutely hated medicine and couldn't see herself working as a doctor. :pinch: I bet her student loans wouldn't be paid off so quickly.
:huh:
I honestly thought you were gay.
:lol: No, just Russian.
:lol:
Color me unimpressed, as one of the ones doing the community college > transfer > finish at four year route.
I'd definitely go that route any day of the week, since I had a bad case of "what major am I this week?" that I got out of my system without accruing any debt. That's another thing that this "daughter of Cincinatti" doesn't tell us- if she stayed the same major the whole time through. That amount of debt tells me she debt-financed her housing arrangements and probably switched majors at least once.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 14, 2012, 10:38:53 AM
Color me unimpressed, as one of the ones doing the community college > transfer > finish at four year route.
I'd definitely go that route any day of the week, since I had a bad case of "what major am I this week?" that I got out of my system without accruing any debt. That's another thing that this "daughter of Cincinatti" doesn't tell us- if she stayed the same major the whole time through. That amount of debt tells me she debt-financed her housing arrangements and probably switched majors at least once.
Yep. The housing thing would be wasteful given that she could have lived with her parents and commuted while going to either Miami or Xavier.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 14, 2012, 10:38:53 AM
Color me unimpressed, as one of the ones doing the community college > transfer > finish at four year route.
Well I think we'll have to wait and assess that once you've graduated as you've previously seemed to dabble amount all over the place with your careers interests. :P
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 10:55:52 AM
Yep. The housing thing would be wasteful given that she could have lived with her parents and commuted while going to either Miami or Xavier.
But then she would've missed out on the full College Experience(tm) of disgusting roommate hygiene, bad food, binge drinking and the occasional date rape.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 11:08:31 AM
But then she would've missed out on the full College Experience(tm) of disgusting roommate hygiene, bad food, binge drinking and the occasional date rape.
I never lived on campus, so I missed out on all but the binge drinking :(
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:11:12 AM
I never lived on campus, so I missed out on all but the binge drinking :(
Honestly, if I had to do it all over again, I'd have totally skipped the on-campus thing and suffered with the commute.
Like DSB pointed out, Princess Cincinnati may very well have exponentially increased her debt by living on campus in a city she could've lived at home in...but at that age, the chance to live on campus is too great a pull to get the fuck out of the house for the first time in one's life, so I can't really fault the rationale. Not saying it's smart, just saying I
understand.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 11:16:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:11:12 AM
I never lived on campus, so I missed out on all but the binge drinking :(
Honestly, if I had to do it all over again, I'd have totally skipped the on-campus thing and suffered with the commute.
Like DSB pointed out, Princess Cincinnati may very well have exponentially increased her debt by living on campus in a city she could've lived at home in...but at that age, the chance to live on campus is too great a pull to get the fuck out of the house for the first time in one's life, so I can't really fault the rationale. Not saying it's smart, just saying I understand.
My parents never gave me the option. In some ways I was jealous of on-campus students, but then living in a cramped dorm room never seemed too appealing to me, either. Best scenario would have been to be in an apartment just off campus, close enough to walk to my classes.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:19:46 AM
My parents never gave me the option.
My parents did. In hindsight, I really wish they hadn't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 11:21:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:19:46 AM
My parents never gave me the option.
My parents did. In hindsight, I really wish they hadn't.
My dorm was fine, no real complaints.
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2012, 11:50:03 AM
My dorm was fine, no real complaints.
Don't get me wrong; living with four other beer drinking Poly Sci wargamers surrounded by coed apartments was a blast; unfortunately, considering my lack of personal and academic discipline at the time, it was
too much of a blast. :lol:
Young people...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 11:16:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:11:12 AM
I never lived on campus, so I missed out on all but the binge drinking :(
Honestly, if I had to do it all over again, I'd have totally skipped the on-campus thing and suffered with the commute.
Like DSB pointed out, Princess Cincinnati may very well have exponentially increased her debt by living on campus in a city she could've lived at home in...but at that age, the chance to live on campus is too great a pull to get the fuck out of the house for the first time in one's life, so I can't really fault the rationale. Not saying it's smart, just saying I understand.
One of the very few advantages up growing up shit-poor was that I didn't have the option to do anything like that. No dorm life for me. 44 miles there and back every day instead.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:19:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 11:16:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:11:12 AM
I never lived on campus, so I missed out on all but the binge drinking :(
Honestly, if I had to do it all over again, I'd have totally skipped the on-campus thing and suffered with the commute.
Like DSB pointed out, Princess Cincinnati may very well have exponentially increased her debt by living on campus in a city she could've lived at home in...but at that age, the chance to live on campus is too great a pull to get the fuck out of the house for the first time in one's life, so I can't really fault the rationale. Not saying it's smart, just saying I understand.
My parents never gave me the option. In some ways I was jealous of on-campus students, but then living in a cramped dorm room never seemed too appealing to me, either. Best scenario would have been to be in an apartment just off campus, close enough to walk to my classes.
I'm in the same boat. I had the theoretical option to live on campus, but since my parents weren't going to pay for it, and I wouldn't qualify for a student loan because of my parents, that meant commuting. It probably was for the best.
Mind you I did live just off-campus in the frat house for my 3rd year of law school. Mind you since 3rd year is pretty easy, and at 24 I was certainly mature enough to not get caught up in anything stupid, that year was a hell of a lot of fun. But doingit at 18 would probably have been a bad idea.
That was in the 90s right? Probably be cheaper now to stay at the dorm rather than drive that much.
Young female college students should simply find an older, well-off male to help them pay for school expenses.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2FUntitled-1.png&hash=c8751ffe13043f2764a0e9fffef5529152d2d72d)
Maybe you can help her work it off.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 14, 2012, 05:35:17 PM
Young female college students should simply find an older, well-off male to help them pay for school expenses.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2FUntitled-1.png&hash=c8751ffe13043f2764a0e9fffef5529152d2d72d)
There are websites for that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 11:08:31 AM
But then she would've missed out on the full College Experience(tm) of disgusting roommate hygiene, bad food, binge drinking and the occasional date rape.
The food at my college was good. Too good, in fact. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on September 14, 2012, 07:49:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 11:08:31 AM
But then she would've missed out on the full College Experience(tm) of disgusting roommate hygiene, bad food, binge drinking and the occasional date rape.
The food at my college was good. Too good, in fact. :blush:
Did you gain your Freshman 15 (pounds)? :showoff:
Quote from: Phillip V on September 14, 2012, 08:31:11 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 14, 2012, 07:49:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 11:08:31 AM
But then she would've missed out on the full College Experience(tm) of disgusting roommate hygiene, bad food, binge drinking and the occasional date rape.
The food at my college was good. Too good, in fact. :blush:
Did you gain your Freshman 15 (pounds)? :showoff:
I lost 15 pounds freshman year. Oh those halcyon days.
I actually lost weight at first, believe it or not... for some reason I stopped eating three meals a day and ate a late lunch/early dinner. I can't remember if I ate breakfast or not... :hmm:
My sophmore year I didn't do that and gained it all back and then some. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on September 14, 2012, 08:34:20 PM
I actually lost weight at first, believe it or not... for some reason I stopped eating three meals a day and ate a late lunch/early dinner. I can't remember if I ate breakfast or not... :hmm:
Caliga: Pioneer of Intermittent Fasting :P
I dimly recall that it had something to do with my class schedule. :hmm:
College students defaulting at record rate'Student loan defaults have risen for the fifth straight year, as students from traditional non-profit universities have an increasingly difficult time paying off their college debt.
Numbers released by the Department of Education Friday show that of the 4.1 million borrowers who began making payments in late 2009 and early 2010, 9.1% defaulted within two years, up from 8.8% the year before.
...
The Department of Education for the first time also released an official three-year default rate, which showed that given another year of payments, last year's 8.8% default rate ballooned to 13.4%. The department is in the process of changing its standard to look only at the three-year rate, which critics say gives a more accurate picture of the scope of loan defaults.'
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/28/college-students-defaulting-at-record-rate/57851078/1 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/28/college-students-defaulting-at-record-rate/57851078/1)
QuoteDefaults can ruin a borrowers' credit rating for years, lead to wage garnishment and tax return seizures, lawsuits and other problems in joining the military, getting a job or a security clearance.
According to the Project on Student Debt, two-thirds of college seniors graduating from non-profit four-year colleges in 2010 had student loan debt, and the average owed was $25,250 -- up 5% from a year earlier.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2Fmedia%2FUSATODAY%2FUSATODAY%2F2012%2F09%2F28%2F2-stanford-x-large.jpg&hash=2e43501ba22ec38027241f6ff765d59342b1abab)
Student debt stretches to record 1 in 5 households'With college enrollment growing, student debt has stretched to a record number of U.S. households — nearly 1 in 5 — with the biggest burdens falling on the young and poor.
The analysis by the Pew Research Center found that 22.4 million households, or 19 percent, had college debt in 2010. That is double the share in 1989, and up from 15 percent in 2007, just prior to the recession — representing the biggest three-year increase in student debt in more than two decades.'
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/student-debt-stretches-to-record-1-in-5-households-1.4046505 (http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/student-debt-stretches-to-record-1-in-5-households-1.4046505)
QuoteThe biggest jumps occurred in households at the two extremes of the income distribution. More well-off families are digging deeper into their pockets to pay for costly private colleges, while lower-income people in search of higher-wage jobs are enrolling in community colleges, public universities and other schools as a way to boost their resumes.
...
In all, 40 percent of U.S. households headed by someone younger than age 35 owed college debt, the highest share of any age group.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.3275212.1320635115%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.JPG_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_600%2Fimage.JPG&hash=c61128e990c81cb17dd3d82a84c474cb64369258)
You have to be a bit of a retard to go into default. The Department of Education offers unlimited forebearances. Just call up and ask for one.
Forbearance is not a solution for a fundamental insolvency.
I'm not sure if you're trying to rebut my statement or just offering up fun and useful information Guller.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2012, 06:55:06 PM
I'm not sure if you're trying to rebut my statement or just offering up fun and useful information Guller.
Rebutting it. If a student lacks the means to ever repay the loan, what's the point of perpetually delaying the inevitable, and having that loan be a festering sore in the finances for life? Perpetually pushing off the liquidation is not a good way to deal with insolvency, as Japanese example shows.
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2012, 07:01:28 PM
Rebutting it. If a student lacks the means to ever repay the loan, what's the point of perpetually delaying the inevitable, and having that loan be a festering sore in the finances for life? Perpetually pushing off the liquidation is not a good way to deal with insolvency, as Japanese example shows.
Student loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy, so liquidation is not an option.
The advantage of forebearance over default is that it doesn't affect your credit rating, your wages aren't garnished, and liens aren't attached to your bank accounts.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 14, 2012, 01:03:37 PM
One of the very few advantages up growing up shit-poor was that I didn't have the option to do anything like that. No dorm life for me. 44 miles there and back every day instead.
:yes: I had 2 options: live at home or don't go to university. Overall, I'm glad I could stay at home at thus avoid the massive debt that many others face after graduation, but it probably impeded my social development for a time in my twenties. I guess that's why I'm on Languish today. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2012, 06:08:04 PM
You have to be a bit of a retard to go into default. The Department of Education offers unlimited forebearances. Just call up and ask for one.
Is this new? There used to be a limit of 18 months of forebearances over the life of the loan, with the loan not coming due until six months after graduation (or the date of the last term one attended).
Quote from: merithyn on September 30, 2012, 09:43:06 PM
Is this new? There used to be a limit of 18 months of forebearances over the life of the loan, with the loan not coming due until six months after graduation (or the date of the last term one attended).
I think you might be confusing forebearances and deferments. Deferments are limited, forebrearances are not.
edit: They could concievably have changed the regs on forebearance since I was working at Student Loan Servicing, but I think it would have made the news.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 10:43:12 PM
My pursuit in excellent education
She should get her money back.
Individuals and society in general would be better off with more apprenticeships and fewer non-vocational degrees. She could be a very rich plumber by now.
Of course this is very easy for me to say, having attended University while there was still such as thing as free education, plus I had a grant to live on together with an industrial bursary (see: vocational) and you could still obtain a Deed of Covenant - a tax-refundable cash donation from parents.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2012, 10:00:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 30, 2012, 09:43:06 PM
Is this new? There used to be a limit of 18 months of forebearances over the life of the loan, with the loan not coming due until six months after graduation (or the date of the last term one attended).
I think you might be confusing forebearances and deferments. Deferments are limited, forebrearances are not.
edit: They could concievably have changed the regs on forebearance since I was working at Student Loan Servicing, but I think it would have made the news.
Yes, I guess I am. I've never heard of forbearances. How do they work?
Quote from: Brazen on October 01, 2012, 05:21:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 10:43:12 PM
My pursuit in excellent education
She should get her money back.
Individuals and society in general would be better off with more apprenticeships and fewer non-vocational degrees. She could be a very rich plumber by now.
Of course this is very easy for me to say, having attended University while there was still such as thing as free education, plus I had a grant to live on together with an industrial bursary (see: vocational) and you could still obtain a Deed of Covenant - a tax-refundable cash donation from parents.
I agree.
As you say though its easy enough to say society needs more plumbers and the like when you or your little Jimmy doesn't have to be one of them.
Despite everyone and their dog going to university these days it still has a crazy amount of prestige attached to it- by employers too.
Quote from: Tyr on October 01, 2012, 09:15:53 AM
As you say though its easy enough to say society needs more plumbers and the like when you or your little Jimmy doesn't have to be one of them.
I probably mentioned this before, but I worked undercover in a plumbing supply warehouse operation for a few months, and I had serious reconsiderations about my profession after meeting some master plumbers. :D
Those master plumbers may get dirty during the week, but they're all driving a Cadillac and a big Lexus to their club-level season tickets to the Ravens games from their estates in the countryside.
Big money in industries that are needed, and shrinking.
Hell, I saw coal miners in Harlan with corvettes. Too bad they will be dead by age 55.
Fuck that master electrician nonsense, though. That shit hurts.
You're supposed to turn it off before you put your finger on it.
My dad has a good friend who owns an electrical contracting company, and the constant exposure to EMR screwed him up somehow. He has the shakes so bad he can't go fishing anymore, which is a shame since that was his main hobby.... they used to go on fishing trips up to Quebec, down to the Outer Banks, etc. He still owns the company but he can no longer do any of the fieldwork himself.
Quote from: sbr on October 01, 2012, 10:50:49 AM
You're supposed to turn it off before you put your finger on it.
I'd like to choke the guy who wired our house for putting two outlets in the same room (same wall, even) on different circuits. Shocked the shit out of myself a few weeks ago.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2012, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: sbr on October 01, 2012, 10:50:49 AM
You're supposed to turn it off before you put your finger on it.
I'd like to choke the guy who wired our house for putting two outlets in the same room (same wall, even) on different circuits. Shocked the shit out of myself a few weeks ago.
Isn't that SOP nowadays? In my apartment, ever single socket is on its own circuit. That's definitely different from my family first apartment, where someone using a hair dryer while forgetting to turn off AC would blow the fuse.
Quote from: merithyn on October 01, 2012, 09:13:41 AM
Yes, I guess I am. I've never heard of forbearances. How do they work?
Just like deferments, except there's no paperwork required and interest accrues on your the subsidized portion of your loan.
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
Isn't that SOP nowadays? In my apartment, ever single socket is on its own circuit. That's definitely different from my family first apartment, where someone using a hair dryer while forgetting to turn off AC would blow the fuse.
All outlets in that room are on the same circuit except for the one.
College debt is up 5 percent for Class of 2011
'The latest numbers on college debt are out this morning, and the picture -- already rattled from reports earlier in the year that Americans owed a cool trillion for their higher education -- got gloomier still: the average student who borrowed for college and graduated in 2011 owes $26,600, an increase of nearly 5 percent from those who tossed their mortarboards in 2010.'
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/the-growing-student-loan-debt-load.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/the-growing-student-loan-debt-load.html)
'Two thirds of the seniors who graduated in 2011 took on some level of debt during their undergraduate years -- about a fifth of which came from private loans... This comes at a time when default rates are up and new grads face high levels of unemployment. The Department of Education reports for the class of 2009, 13.4 percent of borrowers defaulted within three years of paying back their student loans.'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewshour.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fphotos%2F2012%2F10%2F18%2Fgraduation_blog_main_horizontal.jpg&hash=ca75eb5f1b77da3c16eb6d786cf07d1eee3176f4)
I'm gonna owe over 200k when I graduate from law school. :bowler:
Got a big law gig lined up for next summer (at a place with a 100% offer rate for summer associates, so it's relatively secure). Don't actually want to do big law but can't complain; figure after a few years I can get the debt down to about 100k or even lower, then bolt.
I was worried about the debt going in and tried to make a rational decision (and I think I did), but the loans don't seem like real money. I think that's one of the things that gets a lot of people in trouble.
Seriously waaay too many lawyers/law students on this board.
And not enough pornographers. You should do it for the forum.
really not that exciting. so pass.
Count, you should ask Ide how about being a lawyer.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 20, 2012, 12:32:44 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewshour.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fphotos%2F2012%2F10%2F18%2Fgraduation_blog_main_horizontal.jpg&hash=ca75eb5f1b77da3c16eb6d786cf07d1eee3176f4)
Ya know, that shot's ruined by the kid with the flip flops. :D
What I want to know is not the default rate (you do have to give nearly no shit about it to default), but the IBR rates. I expect they would tell a very dour story about the higher education bubble.
What I'd love to see is an organized mass default--choke the rivers with our debt as it were--but that's never happening. Americans simply can't organize a collective action any more.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 20, 2012, 10:18:36 PM
What I'd love to see is an organized mass default--choke the rivers with our debt as it were--but that's never happening. Americans simply can't organize a collective action any more.
Then Dep of Ed responds with a organized mass wage garnishment. :secret:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2012, 11:20:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 20, 2012, 10:18:36 PM
What I'd love to see is an organized mass default--choke the rivers with our debt as it were--but that's never happening. Americans simply can't organize a collective action any more.
Then Dep of Ed responds with a organized mass wage garnishment. :secret:
How dare they lend you money with full discloser and then expect you to repay the loan!
Quote from: Ideologue on October 20, 2012, 10:18:36 PM
What I want to know is not the default rate (you do have to give nearly no shit about it to default), but the IBR rates. I expect they would tell a very dour story about the higher education bubble.
What I'd love to see is an organized mass default--choke the rivers with our debt as it were--but that's never happening. Americans simply can't organize a collective action any more.
how about going back to having loans dischargeable in bankruptcy? the reasoning for getting rid of the discharge in the first place were apparently bullshit (there was an idea that lots of lawyers and doctors were declaring bankruptcy immediately after graduating and then living large, but apparently that was really overblown)
Quote from: Count on October 20, 2012, 06:05:38 PM
I'm gonna owe over 200k when I graduate from law school. :bowler:
Got a big law gig lined up for next summer (at a place with a 100% offer rate for summer associates, so it's relatively secure). Don't actually want to do big law but can't complain; figure after a few years I can get the debt down to about 100k or even lower, then bolt.
That's everyone's plan. Look how many people actually do it though. :secret:
They're called golden handcuffs for a reason you know...
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2012, 01:38:24 AM
Quote from: Count on October 20, 2012, 06:05:38 PM
I'm gonna owe over 200k when I graduate from law school. :bowler:
Got a big law gig lined up for next summer (at a place with a 100% offer rate for summer associates, so it's relatively secure). Don't actually want to do big law but can't complain; figure after a few years I can get the debt down to about 100k or even lower, then bolt.
That's everyone's plan. Look how many people actually do it though. :secret:
They're called golden handcuffs for a reason you know...
yeah i'm aware. talked to a bunch of public interest lawyers about it, including some who spent time in big law, and that's what they warned about more than anything. i think my incredibly pedestrian taste and my bleeding heart will save me. also my aversion to working 80 hour weeks. it's certainly a concern though
Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 20, 2012, 10:18:36 PM
What I want to know is not the default rate (you do have to give nearly no shit about it to default), but the IBR rates. I expect they would tell a very dour story about the higher education bubble.
What I'd love to see is an organized mass default--choke the rivers with our debt as it were--but that's never happening. Americans simply can't organize a collective action any more.
how about going back to having loans dischargeable in bankruptcy? the reasoning for getting rid of the discharge in the first place were apparently bullshit (there was an idea that lots of lawyers and doctors were declaring bankruptcy immediately after graduating and then living large, but apparently that was really overblown)
There are a number of better systems than the one we actually use. Restoration of BK protection would be one of them.
Other solutions, less rife with moral hazard, just make too much sense. As a statist, I'd vastly prefer that we nationalize our colleges under a bloated and glorious new bureaucracy, ushering in the new era of direct Education Department control by lining College Street with the crucified corpses of our country's worst parasites, deans and school administrators. But other, easier-to-implement ideas would rid us of most of the problem by reintroducing a measure of market discipline--for example, forcing schools to start picking up the tab on any SL account originating from their institution that winds up on IBR. At present schools are permitted to almost completely avoid punishment for their institutional failures manifesting in the form of graduates on what essentially amounts to public assistance. University faculty and staff are the welfare queens we've been looking for.
Oh, and I remember what I meant to tell Joan a long time ago in response to a question of his: NALP collects lawyer salary stats, not JD salary stats.
Do you have any interest in cutting off the loan spigot? The fact that virtually everyone can get loans seems like a huge driver of the insane increase in costs.
Count:
It's against my political leanings, but yes. I think a complete privatization of the market--including a return of BK protection which would entail a return to normal underwriting standards--would be superior to the situation as it stands. Something needs to be done to get rid of the massive waste and effective, if not legal fraud, upon the taxpayer and student that presently occurs. Privatized lending would accomplish that. The well-off are already the ones who benefit most of the higher education system; student loans and other access initiatives have been qualified successes at best in that regard. I don't relish setting that in stone, but the alternative we chose has been worse.
More ideal and probably easier to implement would be better oversight, and squeezing the flow of student loan funds based on (for example) B. of Labor Statistics projections or some metric of perceived market need (e.g., no loans for any Cooley campus, no loans for Charleston School of Law), as well as possibly by academic criteria (i.e., no loans for schools with median LSATs that prove their median student can, at best, write their own name and show up to a testing center on time), rather than turning it off entirely.
N.B.: I use law school examples because that's the aspect of the higher education bubble that I'm most familiar with, and also because the legal academy seems to be one of the most egregious offenders, with aspects to the industry that really should shock the conscience, but its problems really do appear to be a reflection of the much, much larger problem in the transformation of American colleges into the Soviet chandelier factories of our time.
Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 10:14:05 AM
Do you have any interest in cutting off the loan spigot? The fact that virtually everyone can get loans seems like a huge driver of the insane increase in costs.
Ide's on the right track. The reason this has gotten so ridiculous is that you've got private market pricing colliding with the state interest of getting as many people as possible through higher education. Even if it's not a legal obligation, that the state endorses higher ed so highly means they get to charge basically whatever they want, since there's still such a stigma on not completing higher ed.
It needs to be detangled. Either the state needs to step up and expand public schooling options while taking the private sector as much out of the equation as possible, or else the government needs to stop behaving like everyone needs a degree and let it go completely private, since complete privatization should theoretically get the prices tied to likely employment options again.
Service guarantees citizenship.
Education bubble isn't going to be served by restoring bankruptcy protection. Part of the bankruptcy is that creditors have to take possession of the assets that were acquired with loaned funds. Unless you also restore indentured servitude, that isn't going to work. The underlying problem is that on average, going into deep debt is a good decision because return on investment is positive. However, what works on average doesn't necessarily work on extremes.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2012, 12:28:01 PM
Education bubble isn't going to be served by restoring bankruptcy protection. Part of the bankruptcy is that creditors have to take possession of the assets that were acquired with loaned funds. Unless you also restore indentured servitude, that isn't going to work. The underlying problem is that on average, going into deep debt is a good decision because return on investment is positive. However, what works on average doesn't necessarily work on extremes.
It depends on what the debt is for. This goes to Ide's point in terms of the legal industry- there have always been a lot of law schools that were bad investments but with the current state of the legal market it's gotten really atrocious at many schools (and still a hazardous proposition at many good schools).
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2012, 12:28:01 PM
Education bubble isn't going to be served by restoring bankruptcy protection. Part of the bankruptcy is that creditors have to take possession of the assets that were acquired with loaned funds. Unless you also restore indentured servitude, that isn't going to work. The underlying problem is that on average, going into deep debt is a good decision because return on investment is positive. However, what works on average doesn't necessarily work on extremes.
BK restoration is only part of equation if your intention is to introduce discipline into the educational market. If that's your goal, permitting BK to students while still federally guaranteeing any amount of money is equivalent to just up-fronting IBR, i.e. it's just as bad as the current system.
If your goal is to depressurize graduates, this changes, but that's not the issue we're discussing...
The reason it was removed in the first place was that a bunch of med and law students were graduating and then immediately declaring bk to start fresh. They will still need some mechanism to prevent that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 21, 2012, 01:21:05 PM
The reason it was removed in the first place was that a bunch of med and law students were graduating and then immediately declaring bk to start fresh. They will still need some mechanism to prevent that.
Right, as I was saying earlier my understanding is that this was totally overblown and pretty rare. Looking for an article on that now
Wouldn't the consequences of declaring bk be fairly unattractive?
Quote from: The Brain on October 21, 2012, 01:35:14 PM
Wouldn't the consequences of declaring bk be fairly unattractive?
Guller declares BK every week, so yeah, probably. :D
Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 01:32:06 PM
Right, as I was saying earlier my understanding is that this was totally overblown and pretty rare. Looking for an article on that now
Assuming people are acting rationally, the cost of declaring bankruptcy should be compared to the benefits of discharging the debt. As the debt load of graduates increases, you would expect the benefits to outweigh the costs more and more. Losing all credit for 7 years looks very different when you're carrying $3K in student debt vs. $100K.
Also keep in mind that we are collectively the creditor in this situation. :ph34r:
If you want to include student debt in bankruptcy that's an additional fiscal burden that you and I will end up sharing anyway. It would be a great deal for the present age cohort of graduates, and a real stinker for everyone else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2012, 04:29:34 PM
Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 01:32:06 PM
Right, as I was saying earlier my understanding is that this was totally overblown and pretty rare. Looking for an article on that now
Assuming people are acting rationally, the cost of declaring bankruptcy should be compared to the benefits of discharging the debt. As the debt load of graduates increases, you would expect the benefits to outweigh the costs more and more. Losing all credit for 7 years looks very different when you're carrying $3K in student debt vs. $100K.
Also keep in mind that we are collectively the creditor in this situation. :ph34r:
If you want to include student debt in bankruptcy that's an additional fiscal burden that you and I will end up sharing anyway. It would be a great deal for the present age cohort of graduates, and a real stinker for everyone else.
All good points. As someone in the present age cohort of graduates, BRING BACK BANKRUPTCY
No. Screw that. We'd see a mass bankrupting of all these jackasses with a 150 in loans looking to get out of it. They must pay.
Would interest rates really go below 6.8% for graduate level student loans if the whole industry was privatized? That's the argument I hear all the time from my GOPtard classmates/attendings. I was looking into Wells Fargo and they don't seem to offer anything below 7%.
If you want to make student loans dischargable then the only fair way to do that is if you do so then you lose your degree.
Quote from: HVC on October 21, 2012, 08:49:04 PM
If you want to make student loans dischargable then the only fair way to do that is if you do so then you lose your degree.
Then they will become Fighter/Mages.
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 08:46:55 PM
Would interest rates really go below 6.8% for graduate level student loans if the whole industry was privatized? That's the argument I hear all the time from my GOPtard classmates/attendings. I was looking into Wells Fargo and they don't seem to offer anything below 7%.
I started school again last June and got a loan at 3.4%, though it looked like if I had started in July they'd have only been available at 6.8%. :hmm:
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 08:46:55 PM
Would interest rates really go below 6.8% for graduate level student loans if the whole industry was privatized? That's the argument I hear all the time from my GOPtard classmates/attendings. I was looking into Wells Fargo and they don't seem to offer anything below 7%.
That's deeply retarded. The government's involvement sets a floor on student loan interest rates, not a ceiling. There's nothing stopping Wells Fargo from beating the government's rate if they wanted to,.
Which makes me wonder why they don't; mortgages are going for 3ish right now, and student loans are 100% guaranteed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2012, 09:20:30 PM
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 08:46:55 PM
Would interest rates really go below 6.8% for graduate level student loans if the whole industry was privatized? That's the argument I hear all the time from my GOPtard classmates/attendings. I was looking into Wells Fargo and they don't seem to offer anything below 7%.
I started school again last June and got a loan at 3.4%, though it looked like if I had started in July they'd have only been available at 6.8%. :hmm:
Graduate loans are all still 6.8%. Only undergraduates get the 3.4% rate.
I was reading the history of those loan programs. Apparently rates were as low as 2-3% in the 90s and early 2000s. After I'm done with 7 years of residency deferments my 160k will have turned into 266k. Fuckers. :(
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 11:00:52 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2012, 09:20:30 PM
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 08:46:55 PM
Would interest rates really go below 6.8% for graduate level student loans if the whole industry was privatized? That's the argument I hear all the time from my GOPtard classmates/attendings. I was looking into Wells Fargo and they don't seem to offer anything below 7%.
I started school again last June and got a loan at 3.4%, though it looked like if I had started in July they'd have only been available at 6.8%. :hmm:
Graduate loans are all still 6.8%. Only undergraduates get the 3.4% rate.
I was reading the history of those loan programs. Apparently rates were as low as 2-3% in the 90s and early 2000s. After I'm done with 7 years of residency deferments my 160k will have turned into 266k. Fuckers. :(
The thing is Fate, you're in the one degree program where assuming that kind of debt still makes perfect rational economic sense. :console:
I wonder though. I'm only having to take out 40 a year because the state of Texas subsidizes the fuck out of higher education. On the East Coast you have schools where you have to take out 80 a year in loans. 320k after 4 years... which balloons to 531k after a 7 year residency. And the administration asks why there's a shortage of primary care physicians. :lol:
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 11:26:01 PM
I wonder though. I'm only having to take out 40 a year because the state of Texas subsidizes the fuck out of higher education. On the East Coast you have schools where you have to take out 80 a year in loans. 320k after 4 years... which balloons to 531k after a 7 year residency. And the administration asks why there's a shortage of primary care physicians. :lol:
And ask yourself - would you rather have said "fuck it", skipped higher education, and worked on oil rigs in North Dakota?
I don't know what the Ideos of the world would say, but for you the answer should be obvious.
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 11:26:01 PM
I wonder though. I'm only having to take out 40 a year because the state of Texas subsidizes the fuck out of higher education. On the East Coast you have schools where you have to take out 80 a year in loans. 320k after 4 years... which balloons to 531k after a 7 year residency. And the administration asks why there's a shortage of primary care physicians. :lol:
Doctors in residency get paid...that debt doesn't need to balloon...also do primary care doctors really have 7 years of residency?
Also, isn't your debt total of $320k quite a bit more than what would be typical?
How much do Caribbean med schools charge?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 21, 2012, 08:49:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 21, 2012, 08:49:04 PM
If you want to make student loans dischargable then the only fair way to do that is if you do so then you lose your degree.
Then they will become Fighter/Mages.
The army could use some of those for the fighting up around the ruins of Yulash.
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 11:26:01 PM
I wonder though. I'm only having to take out 40 a year because the state of Texas subsidizes the fuck out of higher education. On the East Coast you have schools where you have to take out 80 a year in loans. 320k after 4 years... which balloons to 531k after a 7 year residency. And the administration asks why there's a shortage of primary care physicians. :lol:
And ask yourself - would you rather have said "fuck it", skipped higher education, and worked on oil rigs in North Dakota?
I don't know what the Ideos of the world would say, but for you the answer should be obvious.
Because that is the only other option? :huh:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 22, 2012, 07:10:00 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 21, 2012, 08:49:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 21, 2012, 08:49:04 PM
If you want to make student loans dischargable then the only fair way to do that is if you do so then you lose your degree.
Then they will become Fighter/Mages.
The army could use some of those for the fighting up around the ruins of Yulash.
It's sad that I know that is from the Forgotten Realms.
Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2012, 07:50:32 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 11:26:01 PM
I wonder though. I'm only having to take out 40 a year because the state of Texas subsidizes the fuck out of higher education. On the East Coast you have schools where you have to take out 80 a year in loans. 320k after 4 years... which balloons to 531k after a 7 year residency. And the administration asks why there's a shortage of primary care physicians. :lol:
And ask yourself - would you rather have said "fuck it", skipped higher education, and worked on oil rigs in North Dakota?
I don't know what the Ideos of the world would say, but for you the answer should be obvious.
Because that is the only other option? :huh:
Oil riggers can make big money.
A better question would be: doyou need to spend 4/5 years and a ton of money to get a job in the first place? Even secretaries seem to need a bachelors these days, and I'm not sure why that is.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 22, 2012, 08:15:27 AM
A better question would be: doyou need to spend 4/5 years and a ton of money to get a job in the first place? Even secretaries seem to need a bachelors these days, and I'm not sure why that is.
Duh, it is so people like me can still part-time teach worthless high school grads about subjects they have no interest in - it is called "13th Grade."
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 11:21:29 PM
OK, but, like I told Beeb, you're an Old.
Of course what you paid is peanuts in comparison to the average new grad, let alone the average matriculant, in 2012.
That said, I wish they'd get more representative people to feature in these stories. Someone with $50k or $60k in debt and washing dishes is a little more median, but highlights the same problem. I think news idiots prefer the sensationalism and comment-generating features of top quintile debt. It's all the same problem--but unfortunately you get this, no offense, frankly stupid reaction from 40 year olds who went to college in 1990. I DIDN'T PAY THAT MY GOD WHAT A RIDICULOUS HUMAN BEING. Try applying high single and often two figure percentage increases per year for over a decade, mathemagician, see what happens to your obviously more responsibly borrowed tuition.
The tuition at my university has gone up 115% since I graduated, and 185% since I started. Today's undergrad tuition is $199.54 per hour, all general fees included, for a total of $2993.10 for a full load semester. When I went, my Bright Futures scholarship paid the entire tuition plus a $300 book allowance. The scholarship is now $100 per credit hour with no allowance, meaning a full semester would cost me $1500 + books today. My books were on the order of $500 per semester[1]. So, $1850 per semester out of pocket plus other expenses, which weren't much because I lived at home. $15,790[2] for a full degree, of which all will be covered by other funds. Room and board is on the order of $5500 per semester, including meal plan. That is not much more expensive than when I went, about in line with inflation. The numbers we have:
Per semester:
Tution: $3000
Books $ 650
Room and board: $5500
Total: $9150
When I started at FIU, living on campus, in 1998 I had almost $10,000 in scholarship and grant money per semester. My impression from articles like this is that is still a reasonable amount for someone with my academic standing and need basis. Therefore now, as then, I could go to FIU or FAU effectively for free; even if I decided to acquire debt, it would be manageable. Thus, without a distorted view of reality, I have no sympathy for morons who accumulate $60k+ in debt to go to prestige schools. Particularly since I passed on a prestige school myself because I didn't want to have to make up the $12/year shortfall.
[1] Prices have not changed much, as I know from buying and looking at books recently.
[2] Electrical engineering requires 128 hours.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 23, 2012, 07:10:11 PM
[1] Prices have not changed much, as I know from buying and looking at books recently.
People could just pirate them anyway.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 23, 2012, 07:10:11 PM
I have no sympathy for morons who accumulate $60k+ in debt to go to prestige schools. Particularly since I passed on a prestige school myself because I didn't want to have to make up the $12/year shortfall.
Same (although Boston U is still a pretty good school).
Quote from: Caliga on October 23, 2012, 07:22:38 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 23, 2012, 07:10:11 PM
I have no sympathy for morons who accumulate $60k+ in debt to go to prestige schools. Particularly since I passed on a prestige school myself because I didn't want to have to make up the $12/year shortfall.
Same (although Boston U is still a pretty good school).
Yep. Though I got a couple friends who ran up six figure tabs at non-prestige schools, which is even worse.
whatever guys my prestige is the best this side of christopher nolan
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 23, 2012, 07:10:11 PM
I have no sympathy for morons who accumulate $60k+ in debt to go to prestige schools. Particularly since I passed on a prestige school myself because I didn't want to have to make up the $12/year shortfall.
What if that prestige school actually offers a significantly better education? And what if you live right by it, and would have to move your family to attend a less prestigious school?
There are a lot more factors at play than simply budget for most people.
Quote from: Count on October 23, 2012, 07:40:30 PM
whatever guys my prestige is the best this side of christopher nolan
And yet you want to squander it on some public service shit. :wacko:
Let's not forget that it's not only the financial kind of debt that students leave college with.
1 in 4 college female will be raped before she graduates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/education/amherst-account-of-rape-brings-tension-to-forefront.html
Quote from: Caliga on October 23, 2012, 07:22:38 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 23, 2012, 07:10:11 PM
I have no sympathy for morons who accumulate $60k+ in debt to go to prestige schools. Particularly since I passed on a prestige school myself because I didn't want to have to make up the $12/year shortfall.
Same (although Boston U is still a pretty good school).
Even state schools can cost 60K+ over four years.
Thanks to European scholarship programs, I managed to get an Ivy League degree and run up less than 20k in debt in the process. But yeah, one of my classmates once confessed to me he was €250k in debt. 250k!!! Ludicrous.
Hooray for socialism.
Quote from: celedhring on October 27, 2012, 05:37:38 AM
Thanks to European scholarship programs, I managed to get an Ivy League degree and run up less than 20k in debt in the process. But yeah, one of my classmates once confessed to me he was €250k in debt. 250k!!! Ludicrous.
Hooray for socialism.
Did he have a girlfriend/wife?
Quote from: Phillip V on October 27, 2012, 05:38:49 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 27, 2012, 05:37:38 AM
Thanks to European scholarship programs, I managed to get an Ivy League degree and run up less than 20k in debt in the process. But yeah, one of my classmates once confessed to me he was €250k in debt. 250k!!! Ludicrous.
Hooray for socialism.
Did he have a girlfriend/wife?
He had a boyfriend, he was gay. He didn't live extravagantly but certainly not the life of a poor college student. Big flat in the West Side, expensive clothing, lots of partying. The fact is that my career (Film) can be very expensive if you are very competitive and want to spend a lot in short films/networking to get yourself noticed, which he did.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 27, 2012, 02:41:42 AM
Let's not forget that it's not only the financial kind of debt that students leave college with.
1 in 4 college female will be raped before she graduates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/education/amherst-account-of-rape-brings-tension-to-forefront.html
Complete BS. :lol:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 23, 2012, 07:10:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 11:21:29 PM
OK, but, like I told Beeb, you're an Old.
Of course what you paid is peanuts in comparison to the average new grad, let alone the average matriculant, in 2012.
That said, I wish they'd get more representative people to feature in these stories. Someone with $50k or $60k in debt and washing dishes is a little more median, but highlights the same problem. I think news idiots prefer the sensationalism and comment-generating features of top quintile debt. It's all the same problem--but unfortunately you get this, no offense, frankly stupid reaction from 40 year olds who went to college in 1990. I DIDN'T PAY THAT MY GOD WHAT A RIDICULOUS HUMAN BEING. Try applying high single and often two figure percentage increases per year for over a decade, mathemagician, see what happens to your obviously more responsibly borrowed tuition.
The tuition at my university has gone up 115% since I graduated, and 185% since I started. Today's undergrad tuition is $199.54 per hour, all general fees included, for a total of $2993.10 for a full load semester. When I went, my Bright Futures scholarship paid the entire tuition plus a $300 book allowance. The scholarship is now $100 per credit hour with no allowance, meaning a full semester would cost me $1500 + books today. My books were on the order of $500 per semester[1]. So, $1850 per semester out of pocket plus other expenses, which weren't much because I lived at home. $15,790[2] for a full degree, of which all will be covered by other funds. Room and board is on the order of $5500 per semester, including meal plan. That is not much more expensive than when I went, about in line with inflation. The numbers we have:
Per semester:
Tution: $3000
Books $ 650
Room and board: $5500
Total: $9150
When I started at FIU, living on campus, in 1998 I had almost $10,000 in scholarship and grant money per semester. My impression from articles like this is that is still a reasonable amount for someone with my academic standing and need basis. Therefore now, as then, I could go to FIU or FAU effectively for free; even if I decided to acquire debt, it would be manageable. Thus, without a distorted view of reality, I have no sympathy for morons who accumulate $60k+ in debt to go to prestige schools. Particularly since I passed on a prestige school myself because I didn't want to have to make up the $12/year shortfall.
[1] Prices have not changed much, as I know from buying and looking at books recently.
[2] Electrical engineering requires 128 hours.
Scholarships being principally awarded to attract high-credential students, and being funded in large part by other people's student loan checks, it's good to know that you have no sympathy for the people who subsidized your tuition. So not only do scholly folks, like you I suppose, have the best shot at success in whatever academic milieu they enter, they also suck money from the pockets of their less-accomplished peers. Neat, fair, and not perverse whatsoever.
VOTE ROMNEY.
(Bear in mind that my perspective on the matter is that of a law grad, not an engineer, but I'd suspect the same principles apply. And I understand there is a social good involved in giving scholarships to people who would probably have no problem taking out and paying off their loans. That said, the cost of a social good should not be borne primarily by a group that is not only small, and not only possessed of worse odds in making it, but in
direct competition with the fucker they're providing assistance to. To the extent scholarship money comes from private third parties or the government, it's positive; to the extent it relies on cross-subsidization, it's abominable.)
Quote from: stjaba on October 23, 2012, 07:34:21 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 23, 2012, 07:22:38 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 23, 2012, 07:10:11 PM
I have no sympathy for morons who accumulate $60k+ in debt to go to prestige schools. Particularly since I passed on a prestige school myself because I didn't want to have to make up the $12/year shortfall.
Same (although Boston U is still a pretty good school).
Yep. Though I got a couple friends who ran up six figure tabs at non-prestige schools, which is even worse.
If you're paying sticker or close to it, there aren't many law schools I know of where you can get out for less, even accepting crippling personal austerity, than about $70k, and generally speaking it's going to be six-figured. CUNY is the only one that springs to mind; I think it has tuition of around $12, $13k; this is radically cheap, which is kind of sad. But take the bus or train or dirigible or whatever people do in New York across town to NYU or NYLS and it's like three times that. (One of them being pretty fucking far from a "prestige school," and which should be burned to the ground, along with every other for-profit LS in this country.)
Also, Beeb, I'm sorry I called you an Old. I was frustrated.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
What makes you say that?
IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances.
Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?
99% of women have been the object of unwanted sexual advances, the rest are either hideously ugly or locked up in their parents' house.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
What makes you say that?
IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances.
Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?
It really doesn't seem particularly far-fetched.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 28, 2012, 12:57:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
What makes you say that?
IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances.
Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?
It really doesn't seem particularly far-fetched.
Selection bias, Mr. Rapist.
College is a predator's paradise. You have a bunch of young, naive girls concentrated in one place mixed with drugs and alcohol. People are just not mentally equipped to deal with assault, let alone stress. And institutional rules and procedures for prevention/prosecution suck. It is very easy to rape or molest someone and popularly get away with it. There is just so much opportunity.
I literally picked up a passed out girl I didn't know from the side of the road and put her in my car (for eventual transportation to hospital).
Are American males like Arabs? Non-rhetorical.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 28, 2012, 01:10:43 AM
College is a predator's paradise. You have a bunch of young, naive girls concentrated in one place mixed with drugs and alcohol. People are just not mentally equipped to deal with assault, let alone stress. And institutional rules and procedures for prevention/prosecution suck. It is very easy to rape or molest someone and popularly get away with it. There is just so much opportunity.
I literally picked up a passed out girl I didn't know from the side of the road and put her in my car (for eventual transportation to hospital).
'eventual' :perv:
This thread just got creepy.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 28, 2012, 12:57:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
What makes you say that?
IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances.
Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?
It really doesn't seem particularly far-fetched.
Well of course. I'd wager most women would say they have been the object of unwanted sexual advances (not that such is a good thing), I've certainly been too.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 28, 2012, 06:45:44 AM
This thread just got creepy.
I think it is just our usual numbskulls who don't realize (yet again) when they are taking it too far.
Dating violence, including date rape and domestic violence, is a perpetual and tangible threat on residential campuses, but those numbers may be a bit out there.
On the other hand, campuses have also long known how to play games with the reporting statistics for Clery Act compliance.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 27, 2012, 11:10:39 PM
(Bear in mind that my perspective on the matter is that of a law grad, not an engineer, but I'd suspect the same principles apply. And I understand there is a social good involved in giving scholarships to people who would probably have no problem taking out and paying off their loans. That said, the cost of a social good should not be borne primarily by a group that is not only small, and not only possessed of worse odds in making it, but in direct competition with the fucker they're providing assistance to. To the extent scholarship money comes from private third parties or the government, it's positive; to the extent it relies on cross-subsidization, it's abominable.)
Is it not reasonable that the superior be subsidized by the inferior?
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2012, 08:16:49 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 28, 2012, 06:45:44 AM
This thread just got creepy.
I think it is just our usual numbskulls who don't realize (yet again) when they are taking it too far.
This is the internet, you faggot-moron. If I have to live in a world where people like you and Martinus aren't burned to death on sight, then I can survive pervy kids mocking the over-reporting of sexual assault.
Quote from: Neil on October 28, 2012, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2012, 08:16:49 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 28, 2012, 06:45:44 AM
This thread just got creepy.
I think it is just our usual numbskulls who don't realize (yet again) when they are taking it too far.
This is the internet, you faggot-moron. If I have to live in a world where people like you and Martinus aren't burned to death on sight, then I can survive pervy kids mocking the over-reporting of sexual assault.
Hey if you like hanging out with douche-bags have at it.
I'm here aren't I.
Quote from: Neil on October 28, 2012, 01:44:24 PM
I'm here aren't I.
We have no proof of that. You might not even be named Neil. Or your account could have been hacked.
If Neil didn't exist, VM would have to invent him. Or find someone else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances.
Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?
I know some women who've been raped or had pretty close calls. I know a few guys who've told me about mistakes they've made in the past which were basically date rape. I used to work with a guy who tried to rape a friend of mine at a work party, and who'd tried to pull something similar a few years earlier on another woman... and from what I know from working with him from years, the things he said and his general attitude I'm pretty confident that these were not isolated incidents but rather his approach to women and life in general.
MiM and Neil's posts are also pretty good examples of how many people react to discussions of rape - with dismissal and ridicule. I don't know what the number is; it could be 1/4, it could be 1/10, or it could be 1/2 - but I don't think it would materially affect how guys like MiM or Neil would react to the number, nor how widely it would be reported. In my experience, women (men too for that matter), don't really want to put that very personal violation into the public sphere to be judged and ridiculed, so I expect it's not something it's easy to get good numbers on.
There is, of course, also the issue of definition; if you dismiss cases where it's social pressure, reduced capacity, some sort of blackmail or whatever then you'll find there are fewer cases of rape than if you include cases where someone doesn't want to have sex but feel they have not choice. Similarly, you can dismiss various degrees of sexual harassment or unwanted sexual advances as irrelevant or not and that will impact the number.
Bottom line is that however you define it the number is still too damn high. If you have never heard a story from a woman in your life about them being sexually harassed or worse consider the possibility that it's not because no woman you've ever known has ever experienced such a thing, but rather that you're not someone they're comfortable discussing such topics with.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 01:31:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances.
Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?
I know some women who've been raped or had pretty close calls. I know a few guys who've told me about mistakes they've made in the past which were basically date rape.
same here.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 01:31:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances.
Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?
I know some women who've been raped or had pretty close calls. I know a few guys who've told me about mistakes they've made in the past which were basically date rape. I used to work with a guy who tried to rape a friend of mine at a work party, and who'd tried to pull something similar a few years earlier on another woman... and from what I know from working with him from years, the things he said and his general attitude I'm pretty confident that these were not isolated incidents but rather his approach to women and life in general.
MiM and Neil's posts are also pretty good examples of how many people react to discussions of rape - with dismissal and ridicule. I don't know what the number is; it could be 1/4, it could be 1/10, or it could be 1/2 - but I don't think it would materially affect how guys like MiM or Neil would react to the number, nor how widely it would be reported. In my experience, women (men too for that matter), don't really want to put that very personal violation into the public sphere to be judged and ridiculed, so I expect it's not something it's easy to get good numbers on.
There is, of course, also the issue of definition; if you dismiss cases where it's social pressure, reduced capacity, some sort of blackmail or whatever then you'll find there are fewer cases of rape than if you include cases where someone doesn't want to have sex but feel they have not choice. Similarly, you can dismiss various degrees of sexual harassment or unwanted sexual advances as irrelevant or not and that will impact the number.
Bottom line is that however you define it the number is still too damn high. If you have never heard a story from a woman in your life about them being sexually harassed or worse consider the possibility that it's not because no woman you've ever known has ever experienced such a thing, but rather that you're not someone they're comfortable discussing such topics with.
I'm gonna pretend this is what I wrote in reply. Good job, Jake.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 01:31:34 AM
Bottom line is that however you define it the number is still too damn high. If you have never heard a story from a woman in your life about them being sexually harassed or worse consider the possibility that it's not because no woman you've ever known has ever experienced such a thing, but rather that you're not someone they're comfortable discussing such topics with.
That's unfortunately true. :(
Sadly there are few women my age (and I suspect of all ages) who when younger were not subjected to an occasion that by the modern definition and increased awareness would count as rape or sexual assault. But we were led to assume it was a situation we had got ourselves into and were more likely to bottle it up out of shame rather than discuss or report it.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 01:31:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances.
Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?
I know some women who've been raped or had pretty close calls. I know a few guys who've told me about mistakes they've made in the past which were basically date rape. I used to work with a guy who tried to rape a friend of mine at a work party, and who'd tried to pull something similar a few years earlier on another woman... and from what I know from working with him from years, the things he said and his general attitude I'm pretty confident that these were not isolated incidents but rather his approach to women and life in general.
MiM and Neil's posts are also pretty good examples of how many people react to discussions of rape - with dismissal and ridicule. I don't know what the number is; it could be 1/4, it could be 1/10, or it could be 1/2 - but I don't think it would materially affect how guys like MiM or Neil would react to the number, nor how widely it would be reported. In my experience, women (men too for that matter), don't really want to put that very personal violation into the public sphere to be judged and ridiculed, so I expect it's not something it's easy to get good numbers on.
There is, of course, also the issue of definition; if you dismiss cases where it's social pressure, reduced capacity, some sort of blackmail or whatever then you'll find there are fewer cases of rape than if you include cases where someone doesn't want to have sex but feel they have not choice. Similarly, you can dismiss various degrees of sexual harassment or unwanted sexual advances as irrelevant or not and that will impact the number.
Bottom line is that however you define it the number is still too damn high. If you have never heard a story from a woman in your life about them being sexually harassed or worse consider the possibility that it's not because no woman you've ever known has ever experienced such a thing, but rather that you're not someone they're comfortable discussing such topics with.
There is no doubt that sexual violence is a serious problem. However, there is also no doubt that the statistics used to demonstrate this are not very reliable.
The problem is that the definition is pretty elastic. If you include "unwanted sexual advances" you would, honestly, get a very high, and perhaps universal, number - I've had those myself, from both men and women, and I'm hardly the main target. OTOH there is considerable underreporting for the reasons you note.
To say this is not to "dismiss and ridicule" the problem or the victims of it. I disagree that the numbers are of no significance. The reason for generating the numbers in the first place is so as to rank the significance of the problem vs. other problems. This leads advocates of all sorts into a sort of spiral of escalation - how many have been sexually assaulted, how many have been a victim of racial or sexual discrimination, how many have been bullied, etc. Given that resources to do something about these various problems are limited, saying that they are
all of the first importance as demonstrated by statistics showing a high incidence of incidents is functionally the same as saying that
none of them are.
That being noted, there is no doubt that for cultural reasons this was an issue fundamentally underplayed and swept under the carpet in the past.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 01:31:34 AM
I know some women who've been raped or had pretty close calls. I know a few guys who've told me about mistakes they've made in the past which were basically date rape. I used to work with a guy who tried to rape a friend of mine at a work party, and who'd tried to pull something similar a few years earlier on another woman... and from what I know from working with him from years, the things he said and his general attitude I'm pretty confident that these were not isolated incidents but rather his approach to women and life in general.
MiM and Neil's posts are also pretty good examples of how many people react to discussions of rape - with dismissal and ridicule. I don't know what the number is; it could be 1/4, it could be 1/10, or it could be 1/2 - but I don't think it would materially affect how guys like MiM or Neil would react to the number, nor how widely it would be reported. In my experience, women (men too for that matter), don't really want to put that very personal violation into the public sphere to be judged and ridiculed, so I expect it's not something it's easy to get good numbers on.
There is, of course, also the issue of definition; if you dismiss cases where it's social pressure, reduced capacity, some sort of blackmail or whatever then you'll find there are fewer cases of rape than if you include cases where someone doesn't want to have sex but feel they have not choice. Similarly, you can dismiss various degrees of sexual harassment or unwanted sexual advances as irrelevant or not and that will impact the number.
Bottom line is that however you define it the number is still too damn high. If you have never heard a story from a woman in your life about them being sexually harassed or worse consider the possibility that it's not because no woman you've ever known has ever experienced such a thing, but rather that you're not someone they're comfortable discussing such topics with.
Well said.
Quote from: Brazen on October 29, 2012, 08:23:52 AM
Sadly there are few women my age (and I suspect of all ages) who when younger were not subjected to an occasion that by the modern definition and increased awareness would count as rape or sexual assault. But we were led to assume it was a situation we had got ourselves into and were more likely to bottle it up out of shame rather than discuss or report it.
Yep. Short skirts and booze = your own damn fault no matter how many times you said no.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 09:14:47 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 29, 2012, 08:23:52 AM
Sadly there are few women my age (and I suspect of all ages) who when younger were not subjected to an occasion that by the modern definition and increased awareness would count as rape or sexual assault. But we were led to assume it was a situation we had got ourselves into and were more likely to bottle it up out of shame rather than discuss or report it.
Yep. Short skirts and booze = your own damn fault no matter how many times you said no.
Standard lawyer tactic is the 'bitch was asking for it' defense.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 29, 2012, 11:02:08 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 09:14:47 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 29, 2012, 08:23:52 AM
Sadly there are few women my age (and I suspect of all ages) who when younger were not subjected to an occasion that by the modern definition and increased awareness would count as rape or sexual assault. But we were led to assume it was a situation we had got ourselves into and were more likely to bottle it up out of shame rather than discuss or report it.
Yep. Short skirts and booze = your own damn fault no matter how many times you said no.
Standard lawyer tactic is the 'bitch was asking for it' defense.
Sex assault is an unbelievably hard crime to prove. All defence has to do is raise a reasonable doubt about whether she consented or not.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 11:05:27 AM
Sex assault is an unbelievably hard crime to prove. All defence has to do is raise a reasonable doubt about whether she consented or not.
It doesn't help when there are enough people still around who always blame the victim, regardless of the facts on hand.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 11:05:27 AM
Sex assault is an unbelievably hard crime to prove. All defence has to do is raise a reasonable doubt about whether she consented or not.
It doesn't help when there are enough people still around who always blame the victim, regardless of the facts on hand.
Very true. A colleague was just telling me an anecdote from the other day when, at a pre-trial conference (and therefore off the record) the trial judge asked the Crown if the victim was, you know, promiscuous.
Great. Glad to know that women are still considered second-class citizens in the courts. :glare:
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 11:37:27 AM
Very true. A colleague was just telling me an anecdote from the other day when, at a pre-trial conference (and therefore off the record) the trial judge asked the Crown if the victim was, you know, promiscuous.
This kind of crap enrages me to no end. So the idea is that if you are promiscuous you are more likely to lie about being raped...or more it is ok to rape somebody who is promiscuous?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 29, 2012, 11:02:08 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 09:14:47 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 29, 2012, 08:23:52 AM
Sadly there are few women my age (and I suspect of all ages) who when younger were not subjected to an occasion that by the modern definition and increased awareness would count as rape or sexual assault. But we were led to assume it was a situation we had got ourselves into and were more likely to bottle it up out of shame rather than discuss or report it.
Yep. Short skirts and booze = your own damn fault no matter how many times you said no.
Standard lawyer tactic is the 'bitch was asking for it' defense.
Doesn't matter. That's no excuse.
That said, there are probably just as many false rape accusations as real events that go unreported. Sweden has gained a rep as the false rape capital of the world. I could crunch Amherst's numbers and show that 1 in 4 girls did not get raped, but seriously why should I? Does anyone really think that's true on it's face? Unwanted advances? I got hit on by a 21 year old waitress last Tuesday. That was an unwanted advance, but I still enjoyed it. :P
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 11:43:25 AM
Great. Glad to know that women are still considered second-class citizens in the courts. :glare:
Well these are Canadian Courts. I am sure Illinois Courts are all about equality.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 11:46:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 11:37:27 AM
Very true. A colleague was just telling me an anecdote from the other day when, at a pre-trial conference (and therefore off the record) the trial judge asked the Crown if the victim was, you know, promiscuous.
This kind of crap enrages me to no end. So the idea is that if you are promiscuous you are more likely to lie about being raped...or more it is ok to rape somebody who is promiscuous?
If it makes you feel better (and it shouldn't) the complainant in that case was mentally disabled. I don' think any judge would say that about a "regular" complainant.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 11:43:25 AM
Great. Glad to know that women are still considered second-class citizens in the courts. :glare:
Yeah, I don't feel especially bad for you, since the alternative to 'women being treated as second-class citizens' is 'men going to jail and having to deal with scarlet letter sex offender laws on a woman's sayso'.
Obviously, like every crime, rape needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even understanding that, short of good physical evidence (often DNA), this can be a very hard to crime to prove. And other factors as well, such as the influence of alcohol. Obviously, a heavily intoxicated woman should be deemed able to give consent, and the man should ideally be "chivalrous" and not take advantage...but what about cases where both parties are heavily intoxicated?
That being said, though, punishment for proven rape really needs to be brought back to being a capital crime.
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2012, 12:10:56 PM
men going to jail and having to deal with scarlet letter sex offender laws
Well that is the other problem. Sex offender laws are so draconian.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 29, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
That being said, though, punishment for proven rape really needs to be brought back to being a capital crime.
Only if they do it for burglary and thievery too.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 29, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Obviously, like every crime, rape needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even understanding that, short of good physical evidence (often DNA), this can be a very hard to crime to prove. And other factors as well, such as the influence of alcohol. Obviously, a heavily intoxicated woman should be deemed able to give consent, and the man should ideally be "chivalrous" and not take advantage...but what about cases where both parties are heavily intoxicated?
That being said, though, punishment for proven rape really needs to be brought back to being a capital crime.
DNA though is only proof that sexual activity took place. It says nothing about consent. One of the ways we are able to prove a sexual assault is the accused denies anything took place, then we get DNA which proves he's lying. Now he has no credibility left, and we get a conviction.
The law takes a very policy-based approach and says 'everyone is equally responsible for their actions while under self-induced intoxication'. Again though, one of the ways we can prove sexual assault is when the woman is intoxicated to the point of passing out. Now, consent is vitiated, so as long as we can prove the act, we get a conviction.
I do find it humourous that you think punishments aren't strong enough, and Valmy thinks they're too strong.
The penalties right now are strong enough that a sex offender will find it almost impossible to function again in society except at a very meager level. That serves as a huge disincentive for courts to convict people unless it is so blatantly obvious they have no choice. Particularly when we are talking about college age boys.
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2012, 12:10:56 PMYeah, I don't feel especially bad for you, since the alternative to 'women being treated as second-class citizens' is 'men going to jail and having to deal with scarlet letter sex offender laws on a woman's sayso'.
There's a fairly large excluded middle ground there.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 11:48:52 AMThat said, there are probably just as many false rape accusations as real events that go unreported.
Again, I'm curious what you're basing that on.
QuoteSweden has gained a rep as the false rape capital of the world.
Where? On reddit?
QuoteI could crunch Amherst's numbers and show that 1 in 4 girls did not get raped, but seriously why should I?
By crunching the numbers, I assume you mean "define a bunch of incidents as 'not-rape'"?
QuoteDoes anyone really think that's true on it's face? Unwanted advances? I got hit on by a 21 year old waitress last Tuesday. That was an unwanted advance, but I still enjoyed it. :P
Yeah, because what we're talking about is exactly the same as a waitress flirting with a customer to increase her tip.
I mean, when Brazen says that there a few women her age - and she doubts any age - who have not been sexually assaulted or raped what do you make of that? Is she being hysterical? Is she trying to get some guy put into prison like Neil apparently fears? Is it possible she is better placed than you to judge the experience of women and is actually correct?
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 12:59:43 PM
I mean, when Brazen says that there a few women her age - and she doubts any age - who have not been sexually assaulted or raped what do you make of that? Is she being hysterical? Is she trying to get some guy put into prison like Neil apparently fears? Is it possible she is better placed than you to judge the experience of women and is actually correct?
I concur with Brazen on this one.
Okay not joking around now---Do you guys seriously think that 25% of women are raped every year?
Well I guess my question is what do we do about it? I don't think having hugely draconian sex offender policies is really helping that much.
Or is it? I guess we would have to look at different jurisdictions. Somebody clearly thinks they do.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 01:04:41 PM
Okay not joking around now---Do you guys seriously think that 25% of women are raped every year?
Wait every year? Like 1 out of every 4 females over 18 is raped every single year? Um...no.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 01:04:41 PM
Okay not joking around now---Do you guys seriously think that 25% of women are raped every year?
I think that 25% of women have been sexually assaulted and/or raped. Do I believe that that number is accurate on a yearly basis? No. Do I believe that number overall? Yes, at least. Annecdotally, I'd guess it to be more like 33% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted and/or raped.
That being said, I also believe that more men are sexually assaulted and/or raped than is reported, as well. Given the way women are treated, I doubt men are willing to step up and admit when it happens to them, either.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 01:04:41 PM
Okay not joking around now---Do you guys seriously think that 25% of women are raped every year?
Where do you get the "every year" part from?
I have no trouble believing 25% of women are the victim of a major sexual assault during their lifetime.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:11:44 PM
I think that 25% of women have been sexually assaulted and/or raped. Do I believe that that number is accurate on a yearly basis? No. Do I believe that number overall? Yes, at least. Annecdotally, I'd guess it to be more like 33% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted and/or raped.
Yeah this I can buy. And from the few women close enough to me this discussion has been had it is exactly 33%. Neither my wife or sister were raped but my wife was.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 01:08:04 PM
Well I guess my question is what do we do about it? I don't think having hugely draconian sex offender policies is really helping that much.
Or is it? I guess we would have to look at different jurisdictions. Somebody clearly thinks they do.
How about we start by teaching young men and women in Sex Ed what "no" can look like, what "compromised mental ability to give permission" looks like, and what affect rape can have on a person and their families? Then, we start working on getting rid of the idea that the victim could ever "ask for it". Now, let's seriously get rid of the whole "gift from God" pregnancy fiasco.
That's where I would start, anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 01:13:52 PM
Yeah this I can buy. And from the few women close enough to me this discussion has been had it is exactly 33%. Neither my wife or sister were raped but my wife was.
My sample size is a bit larger, as you can imagine, and I would put it closer to 35-40% based on that. Most of the time, it's a date-rape situation.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:14:16 PM
How about we start by teaching young men and women in Sex Ed what "no" can look like, what "compromised mental ability to give permission" looks like, and what affect rape can have on a person and their families? Then, we start working on getting rid of the idea that the victim could ever "ask for it". Now, let's seriously get rid of the whole "gift from God" pregnancy fiasco.
That's where I would start, anyway.
Yeah I have to say they hammered the 'no means no' thing into us pretty well. But they never mentioned anything about how different it is when everybody is drunk.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 01:21:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:14:16 PM
How about we start by teaching young men and women in Sex Ed what "no" can look like, what "compromised mental ability to give permission" looks like, and what affect rape can have on a person and their families? Then, we start working on getting rid of the idea that the victim could ever "ask for it". Now, let's seriously get rid of the whole "gift from God" pregnancy fiasco.
That's where I would start, anyway.
Yeah I have to say they hammered the 'no means no' thing into us pretty well. But they never mentioned anything about how different it is when everybody is drunk.
That's a difficult thing. You'd have to start a campaign about when yes means no. I don't mean that in a jerky way, it's just that people do things when drunk that they otherwise wouldn't.
FWIW, Amherst Mass has about 20 (http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/massachusetts/amherst.html#.UI7Jf4bAGdA) rape convictions a year.
I agree we're already very conditioned against it--which is why it's very difficult to believe.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2012, 12:10:56 PMYeah, I don't feel especially bad for you, since the alternative to 'women being treated as second-class citizens' is 'men going to jail and having to deal with scarlet letter sex offender laws on a woman's sayso'.
There's a fairly large excluded middle ground there.
If Meri feels that the presumption of innocence turns women into second-class citizens, then there really isn't much of a middle ground at all.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 01:21:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:14:16 PM
How about we start by teaching young men and women in Sex Ed what "no" can look like, what "compromised mental ability to give permission" looks like, and what affect rape can have on a person and their families? Then, we start working on getting rid of the idea that the victim could ever "ask for it". Now, let's seriously get rid of the whole "gift from God" pregnancy fiasco.
That's where I would start, anyway.
Yeah I have to say they hammered the 'no means no' thing into us pretty well. But they never mentioned anything about how different it is when everybody is drunk.
That's a difficult thing. You'd have to start a campaign about when yes means no. I don't mean that in a jerky way, it's just that people do things when drunk that they otherwise wouldn't.
FWIW, Amherst Mass has about 20 (http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/massachusetts/amherst.html#.UI7Jf4bAGdA) rape convictions a year.
I agree we're already very conditioned against it--which is why it's very difficult to believe.
But yes doesn't mean no. :huh:
A person can consent to sex and then regret it the next day. That doesn't make it rape.
And the number of convictions is not terribly helpful in determine the prevalence of a crime. Most crimes of all sorts go undetected. Never mind an offence like sexual assault where our conviction rate is notoriously terrible.
Joe and Sarah gave been dating a while.
They have yet to have sex, although they have talked about it/made out, etc.
Joe wants to have sex, Sarah is not so sure.
Joa and Sarah go out to dinner, and share a bottle of wine. Both are feeling pretty good, and go back to Joe's apartment, where they have some more wine.
Sarah is pretty buzzed, but she still knows that she isn't quite ready to have sex with Joe - maybe soon, but not yet.
They are making out. Joe slides his hand inside Sarahs jeans. She likes it, but realizes thing are going a little fast than she would like.
She asks Joe to slow down, and he does, briefly, but they are still making out.
Sarah realized that her pants are now mostly off. She panics a little bit, and tells Joe to stop. Joe, being a gentleman, does so.
Sarah feels bad, because she does like Joe, and he seems pretty dissapointed, so she decides to go a little further, and performs oral on Joe.
Joe is getting pretty fired up again, Sarah is now shirtless and down to her underwear.
Joe is between her legs, and intercourse is clearly iminent - again. Sarah is feeling pretty worked up herself, and a little bit like she is probably not being entirely reasonable telling Joe no, but still - she just isn't ready.
She asks Joe to stop. Joe is on top of her, and now he is clearly upset/dissapointed. Not violent, or even apparenlty violent, but clearly unhappy at what he sees as being very frustrated.
Joe stops, but places his hand inside the wasteband of her panties, and says "Come on Sarah, we've waited long enough!" and starts sliding down her underwear. Sarah really doesn't want to, but is tired of saying no, so she does not object, but she does not say yes either. Joe removes her panties, and they have intercourse.
Did Joe rape Sarah? Did Joe sexually assault Sarah?
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:14:16 PM
How about we start by teaching young men and women in Sex Ed what "no" can look like, what "compromised mental ability to give permission" looks like, and what affect rape can have on a person and their families? Then, we start working on getting rid of the idea that the victim could ever "ask for it". Now, let's seriously get rid of the whole "gift from God" pregnancy fiasco.
That's where I would start, anyway.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 12:59:43 PM
I mean, when Brazen says that there a few women her age - and she doubts any age - who have not been sexually assaulted or raped what do you make of that? Is she being hysterical? Is she trying to get some guy put into prison like Neil apparently fears? Is it possible she is better placed than you to judge the experience of women and is actually correct?
I'm not going to accept the premise that any random woman is batter able to analyze her gender's issues than I am.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 01:34:26 PM
But yes doesn't mean no. :huh:
Of course not. But a drunken yes might be a sober no. The problem is, it was a yes at the time. I honestly don't have any idea how to alleviate that, but it is what it is. It's not rape if it's yes.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 01:35:33 PM
Did Joe sexually assault Sarah?
Yes. Without any doubt. Sexual assault is a sex act without consent. Sarah did not consent.
Now the better question to ask is "Does Joe have the defence of 'honest but mistaken belief in consent' available to him"? The answer there is probably not, but at least it's not so obvious. Once she says "no" Joe has to obtain a clear consent, not just silence.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 01:34:26 PM
A person can consent to sex and then regret it the next day. That doesn't make it rape.
Meri says otherwise.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 01:38:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 01:34:26 PM
But yes doesn't mean no. :huh:
Of course not. But a drunken yes might be a sober no. The problem is, it was a yes at the time. I honestly don't have any idea how to alleviate that, but it is what it is. It's not rape if it's yes.
Why did you trim the rest of my response. That's where I answered this concern.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 12:59:43 PM
I mean, when Brazen says that there a few women her age - and she doubts any age - who have not been sexually assaulted or raped what do you make of that? Is she being hysterical? Is she trying to get some guy put into prison like Neil apparently fears? Is it possible she is better placed than you to judge the experience of women and is actually correct?
Well, either she is right on this point or the survey is. They can't both be right, as the survey only has the rate at 25%.
Hence the difficulty of evaluating statistics by means of anecdote (same of course goes for those dismissing the results out-of-hand as excessively high).
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 01:21:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:14:16 PM
How about we start by teaching young men and women in Sex Ed what "no" can look like, what "compromised mental ability to give permission" looks like, and what affect rape can have on a person and their families? Then, we start working on getting rid of the idea that the victim could ever "ask for it". Now, let's seriously get rid of the whole "gift from God" pregnancy fiasco.
That's where I would start, anyway.
Yeah I have to say they hammered the 'no means no' thing into us pretty well. But they never mentioned anything about how different it is when everybody is drunk.
Agree. Everything is painted or thought of as night-and-day, but it's not.
Thus, my solution is:
1. Culture/education
2. Preventative action
3. Institutional process/law
#2 is the easiest and fastest. For both potential rapist and victim. I do not buy that the average rapist is some evil / fucked up person. Any of us can become a rapist. Thus, I seek to avoid putting myself in a situation where I can become a rapist, such as excessively pursuing women mixed with alcohol and no oversight.
Look, it's ultimately the rapist's "fault", but women (and men) should also exercise risk management. Try to go out at night with a trusted friend that will watch your back (one that is truly vetted and good). Do not hang out with a male acquaintances alone. I have taken women out that hardly knew me in circumstances "as a friend" they should not have agreed to. For example, one to a secluded ranch because she liked horses. Another I drove 40 minutes away from her apartment to my hotel room without prior notice, and she even agreed to a drink. These women genuinely were not seeking sex, but I could have easily stepped over the line.
We could also go over best practices in school setting, church setting, even extended family setting (rape by relative), but the point is to get into a risk management mindset for both victim, possible rapist, and leadership/authorities.
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2012, 01:31:07 PM
If Meri feels that the presumption of innocence turns women into second-class citizens, then there really isn't much of a middle ground at all.
Um... I said having the judge of a rape case ask if the victim is promiscuous puts us in that status. That's not exactly the same thing that you're claiming. :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 01:35:33 PM
Joe and Sarah gave been dating a while.
They have yet to have sex, although they have talked about it/made out, etc.
Joe wants to have sex, Sarah is not so sure.
Joa and Sarah go out to dinner, and share a bottle of wine. Both are feeling pretty good, and go back to Joe's apartment, where they have some more wine.
Sarah is pretty buzzed, but she still knows that she isn't quite ready to have sex with Joe - maybe soon, but not yet.
They are making out. Joe slides his hand inside Sarahs jeans. She likes it, but realizes thing are going a little fast than she would like.
She asks Joe to slow down, and he does, briefly, but they are still making out.
Sarah realized that her pants are now mostly off. She panics a little bit, and tells Joe to stop. Joe, being a gentleman, does so.
Sarah feels bad, because she does like Joe, and he seems pretty dissapointed, so she decides to go a little further, and performs oral on Joe.
Joe is getting pretty fired up again, Sarah is now shirtless and down to her underwear.
Joe is between her legs, and intercourse is clearly iminent - again. Sarah is feeling pretty worked up herself, and a little bit like she is probably not being entirely reasonable telling Joe no, but still - she just isn't ready.
She asks Joe to stop. Joe is on top of her, and now he is clearly upset/dissapointed. Not violent, or even apparenlty violent, but clearly unhappy at what he sees as being very frustrated.
Joe stops, but places his hand inside the wasteband of her panties, and says "Come on Sarah, we've waited long enough!" and starts sliding down her underwear. Sarah really doesn't want to, but is tired of saying no, so she does not object, but she does not say yes either. Joe removes her panties, and they have intercourse.
Did Joe rape Sarah? Did Joe sexually assault Sarah?
I don't know...but in either case, I spooged. BERKUT WRITES HAWT
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2012, 08:45:37 AMThere is no doubt that sexual violence is a serious problem. However, there is also no doubt that the statistics used to demonstrate this are not very reliable.
The problem is that the definition is pretty elastic. If you include "unwanted sexual advances" you would, honestly, get a very high, and perhaps universal, number - I've had those myself, from both men and women, and I'm hardly the main target. OTOH there is considerable underreporting for the reasons you note.
To say this is not to "dismiss and ridicule" the problem or the victims of it. I disagree that the numbers are of no significance. The reason for generating the numbers in the first place is so as to rank the significance of the problem vs. other problems. This leads advocates of all sorts into a sort of spiral of escalation - how many have been sexually assaulted, how many have been a victim of racial or sexual discrimination, how many have been bullied, etc. Given that resources to do something about these various problems are limited, saying that they are all of the first importance as demonstrated by statistics showing a high incidence of incidents is functionally the same as saying that none of them are.
That being noted, there is no doubt that for cultural reasons this was an issue fundamentally underplayed and swept under the carpet in the past.
What do you mean by 'limited resources'?
I don't think anyone in this thread - nor in the general public discussion of the issue, such as it is - has called for, say, increased prosecution of unwanted sexual advances; so I'm not sure which resources you're talking about.
I agree with you that definitions seem pretty elastic some times and that, combined with the sensitive nature of the subject, can complicate the discussion.
If we're speaking of 'unwanted sexual advances' my assumption is that it's physical, but falls short of rape.
I don't think we're taking resources away from dealing with rape if we draw attention to the fact that unwanted sexual advances happen with disturbing frequency, that many women experience them and that this is terrible. I don't think we're taking resources away from dealing with rape if we, as individuals, make it clear that unwanted sexual advances are unacceptable and we exact a social price from the people who make them in our social circle. And I don't think we're taking resources away from dealing with rape if making unwanted sexual advances in the work place or other professional situations has significant impact on someone's career; yes, that leaves people potentially vulnerable to false accusations but the way to deal with that is to make sure you're never in a situation where that would be credible. We're already seeing that - professors leaving their office doors open when they're speaking with students, managers refraining from trying to sleep with the hot secretary even though she may be interested etc.
So yeah... I think we can have the conversations, we can raise some awareness, we can shift some social behaviour and all of that can (and is, I think) improve things.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 01:35:33 PM
Joe and Sarah gave been dating a while.
They have yet to have sex, although they have talked about it/made out, etc.
Joe wants to have sex, Sarah is not so sure.
Joa and Sarah go out to dinner, and share a bottle of wine. Both are feeling pretty good, and go back to Joe's apartment, where they have some more wine.
Sarah is pretty buzzed, but she still knows that she isn't quite ready to have sex with Joe - maybe soon, but not yet.
They are making out. Joe slides his hand inside Sarahs jeans. She likes it, but realizes thing are going a little fast than she would like.
She asks Joe to slow down, and he does, briefly, but they are still making out.
Sarah realized that her pants are now mostly off. She panics a little bit, and tells Joe to stop. Joe, being a gentleman, does so.
Sarah feels bad, because she does like Joe, and he seems pretty dissapointed, so she decides to go a little further, and performs oral on Joe.
Joe is getting pretty fired up again, Sarah is now shirtless and down to her underwear.
Joe is between her legs, and intercourse is clearly iminent - again. Sarah is feeling pretty worked up herself, and a little bit like she is probably not being entirely reasonable telling Joe no, but still - she just isn't ready.
She asks Joe to stop. Joe is on top of her, and now he is clearly upset/dissapointed. Not violent, or even apparenlty violent, but clearly unhappy at what he sees as being very frustrated.
Joe stops, but places his hand inside the wasteband of her panties, and says "Come on Sarah, we've waited long enough!" and starts sliding down her underwear. Sarah really doesn't want to, but is tired of saying no, so she does not object, but she does not say yes either. Joe removes her panties, and they have intercourse.
Did Joe rape Sarah? Did Joe sexually assault Sarah?
Yes. He did. She said no and that she wasn't ready. Rather than stopping and making sure it was what she really wanted, he allowed it to continue/pushed it further.
Is it a shitty situation? Yes, it is.
I know I'm an overly optimistic person, and I really do err on that side sometimes, but this world is a piece of complete shit if one in four or one in three women get raped in their lifetimes. That's just ass.
BTW--UMass Amherst has 27000 students. If half of those are women (it's probably closer to 65% but I don't know), then it would take 168.75 years for 25% of them to get raped. 27000/2/20/4. Maybe they're moving to Baltimore after graduation.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 01:04:41 PM
Okay not joking around now---Do you guys seriously think that 25% of women are raped every year?
No, I don't think 25% of women are raped every year.
I do find it credible that 25% of women on a college campus have experienced rape or non-trivial unwanted sexual advances at their time there. I also find it credible that higher number of women than that will experience such a thing in their life time; I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than the majority.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:00:03 PM
I know I'm an overly optimistic person, and I really do err on that side sometimes, but this world is a piece of complete shit if one in four or one in three women get raped in their lifetimes. That's just ass.
BTW--UMass Amherst has 27000 students. If half of those are women (it's probably closer to 65% but I don't know), then it would take 168.75 years for 25% of them to get raped. 27000/2/20/4. Maybe they're moving to Baltimore after graduation.
Raped
or sexually assaulted. It doesn't always culminate in a completed sex act.
Keep in mind that that number also includes child sexual assault, at least from my understanding.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:14:16 PMHow about we start by teaching young men and women in Sex Ed what "no" can look like, what "compromised mental ability to give permission" looks like, and what affect rape can have on a person and their families? Then, we start working on getting rid of the idea that the victim could ever "ask for it". Now, let's seriously get rid of the whole "gift from God" pregnancy fiasco.
That's where I would start, anyway.
Sounds like a good start.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:00:03 PM
I know I'm an overly optimistic person, and I really do err on that side sometimes, but this world is a piece of complete shit if one in four or one in three women get raped in their lifetimes. That's just ass.
There you have it.
Always trying to mix in the unwanted sexual advances with the rape. You people are a kick.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 01:35:33 PM
Joe and Sarah gave been dating a while.
They have yet to have sex, although they have talked about it/made out, etc.
Joe wants to have sex, Sarah is not so sure.
Joa and Sarah go out to dinner, and share a bottle of wine. Both are feeling pretty good, and go back to Joe's apartment, where they have some more wine.
Sarah is pretty buzzed, but she still knows that she isn't quite ready to have sex with Joe - maybe soon, but not yet.
They are making out. Joe slides his hand inside Sarahs jeans. She likes it, but realizes thing are going a little fast than she would like.
She asks Joe to slow down, and he does, briefly, but they are still making out.
Sarah realized that her pants are now mostly off. She panics a little bit, and tells Joe to stop. Joe, being a gentleman, does so.
Sarah feels bad, because she does like Joe, and he seems pretty dissapointed, so she decides to go a little further, and performs oral on Joe.
Joe is getting pretty fired up again, Sarah is now shirtless and down to her underwear.
Joe is between her legs, and intercourse is clearly iminent - again. Sarah is feeling pretty worked up herself, and a little bit like she is probably not being entirely reasonable telling Joe no, but still - she just isn't ready.
She asks Joe to stop. Joe is on top of her, and now he is clearly upset/dissapointed. Not violent, or even apparenlty violent, but clearly unhappy at what he sees as being very frustrated.
Joe stops, but places his hand inside the wasteband of her panties, and says "Come on Sarah, we've waited long enough!" and starts sliding down her underwear. Sarah really doesn't want to, but is tired of saying no, so she does not object, but she does not say yes either. Joe removes her panties, and they have intercourse.
Did Joe rape Sarah? Did Joe sexually assault Sarah?
I was in this situation two years ago. She was naked and oral sex had occurred. But she was about the whole "need a boyfriend/girlfriend label" before vaginal sex, but not forcefully protesting. So I pulled back, but I was sober. If I was younger (stupid) and had been drinking...
And she probably would have convinced herself to keep fucking me in later liaisons to legitimize it. I hate the way this shit works.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 02:05:25 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:00:03 PM
I know I'm an overly optimistic person, and I really do err on that side sometimes, but this world is a piece of complete shit if one in four or one in three women get raped in their lifetimes. That's just ass.
There you have it.
You're breaking my naive little heart, beeb. :(
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2012, 01:38:23 PM'm not going to accept the premise that any random woman is batter able to analyze her gender's issues than I am.
Neither Meri nor Brazen are random women.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 29, 2012, 02:07:32 PM
I was in this situation two years ago. She was naked and oral sex had occurred. But she was about the whole "need a boyfriend/girlfriend label" before vaginal sex, but not forcefully protesting. So I pulled back, but I was sober. If I was younger (stupid) and had been drinking...
And she probably would have convinced herself to keep fucking me in later liaisons to legitimize it. I hate the way this shit works.
You should just avoid women entirely. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2012, 01:50:07 PM
Well, either she is right on this point or the survey is. They can't both be right, as the survey only has the rate at 25%.
Hence the difficulty of evaluating statistics by means of anecdote (same of course goes for those dismissing the results out-of-hand as excessively high).
I am less concerned about the exact percentage, and more concerned by the fact that indicators point to the number be so high that MiM would find them unrealistic; that it's a lot more than many people suppose.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 01:34:26 PM
And the number of convictions is not terribly helpful in determine the prevalence of a crime. Most crimes of all sorts go undetected. Never mind an offence like sexual assault where our conviction rate is notoriously terrible.
Agreed - but we shouldn't replace conviction rate with anecdote.
Here's a PDF of a Canadian article on the statistics. It indicates around 1.9 incidents per 100 people per year of "sexual assault" (a term which includes both "sexual attack" and "unwanted sexual touching"). Thus, assuming each incident involved a different person ((I am assuming that each "incident" is an individual reporting they were assaulted that year), the maximum rate would be about 2% per year. However, the rate of the more serious "sexual attack" is much lower - about 0.4 per 100 (using the same assumption, 0.4%/person/year).
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2008019-eng.pdf
Here's some highlights:
QuoteAccording to the 2004 GSS, there were about 512,000 incidents of sexual assault, representing a rate of 1,977 incidents per 100,000 population aged 15 and older. Given that most sexual assaults go unreported, police-reported sexual assault counts are notably lower, with about 24,200 sexual offences recorded by police in 2007.
Victimization data suggest that the rates of sexual assault remained stable in recent years. However, police-reported data reveal a steady decline in offences coming to the attention of law enforcement for more than a decade.
The majority of sexual offences in Canada are of a less severe nature. Victimization data indicate that most sexual assaults involved unwanted sexual touching (81%) rather than more severe sexual attacks (19%). Among the incidents that came to the attention of police in 2007, the large majority (86%) were level 1, the least serious form of sexual assault.
When asked why they did not tell the police about the sexual assault, a majority of victims (58%) said that they did not report the incident because it was not important enough.
Some definitions:
QuoteSexual assault: A term used to refer to all incidents of unwanted sexual activity, including
sexual attacks and sexual touching.
General Social Survey (GSS)
To assess whether the respondent had been a victim of a sexual attack, the GSS asked
respondents aged 15 years and older if anyone had forced or attempted to force them into any
unwanted sexual activity by threatening them, holding them down or hurting them within the 12
months preceding the survey. To assess the prevalence of unwanted sexual touching,
respondents were asked if anyone had ever touched them in a sexual way against their will,
including acts of grabbing, kissing or fondling, using the following questions:
Sexual attack: During the past 12 months, has anyone forced you or attempted to force you into
any unwanted sexual activity, by threatening you, holding you down or hurting you in some
way?
Unwanted sexual touching: During the past 12 months, has anyone ever touched you against
your will in any sexual way? By this I mean anything from unwanted touching or grabbing, to
kissing or fondling.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 01:58:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2012, 08:45:37 AMThere is no doubt that sexual violence is a serious problem. However, there is also no doubt that the statistics used to demonstrate this are not very reliable.
The problem is that the definition is pretty elastic. If you include "unwanted sexual advances" you would, honestly, get a very high, and perhaps universal, number - I've had those myself, from both men and women, and I'm hardly the main target. OTOH there is considerable underreporting for the reasons you note.
To say this is not to "dismiss and ridicule" the problem or the victims of it. I disagree that the numbers are of no significance. The reason for generating the numbers in the first place is so as to rank the significance of the problem vs. other problems. This leads advocates of all sorts into a sort of spiral of escalation - how many have been sexually assaulted, how many have been a victim of racial or sexual discrimination, how many have been bullied, etc. Given that resources to do something about these various problems are limited, saying that they are all of the first importance as demonstrated by statistics showing a high incidence of incidents is functionally the same as saying that none of them are.
That being noted, there is no doubt that for cultural reasons this was an issue fundamentally underplayed and swept under the carpet in the past.
What do you mean by 'limited resources'?
I don't think anyone in this thread - nor in the general public discussion of the issue, such as it is - has called for, say, increased prosecution of unwanted sexual advances; so I'm not sure which resources you're talking about.
I agree with you that definitions seem pretty elastic some times and that, combined with the sensitive nature of the subject, can complicate the discussion.
If we're speaking of 'unwanted sexual advances' my assumption is that it's physical, but falls short of rape.
I don't think we're taking resources away from dealing with rape if we draw attention to the fact that unwanted sexual advances happen with disturbing frequency, that many women experience them and that this is terrible. I don't think we're taking resources away from dealing with rape if we, as individuals, make it clear that unwanted sexual advances are unacceptable and we exact a social price from the people who make them in our social circle. And I don't think we're taking resources away from dealing with rape if making unwanted sexual advances in the work place or other professional situations has significant impact on someone's career; yes, that leaves people potentially vulnerable to false accusations but the way to deal with that is to make sure you're never in a situation where that would be credible. We're already seeing that - professors leaving their office doors open when they're speaking with students, managers refraining from trying to sleep with the hot secretary even though she may be interested etc.
So yeah... I think we can have the conversations, we can raise some awareness, we can shift some social behaviour and all of that can (and is, I think) improve things.
You are not I think getting my point. I'm arguing why actual, unbiased statistics are important for framing public policy ... and why advocates quite naturally tend to inflate them.
Say we have public policy issues A, B and C. If you advocate for issue A, you would quite naturally want the public to believe that issue A is a more serious problem than B or C, so as to get what you consider the necessary level of public support behind the effort to eradicate problem A.
Thing is, those advocating for issues B and C are doing the same ...
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2012, 01:38:23 PM'm not going to accept the premise that any random woman is batter able to analyze her gender's issues than I am.
Neither Meri nor Brazen are random women.
Aren't they? I suppose they're not random in that I know who they are, but they seem rather normal, being neither rich nor poor, not having any exotic practices, doing regular jobs.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 29, 2012, 01:51:33 PM
Look, it's ultimately the rapist's "fault", but women (and men) should also exercise risk management. Try to go out at night with a trusted friend that will watch your back (one that is truly vetted and good). Do not hang out with a male acquaintances alone. I have taken women out that hardly knew me in circumstances "as a friend" they should not have agreed to. For example, one to a secluded ranch because she liked horses. Another I drove 40 minutes away from her apartment to my hotel room without prior notice, and she even agreed to a drink. These women genuinely were not seeking sex, but I could have easily stepped over the line.
We could also go over best practices in school setting, church setting, even extended family setting (rape by relative), but the point is to get into a risk management mindset for both victim, possible rapist, and leadership/authorities.
Reminds me of this list of "how to avoid rape" tips I saw recently:
Quote1. Don't put drugs in women's drinks.
2. When you see a woman walking by herself, leave her alone.
3. If you pull over to help a woman whose car has broken down, remember not to rape her.
4. If you are in an elevator and a woman gets in, don't rape her.
5. When you encounter a woman who is asleep, the safest course of action is to not rape her.
6. Never creep into a woman's home through an unlocked door or window, or spring out at her from between parked cars, or rape her.
7. Remember, people go to the laundry room to do their laundry. Do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.
8. Use the Buddy System! If it is inconvenient for you to stop yourself from raping women, ask a trusted friend to accompany you at all times.
9. Carry a rape whistle. If you find that you are about to rape someone, blow the whistle until someone comes to stop you.
10. Don't forget: Honesty is the best policy. When asking a woman out on a date, don't pretend that you are interested in her as a person; tell her straight up that you expect to be raping her later. If you don't communicate your intentions, the woman may take it as a sign that you do not plan to rape her.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:10:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2012, 01:50:07 PM
Well, either she is right on this point or the survey is. They can't both be right, as the survey only has the rate at 25%.
Hence the difficulty of evaluating statistics by means of anecdote (same of course goes for those dismissing the results out-of-hand as excessively high).
I am less concerned about the exact percentage, and more concerned by the fact that indicators point to the number be so high that MiM would find them unrealistic; that it's a lot more than many people suppose.
Well yes, certainly.
But that doesn't mean that the numbers passed about are not misleading.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:59:23 PM
Is it a shitty situation? Yes, it is.
Is it though? I have to wonder in what Berk highlighted if a bigger issue would be people telling her its shitty and that it's sexual assault/rape. What would really just be an unfortunate bit of sex could be spun into a traumatic event but I'm not sure why on the measure it'd be best to take it as such.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:09:23 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 29, 2012, 02:07:32 PM
I was in this situation two years ago. She was naked and oral sex had occurred. But she was about the whole "need a boyfriend/girlfriend label" before vaginal sex, but not forcefully protesting. So I pulled back, but I was sober. If I was younger (stupid) and had been drinking...
And she probably would have convinced herself to keep fucking me in later liaisons to legitimize it. I hate the way this shit works.
You should just avoid women entirely. ;)
Since age 21, that's what I have done to a certain extent. :D
1. Eliminated the "need" to pursue women. The sexual desire remains, but now I don't play the game "you interested/not interested?" No need to prove my manhood to anybody. Keep my sexual activity private.
2. Pursuing personal/professional development and good works attracts women on its own. I don't have to chase into grey areas anymore. You either want me or you don't. Confident, direct women approach me, and I like that communication.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 02:17:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:59:23 PM
Is it a shitty situation? Yes, it is.
Is it though? I have to wonder in what Berk highlighted if a bigger issue would be people telling her its shitty and that it's sexual assault/rape. What would really just be an unfortunate bit of sex could be spun into a traumatic event but I'm not sure why on the measure it'd be best to take it as such.
Because people love drama.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 01:39:57 PM
Yes. Without any doubt. Sexual assault is a sex act without consent. Sarah did not consent.
Do you have to get a verbal "yes" before you proceed? :huh:
Weird definitions Malthus - to me there's a huge range of sexual assaults inbetween an unwanted touching, and a sex assault where you are held down, hurt or threatened (such as Berkut's date rape example).
By asking women over the age of 15 you're also leaving out a lot of victims...
I am never going to allow myself to be alone with a woman ever again. There has to be a witness to my innocence. Also, I am going to require my wife to sign a release form every night before entering the bedroom.
:huh:
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2012, 02:15:12 PMYou are not I think getting my point. I'm arguing why actual, unbiased statistics are important for framing public policy ... and why advocates quite naturally tend to inflate them.
Say we have public policy issues A, B and C. If you advocate for issue A, you would quite naturally want the public to believe that issue A is a more serious problem than B or C, so as to get what you consider the necessary level of public support behind the effort to eradicate problem A.
Thing is, those advocating for issues B and C are doing the same ...
That's great. You're not getting my point.
But yeah, I agree that unbiased statistics are important for framing public policy :)
In some cases, credible and useful statistics are harder to come by - i.e. do we base public policy on rape and sexual behaviour on convicted sex offences? On cases reported to law enforcement?
However, I wasn't talking about public policy, I was talking about individual attitudes, experiences, and behaviour.
QuoteUnwanted sexual touching: During the past 12 months, has anyone ever touched you against
your will in any sexual way? By this I mean anything from unwanted touching or grabbing, to
kissing or fondling.
Well geez. That is sure broad.
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 01:39:57 PM
Yes. Without any doubt. Sexual assault is a sex act without consent. Sarah did not consent.
Do you have to get a verbal "yes" before you proceed? :huh:
If you've gotten a verbal "no", then absolutely you'd better get a verbal "yes" before proceeding.
Look - there are some grey areas here. If you're told "well I have a headache", or "I'm feeling tired", then while it would still be without consent, you may have an 'honest but mistaken belief in consent'.
But as they say, "no means no".
Quote from: Phillip V on October 29, 2012, 02:18:07 PM
2. Pursuing personal/professional development and good works attracts women on its own.
Wow it does? That must be nice.
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2012, 02:21:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 02:17:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:59:23 PM
Is it a shitty situation? Yes, it is.
Is it though? I have to wonder in what Berk highlighted if a bigger issue would be people telling her its shitty and that it's sexual assault/rape. What would really just be an unfortunate bit of sex could be spun into a traumatic event but I'm not sure why on the measure it'd be best to take it as such.
Because people love drama.
The problem is that such a) can scar people over what was simply an unfortunate sexual encounter / poor decision making and b) makes it terrifying to ever engage in sex as everyone has to come out of the sexual encounter happy or it's possible that it'll be labeled sexual assault/rape.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 02:17:42 PMIs it though? I have to wonder in what Berk highlighted if a bigger issue would be people telling her its shitty and that it's sexual assault/rape. What would really just be an unfortunate bit of sex could be spun into a traumatic event but I'm not sure why on the measure it'd be best to take it as such.
In my limited observation, more people tend to want to spin sexual assault/ rape as "an unfortunate bit of sex" than the other way, including the victims. Most people don't want to be victims.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:16:53 PM
Reminds me of this list of "how to avoid rape" tips I saw recently:
Quote1. Don't put drugs in women's drinks.
2. When you see a woman walking by herself, leave her alone.
3. If you pull over to help a woman whose car has broken down, remember not to rape her.
4. If you are in an elevator and a woman gets in, don't rape her.
5. When you encounter a woman who is asleep, the safest course of action is to not rape her.
6. Never creep into a woman's home through an unlocked door or window, or spring out at her from between parked cars, or rape her.
7. Remember, people go to the laundry room to do their laundry. Do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.
8. Use the Buddy System! If it is inconvenient for you to stop yourself from raping women, ask a trusted friend to accompany you at all times.
9. Carry a rape whistle. If you find that you are about to rape someone, blow the whistle until someone comes to stop you.
10. Don't forget: Honesty is the best policy. When asking a woman out on a date, don't pretend that you are interested in her as a person; tell her straight up that you expect to be raping her later. If you don't communicate your intentions, the woman may take it as a sign that you do not plan to rape her.
You know, shit like this pisses me off.
No, not every man is a potential rapist.
I'm all for better education about what consent actually means, and about teaching boundaries. But if you take the attitude that every man is a potential rapist you're just going to tune out the messenger.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:22:13 PM
I am never going to allow myself to be alone with a woman ever again. There has to be a witness to my innocence. Also, I am going to require my wife to sign a release form every night before entering the bedroom.
:huh:
:rolleyes:
Although I'll tell you - I do not meet sexual assault victims alone. Ever. It's always in a public place, or with a witness present.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:25:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 02:17:42 PMIs it though? I have to wonder in what Berk highlighted if a bigger issue would be people telling her its shitty and that it's sexual assault/rape. What would really just be an unfortunate bit of sex could be spun into a traumatic event but I'm not sure why on the measure it'd be best to take it as such.
In my limited observation, more people tend to want to spin sexual assault/ rape as "an unfortunate bit of sex" than the other way, including the victims. Most people don't want to be victims.
I think that's probably the case but I still think what I said is true regarding B's hypothetical and Meri's reaction.
I thought Jacob's little list was more 'don't be a total monster and you will never rape/sexually assualt anybody' which is the black/white attitude that I don't think is very helpful in understanding why it occurs. But not that 'every man is a rapist' it seemed more directed towards rapists not wanting to be rapists or something.
It may have also been a joke about how sometimes people spin it as the rapist is the victim of the accusation.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:22:13 PM
I am never going to allow myself to be alone with a woman ever again. There has to be a witness to my innocence. Also, I am going to require my wife to sign a release form every night before entering the bedroom.
:huh:
No shit. Going by some definitions I probably "sexually assault" my wife almost every night-- sometimes involuntarily and/or while I'm asleep!
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 02:31:30 PM
No shit. Going by some definitions I probably "sexually assault" my wife almost every night-- sometimes involuntarily and/or while I'm asleep!
Well sometimes she will come up and start kissing on me but I am not in the mood. I guess unwanted sexual touching just occured. They at least have to mention that you told them to stop and they did not stop or something. Otherwise that definition is just ridiculous.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:25:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 02:17:42 PMIs it though? I have to wonder in what Berk highlighted if a bigger issue would be people telling her its shitty and that it's sexual assault/rape. What would really just be an unfortunate bit of sex could be spun into a traumatic event but I'm not sure why on the measure it'd be best to take it as such.
In my limited observation, more people tend to want to spin sexual assault/ rape as "an unfortunate bit of sex" than the other way, including the victims. Most people don't want to be victims.
Not to mention that most people don't want their own past pulled out and danced around a courtroom to prove that they're pure enough to mean no when they said it.
Look, I was a victim of date-rape when I was in high school. I was drunk, he was drunk, but I very clearly said no. Several times. He really couldn't have cared less what I said, and he was bigger and stronger than I was. I never told anyone because I knew that ultimately, I would end up the one labeled, not him. He did one better. He told everyone that I'd begged him for it, gave it up in glee, and asked if he would call me again. How could I then come out and say, "Actually, this is what happened."? Who would have believed me? People would have just assumed that I was claiming rape because he never called me again.
It was traumatic because of how it happened, and the fall-out from it. (Luckily, I was self-possessed enough to get through the school gossip fairly intact.) The situation that Berkut outlined was different, but if she's said no and she knew she wasn't ready and HE knew she wasn't ready, then going forward with it is going to end up pretty awful for her. Not only that, but I can't imagine the relationship being very successful after that, either.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:33:55 PM
He did one better. He told everyone that I'd begged him for it, gave it up in glee, and asked if he would call me again. How could I then come out and say, "Actually, this is what happened."? Who would have believed me? People would have just assumed that I was claiming rape because he never called me again.
Wow...it is like you were dating Caligula or something.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 02:21:38 PM
Weird definitions Malthus - to me there's a huge range of sexual assaults inbetween an unwanted touching, and a sex assault where you are held down, hurt or threatened (such as Berkut's date rape example).
By asking women over the age of 15 you're also leaving out a lot of victims...
I assume the age 15 cut-off was because it is very, very difficult to survey children both practically and ethically - and you don't want to mix statistics derived from police reports (which significantly under-report incidents) with survey data.
The definitions at the least differentiate "sexual attack" from "unwanted touching". They divvy it up this way, allegedly, to correspond to grades of charges that would be laid in each case.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:35:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:33:55 PM
He did one better. He told everyone that I'd begged him for it, gave it up in glee, and asked if he would call me again. How could I then come out and say, "Actually, this is what happened."? Who would have believed me? People would have just assumed that I was claiming rape because he never called me again.
Wow...it is like you were dating Caligula or something.
I wasn't dating him. He and I were at a party at his cousin's house. He took me to his cousin's room when I asked where the bathroom was.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 02:26:39 PMYou know, shit like this pisses me off.
No, not every man is a potential rapist.
I'm all for better education about what consent actually means, and about teaching boundaries. But if you take the attitude that every man is a potential rapist you're just going to tune out the messenger.
I think you're taking this the wrong way. This list doesn't imply that every man is a rapist. It's simply an inversion of the usual "how to avoid being raped" lists given out to young women, placing the responsibility where it belongs: on the rapist, not the victim.
I mean... I guess that it does imply it a little bit, but that's only because the lists this one is a response to does encourage women to think of all men as potential rapists; but I'd say this list has less of that implication.
But if we're talking about risk management to help people avoid being in an unfortunate situation involving rape, I'd think that telling people who may rape someone what constitutes rape (i.e. if they're sleeping, don't do it) is as valid as telling potential victims what situations to avoid.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:33:55 PM
It was traumatic because of how it happened, and the fall-out from it. (Luckily, I was self-possessed enough to get through the school gossip fairly intact.) The situation that Berkut outlined was different, but if she's said no and she knew she wasn't ready and HE knew she wasn't ready, then going forward with it is going to end up pretty awful for her. Not only that, but I can't imagine the relationship being very successful after that, either.
Is it the readiness part that makes it rape/sexual assualt? As in - if she'd already had intercourse before with him then it wouldn't be rape?
I'm thinking you'll say no but then I'm not sure how you balance the fact that she eventually let it happen - with really no show of force on his part.
I'll spin out two personal examples (one of which I've shared in the past).
1) There was a fellow student (upperclassman) who I once slept with and then later went to visit in city. By the time we got into his bed - it was like 3 am and I was drunk and just ready for sleep. Of course as he had me in his bed he was ready to go. I slapped his hand away several times and told him I wasn't up for it. He kept insisting and though I'd said no several times - essentially used me as a masturbatory toy before nodding off. Was I sexually assaulted? His penis was on me when I didn't want it.
2) I met a guy while drunk at a bar and agreed to go to his place. We were messing around when he stated that he wanted me to fuck him. I said no as I was drunk and didn't think I was capable of making good decisions. All of that said out loud. Little bits of time would past and he'd suggest again to which I said no. At one point he tried to sneak a condom onto me. I should have left but I was so tired that we both agreed to just go to sleep. Next morning I woke up with a condom on and he was fucking himself on me. I quickly threw him off and was like I was pretty clear on that last night. Was sexually assaulted/raped?
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:41:15 PM
But if we're talking about risk management to help people avoid being in an unfortunate situation involving rape, I'd think that telling people who may rape someone what constitutes rape (i.e. if they're sleeping, don't do it) is as valid as telling potential victims what situations to avoid.
I think this is true. But the tone of the list was making a joke of the whole thing. Now nothing unusual about rape jokes on this site granted.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:29:50 PMIt may have also been a joke about how sometimes people spin it as the rapist is the victim of the accusation.
I'm actually surprised at the reaction... yes, it's a joke, inverting the typical "young ladies, this is what you have to do to avoid being raped" list that have been around for a while.
It's obviously absurd. I mean, "carry a whistle and if you're about to rape someone, whistle until someone arrives and stops you"? How can that be anything other than a joke?
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:35:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:33:55 PM
He did one better. He told everyone that I'd begged him for it, gave it up in glee, and asked if he would call me again. How could I then come out and say, "Actually, this is what happened."? Who would have believed me? People would have just assumed that I was claiming rape because he never called me again.
Wow...it is like you were dating Caligula or something.
But Meri--did you fight? I assume from your story that you didn't do anything about it. Did you think nobody would help you or take you seriously? I mean, people throw the R word around like it's jellybeans on Halloween, but you can still get major help if you come forward. I guarantee not everyone would buy the story the guy was throwing around.
Maybe I'm being naive again.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:40:24 PM
I wasn't dating him. He and I were at a party at his cousin's house. He took me to his cousin's room when I asked where the bathroom was.
Ah so date-rape is any rape that takes place in a social setting?
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:44:31 PM
I'm actually surprised at the reaction... yes, it's a joke, inverting the typical "young ladies, this is what you have to do to avoid being raped" list that have been around for a while.
It's obviously absurd. I mean, "carry a whistle and if you're about to rape someone, whistle until someone arrives and stops you"? How can that be anything other than a joke?
I think we all knew it was a joke Jacob :P
Well ok maybe not BB.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:33:06 PMWell sometimes she will come up and start kissing on me but I am not in the mood. I guess unwanted sexual touching just occured. They at least have to mention that you told them to stop and they did not stop or something. Otherwise that definition is just ridiculous.
It's almost as if context makes a difference.
Like... if you're in a long term sexual relationship with someone, know each other well including non-verbal cues, it's a different than if you do it to someone you've just met and who's almost passed out.
Nothing hotter than a woman who has to pee. :P
What a douche.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:47:12 PM
It's almost as if context makes a difference.
Indeed. But even when you are dating and have just met somebody somebody might slip up and go too far. The other person says 'um...so ma'am/sir' and that person stops. I don't think that qualifies to me.
But this definition makes no requirement for context.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:40:24 PM
I wasn't dating him. He and I were at a party at his cousin's house. He took me to his cousin's room when I asked where the bathroom was.
Ah so date-rape is any rape that takes place in a social setting?
Well it is also called acquaintance rape in some places.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:43:45 PMI think this is true. But the tone of the list was making a joke of the whole thing. Now nothing unusual about rape jokes on this site granted.
You're right, it was a joke. However, I thought it had some merit in that it reversed the usual subject and tone of the joke. Most rape jokes treat the act of rape and/or the rape victim as the punchline. This joke relied on absurdity; it's very different, IMO.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:47:28 PM
Nothing hotter than a woman who has to pee. :P
What a douche.
Seriously the guy sounds like a sociopath.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:23:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2012, 02:15:12 PMYou are not I think getting my point. I'm arguing why actual, unbiased statistics are important for framing public policy ... and why advocates quite naturally tend to inflate them.
Say we have public policy issues A, B and C. If you advocate for issue A, you would quite naturally want the public to believe that issue A is a more serious problem than B or C, so as to get what you consider the necessary level of public support behind the effort to eradicate problem A.
Thing is, those advocating for issues B and C are doing the same ...
That's great. You're not getting my point.
But yeah, I agree that unbiased statistics are important for framing public policy :)
In some cases, credible and useful statistics are harder to come by - i.e. do we base public policy on rape and sexual behaviour on convicted sex offences? On cases reported to law enforcement?
However, I wasn't talking about public policy, I was talking about individual attitudes, experiences, and behaviour.
No, there are good reasons for not basing it on police data - that police data significantly under-reports incidents, as everyone knows.
That doesn't mean simply throwing our hands in the air and making stuff up that sounds about right based on anecdotal impressions. Rather, we should base it on what more or less sound statistical data is available. I linked to some.
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:22:13 PM
I am never going to allow myself to be alone with a woman ever again. There has to be a witness to my innocence. Also, I am going to require my wife to sign a release form every night before entering the bedroom.
:huh:
No shit. Going by some definitions I probably "sexually assault" my wife almost every night-- sometimes involuntarily and/or while I'm asleep!
That is a bit of a theoretical problem. The way Canadian law is, you can not consent to sexual activity if you're unconscious, and if you lose consciousness any prior consent is vitiated. So, if you're significant other is asleep it is technically against the law to initiate any kind of sex act.
That being said - have you ever heard of anyone being charged with sex assault in that kind of scenario? Of course not. The system has common sense.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:51:20 PM
You're right, it was a joke. However, I thought it had some merit in that it reversed the usual subject and tone of the joke. Most rape jokes treat the act of rape and/or the rape victim as the punchline. This joke relied on absurdity; it's very different, IMO.
Well in the context of knowing it was reversing a list telling women how to avoid being raped it makes alot more sense :P
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 02:43:42 PM
Is it the readiness part that makes it rape/sexual assualt? As in - if she'd already had intercourse before with him then it wouldn't be rape?
I'm thinking you'll say no but then I'm not sure how you balance the fact that she eventually let it happen - with really no show of force on his part.
She let it happen with no show of force, but with considerable pressure towards the end on the part of the guy after she had clearly said no. That makes it rape.
QuoteI'll spin out two personal examples (one of which I've shared in the past).
1) There was a fellow student (upperclassman) who I once slept with and then later went to visit in city. By the time we got into his bed - it was like 3 am and I was drunk and just ready for sleep. Of course as he had me in his bed he was ready to go. I slapped his hand away several times and told him I wasn't up for it. He kept insisting and though I'd said no several times - essentially used me as a masturbatory toy before nodding off. Was I sexually assaulted? His penis was on me when I didn't want it.
2) I met a guy while drunk at a bar and agreed to go to his place. We were messing around when he stated that he wanted me to fuck him. I said no as I was drunk and didn't think I was capable of making good decisions. All of that said out loud. Little bits of time would past and he'd suggest again to which I said no. At one point he tried to sneak a condom onto me. I should have left but I was so tired that we both agreed to just go to sleep. Next morning I woke up with a condom on and he was fucking himself on me. I quickly threw him off and was like I was pretty clear on that last night. Was sexually assaulted/raped?
I would say yes in both situations. You clearly said no and were not only ignored but used for their sexual pleasure anyway. That is very clearly sexual assault/rape.
How you chose to deal with it is entirely up to you. Not everyone can shrug something like that off. It depends entirely on their own history, experiences, and mental well-being. But how the victim deals with what happened doesn't change what the action was.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:43:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:41:15 PM
But if we're talking about risk management to help people avoid being in an unfortunate situation involving rape, I'd think that telling people who may rape someone what constitutes rape (i.e. if they're sleeping, don't do it) is as valid as telling potential victims what situations to avoid.
I think this is true. But the tone of the list was making a joke of the whole thing. Now nothing unusual about rape jokes on this site granted.
Now that is just nasty.
Valmy sticks the dagger in ... :D
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
The system has common sense.
I think it's unwise to trust your life to the common sense of a system.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:33:55 PM
It was traumatic because of how it happened, and the fall-out from it. (Luckily, I was self-possessed enough to get through the school gossip fairly intact.) The situation that Berkut outlined was different, but if she's said no and she knew she wasn't ready and HE knew she wasn't ready, then going forward with it is going to end up pretty awful for her. Not only that, but I can't imagine the relationship being very successful after that, either.
Is it the readiness part that makes it rape/sexual assualt? As in - if she'd already had intercourse before with him then it wouldn't be rape?
I'm thinking you'll say no but then I'm not sure how you balance the fact that she eventually let it happen - with really no show of force on his part.
I'll spin out two personal examples (one of which I've shared in the past).
1) There was a fellow student (upperclassman) who I once slept with and then later went to visit in city. By the time we got into his bed - it was like 3 am and I was drunk and just ready for sleep. Of course as he had me in his bed he was ready to go. I slapped his hand away several times and told him I wasn't up for it. He kept insisting and though I'd said no several times - essentially used me as a masturbatory toy before nodding off. Was I sexually assaulted? His penis was on me when I didn't want it.
2) I met a guy while drunk at a bar and agreed to go to his place. We were messing around when he stated that he wanted me to fuck him. I said no as I was drunk and didn't think I was capable of making good decisions. All of that said out loud. Little bits of time would past and he'd suggest again to which I said no. At one point he tried to sneak a condom onto me. I should have left but I was so tired that we both agreed to just go to sleep. Next morning I woke up with a condom on and he was fucking himself on me. I quickly threw him off and was like I was pretty clear on that last night. Was sexually assaulted/raped?
You were unequivocally the victim of a sexual assault in both cases. :(
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:51:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:43:45 PMI think this is true. But the tone of the list was making a joke of the whole thing. Now nothing unusual about rape jokes on this site granted.
You're right, it was a joke. However, I thought it had some merit in that it reversed the usual subject and tone of the joke. Most rape jokes treat the act of rape and/or the rape victim as the punchline. This joke relied on absurdity; it's very different, IMO.
Makes a punchline out of the common dude who would never hurt anyone.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:54:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 02:43:42 PM
Is it the readiness part that makes it rape/sexual assualt? As in - if she'd already had intercourse before with him then it wouldn't be rape?
I'm thinking you'll say no but then I'm not sure how you balance the fact that she eventually let it happen - with really no show of force on his part.
She let it happen with no show of force, but with considerable pressure towards the end on the part of the guy after she had clearly said no. That makes it rape.
QuoteI'll spin out two personal examples (one of which I've shared in the past).
1) There was a fellow student (upperclassman) who I once slept with and then later went to visit in city. By the time we got into his bed - it was like 3 am and I was drunk and just ready for sleep. Of course as he had me in his bed he was ready to go. I slapped his hand away several times and told him I wasn't up for it. He kept insisting and though I'd said no several times - essentially used me as a masturbatory toy before nodding off. Was I sexually assaulted? His penis was on me when I didn't want it.
2) I met a guy while drunk at a bar and agreed to go to his place. We were messing around when he stated that he wanted me to fuck him. I said no as I was drunk and didn't think I was capable of making good decisions. All of that said out loud. Little bits of time would past and he'd suggest again to which I said no. At one point he tried to sneak a condom onto me. I should have left but I was so tired that we both agreed to just go to sleep. Next morning I woke up with a condom on and he was fucking himself on me. I quickly threw him off and was like I was pretty clear on that last night. Was sexually assaulted/raped?
I would say yes in both situations. You clearly said no and were not only ignored but used for their sexual pleasure anyway. That is very clearly sexual assault/rape.
How you chose to deal with it is entirely up to you. Not everyone can shrug something like that off. It depends entirely on their own history, experiences, and mental well-being. But how the victim deals with what happened doesn't change what the action was.
I don't see the usefulness in describing those as sexual assault/rape (which previously Languish had decided example 2 was not rape). I certainly learned from both what I'm wiling to put up with and also about the effects of alcohol on decision making but saying I was sexually assaulted adds a whole ominous tone to those encounters that I didn't feel then or now. Otherwise, one is saying objectively that in both cases those men should have faced criminal penalties. I don't see why that's true.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:40:24 PM
I wasn't dating him. He and I were at a party at his cousin's house. He took me to his cousin's room when I asked where the bathroom was.
Ah so date-rape is any rape that takes place in a social setting?
Date rape is a fairly useless term.
I'd stick with "rape where the victim knows the identity of the attacker".
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:45:17 PM
But Meri--did you fight? I assume from your story that you didn't do anything about it. Did you think nobody would help you or take you seriously? I mean, people throw the R word around like it's jellybeans on Halloween, but you can still get major help if you come forward. I guarantee not everyone would buy the story the guy was throwing around.
Maybe I'm being naive again.
This was in 1987, MiM. I was drunk. I fought as much as I could, but no, I didn't try to claw his eyes out. I just wanted him off me. On top of that, I was 17 years old. I still cared more about people liking me than taking care of myself, and I didn't want to make a fuss over something I honestly believed (and still believe) no one would have listened to. Besides, I wasn't a virgin, which would have automatically made anything that I said suspect.
You really don't understand, do you? It would have been a he said/she said situation. We were drunk. He would have claimed that I voluntarily went to the bedroom with him. He was better known (read: more popular), and I wasn't a virgin. The only people who would have believed me would have been my friends. Hell, I wouldn't have been surprised that if I told my parents that they wouldn't have blamed me. My brother was at the party with me, and he didn't believe me (he was the only person I told at the time), so why would I expect anyone else to do so?
On more than one occasion I was groped by a woman in a bar after telling her not to do so. But that's not sexual assault, that's just shit that happens.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:45:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:35:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 02:33:55 PM
He did one better. He told everyone that I'd begged him for it, gave it up in glee, and asked if he would call me again. How could I then come out and say, "Actually, this is what happened."? Who would have believed me? People would have just assumed that I was claiming rape because he never called me again.
Wow...it is like you were dating Caligula or something.
But Meri--did you fight? I assume from your story that you didn't do anything about it. Did you think nobody would help you or take you seriously? I mean, people throw the R word around like it's jellybeans on Halloween, but you can still get major help if you come forward. I guarantee not everyone would buy the story the guy was throwing around.
Maybe I'm being naive again.
I don't know what to tell you MIM.
Malthus will yell at me for using anecdotes, but I have prosecuted a few dozen rape cases. I can think of precisely two where the victim yelled, screamed and ran out of the house.
For whatever reason - the impairing effects of alcohol or drugs, the sheer shock and surprise at what is happening, the sense of shame and embarassment - Meri's reaction seems quite typical.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 03:01:32 PM
This was in 1987, MiM. I was drunk. I fought as much as I could, but no, I didn't try to claw his eyes out. I just wanted him off me. On top of that, I was 17 years old. I still cared more about people liking me than taking care of myself, and I didn't want to make a fuss over something I honestly believed (and still believe) no one would have listened to. Besides, I wasn't a virgin, which would have automatically made anything that I said suspect.
You really don't understand, do you? It would have been a he said/she said situation. We were drunk. He would have claimed that I voluntarily went to the bedroom with him. He was better known (read: more popular), and I wasn't a virgin. The only people who would have believed me would have been my friends. Hell, I wouldn't have been surprised that if I told my parents that they wouldn't have blamed me. My brother was at the party with me, and he didn't believe me (he was the only person I told at the time), so why would I expect anyone else to do so?
Honestly, I don't know that I would have done anything differently. Maybe on some level I really don't understand--it's possible. I mean guys are less risk-averse and everything in my being would say fight fight fight until somebody can't fight anymore. I feel for you though. There's no good way out of that and you probably did the right thing under the circumstances.
This thread has made me hate humanity.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:01:05 PM
I don't see the usefulness in describing those as sexual assault/rape (which previously Languish had decided example 2 was not rape). I certainly learned from both what I'm wiling to put up with and also about the effects of alcohol on decision making but saying I was sexually assaulted adds a whole ominous tone to those encounters that I didn't feel then or now. Otherwise, one is saying objectively that in both cases those men should have faced criminal penalties. I don't see why that's true.
Garbo, I'm glad you don't feel victimized, but how is what you've described not a sexual assault? As you said - they did sexual acts with you you didn't want. It's the very definition of sexual assault.
Those men should have faced criminal penalties so they didn't sexually assault more people in the future. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:05:47 PM
I don't know what to tell you MIM.
Malthus will yell at me for using anecdotes, but I have prosecuted a few dozen rape cases. I can think of precisely two where the victim yelled, screamed and ran out of the house.
For whatever reason - the impairing effects of alcohol or drugs, the sheer shock and surprise at what is happening, the sense of shame and embarassment - Meri's reaction seems quite typical.
That actually makes me feel a little better about the situation, BB. I always kind of felt a little sick that I didn't do more to make it stop. I mean, I don't still feel traumatized by the situation anymore. I dealt with all of that a long time ago. But that doesn't mean that I don't still relive it on occasion, wishing that I'd done things differently or imagining how I would handle the situation if it were to happen today.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:08:20 PM
Garbo, I'm glad you don't feel victimized, but how is what you've described not a sexual assault? As you said - they did sexual acts with you you didn't want. It's the very definition of sexual assault.
Those men should have faced criminal penalties so they didn't sexually assault more people in the future. :huh:
But that's what strikes me as odd. 1) by labeling them sexual assault, I'm actually being told that I should feel victimized as I was a victim (unless sexual assault is a victimless crime). That seems not positive for one's psyche. 2) Does either individual sound like someone who is at high risk of actually harming someone? I could have taken both men and in case of scenario 1, definitely could have put a stop to it if I tried hard enough but it was easier to just let him do his quick little thing and be done with it. I guess scenario 2 is a bit more complicated as I could really only have prevented it by going home that night and did in fact put a stop to it when I awoke.
I guess I'm not sure where the line is. If I'm having sex with someone and they decide to come on my chest or face when I was like no, thanks, did they just assault me? How about someone who didn't give you notice they were coming when you were sucking them off with the added bit that you said you don't like to swallow? Is sexual assault just a catch-all for things that happened during sex that you didn't like?
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:01:05 PM
I don't see the usefulness in describing those as sexual assault/rape (which previously Languish had decided example 2 was not rape). I certainly learned from both what I'm wiling to put up with and also about the effects of alcohol on decision making but saying I was sexually assaulted adds a whole ominous tone to those encounters that I didn't feel then or now. Otherwise, one is saying objectively that in both cases those men should have faced criminal penalties. I don't see why that's true.
I wonder if you would still feel the same if you had been penetrated. I honestly don't know if that's a factor or not because I only have one perspective on the situation.
Oddly, even given my personal experiences, were I in your shoes, I probably wouldn't have reported them, either. I wouldn't have seen them again and I would have warned friends about them, but I most likely wouldn't have reported them. Like you, I'd be irritated and I'd feel like I learned a lesson, but yeah, not likely to ruin their lives over the situations as explained.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 02:49:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 02:47:12 PM
It's almost as if context makes a difference.
Indeed. But even when you are dating and have just met somebody somebody might slip up and go too far. The other person says 'um...so ma'am/sir' and that person stops. I don't think that qualifies to me.
But this definition makes no requirement for context.
Which is why it's important to educate people so they're less likely to slip up and go too far.
Look, most of us have been in marginal situations regarding consent. Some of us have probably made decisions which in retrospect were the wrong ones; it can be difficult when we're raised to believe we're the ones supposed to be in charge. That doesn't necessarily make anyone a monster, but I think it's worth making clear that those wrong decisions were in fact wrong and to avoid situations where the context is less than crystal clear.
My concern is much less about the legal code and much more about the attitude we project to our peers and how we educate our sons and daughters.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:05:47 PM
I don't know what to tell you MIM.
Malthus will yell at me for using anecdotes, but I have prosecuted a few dozen rape cases. I can think of precisely two where the victim yelled, screamed and ran out of the house.
For whatever reason - the impairing effects of alcohol or drugs, the sheer shock and surprise at what is happening, the sense of shame and embarassment - Meri's reaction seems quite typical.
Not at all. Anecdotes have their place, it is just they are not very useful for topics like "what is the overall incidence of sexual assault among the population (or some segment of it, like college students)?". The reason: everyone is likely to take their personal experiences as reasonably typical.
Don't worry, I will not yell at you for describing your trial experiences. :hug:
As a matter of fact, my own wife was "sexually assaulted" nearly in front of me - she was groped by a drunk asshole one halloween while we were waiting for a night bus. Her immediate response was to punch the guy in the face, knocking him into the arms of his friends - who dragged him off, backwards. (I only witnessed this last part - I went to look at the schedule, heard the smack of her fist connecting with his face, turned around to see him being dragged off howling, with a bloody nose). I was going to run after the guy and pound him some more, and my friends with me (there were about eight of us waiting for the bus) but she stopped me. Probably for the best. :lol:
She also relates an extremely frightening incident that happened when she was working in Kiev. She was chased down the street at night by a big stranger, and foolishly ran into a deserted building to lose him - fortunately she did (though he followed her in there!). Later, she saw the same guy on the bus, and let him have it - basically yelled in his face that he was a wannabe rapist asshole (he got off the bus).
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:08:20 PM
Garbo, I'm glad you don't feel victimized, but how is what you've described not a sexual assault? As you said - they did sexual acts with you you didn't want. It's the very definition of sexual assault.
Those men should have faced criminal penalties so they didn't sexually assault more people in the future. :huh:
But that's what strikes me as odd. 1) by labeling them sexual assault, I'm actually being told that I should feel victimized as I was a victim (unless sexual assault is a victimless crime). That seems not positive for one's psyche. 2) Does either individual sound like someone who is at high risk of actually harming someone? I could have taken both men and in case of scenario 1, definitely could have put a stop to it if I tried hard enough but it was easier to just let him do his quick little thing and be done with it. I guess scenario 2 is a bit more complicated as I could really only have prevented it by going home that night and did in fact put a stop to it when I awoke.
I guess I'm not sure where the line is. If I'm having sex with someone and they decide to come on my chest or face when I was like no, thanks, did they just assault me? How about someone who didn't give you notice they were coming when you were sucking them off with the added bit that you said you don't like to swallow? Is sexual assault just a catch-all for things that happened during sex that you didn't like?
I am certainly not telling you how to feel. If you don't feel like a victim, don't feel like a victim. There is no right way for a complainant in any crime to feel. I usually ask people "so what d you want to see happen out of this", and get wildly different answers.
The bright line is "no". You said no, and they didn't stop. Do they sound at risk of "harming" someone? Well, yes. Not that they're going to go out and rape someone at knifepoint, but that they'll in future violate the sexual integrity of others. Part performance does predict future results.
And no. I've never seen a charge for an individual element of otherwise consentual acts. As I said the bright line is "no". If it's "yes, but I don't want you to come on my chest", well that's not a "no".
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 02:43:42 PM
I'll spin out two personal examples (one of which I've shared in the past).
1) There was a fellow student (upperclassman) who I once slept with and then later went to visit in city. By the time we got into his bed - it was like 3 am and I was drunk and just ready for sleep. Of course as he had me in his bed he was ready to go. I slapped his hand away several times and told him I wasn't up for it. He kept insisting and though I'd said no several times - essentially used me as a masturbatory toy before nodding off. Was I sexually assaulted? His penis was on me when I didn't want it.
2) I met a guy while drunk at a bar and agreed to go to his place. We were messing around when he stated that he wanted me to fuck him. I said no as I was drunk and didn't think I was capable of making good decisions. All of that said out loud. Little bits of time would past and he'd suggest again to which I said no. At one point he tried to sneak a condom onto me. I should have left but I was so tired that we both agreed to just go to sleep. Next morning I woke up with a condom on and he was fucking himself on me. I quickly threw him off and was like I was pretty clear on that last night. Was sexually assaulted/raped?
Both are shitty situations, and in both cases the guy made the wrong decision.
Were you traumatized by these encounters and thought of yourself as having been raped, I would have no issue agree with that. Conversely, if you're not traumatized and think it's just "a bit unfortunate" or funny or whatever, I'm perfectly fine not calling it rape as well.
Bottom line is, however, that the guys made the wrong decision and failed to get your consent. Had one of them been, say, your boss or professor I'd be perfectly fine with them losing their job over what they did, whether we call it rape or not.
This thread veered into rape?
I've been raped dozens of times by the Amherst standard. I kinda see where Garbo's coming from.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2012, 03:26:11 PM
This thread veered into rape?
Yeah because students are paying fifty grand a year to get raped. :P
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:14:23 PM
But that's what strikes me as odd. 1) by labeling them sexual assault, I'm actually being told that I should feel victimized as I was a victim (unless sexual assault is a victimless crime). That seems not positive for one's psyche. 2) Does either individual sound like someone who is at high risk of actually harming someone? I could have taken both men and in case of scenario 1, definitely could have put a stop to it if I tried hard enough but it was easier to just let him do his quick little thing and be done with it. I guess scenario 2 is a bit more complicated as I could really only have prevented it by going home that night and did in fact put a stop to it when I awoke.
I guess I'm not sure where the line is. If I'm having sex with someone and they decide to come on my chest or face when I was like no, thanks, did they just assault me? How about someone who didn't give you notice they were coming when you were sucking them off with the added bit that you said you don't like to swallow? Is sexual assault just a catch-all for things that happened during sex that you didn't like?
Yeah... this sort of thing informs the debate a fair bit, I think. Most of us have been in situations where consent was blurry, marginal, or absent - whether they were acted on or not. We all have a preferred way of looking at those incidents - whether we want to think of ourselves as victims or not, or whether we 'made a mistake anyone would've made' versus 'I could've made that mistake so easily, thankfully I didn't' versus 'that's how women like it/ it doesn't matter/ she really wanted it'; and that preference colours how we view these discussions a fair bit.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 03:16:42 PM
I wonder if you would still feel the same if you had been penetrated. I honestly don't know if that's a factor or not because I only have one perspective on the situation.
Oddly, even given my personal experiences, were I in your shoes, I probably wouldn't have reported them, either. I wouldn't have seen them again and I would have warned friends about them, but I most likely wouldn't have reported them. Like you, I'd be irritated and I'd feel like I learned a lesson, but yeah, not likely to ruin their lives over the situations as explained.
Yes, I also wonder if penetration is the factor that's different and if I'd have felt differently if they entered me.
And yes I agree with the rest of your paragraph - though that's why I'm hesitant to call it sexual assault - if I didn't think it a crime worth reporting.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 03:19:35 PM
Which is why it's important to educate people so they're less likely to slip up and go too far.
Well I do not see how that is possible. What might be too far for one person might not be for another. Which is why I think it is perfectly fine so long as somebody stops what they are doing when the other person says something.
I guess the alternative is we have very strict codes of etiquette where everything is very strictly controlled via social convention. But we already did that and we rebelled remember? Besides I don't know if that actually reduces rape. But it probably reduces somebody getting a bit too frisky on a date.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 03:26:17 PM
I've been raped dozens of times by the Amherst standard. I kinda see where Garbo's coming from.
You mean like you were by the 21 year old waitress the other day? That's the Amherst standard?
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:21:16 PM
I am certainly not telling you how to feel. If you don't feel like a victim, don't feel like a victim. There is no right way for a complainant in any crime to feel. I usually ask people "so what d you want to see happen out of this", and get wildly different answers.
I see. Put don't you also see how the victim label necessarily makes one have to re-consider whether they should feel like a victim.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:21:16 PMThe bright line is "no". You said no, and they didn't stop. Do they sound at risk of "harming" someone? Well, yes. Not that they're going to go out and rape someone at knifepoint, but that they'll in future violate the sexual integrity of others. Part performance does predict future results.
Not sure I follow the sexual integrity bit. I'm not sure anyone was harmed here other than our relations. :D
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:21:16 PMAnd no. I've never seen a charge for an individual element of otherwise consentual acts. As I said the bright line is "no". If it's "yes, but I don't want you to come on my chest", well that's not a "no".
But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?
And then on that other bit - it is "No, I don't want you to come on my face/in my mouth but I will suck you." There was no consent for the semen deposit - so why does that get a pass?
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 03:23:55 PM
Had one of them been, say, your boss or professor I'd be perfectly fine with them losing their job over what they did, whether we call it rape or not.
Really? I mean I could see them losing their jobs for having sex with me whether or not I gave consent but in general? I mean I went into their bed and in both cases consented to some level of activity (scenario 1 we made out and scenario 2 there was making out and oral) - so it isn't as though the coerced me into having all types of sexual activity.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 03:26:17 PM
I've been raped dozens of times by the Amherst standard. I kinda see where Garbo's coming from.
You mean like you were by the 21 year old waitress the other day? That's the Amherst standard?
No she didn't touch me.
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 03:34:01 PM
Well I do not see how that is possible. What might be too far for one person might not be for another. Which is why I think it is perfectly fine so long as somebody stops what they are doing when the other person says something.
I guess the alternative is we have very strict codes of etiquette where everything is very strictly controlled via social convention. But we already did that and we rebelled remember? Besides I don't know if that actually reduces rape. But it probably reduces somebody getting a bit too frisky on a date.
This why education of both boys and girls is essential. Girls need to learn that "no" is a safeword, not a ploy to appear coy. And boys need to learn that when they hear that, they need to back off and figure out what's really going on. Even if she still pushes forward, the smart boy stops the whole thing and walks away to have a rational, clear conversation before continuing anything. The smart girl doesn't play around when she uses the word "no". She says it loudly, clearly, and definitively. No equivocation.
It all comes down to clear, concise communication on both sides. We need to teach kids this in Sex Ed starting in 6th grade and reiterate it all the way through school.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 03:33:13 PM
Yeah... this sort of thing informs the debate a fair bit, I think. Most of us have been in situations where consent was blurry, marginal, or absent - whether they were acted on or not. We all have a preferred way of looking at those incidents - whether we want to think of ourselves as victims or not, or whether we 'made a mistake anyone would've made' versus 'I could've made that mistake so easily, thankfully I didn't' versus 'that's how women like it/ it doesn't matter/ she really wanted it'; and that preference colours how we view these discussions a fair bit.
I guess that makes sense though I'd say because of my perspective that the line I draw for sexual assault/rape is a bit different...as I'd say scenarios like mine make me thinking that we are cheapening the serious issue of sexual assault/rape. Sort of like the Camille Paglia approach.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:44:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 03:33:13 PM
Yeah... this sort of thing informs the debate a fair bit, I think. Most of us have been in situations where consent was blurry, marginal, or absent - whether they were acted on or not. We all have a preferred way of looking at those incidents - whether we want to think of ourselves as victims or not, or whether we 'made a mistake anyone would've made' versus 'I could've made that mistake so easily, thankfully I didn't' versus 'that's how women like it/ it doesn't matter/ she really wanted it'; and that preference colours how we view these discussions a fair bit.
I guess that makes sense though I'd say because of my perspective that the line I draw for sexual assault/rape is a bit different...as I'd say scenarios like mine make me thinking that we are cheapening the serious issue of sexual assault/rape. Sort of like the Camille Paglia approach.
It SHOULD be serious as hell when someone says the R word. It should make the village round up the posse by default.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:40:13 PM
But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?
You had consented, but then you both decided to go to sleep. At that point your consent ended.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 03:47:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:44:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 03:33:13 PM
Yeah... this sort of thing informs the debate a fair bit, I think. Most of us have been in situations where consent was blurry, marginal, or absent - whether they were acted on or not. We all have a preferred way of looking at those incidents - whether we want to think of ourselves as victims or not, or whether we 'made a mistake anyone would've made' versus 'I could've made that mistake so easily, thankfully I didn't' versus 'that's how women like it/ it doesn't matter/ she really wanted it'; and that preference colours how we view these discussions a fair bit.
I guess that makes sense though I'd say because of my perspective that the line I draw for sexual assault/rape is a bit different...as I'd say scenarios like mine make me thinking that we are cheapening the serious issue of sexual assault/rape. Sort of like the Camille Paglia approach.
It SHOULD be serious as hell when someone says the R word. It should make the village round up the posse by default.
Exactly.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:48:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:40:13 PM
But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?
You had consented, but then you both decided to go to sleep. At that point your consent ended.
Did it though? I think it was fairly reasonable to assume that I'd be up for more of the same the next day - but definitely not the fucking as I'd clearly and physically marked that as a no go zone the night before (although why am I saying night as there was really only a few hours between each :D).
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:48:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:40:13 PM
But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?
You had consented, but then you both decided to go to sleep. At that point your consent ended.
Did it though? I think it was fairly reasonable to assume that I'd be up for more of the same the next day - but definitely not the fucking as I'd clearly and physically marked that as a no go zone the night before (although why am I saying night as there was really only a few hours between each :D).
Yes, it did.
You can't assume once you say no. That's the bright line here.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:47:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2012, 03:26:11 PM
This thread veered into rape?
Thank Philip V
Pat is probably lurking right now, and rubbing himself off while reading this.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:57:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 03:48:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:40:13 PM
But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?
You had consented, but then you both decided to go to sleep. At that point your consent ended.
Did it though? I think it was fairly reasonable to assume that I'd be up for more of the same the next day - but definitely not the fucking as I'd clearly and physically marked that as a no go zone the night before (although why am I saying night as there was really only a few hours between each :D).
Yes, it did.
You can't assume once you say no. That's the bright line here.
But I said no to the fucking several times while we messed around doing other things. It was clear cut where I said no to fucking and then we went to sleep.
Garbo - once you go to sleep consent has ended as a matter of law.
Canadian law of course - it's all I can discuss. But it's at least a useful starting point to the discussion.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 04:00:30 PM
But I said no to the fucking several times while we messed around doing other things. It was clear cut where I said no to fucking and then we went to sleep.
Which is why it's sexual assault.
Just because someone says yes to first base, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're okay with going to second or third. That's common sense. You made it clear where the line for you was: No intercourse.
The first situation is the most iffy to me, to be honest, since he did for himself what you said no to. Yeah, he used your body to an extent (which is kind of icky when it's just a casual encounter), but there's more leeway on what you call that kind of situation. The second, however, is unequivocable. You said no to intercourse; he took advantage of your lack of consciousness to initiate it anyway.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 04:03:25 PM
Garbo - once you go to sleep consent has ended as a matter of law.
Canadian law of course - it's all I can discuss. But it's at least a useful starting point to the discussion.
Gotcha. I can see that though also strikes me as a bit unreasonable.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 04:05:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 04:00:30 PM
But I said no to the fucking several times while we messed around doing other things. It was clear cut where I said no to fucking and then we went to sleep.
Which is why it's sexual assault.
Just because someone says yes to first base, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're okay with going to second or third. That's common sense. You made it clear where the line for you was: No intercourse.
The first situation is the most iffy to me, to be honest, since he did for himself what you said no to. Yeah, he used your body to an extent (which is kind of icky when it's just a casual encounter), but there's more leeway on what you call that kind of situation. The second, however, is unequivocable. You said no to intercourse; he took advantage of your lack of consciousness to initiate it anyway.
I suppose I can see that, however I'm still leery given that I wouldn't have wanted him charged with a crime, he didn't endanger my sexual health and it wasn't a traumatizing act. I guess points 1 and 3 could be different for different people but then I think that would have to play into whether it was rape as what happened to me still seems far away from even just your scenario.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 04:10:57 PM
I suppose I can see that, however I'm still leery given that I wouldn't have wanted him charged with a crime, he didn't endanger my sexual health and it wasn't a traumatizing act. I guess points 1 and 3 could be different for different people but then I think that would have to play into whether it was rape as what happened to me still seems far away from even just your scenario.
Well, if he were penetrating you instead of the other way around, I think your situation would have played out very differently. I don't say that to demean those who feel raped when used in that way, but because the traumatizing affect of entry is not something easily dismissed.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2012, 03:58:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 03:47:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2012, 03:26:11 PM
This thread veered into rape?
Thank Philip V
Pat is probably lurking right now, and rubbing himself off while reading this.
I forgot about the Swedish Chef of POW abuse.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 04:15:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 04:10:57 PM
I suppose I can see that, however I'm still leery given that I wouldn't have wanted him charged with a crime, he didn't endanger my sexual health and it wasn't a traumatizing act. I guess points 1 and 3 could be different for different people but then I think that would have to play into whether it was rape as what happened to me still seems far away from even just your scenario.
Well, if he were penetrating you instead of the other way around, I think your situation would have played out very differently. I don't say that to demean those who feel raped when used in that way, but because the traumatizing affect of entry is not something easily dismissed.
Again I agree but then I wonder if that's something that has to be considered to when putting the label about.
Mind you, I'm fairly certain that if someone (or in this case he) had been trying to fuck me and kept trying when I said no - I'd be out the door!
Also I have to apologize as BB did say it was rape the last time that I brought up scenario 2. Seedy and Brain were flippant. -_-
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 01:13:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 01:11:44 PM
I think that 25% of women have been sexually assaulted and/or raped. Do I believe that that number is accurate on a yearly basis? No. Do I believe that number overall? Yes, at least. Annecdotally, I'd guess it to be more like 33% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted and/or raped.
Yeah this I can buy. And from the few women close enough to me this discussion has been had it is exactly 33%. Neither my wife or sister were raped but my wife was.
Mormon?
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 04:30:40 PM
Also I have to apologize as BB did say it was rape the last time that I brought up scenario 2. Seedy and Brain were flippant. -_-
I'm curious. Have a link?
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2012, 04:30:40 PM
Also I have to apologize as BB did say it was rape the last time that I brought up scenario 2. Seedy and Brain were flippant. -_-
I'm curious. Have a link?
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,3935.msg200743.html#msg200743
I think it is useful to think of police reported cases as a floor; obviously, there are no fewer cases than get reported to the police, based upon highly reliable studies on under-reporting. Which is not to say that all cases that are reported are legitimate; I've seen a number of cases that we dismissed following thorough investigation, polygraph of the alleged attacker, and usually recanting by the victim, victim's parent, or serious indicia of unreliability. That only occurs in cases with no physical evidence of sexual contact, though.
Of women in my family, I know of none that have been raped. I do know a number that have been sexually inconvenienced, and of one that was sexually assaulted. Anecdotally, among ethnically insular first-generation Americans that are Orthodox Christians and comfortably middle class, the rate of women being sexually assaulted is less than 5%. I see no reason to doubt that, like most crimes, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be a victim. Additionally, rape is, like burglary, armed robbery, and murder, a crime primarily of opportunity. Considering that slightly more than the bare majority of persons convicted of rape are convicted of more than one, although it is likely that up to 25% of women have been sexually assaulted in their history, there are women who are likely victims of multiple sexual assaults and rapes.
These statistics are essentially meaningless, in that there is no minimally acceptable level of rapes or sexual assaults, much like there is no minimally acceptable level of murders, kidnappings, etc. A decrease in the rape rate is generally accounted to be a net positive, unlike a decrease in the DUI rate, which is directly related to the local law enforcement agency's money supply.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 02:24:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 01:39:57 PM
Yes. Without any doubt. Sexual assault is a sex act without consent. Sarah did not consent.
Do you have to get a verbal "yes" before you proceed? :huh:
If you've gotten a verbal "no", then absolutely you'd better get a verbal "yes" before proceeding.
Look - there are some grey areas here. If you're told "well I have a headache", or "I'm feeling tired", then while it would still be without consent, you may have an 'honest but mistaken belief in consent'.
But as they say, "no means no".
Forever and ever?
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 03:43:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 03:34:01 PM
Well I do not see how that is possible. What might be too far for one person might not be for another. Which is why I think it is perfectly fine so long as somebody stops what they are doing when the other person says something.
I guess the alternative is we have very strict codes of etiquette where everything is very strictly controlled via social convention. But we already did that and we rebelled remember? Besides I don't know if that actually reduces rape. But it probably reduces somebody getting a bit too frisky on a date.
This why education of both boys and girls is essential. Girls need to learn that "no" is a safeword, not a ploy to appear coy. And boys need to learn that when they hear that, they need to back off and figure out what's really going on. Even if she still pushes forward, the smart boy stops the whole thing and walks away to have a rational, clear conversation before continuing anything. The smart girl doesn't play around when she uses the word "no". She says it loudly, clearly, and definitively. No equivocation.
It all comes down to clear, concise communication on both sides. We need to teach kids this in Sex Ed starting in 6th grade and reiterate it all the way through school.
That is all great and desireable, but I cannot accept that the definition or "rape" is essentially "sex where ideally clear and concise communication has not occurred".
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 05:50:24 PM
That is all great and desireable, but I cannot accept that the definition or "rape" is essentially "sex where ideally clear and concise communication has not occurred".
Welcome to our brave new world.
The advice to my boys will be get the consent in writing, notorized and keep the reciept for the box of condoms she bought for you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 05:50:24 PM
That is all great and desireable, but I cannot accept that the definition or "rape" is essentially "sex where ideally clear and concise communication has not occurred".
Welcome to our brave new world.
The advice to my boys will be get the consent in writing, notorized and keep the reciept for the box of condoms she bought for you.
She could still claim to have changed her mind at the last minute. Best video it with her saying "I consent" at key moments.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 05:50:24 PM
That is all great and desireable, but I cannot accept that the definition or "rape" is essentially "sex where ideally clear and concise communication has not occurred".
Welcome to our brave new world.
The advice to my boys will be get the consent in writing, notorized and keep the reciept for the box of condoms she bought for you.
Lawyers :rolleyes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2012, 05:57:16 PMWelcome to our brave new world.
The advice to my boys will be get the consent in writing, notorized and keep the reciept for the box of condoms she bought for you.
I wonder if your advice would be any different if you had daughters as well as sons...
I mean, yeah, the consequences of being falsely accused of rape/ sexual assault are not pleasant to contemplate either. Do we have any idea - anecdotes or data - of the frequency that people are falsely accused of rape and/or sexual assault?
Personally, I don't know of anyone to whom that has happened - but then again, I don't think it's the kind of thing that people would tell everyone either.
EDIT: that said, if your advice boils down to "make sure that she's definitely willing rather than just assume that she is" then I think that's actually good advice, especially for young people who are just learning the ropes, so to speak. Being attentive to your partner's desires is a good thing when it comes to sex, and making sure that everything is a go is a good foundation for that, even if it's awkward when you're just getting your feet (or whatever) wet.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 05:50:24 PM
That is all great and desireable, but I cannot accept that the definition or "rape" is essentially "sex where ideally clear and concise communication has not occurred".
No one said that it would be defined that way. I only suggested that if there is any question - as in if at any point during the episode she said "no" - that rather than pushing forward, they both take a break and figure out where the line is.
Interestingly, when I brought your story up with my 18-year-old son, he said that the first time she said no, he'd back off. I asked what that meant, and he said that if she said no, he'd take it back to just making out. End of story. He wouldn't ever want to put a girl into the position of feeling like he pressured her into anything.
So, it's not really so awkward or awful as you're making it sound. It can be done with very little fuss, and even less drama.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 02:22:13 PM
I am never going to allow myself to be alone with a woman ever again. There has to be a witness to my innocence. Also, I am going to require my wife to sign a release form every night before entering the bedroom.
:huh:
No shit. Going by some definitions I probably "sexually assault" my wife almost every night-- sometimes involuntarily and/or while I'm asleep!
That is a bit of a theoretical problem. The way Canadian law is, you can not consent to sexual activity if you're unconscious, and if you lose consciousness any prior consent is vitiated. So, if you're significant other is asleep it is technically against the law to initiate any kind of sex act.
That being said - have you ever heard of anyone being charged with sex assault in that kind of scenario? Of course not. The system has common sense.
A good summary, albeit of the dumbest decision of a highest court I'd ever read.
Here's a fun fact pattern; applying R. v. J.A., have I committed any crime if I kiss my girlfriend goodnight while she's unconscious next to me? (The answer is yes.)
Another one: every time my girlfriend sleeps over, I wind up groping her while she is unconscious. However, I am also unconscious when these incidents occur. Crime? (I expect yes. She cannot consent even though as a practical matter she obviously doesn't mind--at least terribly--but given the Canadian Supreme Court's guidance to its subordinate courts to judicially review the most minute aspect of its citizens' sex lives and refuse to treat women as humans who have the right to set the limits of their own sexuality and sexual availability, you could probably get an appeals court to infer intent to assault by my own pattern of agreeing to sleep next to her, and I'd be in jail for ten years like poor J.A.)
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 03:43:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2012, 03:34:01 PM
Well I do not see how that is possible. What might be too far for one person might not be for another. Which is why I think it is perfectly fine so long as somebody stops what they are doing when the other person says something.
I guess the alternative is we have very strict codes of etiquette where everything is very strictly controlled via social convention. But we already did that and we rebelled remember? Besides I don't know if that actually reduces rape. But it probably reduces somebody getting a bit too frisky on a date.
This why education of both boys and girls is essential. Girls need to learn that "no" is a safeword, not a ploy to appear coy. And boys need to learn that when they hear that, they need to back off and figure out what's really going on. Even if she still pushes forward, the smart boy stops the whole thing and walks away to have a rational, clear conversation before continuing anything. The smart girl doesn't play around when she uses the word "no". She says it loudly, clearly, and definitively. No equivocation.
It all comes down to clear, concise communication on both sides. We need to teach kids this in Sex Ed starting in 6th grade and reiterate it all the way through school.
That is all great and desireable, but I cannot accept that the definition or "rape" is essentially "sex where ideally clear and concise communication has not occurred".
It kept that wikilinks guy holed up in an Ecuadorian Embassy for several months, so it's not like it's all bad.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 05:39:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 02:24:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 01:39:57 PM
Yes. Without any doubt. Sexual assault is a sex act without consent. Sarah did not consent.
Do you have to get a verbal "yes" before you proceed? :huh:
If you've gotten a verbal "no", then absolutely you'd better get a verbal "yes" before proceeding.
Look - there are some grey areas here. If you're told "well I have a headache", or "I'm feeling tired", then while it would still be without consent, you may have an 'honest but mistaken belief in consent'.
But as they say, "no means no".
Forever and ever?
No means no until the other person says yes.
Old movies have taught me that women simply need to be kissed forcefully, perhaps initially against their wishes, but then consent can be judged when they either;
a. willingly consent romantically into your arms.
b. slap you hard and strut off indignantly.
Or, if you're John Wayne, you will chase her all around the town, paddle her fanny with a coal shovel, and then live happily ever after.
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 07:31:16 PM
Interestingly, when I brought your story up with my 18-year-old son, he said that the first time she said no, he'd back off. I asked what that meant, and he said that if she said no, he'd take it back to just making out. End of story. He wouldn't ever want to put a girl into the position of feeling like he pressured her into anything.
Was this the gay one?
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 29, 2012, 07:42:52 PM
Or, if you're John Wayne, you will chase her all around the town, paddle her fanny with a coal shovel, and then live happily ever after.
That was how I got my wife. Except it was in 5th grade and it was a paddle.
I liked the part in The Fountainhead where Roark raped that chick and she loved it.
Ayn Rand: the woman who knew nothing about women. :)
Quote from: Caliga on October 29, 2012, 07:51:34 PM
I liked the part in The Fountainhead where Roark raped that chick and she loved it.
Ayn Rand: the woman who knew nothing about women. :)
I don't think Dominique Francon was supposed to be some kind of "everywoman" character.
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2012, 07:47:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 07:31:16 PM
Interestingly, when I brought your story up with my 18-year-old son, he said that the first time she said no, he'd back off. I asked what that meant, and he said that if she said no, he'd take it back to just making out. End of story. He wouldn't ever want to put a girl into the position of feeling like he pressured her into anything.
Was this the gay one?
:D
He's the one that when I tell my daughter that she's my favorite daughter, she says, "Aww. Poor Jak. :("
He's also the one that got caught with a girl in the living room.
Better a dead girl than a live boy.
Wait...
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 29, 2012, 07:42:52 PM
Or, if you're John Wayne, you will chase her all around the town, paddle her fanny with a coal shovel, and then live happily ever after.
I always preferred the Humphrey Bogart method: possessing apathy, contempt and a lighter in case the lady desires to smoke.
Neither of those methods is foolproof. Bogey loses the girl to Paul Henreid, Wayne loses the girl to Jimmy Stewart. Course, they did kinda make the choice themselves. :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 01:35:33 PM
Joe and Sarah gave been dating a while.
They have yet to have sex, although they have talked about it/made out, etc.
Joe wants to have sex, Sarah is not so sure.
Joa and Sarah go out to dinner, and share a bottle of wine. Both are feeling pretty good, and go back to Joe's apartment, where they have some more wine.
Sarah is pretty buzzed, but she still knows that she isn't quite ready to have sex with Joe - maybe soon, but not yet.
They are making out. Joe slides his hand inside Sarahs jeans. She likes it, but realizes thing are going a little fast than she would like.
She asks Joe to slow down, and he does, briefly, but they are still making out.
Sarah realized that her pants are now mostly off. She panics a little bit, and tells Joe to stop. Joe, being a gentleman, does so.
Sarah feels bad, because she does like Joe, and he seems pretty dissapointed, so she decides to go a little further, and performs oral on Joe.
Joe is getting pretty fired up again, Sarah is now shirtless and down to her underwear.
Joe is between her legs, and intercourse is clearly iminent - again. Sarah is feeling pretty worked up herself, and a little bit like she is probably not being entirely reasonable telling Joe no, but still - she just isn't ready.
She asks Joe to stop. Joe is on top of her, and now he is clearly upset/dissapointed. Not violent, or even apparenlty violent, but clearly unhappy at what he sees as being very frustrated.
Joe stops, but places his hand inside the wasteband of her panties, and says "Come on Sarah, we've waited long enough!" and starts sliding down her underwear. Sarah really doesn't want to, but is tired of saying no, so she does not object, but she does not say yes either. Joe removes her panties, and they have intercourse.
Did Joe rape Sarah? Did Joe sexually assault Sarah?
Aaaand that's why the prosecutor has to pitch it to the grand jury, ladies and gents. FWIW, when I was on the grand jury, we had a case very similar to this. We ended up deciding it was trial-ready, but it was the single longest set of deliberations for us (that I was involved with, anyway- apparently there was a quadruple homicide the one day that I was too sick to come in).
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 29, 2012, 09:09:03 PM
apparently there was a quadruple homicide the one day that I was too sick to come in).
Talk about bad luck.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2012, 09:19:40 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 29, 2012, 09:09:03 PM
apparently there was a quadruple homicide the one day that I was too sick to come in).
Talk about bad luck.
Inorite? I never get nice things. :(
Quote from: merithyn on October 29, 2012, 07:31:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 05:50:24 PM
That is all great and desireable, but I cannot accept that the definition or "rape" is essentially "sex where ideally clear and concise communication has not occurred".
No one said that it would be defined that way. I only suggested that if there is any question - as in if at any point during the episode she said "no" - that rather than pushing forward, they both take a break and figure out where the line is.
That is obviously a good idea. The question on the table however is not what should people do in some ideal circumstances, but at what point non-ideal actions cross the line into criminal behavior. Pointing out that NOT engaging in even the nearly criminal behavior is a good idea is rather patently obvious, isn't it?
Quote
Interestingly, when I brought your story up with my 18-year-old son, he said that the first time she said no, he'd back off. I asked what that meant, and he said that if she said no, he'd take it back to just making out. End of story. He wouldn't ever want to put a girl into the position of feeling like he pressured her into anything.
So, it's not really so awkward or awful as you're making it sound. It can be done with very little fuss, and even less drama.
Woah, fiucking-A time the fuck out!
I have made no damn claim that my scenario is typical, or desirable, or OK, or anything. All I created was a plausible scenario that could happen, and that tried to find a line where I think the discriminator between "pressure" and "assault" becomes very hard to define.
I sure as fuck did not say that I thought "Joe's" actions were OK, or acceptable, or ideal, or anything of the sort. I think my post makes that pretty obviously clear in fact.
Thanks for telling me how your 18 year old son would handle a completely fictional scenario better than someone I just made up to illustrate a point about whether behavior rises to the level of criminal rape. What a great guy he is I guess?
Seriously, wtf Meri?
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 07:39:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 05:39:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 02:24:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 29, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2012, 01:39:57 PM
Yes. Without any doubt. Sexual assault is a sex act without consent. Sarah did not consent.
Do you have to get a verbal "yes" before you proceed? :huh:
If you've gotten a verbal "no", then absolutely you'd better get a verbal "yes" before proceeding.
Look - there are some grey areas here. If you're told "well I have a headache", or "I'm feeling tired", then while it would still be without consent, you may have an 'honest but mistaken belief in consent'.
But as they say, "no means no".
Forever and ever?
No means no until the other person says yes.
So it is rape if someone says no, and then does not say yes at some point - no matter what else they do to indicate they may have changed their mind?
What if Sarah took off her panties herself and climbed on, but never actually said she changed her mind? Still assault?
I need to hear a little more about Sarah.
FWIW Sarah gave consent in Berky's story. IMO.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 29, 2012, 08:29:24 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 29, 2012, 07:42:52 PM
Or, if you're John Wayne, you will chase her all around the town, paddle her fanny with a coal shovel, and then live happily ever after.
I always preferred the Humphrey Bogart method: possessing apathy, contempt and a lighter in case the lady desires to smoke.
:whistle:
I think this guy hits above his weight class. If you know what I mean.
This is yet another example of how difficult people have in differentiating between how they think people ought to act, and what the law should define as criminal activity.
Of course men should go out of their way to make absolutely certain that consent is clear and explicit, and of course women should make that consent clear, and more importantly make it clear when consent is NOT given.
Duh. That is so obvious that it is uninteresting, and if everyone acted that way we would not be having this conversation to begin with.
But in the real world, not every man is the perfect Jak son who epitomizes the highest standards of gentlemanly conduct, and not every women is abundantly clear about what she wants, when she wants it, and when she does NOT want it. In the real world, most people are operating with limited information.
So deciding when in all the ambiguity a given act rises to the level of criminal assault seems kind of important. Someone doing something that is maybe not the best way to handle a situation doesn't make it criminal, nor should it. Hence noting what the ideal response is is not very useful.
I think the problem that a large number of women experience sexual contact that they perhaps did not want is certainly worthy of discussion. But defining sexual contact as "rape" whenever it happens in a context where someone may feel pressured or obligated, or even just indifferent just makes the issue seem petty and silly. It is why so many people can simply dismiss statistics like "25% of women report being sexually assaulted". They assume that "assaulted" may very well mean something that many people would not consider assault at all.
In my scenario above, I think Joe was probably a bit of an asshole, but I don't think he raped anyone. Sarah does in fact have some responsibility for the outcome here - she was a participant in the act, not simply a victim. Joe certainly should have backed off. Sarah should have done the same though - when she felt things were going further than she wanted, she should have probably shut the entire thing down and let both of them cool off a bit before talking through where things were heading.
What I reject out of the evaluation in these kinds of scenarios (specifically meaning the one above, obviously not when there is a more classic "rape" scenario) is the idea that one person is a straight up aggressor, and the other is simply a victim. Rather, they are two people engaged in a messy and difficult to manage emotional experience that often has outcomes one or both parties may not be entirely happy with - but that doesn't automatically make it rape.
In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 29, 2012, 10:56:05 PM
FWIW Sarah gave consent in Berky's story. IMO.
I can understand that position - I don't know if I agree with it though.
I think in my story consent was pretty much impossible to determine one way or another. Which is why I constructed it that way, of course.
You can look at as "She said no, she never clearly said she changed her mind, hence she did NOT give consent".
On the other hand, you can say "She said no, but then apparently she did change her mind, since when Joe asked, she did not tell him to stop".
I think both of those are reasonable positions. Obviously, ideally Joe would not proceed in such an ambiguous situation, but just as obviously we live in a world where shit like that does in fact happen all the time. I have a hard time, however, putting Joe up there with a traditional rapist. Hell, this scenario probably plays out all the time, and Joe and Sarah may very well go on to a happy relationship, even if the start of it was somewhat strained.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 11:06:04 PM
In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.
Bullshit. An impaired rational state is a consideration for the victim, not the aggressor. This was the exact point that sent our case to trial, and it's also a well-established concept in a DWI driver committing vehicular homicide. Joe's intent to commit the crime could be argued to go back to the decision to break out the wine.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 29, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
Bullshit. An impaired rational state is a consideration for the victim, not the aggressor. This was the exact point that sent our case to trial, and it's also a well-established concept in a DWI driver committing vehicular homicide. Joe's intent to commit the crime could be argued to go back to the decision to break out the wine.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.fd.uproxx.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Ffacepalm-bear.jpg&hash=93430e39a86e3d24e967a4173988ada579ca4951)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 29, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
Joe's intent to commit the crime could be argued to go back to the decision to break out the wine.
Or better yet, his decision to be born with a penis. All sex is rape, after all.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 11:06:04 PM
In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.
But isn't that basically what I said? "No means no". Once a victim says no, then the accused must obtain explicit consent.
II don't think it's fair to a victim to have to say no not once, or twice, but repeatedly. After all, no means no.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 29, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 11:06:04 PM
In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.
Bullshit. An impaired rational state is a consideration for the victim, not the aggressor. This was the exact point that sent our case to trial, and it's also a well-established concept in a DWI driver committing vehicular homicide. Joe's intent to commit the crime could be argued to go back to the decision to break out the wine.
Never mind.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
What makes you say that?
IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances.
Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?
Seems reasonable.
It's not just one survey. I believe every survey done on the matter comes up with numbers like that.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 10:45:56 PM
Woah, fiucking-A time the fuck out!
I have made no damn claim that my scenario is typical, or desirable, or OK, or anything. All I created was a plausible scenario that could happen, and that tried to find a line where I think the discriminator between "pressure" and "assault" becomes very hard to define.
I sure as fuck did not say that I thought "Joe's" actions were OK, or acceptable, or ideal, or anything of the sort. I think my post makes that pretty obviously clear in fact.
Thanks for telling me how your 18 year old son would handle a completely fictional scenario better than someone I just made up to illustrate a point about whether behavior rises to the level of criminal rape. What a great guy he is I guess?
Seriously, wtf Meri?
:blink:
I never thought you did consider it okay. I understood what you were going for. I only pointed out that it's not a big fuss to take that step back. It's not just ideal, it's prudent and wise.
The reason I brought it up to Jak was to find out at what point he thought it was okay to try to push it a little further. He said that he never felt like it was okay. That's not the response I would have gotten from guys when I was his age, so I thought it was telling that things do seem to be shifting in terms of what's considered acceptable behavior.
As for your scenario, I don't know that were I in that girl's place that I would have pressed charges, but I also don't know that I would be able to date that guy anymore. I would be angry with myself for not being more clear, and at him for pushing it when he knew I wasn't ready. None of that changes the nature of the incident, however. As I've said, the incident is rape, whether or not the victim feels compelled to pursue it with the authorities.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 11:06:04 PM
This is yet another example of how difficult people have in differentiating between how they think people ought to act, and what the law should define as criminal activity.
Of course men should go out of their way to make absolutely certain that consent is clear and explicit, and of course women should make that consent clear, and more importantly make it clear when consent is NOT given.
Duh. That is so obvious that it is uninteresting, and if everyone acted that way we would not be having this conversation to begin with.
But in the real world, not every man is the perfect Jak son who epitomizes the highest standards of gentlemanly conduct, and not every women is abundantly clear about what she wants, when she wants it, and when she does NOT want it. In the real world, most people are operating with limited information.
So deciding when in all the ambiguity a given act rises to the level of criminal assault seems kind of important. Someone doing something that is maybe not the best way to handle a situation doesn't make it criminal, nor should it. Hence noting what the ideal response is is not very useful.
I think the problem that a large number of women experience sexual contact that they perhaps did not want is certainly worthy of discussion. But defining sexual contact as "rape" whenever it happens in a context where someone may feel pressured or obligated, or even just indifferent just makes the issue seem petty and silly. It is why so many people can simply dismiss statistics like "25% of women report being sexually assaulted". They assume that "assaulted" may very well mean something that many people would not consider assault at all.
In my scenario above, I think Joe was probably a bit of an asshole, but I don't think he raped anyone. Sarah does in fact have some responsibility for the outcome here - she was a participant in the act, not simply a victim. Joe certainly should have backed off. Sarah should have done the same though - when she felt things were going further than she wanted, she should have probably shut the entire thing down and let both of them cool off a bit before talking through where things were heading.
What I reject out of the evaluation in these kinds of scenarios (specifically meaning the one above, obviously not when there is a more classic "rape" scenario) is the idea that one person is a straight up aggressor, and the other is simply a victim. Rather, they are two people engaged in a messy and difficult to manage emotional experience that often has outcomes one or both parties may not be entirely happy with - but that doesn't automatically make it rape.
In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.
Those are really good - and incredibly fair - points. I think from my perspective, I've always been so defensive of people putting the blame on women in any situation that even in a scenario like you describe, I try to avoid doing so. As you say, that's just as unfair as blaming them every time.
It's something to think about.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 29, 2012, 06:02:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 05:50:24 PM
That is all great and desireable, but I cannot accept that the definition or "rape" is essentially "sex where ideally clear and concise communication has not occurred".
Welcome to our brave new world.
The advice to my boys will be get the consent in writing, notorized and keep the reciept for the box of condoms she bought for you.
She could still claim to have changed her mind at the last minute. Best video it with her saying "I consent" at key moments.
Good idea, having her say Yes, Yes, Yesssss! into the camera should do it.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2012, 06:16:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2012, 05:57:16 PMWelcome to our brave new world.
The advice to my boys will be get the consent in writing, notorized and keep the reciept for the box of condoms she bought for you.
I wonder if your advice would be any different if you had daughters as well as sons...
I mean, yeah, the consequences of being falsely accused of rape/ sexual assault are not pleasant to contemplate either. Do we have any idea - anecdotes or data - of the frequency that people are falsely accused of rape and/or sexual assault?
Personally, I don't know of anyone to whom that has happened - but then again, I don't think it's the kind of thing that people would tell everyone either.
EDIT: that said, if your advice boils down to "make sure that she's definitely willing rather than just assume that she is" then I think that's actually good advice, especially for young people who are just learning the ropes, so to speak. Being attentive to your partner's desires is a good thing when it comes to sex, and making sure that everything is a go is a good foundation for that, even if it's awkward when you're just getting your feet (or whatever) wet.
I havent been away that long - has Languish really lost its sense of humour this quickly?
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2012, 10:45:56 PM
Thanks for telling me how your 18 year old son would handle a completely fictional scenario better than someone I just made up to illustrate a point about whether behavior rises to the level of criminal rape. What a great guy he is I guess?
Seriously, wtf Meri?
:lol: I can't imagine my mom asking me that when I was 18 (or any age really). I'd be all like, "Seriously, mom-- get off the damned internet!"
The Economist: 'American universities represent declining value to their students''In 1962 one cent of every dollar spent in America went on higher education; today this figure has tripled. Yet despite spending a greater proportion of its GDP on universities than any other country, America has only the 15th-largest proportion of young people with a university education. Wherever the money is coming from, and however it is being spent, the root of the crisis in higher education (and the evidence that investment in universities may amount to a bubble) comes down to the fact that additional value has not been created to match this extra spending. Indeed, evidence from declines in the quality of students and graduates suggests that a degree may now mean less than it once did.'
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567373-american-universities-represent-declining-value-money-their-students-not-what-it (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567373-american-universities-represent-declining-value-money-their-students-not-what-it)
QuoteFor example, a federal survey showed that the literacy of college-educated citizens declined between 1992 and 2003. Only a quarter were deemed proficient, defined as "using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one's goals and to develop one's knowledge and potential". Almost a third of students these days do not take any courses that involve more than 40 pages of reading over an entire term. Moreover, students are spending measurably less time studying and more on recreation. "Workload management", however, is studied with enthusiasm—students share online tips about "blow off" classes (those which can be avoided with no damage to grades) and which teachers are the easiest-going.
Yet neither the lack of investment in teaching nor the deficit of attention appears to have had a negative impact on grades. A remarkable 43% of all grades at four-year universities are As, an increase of 28 percentage points since 1960. Grade point averages rose from about 2.52 in the 1950s to 3.11 in 2006.
At this point a sceptic could argue that none of this matters much, since students are paid a handsome premium for their degree and on the whole earn back their investment over a lifetime. While this is still broadly true, there are a number of important caveats. One is that it is easily possible to overspend on one's education: just ask the hundreds of thousands of law graduates who have not found work as lawyers. And this premium is of little comfort to the 9.1% of borrowers who in 2011 had defaulted on their federal student loans within two years of graduating. There are 200 colleges and universities where the three-year default rate is 30% or more.
Another issue is that the salary gap between those with only a high-school diploma and those with a university degree is created by the plummeting value of the diploma, rather than by soaring graduate salaries. After adjusting for inflation, graduates earned no more in 2007 than they did in 1979. Young graduates facing a decline in earnings over the past decade (16% for women, 19% for men), and a lot more debt, are unlikely to feel particularly cheered by the argument that, over a lifetime, they would be even worse off without a degree than with one.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2F290-width%2Fimages%2F2012%2F11%2Farticles%2Fbody%2F20121201_USC536.png&hash=7ee77ae94e050abb2c361089b0b491273450bd23) (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2F290-width%2Fimages%2F2012%2F11%2Farticles%2Fbody%2F20121201_USC537.png&hash=cc97968183c8b5148dc2ea5f29b8d5d5e5635e2e)
Quote from: Phillip V on November 30, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
The Economist: 'American universities represent declining value to their students'
'In 1962 one cent of every dollar spent in America went on higher education; today this figure has tripled. Yet despite spending a greater proportion of its GDP on universities than any other country, America has only the 15th-largest proportion of young people with a university education. Wherever the money is coming from, and however it is being spent, the root of the crisis in higher education (and the evidence that investment in universities may amount to a bubble) comes down to the fact that additional value has not been created to match this extra spending. Indeed, evidence from declines in the quality of students and graduates suggests that a degree may now mean less than it once did.'
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567373-american-universities-represent-declining-value-money-their-students-not-what-it (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567373-american-universities-represent-declining-value-money-their-students-not-what-it)
QuoteAlmost a third of students these days do not take any courses that involve more than 40 pages of reading over an entire term.
How is that even possible!? :blink:
Yeah, that makes sense.
My sister's in her 3rd semester teaching a basic biology course, a level 100 course with a lab, that a lot of non-science majors take because a science course with a lab are Gen Ed requirements, such as nursing and psych students.
She called me the other day asking me what she's gotten into; apparently, one of her students couldn't find the lab quiz because she didn't bring her calculator.
The problem was a basic conversion problem, something like: 3,615 X .1 =
Reason she couldn't finish without a calculator? She stated she "didn't know which way the decimal went."
She wants to fail her on general principle, but there are a lot of internal machinations involved in that. The only ones she can really fail are the ones that don't show up at all, and even then, there's a lot of whining, crying and pleading to administration for second chances, etc.
I think she's going to get the fuck out of teaching and go into research.
I assign a text with 500 pages and a reader with 300 for my first semester class (this is the Western Civ that gets some sort of special magical letter next to it that meets some cultural requirement), a class that is always filled with new freshmen and other types.
While I know they don't actually read this all in 15 weeks (I have been told on evaluations that NOBODY could read this much), it is needed to get a good grade.
Oh, I also assign 2 short papers, 3 essays tests, and they must discuss the reader every week to get good grades (of course, I have 2 GAs to do most of the grading, I am lazy).
It is college, and I find most of the students respond and do put out some effort instead of simply whining. They want to move beyond 12th grade? They better learn at least a bit about thinking.
Quote from: PDH on November 30, 2012, 08:38:29 AM
I assign a text with 500 pages and a reader with 300 for my first semester class (this is the Western Civ that gets some sort of special magical letter next to it that meets some cultural requirement), a class that is always filled with new freshmen and other types.
While I know they don't actually read this all in 15 weeks (I have been told on evaluations that NOBODY could read this much), it is needed to get a good grade.
Oh, I also assign 2 short papers, 3 essays tests, and they must discuss the reader every week to get good grades (of course, I have 2 GAs to do most of the grading, I am lazy).
It is college, and I find most of the students respond and do put out some effort instead of simply whining. They want to move beyond 12th grade? They better learn at least a bit about thinking.
Western civilisation will not falter whilst you are at the helm. :)
One of my old professors told me the other day that they stopped handing out texts in French and German because students were protesting too much. They just wouldn't do it. If universities are lowering their standards (and I think they are), it's at least partly because students are demanding it.
Quote from: Maladict on November 30, 2012, 09:02:54 AM
One of my old professors told me the other day that they stopped handing out texts in French and German because students were protesting too much. They just wouldn't do it. If universities are lowering their standards (and I think they are), it's at least partly because students are demanding it.
Hmm, well over here it makes sense. I mean if you're shelling out 60k a year for education - gods be damned if you're going to do poorly. :D
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 09:11:52 AM
Hmm, well over here it makes sense. I mean if you're shelling out 60k a year for education - gods be damned if you're going to do poorly. :D
Maybe, it's also a sign of taking the easy way out and expecting to be pampered. When I chose my thesis subject and found most of the source material was only available in Italian, I bought a dictionary and pushed on, even if it meant adding another 6 months of tuition. And then another year because I didn't think I'd read enough. I certainly wasn't alone in this.
Of course, in today's circumstances you'd think twice about that, but still.
Well yes, now one wouldn't really be able to afford all that extra tuition.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 09:28:21 AM
Well yes, now one wouldn't really be able to afford all that extra tuition.
And that's the problem in all of this. Something's gotta' give, and one would hope that it's tuition. I'm just not sure how to make that happen.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 09:28:21 AM
Well yes, now one wouldn't really be able to afford all that extra tuition.
Because we have communism that's not even such a big risk. If you can't afford to pay back your loans the payments are postponed at next to no interest until you can (comfortably) do so. And any amount still remaining after 15 years is cancelled.
Quote from: Maladict on November 30, 2012, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 09:28:21 AM
Well yes, now one wouldn't really be able to afford all that extra tuition.
Because we have communism that's not even such a big risk. If you can't afford to pay back your loans the payments are postponed at next to no interest until you can (comfortably) do so. And any amount still remaining after 15 years is cancelled.
How do they assess your ability to pay?
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: Maladict on November 30, 2012, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 09:28:21 AM
Well yes, now one wouldn't really be able to afford all that extra tuition.
Because we have communism that's not even such a big risk. If you can't afford to pay back your loans the payments are postponed at next to no interest until you can (comfortably) do so. And any amount still remaining after 15 years is cancelled.
How do they assess your ability to pay?
Income. There are four categories iirc, first pays nothing, second to fourth in increasing percentages of gross income.
I'm in the third, paying about 10%, I definitely notice it but it doesn't really affect my spending.
Young, Educated and Jobless in France (and Europe)'A growing problem in France and other low-growth countries of Europe — the young and educated unemployed, who go from one internship to another, one short-term contract to another, but who cannot find a permanent job that gets them on the path to the taxpaying, property-owning French ideal that seemed the norm for decades.
This is a “floating generation,” made worse by the euro crisis, and its plight is widely seen as a failure of the system: an elitist educational tradition that does not integrate graduates into the work force, a rigid labor market that is hard to enter, and a tax system that makes it expensive for companies to hire full-time employees and both difficult and expensive to lay them off.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/world/europe/young-and-educated-in-france-find-employment-elusive.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/world/europe/young-and-educated-in-france-find-employment-elusive.html)
QuoteThe result, analysts and officials agree, is a new and growing sector of educated unemployed, whose lives are delayed and whose inability to find good jobs damages tax receipts, pension programs and the property market. When added to the large number of unemployed young people who have little education or training, there is a growing sense that France and other countries in Western Europe risk losing a generation, further damaging prospects for sustainable economic growth.
...
Throughout the European Union, unemployment among those aged 15 to 24 is soaring — 22 percent in France, 51 percent in Spain, 36 percent in Italy. But those are only percentages among those looking for work. There is another category: those who are “not in employment, education or training,” or NEETs, as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development calls them. And according to a study by the European Union’s research agency, Eurofound, there are as many as 14 million out-of-work and disengaged young Europeans, costing member states an estimated 153 billion euros, or about $200 billion, a year in welfare benefits and lost production — 1.2 percent of the bloc’s gross domestic product.
In Spain, in addition to the 51 percent of young people who are looking for work, 23.7 percent of those 15 to 29 have simply given up looking, said Anne Sonnet, a senior economist studying joblessness at the O.E.C.D. here. In France, it’s 16.7 percent — nearly two million young people who have given up; in Italy, 20.5 percent.
As dispiriting, especially for the floating generation, is that 42 percent of those young people who are working are in temporary employment, up from just over one-third a decade ago, the Eurofound study said. Some 30 percent, or 5.8 million young adults, were employed part time — an increase of nearly 9 percentage points since 2001.
That trend is especially evident in France, where 82 percent of people hired today are on temporary contracts, said Michel Sapin, the labor minister.
...
Ms. Sonnet, the O.E.C.D. economist, said that high youth unemployment is a regular problem in France. Companies are afraid to commit to permanent hiring when economic growth is stagnant and charges for social benefits are so high, and the educational system tends to value liberal arts over technical or industrial expertise.
They “often don’t learn the skills that employers need,” she said. “They’re simply not ready to work.” Ms. Sonnet promotes more use of apprenticeships, as in Germany, where students work part time while they go to school.
François Béharel, the president of Randstad France, a branch of the multinational employment agency, said that the problem of youth unemployment among the educated is worsening at a time when employers are crying out for engineers, computer technicians, electricians and welders.
“We have to begin with parents — ‘Stop dreaming of white collars!’ ” Mr. Béharel said. “Blue collars, there really is a true path for them,” he said. But small and medium-size companies, which are France’s primary employers, do not have the resources or the profit margins to train the untrained.
“We’ve piled up battalions of students in general education, and everyone knows that there aren’t 10,000 among them who are going to find the job that they imagined when they entered university,” he said. Only 40 percent of students entering university get their degree; the rest drop out, trained for nothing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F12%2F03%2Fworld%2FJP-FRANCE%2FJP-FRANCE-popup.jpg&hash=24d1004c09300b4f1fbed40448f856965a0a33fa)
At least the ones following them won't have had to do homework. :P
Quote from: mongers on November 30, 2012, 08:53:43 AM
Quote from: PDH on November 30, 2012, 08:38:29 AM
I assign a text with 500 pages and a reader with 300 for my first semester class (this is the Western Civ that gets some sort of special magical letter next to it that meets some cultural requirement), a class that is always filled with new freshmen and other types.
While I know they don't actually read this all in 15 weeks (I have been told on evaluations that NOBODY could read this much), it is needed to get a good grade.
Oh, I also assign 2 short papers, 3 essays tests, and they must discuss the reader every week to get good grades (of course, I have 2 GAs to do most of the grading, I am lazy).
It is college, and I find most of the students respond and do put out some effort instead of simply whining. They want to move beyond 12th grade? They better learn at least a bit about thinking.
Western civilisation will not falter whilst you are at the helm. :)
He teaches history.
Anyway, unfair jabs at Peedy aside ( :hug: ), I was made aware of a forthcoming critique of Brian Tamanaha's book
Failing Law Schools to be published in the Georgetown Journal of Who Gives a Fuck.
Quote from: Philip G. SchragAbstract: Professor Brian Tamanaha's book, Failing Law Schools, usefully collects in one place the recent critiques of law schools for reacting excessively to U.S. News rankings, manipulating admissions data, spending excessive amounts of money to hire "star" professors and to circulate glossy brochures and magazines, and in some cases, falsifying graduates' employment statistics. But Tamanaha's main argument is that law school has become unaffordable for most applicants, because it will saddle them with debt that they cannot afford to repay on the incomes that they can reasonably expect. His thesis is based on a misunderstanding of student loan repayment methods. In particular, he erroneously assumes that the only proper way to repay student loans is through so-called "standard" repayment (over a ten year period). Actually, many law graduates will find typically law school debt manageable if they repay federal student loans through income-based repayment plans, particularly the new Pay As You Earn (PAYE) plan. Tamanaha disparages income-based repayment, however, because he incorrectly believes that total debt, rather than the ratio of current repayment obligations to current income, primarily determines a borrower's credit-worthiness for mortgages and other large loans.
Based on his belief that law school is no longer affordable for most students, Tamanaha offers several radical proposals, such as amending accreditation standards to permit a two-tier system, in which only a few expensive law schools would continue as research institutions offering three-year degrees, while most would offer law degrees after two years of classroom study and a year of some sort of lightly-supervised apprenticeship. He would also do away with the standard that requires schools to put most faculty members on tenure tracks and to support faculty research. This review essay questions the need for those far-reaching changes in legal education and concludes with the suggestion that Tamanaha focus his considerable critical skills on the problems not of law students, but of lower-income clients who are unable to obtain the legal services that they need.
LOLOLOL massive wealth transfers for me, welfare for you, and the taxpayer picks up the tab! What an asshole.
no one made you go to school to be a lawyer :P
I forgive you. As a Portuguese, you're genetically hardwired not to notice colossal wastes of public funds.
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2012, 12:04:56 AM
I forgive you. As a Portuguese, you're genetically hardwired not to notice colossal wastes of public funds.
Your gripe with education comes directly from your own experiences. If you hadn't gone to law school you wouldn't care. Or perhaps I'm wrong in that view, but this whole education saturation has been a deal since before I first went to university 10 years ago, so at least 7 or so years before you went to law school an i don't recall you bringing it up before.
Quote from: HVC on December 04, 2012, 12:10:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2012, 12:04:56 AM
I forgive you. As a Portuguese, you're genetically hardwired not to notice colossal wastes of public funds.
Your gripe with education comes directly from your own experiences. If you hadn't gone to law school you wouldn't care. Or perhaps I'm wrong in that view, but this whole education saturation has been a deal since before I first went to university 10 years ago, so at least 7 or so years before you went to law school an i don't recall you bringing it up before.
I just wanted to make an ethnic joke. :(
Anyway, what you say is not untrue, but I serve as sentinel, to warn those that may come after.
Fwiw, though, higher education as a whole is indeed pretty scammy, and in large part superfluous, just not to the same self-parodying degree.
Europe is heading towards a revolution. This may revitalize the American armaments industry if we can sell to both sides. To say nothing of giving Putin another chance to expand his empire.
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 12:05:10 AM
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
I have to say that after 12 years as a lawyer (and one who does deal with law rather than just tick boxes ono a due diligence spreadsheet), I have only ever read one academic paper. And that was useless.
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 12:05:10 AM
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
I have to say that after 12 years as a lawyer (and one who does deal with law rather than just tick boxes ono a due diligence spreadsheet), I have only ever read one academic paper. And that was useless.
I've read academic papers more frequently but yes, they tend to be useless.
Problem is that the function of an academic paper is divorced from real world applications, and only affects them tangentally. In the real world, people want answers to actual problems. Academic research tends to be about considering interesting questions.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2012, 12:29:40 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 04, 2012, 12:10:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2012, 12:04:56 AM
I forgive you. As a Portuguese, you're genetically hardwired not to notice colossal wastes of public funds.
Your gripe with education comes directly from your own experiences. If you hadn't gone to law school you wouldn't care. Or perhaps I'm wrong in that view, but this whole education saturation has been a deal since before I first went to university 10 years ago, so at least 7 or so years before you went to law school an i don't recall you bringing it up before.
I just wanted to make an ethnic joke. :(
Anyway, what you say is not untrue, but I serve as sentinel, to warn those that may come after.
Fwiw, though, higher education as a whole is indeed pretty scammy, and in large part superfluous, just not to the same self-parodying degree.
Are you saying this degree doesn't look useful?
http://www.cca.edu/academics/graduate/comics
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 03:17:18 PMAre you saying this degree doesn't look useful?
http://www.cca.edu/academics/graduate/comics
That degree looks quite useful, actually. Plenty of applications for those skills in a number of design and marketing jobs in various fields.
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 03:17:18 PMAre you saying this degree doesn't look useful?
http://www.cca.edu/academics/graduate/comics
That degree looks quite useful, actually. Plenty of applications for those skills in a number of design and marketing jobs in various fields.
Surely those jobs could be had with an undergrad in comics though. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2012, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 03:17:18 PMAre you saying this degree doesn't look useful?
http://www.cca.edu/academics/graduate/comics
That degree looks quite useful, actually. Plenty of applications for those skills in a number of design and marketing jobs in various fields.
Surely those jobs could be had with an undergrad in comics though. :hmm:
Or conversely, might make more sense to get degrees more tailored to design and marketing jobs than one that incidentally overlaps.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2012, 04:05:15 PMSurely those jobs could be had with an undergrad in comics though. :hmm:
As someone who's involved in the hiring of artists on a regular basis, an MFA is an advantage.
Ultimately, however, what matters is the portfolio. Doing an MFA is an excellent way to improve your portfolio in a structured fashion.
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 04:11:11 PMOr conversely, might make more sense to get degrees more tailored to design and marketing jobs than one that incidentally overlaps.
You mean like your degree was tailored to become a business analyst in the pharmaceutical field?
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 04:11:11 PMOr conversely, might make more sense to get degrees more tailored to design and marketing jobs than one that incidentally overlaps.
You mean like your degree was tailored to become a business analyst in the pharmaceutical field?
1) It was undergrad so probably doesn't need to be specialized - not for business anyway.
2) Everyone was pretty psyched (ugh!) about how psychology and use of SPSS dovetails right into market research (after all my job consists of designing surveys and analyzing results which is what one does as a psych major). So yeah, as undergrad majors go, I probably picked one of the closest ones I could to my current field.
Cool :cheers:
SPSS. How I loath it.
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 12:05:10 AM
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
I have to say that after 12 years as a lawyer (and one who does deal with law rather than just tick boxes ono a due diligence spreadsheet), I have only ever read one academic paper. And that was useless.
Wow, it's awesome that a real lawyer might hold the same opinion as I. Now I don't feel
nearly as iffy about it.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2012, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 12:05:10 AM
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
I have to say that after 12 years as a lawyer (and one who does deal with law rather than just tick boxes ono a due diligence spreadsheet), I have only ever read one academic paper. And that was useless.
Wow, it's awesome that a real lawyer might hold the same opinion as I. Now I don't feel nearly as iffy about it.
No, I'm not a lawyer. That'd be terrible.
The problem is that we've educated too many fucking academics, and not enough of the old ones are dying.
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2012, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 12:05:10 AM
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
I have to say that after 12 years as a lawyer (and one who does deal with law rather than just tick boxes ono a due diligence spreadsheet), I have only ever read one academic paper. And that was useless.
Wow, it's awesome that a real lawyer might hold the same opinion as I. Now I don't feel nearly as iffy about it.
No, I'm not a lawyer. That'd be terrible.
:lol:
The law dean of Case Western Reserve University says a law degree is a good investment. Ide, take heed! :P
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opinion/law-school-is-worth-the-money.html
QuoteLaw School Is Worth the Money
By LAWRENCE E. MITCHELL
Published: November 28, 2012
I'M a law dean, and I'm proud. And I think it's time to stop the nonsense. After two years of almost relentless attacks on law schools, a bit of perspective would be nice.
For at least two years, the popular press, bloggers and a few sensationalist law professors have turned American law schools into the new investment banks. We entice bright young students into our academic clutches. Succubus-like, when we've taken what we want from them, we return them to the mean and barren streets to fend for themselves.
The hysteria has masked some important realities and created an environment in which some of the brightest potential lawyers are, largely irrationally, forgoing the possibility of a rich, rewarding and, yes, profitable, career.
The starting point is the job market. It's bad. It's bad in many industries. "Bad," in law, means that most students will have trouble finding a first job, especially at law firms. But a little historical perspective will reveal that the law job market has been bad — very bad — before. To take the most recent low before this era, in 1998, 55 percent of law graduates started in law firms. In 2011, that number was 50 percent. A 9 percent decline from a previous low during the worst economic conditions in decades hardly seems catastrophic. And this statistic ignores the other jobs lawyers do.
Even so, the focus on first jobs is misplaced. We educate students for a career likely to span 40 to 50 years. The world is guaranteed to change in unpredictable ways, but that reality doesn't keep us from planning our lives. Moreover, the career for which we educate students, done through the medium of the law, is a career in leadership and creative problem solving. Many graduates will find that their legal educations give them the skills to find rich and rewarding lives in business, politics, government, finance, the nonprofit sector, the arts, education and more.
What else will these thousands of students who have been discouraged from attending law school do? Where will they find a more fulfilling career? They're not all going to be doctors or investment bankers, nor should they. Looking purely at the economics, in 2011, the median starting salary for practicing lawyers was $61,500; the mean salary for all practicing lawyers was $130,490, compared with $176,550 for corporate chief executives, $189,210 for internists and $79,300 for architects. This average includes many lawyers who graduated into really bad job markets. And the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reports projected growth in lawyers' jobs from 2010 to 2020 at 10 percent, "about as fast as the average for all occupations."
It's true, and a problem, that tuition has increased. One report shows that tuition at private schools increased about 160 percent from 1985 to 2011. Private medical school tuition increased only 63 percent during that period. But, in 1985, medical school already cost four times more than law school. And starting salaries for law graduates have increased by 125 percent over that period.
Debt, too, is a problem. The average student at a private law school graduates with $125,000 in debt. But the average lawyer's annual salary exceeds that number. You'd consider a home mortgage at that ratio to be pretty sweet.
Investment in tuition is for a lifelong career, not a first job. There are many ways to realize a satisfactory return on this investment. Even practicing law appears to have paid off over the long term.
The graying of baby-boom lawyers creates opportunities. As more senior lawyers retire, jobs will open, even in the unlikely case that the law business doesn't expand with an improving economy. More opportunity will open to women and minorities, too. As with any industry in transition, changes in the delivery of legal services create opportunities as well as challenges. Creative, innovative and entrepreneurial lawyers will find ways to capitalize on this.
The overwrought atmosphere has created irrationalities that prevent talented students from realizing their ambitions. Last spring we accepted an excellent student with a generous financial-aid package that left her with the need to borrow only $5,000 a year. She told us that she thought it would be "irresponsible" to borrow the money. She didn't attend any law school. I think that was extremely shortsighted, but this prevailing attitude discourages bright students from attending law school.
We could do things better, and every law school with which I'm familiar is looking to address its problems. In the meantime, the one-sided analysis is inflicting significant damage, not only on law schools but also on a society that may well soon find itself bereft of its best and brightest lawyers.
It's not like law is a profession that requires the best and brightest. It's just the profession of navigating bullshit. If they were really special, they'd have a better calling.
Students Take Aim at College Endowments'On dozens of campuses, college students are demanding that their schools combat pollution and climate change by divesting themselves of coal, oil and gas stocks.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/business/energy-environment/to-fight-climate-change-college-students-take-aim-at-the-endowment-portfolio.html
QuoteA group of Swarthmore College students is asking the school administration to take a seemingly simple step to combat pollution and climate change: sell off the endowment’s holdings in large fossil fuel companies. For months, they have been getting a simple answer: no.
...
At colleges with large endowments, many administrators are viewing the demand skeptically, saying it would undermine their goal of maximum returns in support of education. Fossil fuel companies represent a significant portion of the stock market, comprising nearly 10 percent of the value of the Russell 3000, a broad index of 3,000 American companies.
No school with an endowment exceeding $1 billion has agreed to divest itself of fossil fuel stocks. At Harvard, which holds the largest endowment in the country at $31 billion, the student body recently voted to ask the school to do so. With roughly half the undergraduates voting, 72 percent of them supported the demand.
“We always appreciate hearing from students about their viewpoints, but Harvard is not considering divesting from companies related to fossil fuels,” Kevin Galvin, a university spokesman, said by e-mail.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F12%2F05%2Fbusiness%2FDIVEST%2FDIVEST-hpMedium-v2.jpg&hash=b947af4114b0b2b85f925711a3d1073e93cbbe05)
Quote from: Syt on December 05, 2012, 12:20:41 AM
The law dean of Case Western Reserve University says a law degree is a good investment. Ide, take heed! :P
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opinion/law-school-is-worth-the-money.html
QuoteLaw School Is Worth the Money
By LAWRENCE E. MITCHELL
Published: November 28, 2012
I'M a law dean, and I'm proud. And I think it's time to stop the nonsense. After two years of almost relentless attacks on law schools, a bit of perspective would be nice.
For at least two years, the popular press, bloggers and a few sensationalist law professors have turned American law schools into the new investment banks. We entice bright young students into our academic clutches. Succubus-like, when we've taken what we want from them, we return them to the mean and barren streets to fend for themselves.
The hysteria has masked some important realities and created an environment in which some of the brightest potential lawyers are, largely irrationally, forgoing the possibility of a rich, rewarding and, yes, profitable, career.
The starting point is the job market. It's bad. It's bad in many industries. "Bad," in law, means that most students will have trouble finding a first job, especially at law firms. But a little historical perspective will reveal that the law job market has been bad — very bad — before. To take the most recent low before this era, in 1998, 55 percent of law graduates started in law firms. In 2011, that number was 50 percent. A 9 percent decline from a previous low during the worst economic conditions in decades hardly seems catastrophic. And this statistic ignores the other jobs lawyers do.
Even so, the focus on first jobs is misplaced. We educate students for a career likely to span 40 to 50 years. The world is guaranteed to change in unpredictable ways, but that reality doesn't keep us from planning our lives. Moreover, the career for which we educate students, done through the medium of the law, is a career in leadership and creative problem solving. Many graduates will find that their legal educations give them the skills to find rich and rewarding lives in business, politics, government, finance, the nonprofit sector, the arts, education and more.
What else will these thousands of students who have been discouraged from attending law school do? Where will they find a more fulfilling career? They're not all going to be doctors or investment bankers, nor should they. Looking purely at the economics, in 2011, the median starting salary for practicing lawyers was $61,500; the mean salary for all practicing lawyers was $130,490, compared with $176,550 for corporate chief executives, $189,210 for internists and $79,300 for architects. This average includes many lawyers who graduated into really bad job markets. And the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reports projected growth in lawyers' jobs from 2010 to 2020 at 10 percent, "about as fast as the average for all occupations."
It's true, and a problem, that tuition has increased. One report shows that tuition at private schools increased about 160 percent from 1985 to 2011. Private medical school tuition increased only 63 percent during that period. But, in 1985, medical school already cost four times more than law school. And starting salaries for law graduates have increased by 125 percent over that period.
Debt, too, is a problem. The average student at a private law school graduates with $125,000 in debt. But the average lawyer's annual salary exceeds that number. You'd consider a home mortgage at that ratio to be pretty sweet.
Investment in tuition is for a lifelong career, not a first job. There are many ways to realize a satisfactory return on this investment. Even practicing law appears to have paid off over the long term.
The graying of baby-boom lawyers creates opportunities. As more senior lawyers retire, jobs will open, even in the unlikely case that the law business doesn't expand with an improving economy. More opportunity will open to women and minorities, too. As with any industry in transition, changes in the delivery of legal services create opportunities as well as challenges. Creative, innovative and entrepreneurial lawyers will find ways to capitalize on this.
The overwrought atmosphere has created irrationalities that prevent talented students from realizing their ambitions. Last spring we accepted an excellent student with a generous financial-aid package that left her with the need to borrow only $5,000 a year. She told us that she thought it would be "irresponsible" to borrow the money. She didn't attend any law school. I think that was extremely shortsighted, but this prevailing attitude discourages bright students from attending law school.
We could do things better, and every law school with which I'm familiar is looking to address its problems. In the meantime, the one-sided analysis is inflicting significant damage, not only on law schools but also on a society that may well soon find itself bereft of its best and brightest lawyers.
Oh, I've seen it. Note the parts I bolded above.
1)The JD = lawyer canard needs to die. When you have 45% of JDs
not finding employment as lawyers, the significance the median salary of a practicing lawyer might otherwise have tends to fade. Mitchell can create as many (mediocre) JDs as student loan checks he can cash. Mitchell cannot create the thousands more lawyer jobs needed each year to absorb this surplus. Also, I'll point out that going to Case Western, debt-financed at full freight (about $125k just for tuition, not including living expenses), would still leave you with a really onerous debt to income ratio even if you did catch that unicorn.
2)The full statement from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: "Employment of lawyers is expected to grow by 10 percent from 2010 to 2020, about as fast as the average for all occupations. Competition for jobs should continue to be strong
because more students are graduating from law school each year than there are jobs available." The BLS knows this. Mitchell knows this because he read the same paragraph I did. But Mitchell's income depends on pretending not to know it in public forums. There have been more JDs produced since 2010 (about 135,000) than the number of lawyer jobs the BLS expects to be created this entire decade (73,600).
3)2)I
would consider a mortgage at 1:1 to my made-up fantasy salary as someone who managed to both to get a starting job and then continue to practice for ten years or so, unlike the majority and perhaps the vast majority of JDs, to be pretty sweet! However, that is because houses possess the following qualities that JDs do not: they are alienable; debt acquired to purchase them is dischargeable; and they keep the rain out. JDs have none of those qualities, although I will concede regarding the last point they can be used as a makeshift umbrella, once.
Quote from: Phillip V on December 05, 2012, 01:27:35 AM
Students Take Aim at College Endowments
'On dozens of campuses, college students are demanding that their schools combat pollution and climate change by divesting themselves of coal, oil and gas stocks.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/business/energy-environment/to-fight-climate-change-college-students-take-aim-at-the-endowment-portfolio.html
QuoteA group of Swarthmore College students is asking the school administration to take a seemingly simple step to combat pollution and climate change: sell off the endowment's holdings in large fossil fuel companies. For months, they have been getting a simple answer: no.
...
At colleges with large endowments, many administrators are viewing the demand skeptically, saying it would undermine their goal of maximum returns in support of education. Fossil fuel companies represent a significant portion of the stock market, comprising nearly 10 percent of the value of the Russell 3000, a broad index of 3,000 American companies.
No school with an endowment exceeding $1 billion has agreed to divest itself of fossil fuel stocks. At Harvard, which holds the largest endowment in the country at $31 billion, the student body recently voted to ask the school to do so. With roughly half the undergraduates voting, 72 percent of them supported the demand.
"We always appreciate hearing from students about their viewpoints, but Harvard is not considering divesting from companies related to fossil fuels," Kevin Galvin, a university spokesman, said by e-mail.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F12%2F05%2Fbusiness%2FDIVEST%2FDIVEST-hpMedium-v2.jpg&hash=b947af4114b0b2b85f925711a3d1073e93cbbe05)
Kids sure are dumb motherfuckers. How does selling off stocks in energy concerns affect the demand for gasoline, coal, and natural gas? Look, I'm glad they care about the environment. That's fine. But this is the most pointless method of addressing the issue I've ever seen.
Now dousing the schools' physical plant in oil and setting it alight? That would solve the commuting student issue, anyway. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2012, 01:53:18 AM
1)The JD = lawyer canard needs to die.
Abraham Lincoln passed the bar with no degree at all. So did Lenin.
That's super. I wasn't talking about bar fail-outs or never-tooks, but rather licensed attorneys who are "lawyers" but are not employed as such.
Quote from: Malthus on December 04, 2012, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 12:05:10 AM
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
I have to say that after 12 years as a lawyer (and one who does deal with law rather than just tick boxes ono a due diligence spreadsheet), I have only ever read one academic paper. And that was useless.
I've read academic papers more frequently but yes, they tend to be useless.
Problem is that the function of an academic paper is divorced from real world applications, and only affects them tangentally. In the real world, people want answers to actual problems. Academic research tends to be about considering interesting questions.
Depends what you are doing and the level of Court you are doing it in. At the SCC or Court of Appeal academic articles can be very helpful - especially if you are trying to change/make law.
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 11:12:55 PM
Really though - taking loans enough for two degrees at non-elite universities that add up to nearly 200,000? Someone along the way should have stopped her or at least given her better advice.
Agreed there. Way too much debt! Had to be a better way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2012, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 04, 2012, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 12:05:10 AM
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
I have to say that after 12 years as a lawyer (and one who does deal with law rather than just tick boxes ono a due diligence spreadsheet), I have only ever read one academic paper. And that was useless.
I've read academic papers more frequently but yes, they tend to be useless.
Problem is that the function of an academic paper is divorced from real world applications, and only affects them tangentally. In the real world, people want answers to actual problems. Academic research tends to be about considering interesting questions.
Depends what you are doing and the level of Court you are doing it in. At the SCC or Court of Appeal academic articles can be very helpful - especially if you are trying to change/make law.
Fair enough, but of course the vast majority of most lawyer's practices are not appellate.
I have enough troubles knowing what the law is, let alone attempting to change it. ;)
Why bother studying the law when appealing to the SCC? They can decide that up is down or black is white and nobody can stop them.
Hang them all.
Resort Living Comes To Campus'Real-estate investors and developers are finding a lucrative market near college campuses, where they can woo students with luxury amenities.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323830404578145591134362564.html
QuoteResidents at a new rental community in Orlando, Fla., lounge around a resort-style pool in private cabanas. They practice their golf swings at the putting green and meditate in a Zen garden. Videogamers sip complimentary coffee while playing "Call of Duty: Black Ops II" on a multiscreen television wall. Now, they're facing final exams.
Welcome to University House, a $65 million private college dormitory that just opened near the University of Central Florida. Built by Inland American Communities Group, University House is one of the latest upscale communities sprouting up in college towns—including East Lansing, Mich., Tempe, Ariz., College Station, Texas, and others. Developers say that colleges provide a steady stream of new customers every year, and that students—and their parents—are willing to pay for luxury amenities.
Instead of bunk beds, cinder-block walls and communal showers, these newly built dorms off campus resemble apartments and offer a wide range of amenities, such as walk in-closets and custom-designed furniture. Everyone usually gets his or her own bedroom and bathroom, so the only sharing is in the high-end kitchens that often feature granite countertops and stainless-steel appliances.
Real-estate investors and developers, hungry for new areas for growth, are finding a lucrative and previously untapped market in these areas surrounding college campuses, one marked by low inventory, booming enrollment and an increasing appetite for luxury living.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-VO706_1206do_H_20121205130704.jpg&hash=1bd26499b75f3c8bada814a0b12096ed7cbaa1c4)(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-VO713_1206do_H_20121205131127.jpg&hash=b93dd7e603194d0d83589afba697813d9556bc5f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FMN-AB004_DORM15_G_20121204181032.jpg&hash=025aa2af8ded8b67715d9abf74d650543e4ec799)(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FMN-AB003_DORM14_G_20121204180758.jpg&hash=3cdd80eeb1af3c6f5492163700d4708058a8a623)
You don't practice your swing at a putting green. :rolleyes:
All that money and they can't afford to get themselves in anywhere better than the university of central Florida?
Idiots.
Quote from: Tyr on December 07, 2012, 06:26:00 AM
All that money and they can't afford to get themselves in anywhere better than the university of central Florida?
Idiots.
:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2012, 07:35:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 07, 2012, 06:26:00 AM
All that money and they can't afford to get themselves in anywhere better than the university of central Florida?
Idiots.
:hmm:
No shit, right? A public university with 50,000 enrolled? Shudder.
Did Garbon hack Tyr's account?
I wouldn't say anything like that.
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2012, 08:28:15 AM
I wouldn't say anything like that.
Just like you wouldn't say that Facebook was better when it was exclusive, right?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2012, 08:39:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2012, 08:28:15 AM
I wouldn't say anything like that.
Just like you wouldn't say that Facebook was better when it was exclusive, right?
That's entirely different and not related to the idea that with "All that money and they can't afford to get themselves in anywhere better than the university of central Florida?"
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2012, 03:19:08 PM
Fair enough, but of course the vast majority of most lawyer's practices are not appellate.
I have enough troubles knowing what the law is, let alone attempting to change it. ;)
I am often thankful I was lucky enough not to be in the vast majority - in so many ways.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2012, 09:02:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2012, 03:19:08 PM
Fair enough, but of course the vast majority of most lawyer's practices are not appellate.
I have enough troubles knowing what the law is, let alone attempting to change it. ;)
I am often thankful I was lucky enough not to be in the vast majority - in so many ways.
So was Zippy the Pinhead. He could charge the vast majority two bits just to take a look at him. :P
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2012, 08:46:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2012, 08:39:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2012, 08:28:15 AM
I wouldn't say anything like that.
Just like you wouldn't say that Facebook was better when it was exclusive, right?
That's entirely different and not related to the idea that with "All that money and they can't afford to get themselves in anywhere better than the university of central Florida?"
Oui et non. It's the same bitchy provincial sentiment.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2012, 09:35:11 AM
Oui et non. It's the same bitchy provincial sentiment.
Were you on facebook when there were fewer people? How would you be in an opinion to judge?
I think a fair comparison would be thinking of Languish now vs. Languish with 300 million page views a day. Sure Languish is smaller than facebook was when it was Harvard + Stanford, but you get the idea.
Or when the internet was just available on campus on dos screens. :yes:
Oh, the good old days. :(
Quote from: merithyn on December 07, 2012, 10:14:40 AM
Oh, the good old days. :(
grumbler used to post on his Facebook in Morse code with a telegraph tapper when nobody could see his semaphore flags.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2012, 08:39:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2012, 08:28:15 AM
I wouldn't say anything like that.
Just like you wouldn't say that Facebook was better when it was exclusive, right?
He's right of course. They never should have let all those hordes of Stanfordites in.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2012, 10:21:55 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2012, 08:39:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2012, 08:28:15 AM
I wouldn't say anything like that.
Just like you wouldn't say that Facebook was better when it was exclusive, right?
He's right of course. They never should have let all those hordes of Stanfordites in.
:D
Florida May Reduce Costs for Some College MajorsTo steer students to "strategic areas" like science, a task force suggested that tuition for those degrees be frozen.
'The message from Tallahassee could not be blunter: Give us engineers, scientists, health care specialists and technology experts. Do not worry so much about historians, philosophers, anthropologists and English majors.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/education/florida-may-reduce-tuition-for-select-majors.html
QuoteTo nudge students toward job-friendly degrees, the governor's task force on higher education suggested recently that university tuition rates be frozen for three years for majors in "strategic areas," which would vary depending on supply and demand. An undergraduate student would pay less for a degree in engineering or biotechnology — whose classes are among the most expensive for universities — than for a degree in history or psychology. State funding, which has dropped dramatically in the past five years, would be expected to make up the tuition gap.
At the same time, there is a desire to have the state's 28 colleges (formerly called community colleges) offer some of their four-year degrees for $10,000. The sum is $3,000 or so less than the typical cost. So far, several colleges are planning to take him up on the challenge, hoping it will attract new students and encourage those students to complete their degrees. The idea for a $10,000-degree originated last year with Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. In Florida, the challenge has been lauded by business groups.
...
Universities cannot offer four-year degrees for $10,000 — their average is more than $24,000 — but they are being asked to spend their money more judiciously. They are also being asked to quantify their performances by, for example, figuring out which of their students actually get jobs after graduation.
...
Florida already struggles with low graduation rates for high schools and a shortage of students who are well-prepared to tackle challenging majors.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F12%2F10%2Fus%2FUNIVERSITY%2FUNIVERSITY-popup.jpg&hash=1b6d73d0eb020797c3f66295693a974b0cb74450)
A move in the right direction.
Some nice boobs in the front row there.
QuoteTo nudge students toward job-friendly degrees, the governor's task force on higher education suggested recently that university tuition rates be frozen for three years for majors in "strategic areas," which would vary depending on supply and demand. An undergraduate student would pay less for a degree in engineering or biotechnology — whose classes are among the most expensive for universities — than for a degree in history or psychology.
Unconvinced that this is a good idea. Demand for education is notoriously not price sensitive, which is what you'd expect when those who pay for it do so in Monopoly money.
At best, you're subsidizing engineering students with history students, the latter of whose unemployability may provide a warning for matriculants of the future.
Why not just limit seats in the history program? Why do Americans always, always prefer problematic, half-measures to effective, full ones?
QuoteThey are also being asked to quantify their performances by, for example, figuring out which of their students actually get jobs after graduation.
Or else what? Do you really need more data? Close them down now.
QuoteSome nice boobs in the front row there.
Also true.
QuoteStanford MBA price tag hits $185K: Highest in the world (http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/07/stanford-mba-price-tag-hits-185k-highest-in-the-world/)
The total cost to attend Stanford's prestigious business school has jumped by $18,242 in just two years, besting Columbia as the world's most expensive MBA program.
By John A. Byrne
(Poets&Quants) -- Stanford's Graduate School of Business has leapfrogged the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and Columbia Business School to become the most expensive two-year MBA program in the world, according to an analysis by Poets&Quants.
This year, Stanford is telling applicants that the estimated cost of its two-year, full-time MBA program is a whopping $185,054, a new record. That is some $18,242 more than Stanford said it would cost an MBA student only two years ago, when Columbia was the school with the most expensive MBA program in the world. At that time, Columbia estimated that the cost to attend its MBA program was $168,307, while third-place Stanford's price tag was $166,812. In just two years, Stanford's estimated cost of the degree has risen by 10.9%, though the estimate includes a $4,000 global study trip.
Harvard Business School, Stanford's No. 1 rival, now costs over $20,000 less in estimated charges, even though it is in pricey Boston. The Stanford program is also $25,860 more than the cost of an MBA for a non-resident student at nearby UC-Berkeley's Haas School of Business. The actual difference between Harvard and Stanford is even greater because Harvard hands out an average $26,745 in annual fellowship money for its MBA students, far more than any other business school.
The total cost of the Stanford program includes two years worth of tuition, fees, books and supplies, mandatory medical insurance, the estimated costs to live and eat in Silicon Valley, and the $4,000 cost for a global study trip. Stanford says that its $23,391 estimate for rent, food, and personal expenses is for a "moderate lifestyle."
But as often is the case, these estimated numbers by the business schools tend to be conservative. They rarely include the inevitable 3% to 5% increase in tuition during a student's second year. And they tend to underestimate the "personal costs" of attending an elite MBA program, from expensive dinners out with friends to traveling to ski resorts over long weekends with new student friends.
The actual annual MBA tuition at Stanford is just $57,300, but all the additional costs add up quickly. According to Stanford, they include $2,184 a year in books and supplies, $1,710 a year in "instructional materials," $963 for "transportation," $3,600 for medical insurance, and an annual $537 "health fee."
If a single student decides to live off-campus, Stanford says the cost of the MBA program will likely be $195,580 -- another $10,500. For a married student living off-campus, the school says the cost will be a breathtaking $220,822. "Depending on marital status and other factors," says Stanford, "you should budget an additional $30,000 to $47,000 per year for living costs, books, and other expenses."
New York University's Stern School of Business is this year's second most expensive MBA program. Stern estimates the cost of its two-year program to be $184,532, thanks in part to its annual room and board cost estimate of $24,472. That is the highest estimate for housing and food by any business school, though anyone who has lived in New York would tell you it is impossible to feed yourself and live in a studio apartment for that sum.
For its part, Cornell's Johnson School notes that its estimate for housing and food is based on "sharing a moderately priced apartment" that would cost $800 a month and putting aside $450 monthly for food. That is at least possible in Ithaca, New York.
While the annual tuition rates range from a high of $62,034 at Wharton to a low of $52,900 at Duke University's Fuqua School, there is far greater variety in the estimates of additional costs. Dartmouth College's Tuck School figures that it costs only $12,643 for a year's worth of room and board on-campus. But Wharton estimates that the annual cost for room and board in Philadelphia is considerably higher, $20,644.
The most expensive books and supplies are estimated by Harvard Business School, which largely teaches by case study method. Harvard says the yearly cost to an MBA student for those case studies and other course materials is a sky-high $6,690. Columbia Business School, by comparison, estimates books and supplies to be a mere $900 a year. More typically, top schools estimate that the cost of an annual supply of books and course materials are about $2,000. Chicago Booth figures MBA students pay about $2,100 a year, while UC-Berkeley Haas says its MBA candidates are shelling out $2,500 a year.
Most of the best international schools are far cheaper than their U.S. counterparts. London Business School now says the cost of its MBA program, including housing and personal expenses, is $111,549 -- some $92,288 in total tuition and fees and the rest for food, accommodation, books, school trips, and travel home. INSEAD's 10-month MBA program in Fontainebleau, France costs an estimated $107,449.
Of course, Stanford has one offsetting factor to offer MBA applicants, besides the palm trees and mild weather of Northern California. The median total compensation for a freshly minted MBA from Stanford this year was $185,000. So at least there's plenty of cash to quickly pay down those student loans.
Interesting prices: you would think learning to run a company into the ground to increase shareholder value would be more intuitive, rather than requiring a formal education.
Eww, your faux-poverty is showing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2012, 01:10:21 PM
Interesting prices: you would think learning to run a company into the ground to increase shareholder value would be more intuitive, rather than requiring a formal education.
You need a vastly over-inflated opinion of yourself and your skills to run the company into the ground effectively. That's not the kind of thing that intuition alone gives you.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 12:56:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2012, 01:10:21 PM
Interesting prices: you would think learning to run a company into the ground to increase shareholder value would be more intuitive, rather than requiring a formal education.
You need a vastly over-inflated opinion of yourself and your skills to run the company into the ground effectively. That's not the kind of thing that intuition alone gives you.
:D
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 12:56:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2012, 01:10:21 PM
Interesting prices: you would think learning to run a company into the ground to increase shareholder value would be more intuitive, rather than requiring a formal education.
You need a vastly over-inflated opinion of yourself and your skills to run the company into the ground effectively. That's not the kind of thing that intuition alone gives you.
This is true. You also have to learn how to hide it in the books. There's a trick to that, I suppose.
American Colleges Are Over $205 Billion in Debt'A decade-long spending binge to build academic buildings, dormitories and recreational facilities — some of them inordinately lavish to attract students — has left colleges and universities saddled with large amounts of debt. Oftentimes, students are stuck picking up the bill.
Overall debt levels more than doubled from 2000 to 2011. In the same time, the amount of cash, pledged gifts and investments that colleges maintain declined more than 40 percent relative to the amount they owe.
With revenue pinched at institutions big and small, financial experts and college officials are sounding alarms about the consequences of the spending and borrowing. Last month, Harvard University officials warned of "rapid, disorienting change" at colleges and universities.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/business/colleges-debt-falls-on-students-after-construction-binges.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/business/colleges-debt-falls-on-students-after-construction-binges.html)
QuoteColleges and universities have also borrowed heavily, spending money on vast expansions and amenities aimed at luring better students: student unions with movie theaters and wine bars; workout facilities with climbing walls and "lazy rivers"; and dormitories with single rooms and private baths. Spending on instruction has grown at a much slower pace, studies have shown. Students end up covering some, if not most, of the debt payments in the form of higher tuition, room and board and special assessments, while in some instances state taxpayers pick up the costs.
Debt has ballooned at colleges across the board — public and private, elite and obscure. While Harvard is the wealthiest university in the country, it also has $6 billion in debt, the most of any private college, the data compiled by Moody's shows.
...
The pile of debt — $205 billion outstanding in 2011 at the colleges rated by Moody's — comes at a time of increasing uncertainty in academia. After years of robust growth, enrollment is flat or declining at many institutions, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. With outstanding student debt exceeding $1 trillion, students and their parents are questioning the cost and value of college. And online courses threaten to upend the traditional collegiate experience and payment model.
At the same time, the financial crisis and recession created a new and sometimes harrowing financial calculus. Traditional sources of revenue like tuition, state appropriations and endowment returns continue to be squeezed, even as the costs of labor, health care for employees, technology and interest on debt have generally increased.
Students are requiring more and more financial aid, a trend that many believe is unsustainable for all but the wealthiest institutions.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F12%2F14%2Fbusiness%2FDebt1%2FDebt1-articleLarge-v2.jpg&hash=8f0106730a4112dfcde87fb09ee239d613dcb239)
:nelson:
Less Pay for New M.B.A.s'Soaring tuition costs, a weak labor market and a glut of recent graduates are upending the notion that professional degrees like M.B.A.s are a sure ticket to financial success.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324296604578175764143141622.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324296604578175764143141622.html)
QuoteFor M.B.A. graduates with minimal experience—three years or less—median pay was $53,900 in 2012, down 4.6% from 2007-08. Pay fell at 62% of the 186 schools examined.
...
U.S. schools granted a record 126,214 masters degrees in business and administration in the 2010-2011 academic year, a 74% jump from 2000-2001, according to the Department of Education. The M.B.A. march is part of an overall boom in advanced degrees that took on added steam as some recent college graduates and others sought refuge from the recession by pursuing advanced degrees. Tuition and fees for full-time M.B.A. programs has risen 24% over the past three years.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FP1-BJ812_MBA_G_20130106170304.jpg&hash=bdd7118f55273a2f93adf7ae86c7747df8921ee9)
Well that just breaks my heart.
I'm glad I'm not in college right now. This is seriously crazy.
Quote
Colleges Lose Pricing Power (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324442304578231922159602676.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories)
The demand for four-year college degrees is softening, the result of a perfect storm of economic and demographic forces that is sapping pricing power at a growing number of U.S. colleges and universities, according to a new survey by Moody's Investors Service.
Facing stagnant family income, shaky job prospects for graduates and a smaller pool of high-school graduates, more schools are reining in tuition increases and giving out larger scholarships to attract students, Moody's concluded in a report set to be released Thursday.
But the strategy is eating into net tuition revenue, which is the revenue that colleges collect from tuition minus scholarships and other aid. College officials said they need to increase net tuition revenue to keep up with rising expenses that include faculty benefits and salaries. But one-third of the 292 schools that responded to Moody's survey anticipate that net revenue will climb in the current fiscal year by less than inflation.
Similar thing happening in HK. We see too many cases of people borrowing heavily to study a diploma or certificate or associate degree or what not. They end up doing the exact same basic jobs before and after the studies. Even the degree holders aren't getting the office jobs anymore, so these guys are hopeless. People need to wake up and realise that studying a two-year associate degree won't get you into a cubicle.
PDH and his bloated faculty are living off what amounts to a welfare transfer from student loan debt. :mad:
I believe I told you people previously that higher ed is a scam. :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on January 09, 2013, 10:41:41 PM
I believe I told you people previously that higher ed is a scam. :bowler:
But you probably don't even consider employment for the base scum who hold only associate degrees.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 09, 2013, 10:40:02 PM
PDH and his bloated faculty are living off what amounts to a welfare transfer from student loan debt. :mad:
Yeah, I'm sure they're popping corks of champagne over their caviar over it because, you know, they're making such mad bank. :P
Quote from: Monoriu on January 09, 2013, 10:33:56 PM
Similar thing happening in HK. We see too many cases of people borrowing heavily to study a diploma or certificate or associate degree or what not. They end up doing the exact same basic jobs before and after the studies. Even the degree holders aren't getting the office jobs anymore, so these guys are hopeless. People need to wake up and realise that studying a two-year associate degree won't get you into a cubicle.
Yuck, why would anyone want to be in a cubicle? *shudder*
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 09, 2013, 10:42:46 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 09, 2013, 10:41:41 PM
I believe I told you people previously that higher ed is a scam. :bowler:
But you probably don't even consider employment for the base scum who hold only associate degrees.
No shit. Cal, you fucking elitist fuck. An AA degree AND work experience? NOT QUALIFIED SO SOLLY
Quote from: sbr on January 09, 2013, 10:44:31 PM
Yuck, why would anyone want to be in a cubicle? *shudder*
I miss my office. :( It was a nice office.
Quote from: sbr on January 09, 2013, 10:44:31 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 09, 2013, 10:33:56 PM
Similar thing happening in HK. We see too many cases of people borrowing heavily to study a diploma or certificate or associate degree or what not. They end up doing the exact same basic jobs before and after the studies. Even the degree holders aren't getting the office jobs anymore, so these guys are hopeless. People need to wake up and realise that studying a two-year associate degree won't get you into a cubicle.
Yuck, why would anyone want to be in a cubicle? *shudder*
A cubicle is much better than the street.
Actually we recently hired a Director of IT Infrastructure who only has an AA. What he lacks in degrees he more than makes up for in MAD LEET SKILLZ.
Obviously a cubicle is better than the unemployment line, but as some sort of dream job? :yuk:
Beats the heck out of working in people's houses.
Quote from: Caliga on January 09, 2013, 10:51:12 PM
Actually we recently hired a Director of IT Infrastructure who only has an AA. What he lacks in degrees he more than makes up for in MAD LEET SKILLZ.
Best cyber warrior I ever knew never had a single college credit under his belt, but that's why he eventually left the company; they didn't promote people without degrees to leadership positions, so there were no growth opportunities for him down the road, despite his talents.
Luckily, the United States government felt differently about his skill sets.
A cubicle, by any means necessary.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2013, 10:55:19 PM
Beats the heck out of working in people's houses.
It's close, thankfully I don't do residential work. At least when you do you get to go to a new place and see new people every day or two, instead of staring at the same walls and trying to ignore the same annoying people everyday.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 10:57:46 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 09, 2013, 10:51:12 PM
Actually we recently hired a Director of IT Infrastructure who only has an AA. What he lacks in degrees he more than makes up for in MAD LEET SKILLZ.
Best cyber warrior I ever knew never had a single college credit under his belt, but that's why he eventually left the company; they didn't promote people without degrees to leadership positions, so there were no growth opportunities for him down the road, despite his talents.
Luckily, the United States government felt differently about his skill sets.
Education does not equal ability. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 09, 2013, 11:03:32 PM
Education does not equal ability. :)
Tell it to the MBAs. Of course, you'd have to tell them slowly.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 09, 2013, 10:33:56 PM
Similar thing happening in HK. We see too many cases of people borrowing heavily to study a diploma or certificate or associate degree or what not. They end up doing the exact same basic jobs before and after the studies. Even the degree holders aren't getting the office jobs anymore, so these guys are hopeless. People need to wake up and realise that studying a two-year associate degree won't get you into a cubicle.
Yet not getting the degree further reduces your chances. Its a bs situation.
Quote from: sbr on January 09, 2013, 10:51:40 PM
Obviously a cubicle is better than the unemployment line, but as some sort of dream job? :yuk:
There are a lot of people...average Americans who work their whole lives and never see the salaries that some cubicle workers draw.
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2013, 11:14:09 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 09, 2013, 10:51:40 PM
Obviously a cubicle is better than the unemployment line, but as some sort of dream job? :yuk:
There are a lot of people...average Americans who work their whole lives and never see the salaries that some cubicle workers draw.
Yup; more than a few would take the cubicle life, complete with annoying coworkers and "Hang In There" cat posters, for something like healthcare.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2013, 11:04:36 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 09, 2013, 10:33:56 PM
Similar thing happening in HK. We see too many cases of people borrowing heavily to study a diploma or certificate or associate degree or what not. They end up doing the exact same basic jobs before and after the studies. Even the degree holders aren't getting the office jobs anymore, so these guys are hopeless. People need to wake up and realise that studying a two-year associate degree won't get you into a cubicle.
Yet not getting the degree further reduces your chances. Its a bs situation.
It is a do or die situation. Only good degrees from good places count.
No degrees count. Ivan Illich was right. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 11:20:26 PM
Yup; more than a few would take the cubicle life, complete with annoying coworkers and "Hang In There" cat posters, for something like healthcare.
Even without the bigger salary and perks, it's a better job than many. You have much more privacy working in a cubicle than in a restaurant, for instance.
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2013, 11:14:09 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 09, 2013, 10:51:40 PM
Obviously a cubicle is better than the unemployment line, but as some sort of dream job? :yuk:
There are a lot of people...average Americans who work their whole lives and never see the salaries that some cubicle workers draw.
Oh I know. I probably could have done it, but I have never had an office or desk job, and I can't imagine starting now. Though on the other hand I'm not sure I can imagine climbing ladders and crawling around under desks for another 20 years either.
I grew up working in restaurants and doing laborer type jobs and now have been an electrician for 18 years. I get irritated enough having to go to the same huge hospital campus every day, much less going to the same desk in the same building with the same view every day.
I can understand wanting a "white-collar" job, or something in a specific field but to dream of a cubicle of all things? That's what I was jabbing Mono about.
Quote from: sbr on January 10, 2013, 12:01:06 AM
Oh I know. I probably could have done it, but I have never had an office or desk job, and I can't imagine starting now. Though on the other hand I'm not sure I can imagine climbing ladders and crawling around under desks for another 20 years either.
I grew up working in restaurants and doing laborer type jobs and now have been an electrician for 18 years. I get irritated enough having to go to the same huge hospital campus every day, much less going to the same desk in the same building with the same view every day.
I can understand wanting a "white-collar" job, or something in a specific field but to dream of a cubicle of all things? That's what I was jabbing Mono about.
Well you're the one who introduced the notion of the dream job. I do think that there are many people who would like to make the salaries they can get sitting in an office and Mono dead on that an associate's degree isn't a ticket to get a great salary.
Besides, while routine may bother you - that doesn't have to be the case of other people. In fact, some take comfort in routine.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 09, 2013, 10:58:49 PM
A cubicle, by any means necessary.
A job that allows one to telecommute, by any means necessary. :contract:
As my most time-consuming pastime is reading (news and books), a desk job allows me to do that while getting paid. e-books now even allow me to read in my web browser as if I was working! :o
Next best thing is retirement where I will no longer have to worry about the non-reading parts of the workday.
I'm running out of podcasts. That's okay, we seem to be running out of work. :unsure:
I moved into a cubicle about a year and a half ago. Before that I had an office at a Hospital but the corp rented and setup a building for most of the IT, Financial, Billing, Home Care and other groups that were in the various Hospitals or other office buildings. So now I'm in a cubicle. Not bad, no biggie. Best thing is that I'm just about three miles from home, so the commute is great!
As for college, I did most of my college time in night school, probably before it became so uber expensive. So glad that I don't have to deal with college expenses now, which I think are just crazy.
Parents' Financial Support Linked to Lower Grades
"Parents saving for college costs, take heed: A new national study has found that the more college money parents provide — whether in absolute terms or as a share of total costs — the lower their children's college grades."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/education/parents-financial-support-linked-to-college-grades.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fnytlogo152x23.gif&hash=a2a44357e893cc7d251c730b7b73e284954e626d)
Grades don't matter except for scholarships and gradschool.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 15, 2013, 08:45:07 AM
Grades don't matter except for scholarships and gradschool.
And jobs after college.
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2013, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 09:41:50 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 15, 2013, 08:45:07 AM
Grades don't matter except for scholarships and gradschool.
And jobs after college.
Probably mixed on that.
Totally depends on the field you go into, and only for the first job. After that, no one cares anymore.
Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2013, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2013, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 09:41:50 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 15, 2013, 08:45:07 AM
Grades don't matter except for scholarships and gradschool.
And jobs after college.
Probably mixed on that.
Totally depends on the field you go into, and only for the first job. After that, no one cares anymore.
Yeah. Well when I briefly thought after my first job of going to a management consulting company - they asked, but then that's to be expected. :)
Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2013, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2013, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 09:41:50 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 15, 2013, 08:45:07 AM
Grades don't matter except for scholarships and gradschool.
And jobs after college.
Probably mixed on that.
Totally depends on the field you go into, and only for the first job. After that, no one cares anymore.
Yep, but depending on the field you choose grades will likely impact the type of first job one gets which in turn has an impact on the career path one might have.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 15, 2013, 12:02:07 AM
Parents' Financial Support Linked to Lower Grades
"Parents saving for college costs, take heed: A new national study has found that the more college money parents provide — whether in absolute terms or as a share of total costs — the lower their children's college grades."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/education/parents-financial-support-linked-to-college-grades.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fnytlogo152x23.gif&hash=a2a44357e893cc7d251c730b7b73e284954e626d)
I think this is more of a correlation than a causation. People from richer backgrounds can afford/consider going to college even if they are not as brilliant as people from poorer backgrounds, so they will be less intelligent (and thus get lower grades) on average than people from poorer backgrounds. This does not mean that giving your kids cash makes them dumb.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 12:12:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2013, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2013, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 09:41:50 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 15, 2013, 08:45:07 AM
Grades don't matter except for scholarships and gradschool.
And jobs after college.
Probably mixed on that.
Totally depends on the field you go into, and only for the first job. After that, no one cares anymore.
Yep, but depending on the field you choose grades will likely impact the type of first job one gets which in turn has an impact on the career path one might have.
I agree with garbon. At least as far as law firms here are concerned, having more varied stuff (extracircular activities, work experience, volunteering) will get you more points than straight As. Assuming your grades are decent, it pays off to work on developing your resume rather than on perfecting your grades.
Some jobs I apply for still specify a "good" grade - a first or 2:1 degree.
Quote from: Martinus on January 15, 2013, 12:20:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 12:12:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2013, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2013, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 09:41:50 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 15, 2013, 08:45:07 AM
Grades don't matter except for scholarships and gradschool.
And jobs after college.
Probably mixed on that.
Totally depends on the field you go into, and only for the first job. After that, no one cares anymore.
Yep, but depending on the field you choose grades will likely impact the type of first job one gets which in turn has an impact on the career path one might have.
I agree with garbon. At least as far as law firms here are concerned, having more varied stuff (extracircular activities, work experience, volunteering) will get you more points than straight As. Assuming your grades are decent, it pays off to work on developing your resume rather than on perfecting your grades.
Thankfully in North America we get to hire people that have both good grades and have other interests.
Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2013, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2013, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 09:41:50 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 15, 2013, 08:45:07 AM
Grades don't matter except for scholarships and gradschool.
And jobs after college.
Probably mixed on that.
Totally depends on the field you go into, and only for the first job. After that, no one cares anymore.
I've heard tell of (and I'm pretty sure I've seen postings for) law jobs for experienced attorneys that require top grades, or that at least consider grades as a factor. There are some gub'mint jobs that award extra points based on GPA, but I can't remember if they were "entry level" or not. Cannot speak for other sectors.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 15, 2013, 12:27:20 PM
I've heard tell of (and I'm pretty sure I've seen postings for) law jobs for experienced attorneys that require top grades, or that at least consider grades as a factor. There are some gub'mint jobs that award extra points based on GPA, but I can't remember if they were "entry level" or not. Cannot speak for other sectors.
While this may (but does not need to) be an indirect indicator of how hard working an individual can be so may be somewhat useful for fresh people with no experience, this is absolutely retarded when it comes to experienced people. When I am looking to hire a good tort settlement attorney, I could not care less what grades he got on international maritime law.
Generally I found early on that if you didn't mention GPA, they didn't either.
Quote from: Martinus on January 15, 2013, 12:18:04 PM
I think this is more of a correlation than a causation. People from richer backgrounds can afford/consider going to college even if they are not as brilliant as people from poorer backgrounds, so they will be less intelligent (and thus get lower grades) on average than people from poorer backgrounds. This does not mean that giving your kids cash makes them dumb.
Having been on both sides of the line, my GPA skyrocketed when I was on my own (I went from a 1.8 to a 3.2). My girlfriend ended up valedictorian of her class, and she piled on most of the debt for her school herself- the trust fund kids there tended to have terrible GPAs as well.
It's a motivation issue. When you're there on the family dime, you're thinking more about being social and trying for the "college experience." When you're footing the bill yourself, especially with current school costs, you're intensely focused on ROI.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 15, 2013, 02:08:49 PM
It's a motivation issue. When you're there on the family dime, you're thinking more about being social and trying for the "college experience." When you're footing the bill yourself, especially with current school costs, you're intensely focused on ROI.
My two cents are that it goes a bit deeper than that. Although I agree that it is a question of motivation, I dont think ROI is the prime motivator. A lot of the people I went to university with were there because their parents wanted them to be there (and their parents paid for it) and as a result they didnt work all that hard at something they didnt really want to do. Those who were there for their own purposes (regardless of financial status) tended to work harder and get better grades. One of the hardest working and smartest people I met was also independantly wealthy (old money) and he married into an even wealthier family. He continues to be a very hard working lawyer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 02:28:59 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 15, 2013, 02:08:49 PM
It's a motivation issue. When you're there on the family dime, you're thinking more about being social and trying for the "college experience." When you're footing the bill yourself, especially with current school costs, you're intensely focused on ROI.
My two cents are that it goes a bit deeper than that. Although I agree that it is a question of motivation, I dont think ROI is the prime motivator. A lot of the people I went to university with were there because their parents wanted them to be there (and their parents paid for it) and as a result they didnt work all that hard at something they didnt really want to do. Those who were there for their own purposes (regardless of financial status) tended to work harder and get better grades. One of the hardest working and smartest people I met was also independantly wealthy (old money) and he married into an even wealthier family. He continues to be a very hard working lawyer.
This falls in line with my experiences, too. When you go to college because it's what's expected of you instead of what you want, the only incentive to do well is ... well, there isn't any.
The US spends $1,111,000,000,000 per year (2010) on education according to the census bureau (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/education.html).
GDP that year was what, 14 point something? I looked it up because I was trying to prove to somebody we spent more on the military, but that looks like it's not true. Only 700 billion for that, unless there are some non-federal military expenditures I don't know about.
And what a return on that investment.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2013, 12:43:44 AM
And what a return on that investment.
I agree, the US has many of the brightest and best including people who move their to attend the best Universities in the world.
Too bad all those smart people only move to Blue States.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2013, 05:09:05 PM
Too bad all those smart people only move to Blue States.
Can you blame us? :smarty:
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2013, 05:13:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2013, 05:09:05 PM
Too bad all those smart people only move to Blue States.
Can you blame us? :smarty:
You don't get to do that, Romney Voter.
Quote from: crazy canuckI agree, the US has many of the brightest and best
Which is largely a function of our population (more of us, ten times more than Canada, almost as many as all Europe) and economic surplus which permits effective nutrition for most and allows people to study rather than eke out near-subsistence living (which knocks out large swathes of Europe, as well as nearly all of the RoTW).
Quoteincluding people who move their to attend the best Universities in the world.
And has little to do with our higher education system, taken as an aggregate, which is a travesty.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2013, 08:36:23 PM
You don't get to do that, Romney Voter.
Didn't Romney run a blue state?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2013, 08:36:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuckI agree, the US has many of the brightest and best
Which is largely a function of our population (more of us, ten times more than Canada, almost as many as all Europe) and economic surplus which permits effective nutrition for most and allows people to study rather than eke out near-subsistence living (which knocks out large swathes of Europe, as well as nearly all of the RoTW).
No it has to do with many of the brightest and best in the world coming to the US to be educated because your educational institutions are superior to what they have at home.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2013, 02:00:18 PM
No it has to do with many of the brightest and best in the world coming to the US to be educated because your educational institutions are superior to what they have at home.
:) Thank you.
QuoteThankfully in North America we get to hire people that have both good grades and have other interests.
I used to favour "well-rounded" candidates over people who just had fantastic grades.
This taught me a valuable lesson: in the workplace, there is no substitute for skill and intelligence - which are not, as it turns out, signified by a summer internship building wells in Kenya or performing in a village amateur dramatics society.
Now I just go for people who look like they have the most fearsome intellect.
Quote from: Warspite on January 18, 2013, 02:07:17 PM
QuoteThankfully in North America we get to hire people that have both good grades and have other interests.
I used to favour "well-rounded" candidates over people who just had fantastic grades.
This taught me a valuable lesson: in the workplace, there is no substitute for skill and intelligence - which are not, as it turns out, signified by a summer internship building wells in Kenya or performing in a village amateur dramatics society.
Now I just go for people who look like they have the most fearsome intellect.
I tend to hire people that have both the intellect and know what a job is
Quote from: Warspite on January 18, 2013, 02:07:17 PM
Now I just go for people who look like they have the most fearsome intellect.
:(
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2013, 05:33:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 18, 2013, 05:27:18 PM
Quote from: Warspite on January 18, 2013, 02:07:17 PM
Now I just go for people who look like they have the most fearsome intellect.
:(
None of us. :console:
Well, I do think some Languishistas have fearsome intellects.
"Fearsome" isn't necessarily a *positive* thing, though. :P
Quote from: Malthus on January 18, 2013, 05:50:16 PM
Well, I do think some Languishistas have fearsome intellects.
"Fearsome" isn't necessarily a *positive* thing, though. :P
If I'm reading this correctly, Malthus is admitting to being a fraidycat.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 18, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 18, 2013, 05:50:16 PM
Well, I do think some Languishistas have fearsome intellects.
"Fearsome" isn't necessarily a *positive* thing, though. :P
If I'm reading this correctly, Malthus is admitting to being a fraidycat.
Afraid for my sanity. ;)
Too late there Mal.
Quote from: Malthus on January 18, 2013, 06:14:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 18, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 18, 2013, 05:50:16 PM
Well, I do think some Languishistas have fearsome intellects.
"Fearsome" isn't necessarily a *positive* thing, though. :P
If I'm reading this correctly, Malthus is admitting to being a fraidycat.
Afraid for my sanity. ;)
You'll hardly miss it.
College Degree, No Class Time Required University of Wisconsin will grant bachelor's degrees based on a person's knowledge as demonstrated in online tests, not on class time or credits, the first such offering from a public university system.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323301104578255992379228564.html
QuoteUnder the Flexible Option, assessment tests and related online courses are being written by faculty who normally teach the related subject-area classes, Mr. Reilly said.
Officials plan to launch the full program this fall, with bachelor's degrees in subjects including information technology and diagnostic imaging, plus master's and bachelor's degrees for registered nurses. Faculty are working on writing those tests now.
...
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has championed the idea, in part because he left college in his senior year for a job opportunity and never finished his degree. He said he hoped to use the Flexible Degree option himself.
"I think it is one more way to get your degree. I don't see it as replacing things," Mr. Walker said.
Beth Calvert, a 35-year-old registered nurse at a Milwaukee hospital, hopes to enroll in the program to earn her bachelor's in nursing. Between working overnight shifts and caring for her 3-year-old daughter, Ms. Calvert said she has little time to move beyond her associate degree but knows that it increasingly is important to her employer, which she said offers a pay raise to nurses with higher degrees.
"The biggest thing is job opportunity," she said. "It looks better for a hospital to have nurses with bachelor's degrees. On a day-to-day basis, I feel I have the education I do need."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BU757_FLEXDE_D_20130124184137.jpg&hash=a136994cde336224efc0025237e355b1559e1fce)
Maybe I'm overly traditional, but to me, college education is about more than just passing tests. Any education, for that matter.
Quote from: Malthus on December 04, 2012, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 12:05:10 AM
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
I have to say that after 12 years as a lawyer (and one who does deal with law rather than just tick boxes ono a due diligence spreadsheet), I have only ever read one academic paper. And that was useless.
I've read academic papers more frequently but yes, they tend to be useless.
Problem is that the function of an academic paper is divorced from real world applications, and only affects them tangentally. In the real world, people want answers to actual problems. Academic research tends to be about considering interesting questions.
Is this a common law thing? I've got the impression that academic papers are far more important and respected in civil law countries.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 24, 2013, 09:41:00 PM
College Degree, No Class Time Required
University of Wisconsin will grant bachelor's degrees based on a person's knowledge as demonstrated in online tests, not on class time or credits, the first such offering from a public university system.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323301104578255992379228564.html
QuoteUnder the Flexible Option, assessment tests and related online courses are being written by faculty who normally teach the related subject-area classes, Mr. Reilly said.
Officials plan to launch the full program this fall, with bachelor's degrees in subjects including information technology and diagnostic imaging, plus master's and bachelor's degrees for registered nurses. Faculty are working on writing those tests now.
...
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has championed the idea, in part because he left college in his senior year for a job opportunity and never finished his degree. He said he hoped to use the Flexible Degree option himself.
"I think it is one more way to get your degree. I don't see it as replacing things," Mr. Walker said.
Beth Calvert, a 35-year-old registered nurse at a Milwaukee hospital, hopes to enroll in the program to earn her bachelor's in nursing. Between working overnight shifts and caring for her 3-year-old daughter, Ms. Calvert said she has little time to move beyond her associate degree but knows that it increasingly is important to her employer, which she said offers a pay raise to nurses with higher degrees.
"The biggest thing is job opportunity," she said. "It looks better for a hospital to have nurses with bachelor's degrees. On a day-to-day basis, I feel I have the education I do need."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BU757_FLEXDE_D_20130124184137.jpg&hash=a136994cde336224efc0025237e355b1559e1fce)
Lol, so they're throwing to the roadside the last signifier that higher education actually bestows upon a graduate, i.e. they have at least demonstrated the ability to go somewhere and do things for several years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2013, 09:51:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 04, 2012, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2012, 12:05:10 AM
How in the fuck does a law teacher research anything? Their discipline is not only ridiculous and made-up, but also unscientific.
I have to say that after 12 years as a lawyer (and one who does deal with law rather than just tick boxes ono a due diligence spreadsheet), I have only ever read one academic paper. And that was useless.
I've read academic papers more frequently but yes, they tend to be useless.
Problem is that the function of an academic paper is divorced from real world applications, and only affects them tangentally. In the real world, people want answers to actual problems. Academic research tends to be about considering interesting questions.
Is this a common law thing? I've got the impression that academic papers are far more important and respected in civil law countries.
It's certainly an American thing--the legal academy is often criticized for scholarship that costs each student an average of about $10,000 (depending on how you break it down) but which is usually poor, often ignored, even within the academy, and almost never used by practicioners. I don't think it's quite as completely worthless as some feel, but it's definitely not worth the cost to students and increasingly taxpayers, and if 9/10 of it disappeared tomorrow, I doubt anyone would notice.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 24, 2013, 09:41:00 PM
College Degree, No Class Time Required
University of Wisconsin will grant bachelor's degrees based on a person's knowledge as demonstrated in online tests, not on class time or credits, the first such offering from a public university system.
That's similar to what my school does, most of the class credits depend on going out and passing a test for certifications.
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:44:03 PM
Maybe I'm overly traditional, but to me, college education is about more than just passing tests. Any education, for that matter.
Yeah, but at a certain point in certain disciplines, experience laps anything you can get in a classroom. Not all of them, but in practical vocations like nursing, I can appreciate that.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2013, 10:12:16 PM
It's certainly an American thing--the legal academy is often criticized for scholarship that costs each student an average of about $10,000 (depending on how you break it down) but which is usually poor, often ignored, even within the academy, and almost never used by practicioners. I don't think it's quite as completely worthless as some feel, but it's definitely not worth the cost to students and increasingly taxpayers, and if 9/10 of it disappeared tomorrow, I doubt anyone would notice.
I read or skimmed literally hundreds of law review articles when I was a law student and 90%+ were practically useless or the equivalent of academic spam. Tons of articles on constitutional interpretation that were interesting, but unlikely to be of help to anyone.
Now that I'm practicing, I've found maybe 1 or 2 articles that were helpful. Legal encyclopedias or practice aids are much more helpful.
Money Issues Drive Down Law Schools' Applications
'Law school applications are headed for a 30-year low, reflecting increased concern over soaring tuition, crushing student debt and diminishing prospects of lucrative employment upon graduation.
As of this month, there were 30,000 applicants to law schools for the fall, a 20 percent decrease from the same time last year and a 38 percent decline from 2010, according to the Law School Admission Council. Of some 200 law schools nationwide, only 4 have seen increases in applications this year. In 2004 there were 100,000 applicants to law schools; this year there are likely to be 54,000.
Such startling numbers have plunged law school administrations into soul-searching debate about the future of legal education and the profession over all.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/education/law-schools-applications-fall-as-costs-rise-and-jobs-are-cut.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F01%2F31%2Feducation%2F31lawschool-webgraphic%2F31lawschool-webgraphic-popup.gif&hash=1b28f0706d3fe631af282975877694d6d6a6f437)
Next logical step is for the shittier law schools to close.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2013, 10:15:05 AM
Next logical step is for the shittier law schools to close.
Nah, they should just get government subsidies for not producing students, just like the govt does for farmers so as not to over produce a crop to keep surpluses down. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2013, 10:15:05 AM
Next logical step is for the shittier law schools to close.
huh
http://www.businessinsider.com/which-law-schools-might-fail-2013-1
Another BI headline--
QuoteThe Law School Crisis Doesn't Exist At Places Like Yale
Ha ha, so all two of them? :lol:
Also, if you see a significant number of law schools close, given that Yale is the largest (iirc) single source of law professors, I think you'll find quite a few former Yaletards in potentially permanent underemployment.
Drowned in a Stream of Prescriptions
'Up to 35 percent of college students take stimulant pills to enhance school performance.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/concerns-about-adhd-practices-and-amphetamine-addiction.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F02%2F03%2Fus%2F03stimulant-graphic%2F03stimulant-graphic-articleInline.png&hash=619c2574a8ff7e3e01615a95122d59f6a29a0eb4)
That's because they work.
For undergrad? I think as the first page of that underlines with the Fee story - these individuals sorely lack perspective.
Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 08:26:13 PM
That's because they work.
They don't sound like they worked for the first kid in the story. They state it got to the point where he was useless he took the meds.
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2013, 08:31:12 PM
They don't sound like they worked for the first kid in the story. They state it got to the point where he was useless he took the meds.
Nonetheless, Adderall and the other drugs used to treat ADHD also help focus the minds of those without the disorder, too. The side-effects aren't worth it, of course, but the reason college kids are trying to score them is because it makes studying easier for them.
Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 08:36:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2013, 08:31:12 PM
They don't sound like they worked for the first kid in the story. They state it got to the point where he was useless he took the meds.
Nonetheless, Adderall and the other drugs used to treat ADHD also help focus the minds of those without the disorder, too. The side-effects aren't worth it, of course, but the reason college kids are trying to score them is because it makes studying easier for them.
or its just that they waited to long in the term and need to start cramming.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2013, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 08:36:56 PM
Nonetheless, Adderall and the other drugs used to treat ADHD also help focus the minds of those without the disorder, too. The side-effects aren't worth it, of course, but the reason college kids are trying to score them is because it makes studying easier for them.
or its just that they waited to long in the term and need to start cramming.
How does that contradict what I said?
Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 09:10:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2013, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2013, 08:36:56 PM
Nonetheless, Adderall and the other drugs used to treat ADHD also help focus the minds of those without the disorder, too. The side-effects aren't worth it, of course, but the reason college kids are trying to score them is because it makes studying easier for them.
or its just that they waited to long in the term and need to start cramming.
Why must it contradict rather than be an alternative - you know the ordinary meaning of the word "or" :P
How does that contradict what I said?
German Education Minister Quits in Plagiarism Case
"Germany's education minister resigned Saturday after a university decided to withdraw her doctorate, finding that she plagiarized parts of her thesis...
Schavan's resignation comes two years after then-Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg lost his doctorate and quit when it emerged that he copied large parts of his doctoral thesis. Schavan said at the time she was "ashamed" of that affair.
Doctorates are highly prized in Germany, where it is not unusual for people to insist on being referred to by their full academic title."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/02/09/world/europe/ap-eu-germany-minister-plagiarism.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F65796000%2Fjpg%2F_65796514_12a4gzcl.jpg&hash=3a83af341f90c3226ffc335fc10b9f2d4145c60e)
What the hell goes on over there? 1980? Is it usual practice for Germans to constantly go over a public figure's academic records, long after they've graduated?
QuoteThe review was undertaken after an anonymous blogger last year raised allegations of plagiarism, which the minister denies.
Really? An anonymous blogger? That's all it takes?
Germans aren't quite as bad as Austrians with regards to titles. In Germany people like being referred to as Doctor or Professor. In Austria, even a Master is often addressed as such (Herr/Frau Magister), which is really silly.
Quote from: Syt on February 09, 2013, 10:05:54 AM
Germans aren't quite as bad as Austrians with regards to titles.
Imagine that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2013, 10:05:15 AM
What the hell goes on over there? 1980? Is it usual practice for Germans to constantly go over a public figure's academic records, long after they've graduated?
QuoteThe review was undertaken after an anonymous blogger last year raised allegations of plagiarism, which the minister denies.
Really? An anonymous blogger? That's all it takes?
Doctorate thesis are usually publically available. So, basically, what you do is search for text in various search engines, and it's relatively easy to verify. It then quickly becomes apparent whether or not there's a big amount of overlap. I think in the case of the defense minister (who was on a fast track to become #2 in Merkel's party) it turned out that 94% or so of his paper were copied.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2013, 10:06:24 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 09, 2013, 10:05:54 AM
Germans aren't quite as bad as Austrians with regards to titles.
Imagine that.
An Austrian explained to me that it's from after WW1 - Austria disbanded their aristocratic titles, while Germany kept them. That led to other titles gaining in favor. Though the lowest of the title hunters are wives of doctors who insist of being addressed as "Frau Doktor". They're referred to as having earned their doctorate at the registry office (which is the official place for weddings - church weddings are optional window dressing).
Quote from: Syt on February 09, 2013, 10:11:45 AM
An Austrian explained to me that it's from after WW1 - Austria disbanded their aristocratic titles, while Germany kept them. That led to other titles gaining in favor. Though the lowest of the title hunters are wives of doctors who insist of being addressed as "Frau Doktor". They're referred to as having earned their doctorate at the registry office (which is the official place for weddings - church weddings are optional window dressing).
I suppose that's ok if it's followed by her husband's full name.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2013, 10:05:15 AM
What the hell goes on over there? 1980? Is it usual practice for Germans to constantly go over a public figure's academic records, long after they've graduated?
No, it's a quite recent phenomenon.
Quote
Really? An anonymous blogger? That's all it takes?
The university conducted its own evaluation of course.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 09, 2013, 10:14:22 AM
I suppose that's ok if it's followed by her husband's full name.
No, just last name. Mind you, most wives of doctors don't insist on it, and those that do are cunts.
Quote from: Syt on February 09, 2013, 10:09:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2013, 10:05:15 AM
What the hell goes on over there? 1980? Is it usual practice for Germans to constantly go over a public figure's academic records, long after they've graduated?
QuoteThe review was undertaken after an anonymous blogger last year raised allegations of plagiarism, which the minister denies.
Really? An anonymous blogger? That's all it takes?
Doctorate thesis are usually publically available. So, basically, what you do is search for text in various search engines, and it's relatively easy to verify. It then quickly becomes apparent whether or not there's a big amount of overlap. I think in the case of the defense minister (who was on a fast track to become #2 in Merkel's party) it turned out that 94% or so of his paper were copied.
Yeah, I know they're publicly available; but I mean, you just really have to have a hate hard-on for somebody to review their doctorate from
1980 to look for errors in somebody. Talk about not having a life.
Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2013, 10:18:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2013, 10:05:15 AM
Really? An anonymous blogger? That's all it takes?
The university conducted its own evaluation of course.
Yeah, after prodded by an "anonymous blogger". So universities respond to any old email from wingnuts in the ether over there?
It really started when someone was reviewing Guttenberg's (the first prominent case) paper for another publication and noticed that a lot of it seemed familiar. When the media picked up on it it was quickly crowdsourced. It was particularly damaging, because Guttenberg had the image of the pro-active, capable politician (a few minor dents non-withstanding) who got things done in the right way.
Afterwards there was a minor craze for finding more plagiarists. I think in total 7 or 8 more or less known politicians were caught.
Guess students are gonna have to start paying classmates for original essays instead of copying online.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2013, 10:29:21 AM
Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2013, 10:18:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2013, 10:05:15 AM
Really? An anonymous blogger? That's all it takes?
The university conducted its own evaluation of course.
Yeah, after prodded by an "anonymous blogger". So universities respond to any old email from wingnuts in the ether over there?
Why not? If it is well-researched by the anonymous blogger? The blogs that have outed plagiarists in Germany so far were quite thorough in their work as far as I can tell. If someone is right, does it matter which form of communication he uses and whether he prefers to stay anonymous?
It's not really a big deal though. I mean, German academics serves no practical purpose, it's just a social standing thing.
Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2013, 10:42:18 AM
The blogs that have outed plagiarists in Germany so far were quite thorough in their work as far as I can tell.
That's because Germans don't do anything in moderation.
Then again, I suppose vetting 30 year old doctorates is better than stuffing Jews into cattle cars.
The world is doomed.
http://m.gawker.com/5983849/woman-sues-lehigh-university-for-13-million-because-she-claims-a-c%2B-ruined-her-career
QuoteWoman Sues Lehigh University for $1.3 Million Because She Claims a C+ Ruined Her Career
Three years after receiving and unsuccessfully challenging a C+ in a course critical to her master's degree, Megan Thode did the reasonable thing and sued Lehigh University, her alma mater — which she attended for free, because her father works there — for $1.3 million, the amount she claims the poor grade will cost her career earnings. Apparently, the C+, which, let's be real, isn't so terrible, forced her to switch to a career in human development instead of professional counseling.
As Thode's lawyer, Richard J. Orloski, put it: "She's literally lost a career," which isn't entirely true, since she's still working as a counselor, just not a state-certified one. But moving on. "I have nothing against you setting national precedent here," Orloski told the judge, after admitting he hadn't looked up legal precedents for courts altering grades.
The lawsuit, the trial for which started this week, says Thode's C+ was the result of a double-pronged attack by Lehigh: one part discrimination (Thode claims her professor, Amanda Carr, gave her the poor grade because Carr wasn't supportive of Thode's work to support gay rights, a claim Lehigh's attorneys have refuted) and one part old fashioned department-wide conspiracy (Thode also alleges the department head plotted with Carr to fail Thode after she complained about a mandatory internship).
Lehigh's lawyers don't seem too worried, though.
"I think if your honor changed the grade, you'd be the first court in the history of jurisprudence to change an academic grade," Lehigh University attorney Neil Hamburg told the judge presiding over the case.
"She has to get through the program. She has to meet the academic standards."
Hamburg also said Thode had exhibited unprofessional behavior in class, including cursing and crying. Based on Judge Emil Giordano's reaction, Lehigh doesn't have much reason to be concerned.
"I've practiced law for longer than I'd like to [admit]," Giordano said, "and I've never seen something like this."
You can smell the entitlement from here. :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2013, 10:34:19 PM
You can smell the entitlement from here. :lol:
No shit. She got a career from an education the school comped. Hell they should counter-sue her and make her pay them back.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2013, 10:34:19 PM
You can smell the entitlement from here. :lol:
QuoteHamburg also said Thode had exhibited unprofessional behavior in class, including cursing and crying.
No, it's just that the lawsuit is the natural progression of this sort of behavioral trait.
I attended Lehigh University for two years, and it is very fun if you have lots of money. However, many of the professors and students are similar to her and her father.
i often heard anecdotes from professors during college of how they once taught private universities, and students would actually come to them during office hours and say, "i received a poor grade on this paper/test/etc. why? i deserve As." i found that odd, but i guess there are those who are really like that
Quote from: Phillip V on February 13, 2013, 01:22:00 AM
I attended Lehigh University for two years, and it is very fun if you have lots of money. However, many of the professors and students are similar to her and her father.
Interesting... I never heard anything like that, and given where I grew up I knew over a dozen people who went there. :hmm:
It has (had?) a heavy Greek life. In 2008, top fraternities charged $2000+ annual dues. Of course, there are also other "side" expenses such as costumes, suits, limo rentals, alcohol, and other stuff you have to pay for.
Most of my peers were nerds so they probably didn't participate in any of that stuff. :blush:
I know that plaintiffs can be ordered to pay legal expenses and court cases in frivolous cases, but how about plaintiff's attorneys?
that would likely be more effective than going after plaintiffs.
Quote from: YiI know that plaintiffs can be ordered to pay legal expenses and court cases in frivolous cases, but how about plaintiff's attorneys?
Yes.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2013, 03:12:30 AM
i often heard anecdotes from professors during college of how they once taught private universities, and students would actually come to them during office hours and say, "i received a poor grade on this paper/test/etc. why? i deserve As." i found that odd, but i guess there are those who are really like that
It happens a lot in both public and private universities. Part of the blame is grade inflation in high schools. People who are used to getting A grades doing C+ work are often quick to blame the Prof or university for their poor marks rather then considering the more obvious problem.
A funny anecdote from a friend who spent some time teaching at an Ivy League school:
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof:"There is a first time for everything. Was there anything else?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
I know that plaintiffs can be ordered to pay legal expenses and court cases in frivolous cases, but how about plaintiff's attorneys?
There has to be some evidence that the lawyer misconducted themselves.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2013, 03:12:30 AM
i often heard anecdotes from professors during college of how they once taught private universities, and students would actually come to them during office hours and say, "i received a poor grade on this paper/test/etc. why? i deserve As." i found that odd, but i guess there are those who are really like that
It happens a lot in both public and private universities. Part of the blame is grade inflation in high schools. People who are used to getting A grades doing C+ work are often quick to blame the Prof or university for their poor marks rather then considering the more obvious problem.
A funny anecdote from a friend who spent some time teaching at an Ivy League school:
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof:"There is a first time for everything. Was there anything else?"
It's funny, and of course everyone on Earth younger than 30 (or let's make that 31, I'm sure) is an entitled monster, but did your pal bother explaining the grade, or was his pedagogical response to the person paying him to do his job really as dismissive as a two-sentence
bon mot?
Its funny how you didnt find her reasoning at all suspect Ide.
She never asked for an explanation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2013, 03:12:30 AM
i often heard anecdotes from professors during college of how they once taught private universities, and students would actually come to them during office hours and say, "i received a poor grade on this paper/test/etc. why? i deserve As." i found that odd, but i guess there are those who are really like that
It happens a lot in both public and private universities. Part of the blame is grade inflation in high schools. People who are used to getting A grades doing C+ work are often quick to blame the Prof or university for their poor marks rather then considering the more obvious problem.
A funny anecdote from a friend who spent some time teaching at an Ivy League school:
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof:"There is a first time for everything. Was there anything else?"
Of course given how arbitrary a lot of grading is - I found it could be useful to confront professors about grades.
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2013, 03:01:44 PM
Of course given how arbitrary a lot of grading is - I found it could be useful to confront professors about grades.
I assume you used a better approach than "I always get As therefore give me an A" ;)
I would have been like "Give me an A or I'll say you're racist and homophobic". :showoff:
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 03:08:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2013, 03:01:44 PM
Of course given how arbitrary a lot of grading is - I found it could be useful to confront professors about grades.
I assume you used a better approach than "I always get As therefore give me an A" ;)
Well yes, I never used that line. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
Its funny how you didnt find her reasoning at all suspect Ide.
I felt it was a given that she was stupid, or at least uninitiated.
Yi: the question is implicit.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 04:44:39 PM
Yi: the question is implicit.
Really? You think an explanation of the C+ would have satisfied sugartits?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 04:44:39 PM
Yi: the question is implicit.
Really? You think an explanation of the C+ would have satisfied sugartits?
The question gives you leverage to then use to show the professor how they erred. :goodboy:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2013, 03:12:30 AM
i often heard anecdotes from professors during college of how they once taught private universities, and students would actually come to them during office hours and say, "i received a poor grade on this paper/test/etc. why? i deserve As." i found that odd, but i guess there are those who are really like that
It happens a lot in both public and private universities. Part of the blame is grade inflation in high schools. People who are used to getting A grades doing C+ work are often quick to blame the Prof or university for their poor marks rather then considering the more obvious problem.
A funny anecdote from a friend who spent some time teaching at an Ivy League school:
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof:"There is a first time for everything. Was there anything else?"
It's funny, and of course everyone on Earth younger than 30 (or let's make that 31, I'm sure) is an entitled monster, but did your pal bother explaining the grade, or was his pedagogical response to the person paying him to do his job really as dismissive as a two-sentence bon mot?
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
I suppose if the law thing doesnt work out you could write bad porn scripts. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 06:09:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
I suppose if the law thing doesnt work out you could write bad porn scripts. :P
:hmm:
Well, the pay's not as good, but on the other hand, it's a job that earns one the respect of the community.
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 06:09:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
I suppose if the law thing doesnt work out you could write bad porn scripts. :P
:hmm:
Well, the pay's not as good, but on the other hand, it's a job that earns one the respect of the community.
:lol:
I suppose you could also demand to retain artistic control and oversee all aspects of the shoot.
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
I know this might shock you Malthus, but that porno script has already been written. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 04:44:39 PM
Yi: the question is implicit.
Really? You think an explanation of the C+ would have satisfied sugartits?
It's absolutely irrelevant whether she would have or not. It's called professionalism.
Quote from: MalthusWell, the pay's not as good, but on the other hand, it's a job that earns one the respect of the community.
On the down side, it's almost as hard to make a stable living with porn as it is with law. On the plus side, the hours are better, and at the end of the day the industry clearly does more good for humanity than law ever did.
Quote from: Caliga on February 13, 2013, 06:33:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
I know this might shock you Malthus, but that porno script has already been written. :(
:(
There go my alternative career plans.
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
Prof: Let me handle your Ds, and we'll see about an A.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 06:35:25 PM
It's absolutely irrelevant whether she would have or not. It's called professionalism.
They're a teacher. Who cares about professionalism? They're down there in the trenches with the lowest and least in society. You're arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
QuoteOn the down side, it's almost as hard to make a stable living with porn as it is with law. On the plus side, the hours are better, and at the end of the day the industry clearly does more good for humanity than law ever did.
Other Languish lawyers seem to do alright. It's possible that the particular legal services that you offer aren't valued by society. You should offer different ones.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 06:35:25 PM
It's absolutely irrelevant whether she would have or not. It's called professionalism.
It's his professional responsibility to instruct her in the curriculum and to assess her impartially and fairly. It is not his professional responsibility to hold her hand, wipe away her widdle tears and tell her that not everything in life turns out you way she hopes it will, and that there will be certain situations in which she's not the best at doing something. That was her parents job. When she was six.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 08:02:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 06:35:25 PM
It's absolutely irrelevant whether she would have or not. It's called professionalism.
It's his professional responsibility to instruct her in the curriculum and to assess her impartially and fairly. It is not his professional responsibility to hold her hand, wipe away her widdle tears and tell her that not everything in life turns out you way she hopes it will, and that there will be certain situations in which she's not the best at doing something. That was her parents job. When she was six.
It is also his responsibility to provide feedback and clearly explain why she received the grade she did, not give her clever sassback. Maybe she deserved it; but if only cashiers and waiters had the broad latitude to be assholes that the professoriat has secured for themselves, eh?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 08:10:19 PM
It is also his responsibility to provide feedback and clearly explain why she received the grade she did, not give her clever sassback. Maybe she deserved it; but if only cashiers and waiters had the broad latitude to be assholes that the professoriat has secured for themselves, eh?
How do you figure? I got little checks on my test booklets next to correct answers and at best a little a little scribbled generality like "good job" on my papers, along with a grade.
Have you read some professorial code of conduct that states they are professionally compelled to justify grades? Is it written into the contract matriculating students sign with universities these days?
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 07:47:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 06:35:25 PM
It's absolutely irrelevant whether she would have or not. It's called professionalism.
They're a teacher. Who cares about professionalism? They're down there in the trenches with the lowest and least in society. You're arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
QuoteOn the down side, it's almost as hard to make a stable living with porn as it is with law. On the plus side, the hours are better, and at the end of the day the industry clearly does more good for humanity than law ever did.
Other Languish lawyers seem to do alright. It's possible that the particular legal services that you offer aren't valued by society. You should offer different ones.
That's actually yet to be seen. Like Mohawk, I was the first of the new batch, that is people who got their JD or equivalent degree after Languish started. Scipio may have, but I think even he had some post-grad work experience prior to the migration (in any event, he has also had his times of trouble). JR, Lemonjello, and Stonewall are the only other American lawyers, and they're all old and deeply ensconced. CC, BB, Malthus, and Gupta are Commonwealth/UK, and hence not subject to quite the same market forces (and are also, as a rule, old). Martinus practices in a country where literacy qualifies you for high office.
As for my contemporaries, of Sheilbh, Ulmont, St. J, Faeelin, Mihali, Kleves (if I'm not missing anyone), and myself, only I have graduated. I think Jaba has a for-real job lined up. Mihali should be fine--he's HYS. But I worry about the others.
Also, I'd like to point out that there are like 50 regular posters here, if that, and, not even counting PL, Stonewall, and Gups, a dozen have or will have law degrees. Selection bias for Languish on the part of EU2 players and hence aimless liberal artists aside... oversupply, what oversupply?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 08:18:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 08:10:19 PM
It is also his responsibility to provide feedback and clearly explain why she received the grade she did, not give her clever sassback. Maybe she deserved it; but if only cashiers and waiters had the broad latitude to be assholes that the professoriat has secured for themselves, eh?
How do you figure? I got little checks on my test booklets next to correct answers and at best a little a little scribbled generality like "good job" on my papers, along with a grade.
Have you read some professorial code of conduct that states they are professionally compelled to justify grades? Is it written into the contract matriculating students sign with universities these days?
Feedback is part of teaching. And no, grades cannot be arbitrary, and must have some basis which is communicated to the student. Is that too much for our hard-working, underpaid higher educators to do?
If there's an oversupply of lawyers, why not put your lawyering skills aside and do something that doesn't devastate human civilization?
Been trying for two years, Neil. I've probably mentioned it. :P
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2013, 07:42:58 PM
Prof: Let me handle your Ds, and we'll see about an A.
:lol: Haven't heard that line before.
Agriculture Students, and Their Schools, Reap Rewards of Farm Boom
"Iowa State University student Andrew Filipi faced a quandary recently that many college seniors today can only dream of: choosing between two job offers six months before graduation.
With a double major in animal science and international agriculture, Mr. Filipi is part of a wave of students at U.S. colleges of agriculture who are in high demand amid an expanding and increasingly global farm economy.
Mr. Filipi, after weighing a competing offer from a food company, accepted a sales position paying about $50,000 a year at Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical Co."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906004578292263203855782.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BV061_AGSCHO_G_20130213183308.jpg&hash=7399750114c8073e1601387705a128fb73c906de)
Quote from: Caliga on February 13, 2013, 08:47:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2013, 07:42:58 PM
Prof: Let me handle your Ds, and we'll see about an A.
:lol: Haven't heard that line before.
It's a good 'un.
Quote from: Caliga on February 13, 2013, 08:47:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2013, 07:42:58 PM
Prof: Let me handle your Ds, and we'll see about an A.
:lol: Haven't heard that line before.
It's an original :showoff:
In my first college semester, I and many others who have taken Calculus AP courses in high school were placed in the honor class of the next math class in sequence: differential equations. It turns out that my college has vastly overestimated the math skills of the people who had AP credit for calculus, and every student except the bright few were completely overwhelmed by the difficulty. One of the desperate students, unable to come up with many answers on the final exam, instead wrote a lengthy plea to the professor to "please, please, don't fail him" inside the exam booklet.
That actually worked. He got a C. Of course, everyone who didn't drop the class got at least a C as well, so he squandered his dignity for nothing.
I've heard that differential equations is the degree killer for a lot of programs.
I don't really know what they are, since I regrettably abandoned math for stupider pastures. I was never terribly good at it, but I wish I'd worked on it and gotten to the point where I could have gone into accounting or biology.
It wasn't the fact that it was differential equations per se, but rather that a bunch of students who were not nearly as prepared for rigorous math course as everyone thought were dumped in to an honor math college course. The result would've probably been the same regardless of the subject matter.
Actually, I've considered going back to school for accounting--it doesn't seem like it involves an overwhelming level of mathematical skill, it is more-or-less marketable, it can be socially useful, it could get me a gubmint jerb which would make the amount of any debt taken on to pay for it irrelevant (though the amount of my educational debt is by definition irrelevant regardless of employment, though I wonder if that conclusion is in itself ethical accounting), it may be the rare instance where a JD background might help (some of the small number of CPA exam questions I looked at it were essentially legal/compliance questions), and honestly it looks easier than being a lawyer (especially a real lawyer) while being more remunerative and stable. DG, you're like an accountant. Tell me how to steal an American's job!
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2013, 07:42:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
Prof: Let me handle your Ds, and we'll see about an A.
:lol:
I hand over my alternative career laurels to you. ;)
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 08:31:40 PM
As for my contemporaries, of Sheilbh, Ulmont, St. J, Faeelin, Mihali, Kleves (if I'm not missing anyone), and myself, only I have graduated. I think Jaba has a for-real job lined up. Mihali should be fine--he's HYS. But I worry about the others.
Count de Harlem
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 14, 2013, 09:40:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 08:31:40 PM
As for my contemporaries, of Sheilbh, Ulmont, St. J, Faeelin, Mihali, Kleves (if I'm not missing anyone), and myself, only I have graduated. I think Jaba has a for-real job lined up. Mihali should be fine--he's HYS. But I worry about the others.
Count de Harlem
Count don't count. I think he's at the UoChicago, he'll also
probably do okay.
Missed the original post, but:
Ide, I graduated law school and got a job in 2006. Still at the same firm, which has sent me to little Rock for the day...
Wow, I was way off on that. For whatever reason I thought you were in your 3L year. I blame you for not posting more. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:15:46 AM
Actually, I've considered going back to school for accounting--it doesn't seem like it involves an overwhelming level of mathematical skill, it is more-or-less marketable, it can be socially useful, it could get me a gubmint jerb which would make the amount of any debt taken on to pay for it irrelevant (though the amount of my educational debt is by definition irrelevant regardless of employment, though I wonder if that conclusion is in itself ethical accounting), it may be the rare instance where a JD background might help (some of the small number of CPA exam questions I looked at it were essentially legal/compliance questions), and honestly it looks easier than being a lawyer (especially a real lawyer) while being more remunerative and stable. DG, you're like an accountant. Tell me how to steal an American's job!
Ide, rather going back to school for 2-3 years to get an accounting degree which will then qualify you to apply for jobs against a herd of traditional accounting students, are you sure there isn't a way to make the law degree thing work out?
Yeah. Ide, I really don't think you'd like to be an accountant. I think you fancy yourself a bit of a sophisticate, and entry level accounting work (which there's no way in hell you'd be able to bypass) is mind-numbingly repetitive and boring, and a monkey could do it. It's not till you get to the higher positions that you actually get rewarded for thinking strategically and innovating. In fact, if you try to do that as a grunt you'll actually probably get fired because low level accountants are expected to basically perform like automatons.
Quotemind-numbingly repetitive and boring, and a monkey could do it
Yes, but what is the part that I wouldn't be good at?
I started an accounting thread of its own, but the short version is that I'm not after intellectual stimulation in my job, but rather career stability and enhanced earning potential. As David Byrne said, same as it ever was.
The shorter version is I don't fancy myself anything; I know.
The shortest version is FU. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 07:33:20 PM
I started an accounting thread of its own, but the short version is that I'm not after intellectual stimulation in my job, but rather career stability and enhanced earning potential. As David Byrne said, same as it ever was.
Once you have that - you will wish that sometimes you'd need to turn your brain on.
Yeah, but lets be clear - ide's current gig is mindnumbingly boring. If he can do that without going mad, he can probably do anything.
Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2013, 07:21:13 PM
Yeah. Ide, I really don't think you'd like to be an accountant. I think you fancy yourself a bit of a sophisticate, and entry level accounting work (which there's no way in hell you'd be able to bypass) is mind-numbingly repetitive and boring, and a monkey could do it. It's not till you get to the higher positions that you actually get rewarded for thinking strategically and innovating. In fact, if you try to do that as a grunt you'll actually probably get fired because low level accountants are expected to basically perform like automatons.
Easier to be a sophisticate with cash in pocket, one assumes.
Quote from: ulmont on February 14, 2013, 09:26:01 PM
Yeah, but lets be clear - ide's current gig is mindnumbingly boring. If he can do that without going mad, he can probably do anything.
I did data entry for a bit without going mad.
It's really not that bad. If it was permanent, and I could drop to 40-50 rather than 50-60, I think I could probably do it forever. And if it paid somewhat more, it'd be great, but that's always the case. The problem is less that it is boring, but that it's boring and involves longish hours to make the money I need (albeit not psycho hours), so it cuts into goof off time or developing fun hobbies that I once had, like art. My worries are then largely about job stability and remuneration, with a side of peace and quiet.
I do think it's made me stupider, though--like, maybe not genuinely less mentally acute, or unable to absorb interesting information that I care about, but rather less able to focus on boring shit when the reward is neither intrinsic nor certain, e.g. bar study.
They ever throw doc review your way, ulmont? Aside from being easy to bill, I imagine it's probably relaxing in the context of an actual job.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2013, 09:45:28 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 14, 2013, 09:26:01 PM
Yeah, but lets be clear - ide's current gig is mindnumbingly boring. If he can do that without going mad, he can probably do anything.
I did data entry for a bit without going mad.
I actually expect doc review is better than data entry. It's more passive, requiring less keyboard input. Though it does involve a lot of mouse-clicking.
One impediment to doing doc review forever, actually, is that it messes up your arm and hand. Redactions in particular, and redactions of spreadsheets particularly in particular, can be really drag-and-click intensive, especially since some platforms don't allow copy-and-paste boxes so every one must be manually drawn onto a jpeg or tiff or whatever format they use image of the doc, cut into a zillion different pages that you have to click to navigate through, and the navigation options are limited.
The really annoying part of that is that it does not become apparent sometimes that whole rows have to be excised until you get to a column on a subsequent, occasionally far subsequent, page. Then you have to click back, do redactions, click forward again. It's really a shockingly shitty interface. (Well, not that shockingly, if you understand what the raison d'etre de l'examen des documents is.)
Yeah I'd think that would be more damaging to one's wrist than data entry. The latter can involve a whole slew of keys, though mine was mostly learning how to be a pro at the number pad. <_<
Ide,
Oh yeah, I've done doc review and its transactional cousin due diligence (which is somewhat nicer because it typically involves more detailed analysis of a smaller universe of documents).
It's not bad if you can interleaved it with other work - it's pretty nice to have an unlimited number of easy hours sitting out there to pad out your day when you're done really thinking.
If it's all you have for weeks on end, not so much fun.
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2013, 07:42:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
Prof: Let me handle your Ds, and we'll see about an A.
Now there is a guy who can write for a living!
In China, Betting It All on a Child in College
'Wu Yiebing has been going down coal shafts practically every workday of his life, wrestling an electric drill for $500 a month in the choking dust of claustrophobic tunnels, with one goal in mind: paying for his daughter's education.
His wife, Cao Weiping, toils from dawn to sunset in orchards every day during apple season in May and June. She earns $12 a day tying little plastic bags one at a time around 3,000 young apples on trees, to protect them from insects. The rest of the year she works as a substitute store clerk, earning several dollars a day, all going toward their daughter's education.
...
Yet a college degree no longer ensures a well-paying job, because the number of graduates in China has quadrupled in the last decade.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/business/in-china-families-bet-it-all-on-a-child-in-college.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F02%2F17%2Fbusiness%2Fsacrifice%2Fsacrifice-hpSmall.jpg&hash=4c964b9cdf70f209fd134e3e09233b6c415dd74f)
It wasnt that long ago that families in this country worked and saved to try to better the next generation ;)
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 09:53:29 PM
One impediment to doing doc review forever, actually, is that it messes up your arm and hand. Redactions in particular, and redactions of spreadsheets particularly in particular, can be really drag-and-click intensive, especially since some platforms don't allow copy-and-paste boxes so every one must be manually drawn onto a jpeg or tiff or whatever format they use image of the doc, cut into a zillion different pages that you have to click to navigate through, and the navigation options are limited.
I've had to do some "doc review" but unaided by any fancy computer software. My assignment is more like: Go through this box of documents, and summarize the key documents in a memorandum format. I don't mind that too much. It's easy billing, but if I do it for more than a day it starts to suck.
What I really hate doing is deposition summaries. I've found that a bunch of partners don't like doing deposition summaries, so it often falls to me. One annoying aspect is that my hours have been cut some doing depo summaries, so I need to somehow do them faster. I've primarily been doing legal malpractice defense work, so our clients are extra sensitive about bills. <_<
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 17, 2013, 01:12:00 PM
It wasnt that long ago that families in this country worked and saved to try to better the next generation ;)
That's my life plan. :area52:
No College Degree? No Job, Even as a File Clerk
'Megan Parker, right, is a receptionist at the Atlanta law office of Busch, Slipakoff & Schuh, which hires only those with a bachelor’s degree. The firm is far from alone.
The college degree is becoming the new high school diploma: the new minimum requirement, albeit an expensive one, for getting even the lowest-level job.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/college-degree-required-by-increasing-number-of-companies.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F02%2F20%2Fbusiness%2F20degree-sf%2F20degree-sf-hpMedium-v2.jpg&hash=f4c23963ac028ba94e09d168cf6f7576cd4f56b3)
That won't last forever. Younger people are already beginning to rebel against it. It will suck for a while though.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 19, 2013, 07:05:49 PM
No College Degree? No Job, Even as a File Clerk
'Megan Parker, right, is a receptionist at the Atlanta law office of Busch, Slipakoff & Schuh, which hires only those with a bachelor's degree. The firm is far from alone.
The college degree is becoming the new high school diploma: the new minimum requirement, albeit an expensive one, for getting even the lowest-level job.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/college-degree-required-by-increasing-number-of-companies.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F02%2F20%2Fbusiness%2F20degree-sf%2F20degree-sf-hpMedium-v2.jpg&hash=f4c23963ac028ba94e09d168cf6f7576cd4f56b3)
The college grads working at that law firm are comparatively lucky. At my firm, we have a couple recent college grads doing office clerk type work and they make like $8 an hour.
Quote from: stjaba on February 19, 2013, 07:46:48 PM
The college grads working at that law firm are comparatively lucky. At my firm, we have a couple recent college grads doing office clerk type work and they make like $8 an hour.
That's dreadful.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 19, 2013, 07:12:38 PM
That won't last forever. Younger people are already beginning to rebel against it. It will suck for a while though.
What are they going to do? Not work? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:52:52 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 19, 2013, 07:12:38 PM
That won't last forever. Younger people are already beginning to rebel against it. It will suck for a while though.
What are they going to do? Not work? :unsure:
No, the market will create a situation where the employers who demand the degree will not be able to fill their positions for what they are willing to pay and they'll drop the requirement.
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:52:52 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 19, 2013, 07:12:38 PM
That won't last forever. Younger people are already beginning to rebel against it. It will suck for a while though.
What are they going to do? Not work? :unsure:
Exactly. When lawyer scum ruins society, your only response is to not work, and to make your living with violence against those who do.
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:52:27 PM
Quote from: stjaba on February 19, 2013, 07:46:48 PM
The college grads working at that law firm are comparatively lucky. At my firm, we have a couple recent college grads doing office clerk type work and they make like $8 an hour.
That's dreadful.
One of them is an art school grad ( :hmm: ) with like $40,000 or $50,000 in college debt. He's a receptionist and accounting clerk.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 19, 2013, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:52:52 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 19, 2013, 07:12:38 PM
That won't last forever. Younger people are already beginning to rebel against it. It will suck for a while though.
What are they going to do? Not work? :unsure:
No, the market will create a situation where the employers who demand the degree will not be able to fill their positions for what they are willing to pay and they'll drop the requirement.
How will that happen? Wouldn't there need to be more jobs than people seeking jobs?
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:02:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:52:52 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 19, 2013, 07:12:38 PM
That won't last forever. Younger people are already beginning to rebel against it. It will suck for a while though.
What are they going to do? Not work? :unsure:
Exactly. When lawyer scum ruins society, your only response is to not work, and to make your living with violence against those who do.
Okay, Gral. So you think this will end in violent revolution?
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:04:13 PM
How will that happen? Wouldn't there need to be more jobs than people seeking jobs?
Less people available who have degrees.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 19, 2013, 08:05:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:04:13 PM
How will that happen? Wouldn't there need to be more jobs than people seeking jobs?
Less people available who have degrees.
So kids are going to give up on having degrees so that they then stand no chance at competing with their peers?
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:04:46 PM
Okay, Gral. So you think this will end in violent revolution?
Sounds like a plan. To the barricades!
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:52:27 PM
Quote from: stjaba on February 19, 2013, 07:46:48 PM
The college grads working at that law firm are comparatively lucky. At my firm, we have a couple recent college grads doing office clerk type work and they make like $8 an hour.
That's dreadful.
That's what I've been reduced to applying for these days.
As long as it comes with medical benefits, I'll just have to suck it up.
Quote from: stjaba on February 19, 2013, 08:02:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:52:27 PM
Quote from: stjaba on February 19, 2013, 07:46:48 PM
The college grads working at that law firm are comparatively lucky. At my firm, we have a couple recent college grads doing office clerk type work and they make like $8 an hour.
That's dreadful.
One of them is an art school grad ( :hmm: ) with like $40,000 or $50,000 in college debt. He's a receptionist and accounting clerk.
how dare he take work away from real accountants. scab!
Also, why is anyone still dropping that cash for a useless degree in this day and age?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 08:25:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:52:27 PM
Quote from: stjaba on February 19, 2013, 07:46:48 PM
The college grads working at that law firm are comparatively lucky. At my firm, we have a couple recent college grads doing office clerk type work and they make like $8 an hour.
That's dreadful.
That's what I've been reduced to applying for these days.
As long as it comes with medical benefits, I'll just have to suck it up.
What is that like 16k a year?
QuoteLike other employers across the country, the firm hires only people with a bachelor's degree, even for jobs that do not require college-level skills.
This prerequisite applies to everyone, including the receptionist, paralegals, administrative assistants and file clerks. Even the office "runner" — the in-house courier who, for $10 an hour, ferries documents back and forth between the courthouse and the office — went to a four-year school.
"College graduates are just more career-oriented," said Adam Slipakoff, the firm's managing partner. "Going to college means they are making a real commitment to their futures. They're not just looking for a paycheck."
...
"I am over $100,000 in student loan debt right now," said Megan Parker, who earns $37,000 as the firm's receptionist. She graduated from the Art Institute of Atlanta in 2011 with a degree in fashion and retail management, and spent months waiting on "bridezillas" at a couture boutique, among other stores, while churning out office-job applications.
And there ya go; college graduates are more apt to take anything they can to get out of debt, even if it means to allow employers to perpetuate wage stagnation.
Quote from: HVC on February 19, 2013, 08:28:31 PM
Quote from: stjaba on February 19, 2013, 08:02:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:52:27 PM
Quote from: stjaba on February 19, 2013, 07:46:48 PM
The college grads working at that law firm are comparatively lucky. At my firm, we have a couple recent college grads doing office clerk type work and they make like $8 an hour.
That's dreadful.
One of them is an art school grad ( :hmm: ) with like $40,000 or $50,000 in college debt. He's a receptionist and accounting clerk.
how dare he take work away from real accountants. scab!
Also, why is anyone still dropping that cash for a useless degree in this day and age?
I think you should clarify that last question, otherwise it is too easy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 08:29:47 PM
QuoteLike other employers across the country, the firm hires only people with a bachelor's degree, even for jobs that do not require college-level skills.
This prerequisite applies to everyone, including the receptionist, paralegals, administrative assistants and file clerks. Even the office "runner" — the in-house courier who, for $10 an hour, ferries documents back and forth between the courthouse and the office — went to a four-year school.
"College graduates are just more career-oriented," said Adam Slipakoff, the firm's managing partner. "Going to college means they are making a real commitment to their futures. They're not just looking for a paycheck."
...
"I am over $100,000 in student loan debt right now," said Megan Parker, who earns $37,000 as the firm's receptionist. She graduated from the Art Institute of Atlanta in 2011 with a degree in fashion and retail management, and spent months waiting on "bridezillas" at a couture boutique, among other stores, while churning out office-job applications.
And there ya go; college graduates are more apt to take anything they can to get out of debt, even if it means to allow employers to perpetuate wage stagnation.
Actually that's a bit suspicious. She got a degree in fashion and retail management - and though working at a couture boutique was looking for office jobs. Doesn't sound like she was very committed to her future.
Quote from: HVC on February 19, 2013, 08:28:31 PM
how dare he take work away from real accountants. scab!
I think he's basically doing some sort of data entry, not "real accounting."
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
What is that like 16k a year?
16K more than I'm making now, pussy cat. My COBRA benefits expire at the end of the year, which is suddenly a lot closer than it was last June. My adrenal glands will not be able to afford the medication that costs more a month than my mortgage payment without coverage.
So, 16K and benefits is better than 0K and no benefits. Then I'll work my schedule around a 2nd job hopefully.
Quote from: stjaba on February 19, 2013, 07:46:48 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 19, 2013, 07:05:49 PM
No College Degree? No Job, Even as a File Clerk
'Megan Parker, right, is a receptionist at the Atlanta law office of Busch, Slipakoff & Schuh, which hires only those with a bachelor's degree. The firm is far from alone.
The college degree is becoming the new high school diploma: the new minimum requirement, albeit an expensive one, for getting even the lowest-level job.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/college-degree-required-by-increasing-number-of-companies.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F02%2F20%2Fbusiness%2F20degree-sf%2F20degree-sf-hpMedium-v2.jpg&hash=f4c23963ac028ba94e09d168cf6f7576cd4f56b3)
The college grads working at that law firm are comparatively lucky. At my firm, we have a couple recent college grads doing office clerk type work and they make like $8 an hour.
If that receptionist doesn't want her job, I'll take it. It's a lateral.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 08:35:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
What is that like 16k a year?
16K more than I'm making now, pussy cat. My COBRA benefits expire at the end of the year, which is suddenly a lot closer than it was last June. My adrenal glands will not be able to afford the medication that costs more a month than my mortgage payment without coverage.
So, 16K and benefits is better than 0K and no benefits. Then I'll work my schedule around a 2nd job hopefully.
Yuck, sorry man. :hug:
http://nation.time.com/2013/02/20/stanford-university-is-1st-college-to-raise-1b/
QuoteStanford University is 1st College to Raise $1B
Stanford University has set a new record for college fundraising, becoming the first school to collect more than $1 billion in a single year, according to a report released Wednesday.
For the eighth straight year, Stanford ranked first in the Council for Aid to Education's annual college fundraising survey, which shows that elite institutions continue to grab a disproportionate share of donor dollars.
In the 2012 fiscal year, roughly 3,500 U.S. colleges and universities raised $31 billion, 2.3 percent more than the previous year. The record was set in 2008 when schools took in $31.6 billion before fundraising dropped during the height of the financial crisis.
"We're climbing out of the doldrums," said survey director Ann Kaplan. "We haven't returned to the high point of 2008, but we're approaching it. I think you can say that about a lot of industries."
Topping the list was Stanford at $1.035 billion, followed by Harvard University at $650 million, Yale University at $544 million, the University of Southern California at $492 million and Columbia University at $490 million.
The top 10 fundraising colleges collected $5.3 billion, or 17 percent, of the $31 billion, even though they represent only 0.3 percent of the 3,500 accredited, nonprofit schools included in the survey.
Stanford benefited from a surge in donations at the end of its multi-year Stanford Challenge fundraising campaign, which netted $6.2 billion. It also benefited from the successful launch of a $1 billion campaign for its medical school and hospitals.
The 10-campus University of California system raised $1.56 billion, which doesn't include money collected by its individual campuses. UC Berkeley was the leading fundraiser among all public universities, taking in $405 million.
Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, Stanford's alumni list includes the founders of major tech companies like Yahoo Inc. who have given to the school in recent years.
Stanford raised 46 percent more in its 2012 fiscal year than the $709 million it collected in 2011 and surpassed its previous record of $911 million set in 2006. The $1.035 billion haul is equal to nearly $56,000 for each of its roughly 18,500 undergraduate and graduate students, though much of the money will be used for research and construction.
By contrast, San Jose State University, a public college 20 miles away, raised $14 million, which is equal to $450 for each of its 31,000 students.
Stanford received donations from nearly 79,000 donors, including $100 million of a $150 million gift from Silicon Valley investor Robert King and his wife Dorothy to establish the Stanford Institute for Innovation in Developing Economies.
"We are in awe and remain humbled by this kind of response. It was a remarkable showing of generosity," said Martin Shell, Stanford's vice president for development. "Higher education for most people represents hope for a better future, and donors want to invest in that."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 08:35:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
What is that like 16k a year?
16K more than I'm making now, pussy cat. My COBRA benefits expire at the end of the year, which is suddenly a lot closer than it was last June. My adrenal glands will not be able to afford the medication that costs more a month than my mortgage payment without coverage.
So, 16K and benefits is better than 0K and no benefits. Then I'll work my schedule around a 2nd job hopefully.
Does your COBRA last until December 31, 2013? If so, you'll be able to get individual health insurance coverage, regardless of your pre-existing conditions. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than COBRA, and you will no longer be allowed to be denied based on your health. Expect around $300-400/month premiums with a $2500-5000 deductible at your age.
I would keep an eye on this company (http://getmdhealthcare.com/), as they're the ones offering the Pre-Existing Condition insurance now. You're not eligible until you've been without any health insurance for six months, which means you're pretty much out until January 1, 2014. At that time, however, I'd apply to the Get MD Healthcare place because they'll already have policies in place, and they'll already have experience dealing with the Feds regarding what they can and cannot do. It's going to be the best option for you at least for the first year. They will most likely have the best rates, too, because they will have raised their other rates across the board to cover the Pre-Ex stuff last year and the year before.
:hug:
Hopefully, you'll have an amazing job before this becomes an issue, but in the meantime, this might help.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 08:35:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
What is that like 16k a year?
16K more than I'm making now, pussy cat. My COBRA benefits expire at the end of the year, which is suddenly a lot closer than it was last June. My adrenal glands will not be able to afford the medication that costs more a month than my mortgage payment without coverage.
So, 16K and benefits is better than 0K and no benefits. Then I'll work my schedule around a 2nd job hopefully.
Tea Party Nation just got a collective chubby.
:(
Quote from: merithyn on February 21, 2013, 11:00:54 AMExpect around $300-400/month premiums with a $2500-5000 deductible at your age.
Is that Obamacare? If so, you have long way to go towards real socialized health insurance.
Quote from: Zanza on February 21, 2013, 12:16:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 21, 2013, 11:00:54 AMExpect around $300-400/month premiums with a $2500-5000 deductible at your age.
Is that Obamacare? If so, you have long way to go towards real socialized health insurance.
Forget socialized medicine. They have a long way to go towards any sane medical delivery system.
Our society is not capable of producing affordable health care. The whole industry is fooked.
Quote from: Zanza on February 21, 2013, 12:16:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 21, 2013, 11:00:54 AMExpect around $300-400/month premiums with a $2500-5000 deductible at your age.
Is that Obamacare? If so, you have long way to go towards real socialized health insurance.
Obamacare only allows people with preexisting conditions to be covered and not charged a premium over those without health conditions. At this point, I don't think it limits the amount of premium a member can be charged. The Republicans wouldn't allow that.
Quote from: sbr on February 21, 2013, 11:09:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 08:35:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
What is that like 16k a year?
16K more than I'm making now, pussy cat. My COBRA benefits expire at the end of the year, which is suddenly a lot closer than it was last June. My adrenal glands will not be able to afford the medication that costs more a month than my mortgage payment without coverage.
So, 16K and benefits is better than 0K and no benefits. Then I'll work my schedule around a 2nd job hopefully.
Tea Party Nation just got a collective chubby.
:(
Meh, it all goes towards covering garbon's travel expenses anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 12:21:05 PM
Our society is not capable of producing affordable health care. The whole industry is fooked.
It won't happen without socialized medicine, to be sure. That said, I don't trust our government to put a socialized medicine system in place that'll actually work as opposed to making the situation even worse. I envy Languishites who live in countries that actually seem to have competent federal governments. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2013, 01:20:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 12:21:05 PM
Our society is not capable of producing affordable health care. The whole industry is fooked.
It won't happen without socialized medicine, to be sure. That said, I don't trust our government to put a socialized medicine system in place that'll actually work as opposed to making the situation even worse. I envy Languishites who live in countries that actually seem to have competent federal governments. :Embarrass:
It will need more than that. Socializing it will just shift who is paying for it. We need to reform it structurally.
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2013, 01:20:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 12:21:05 PM
Our society is not capable of producing affordable health care. The whole industry is fooked.
It won't happen without socialized medicine, to be sure. That said, I don't trust our government to put a socialized medicine system in place that'll actually work as opposed to making the situation even worse. I envy Languishites who live in countries that actually seem to have competent federal governments. :Embarrass:
I appreciate your envy, but we have the same problem with respect to spiraling health care costs as everywhere else.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 01:17:03 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 21, 2013, 11:09:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 08:35:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
What is that like 16k a year?
16K more than I'm making now, pussy cat. My COBRA benefits expire at the end of the year, which is suddenly a lot closer than it was last June. My adrenal glands will not be able to afford the medication that costs more a month than my mortgage payment without coverage.
So, 16K and benefits is better than 0K and no benefits. Then I'll work my schedule around a 2nd job hopefully.
Tea Party Nation just got a collective chubby.
:(
Meh, it all goes towards covering garbon's travel expenses anyway.
Someone has to pay for them.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 01:25:01 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2013, 01:20:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 12:21:05 PM
Our society is not capable of producing affordable health care. The whole industry is fooked.
It won't happen without socialized medicine, to be sure. That said, I don't trust our government to put a socialized medicine system in place that'll actually work as opposed to making the situation even worse. I envy Languishites who live in countries that actually seem to have competent federal governments. :Embarrass:
It will need more than that. Socializing it will just shift who is paying for it. We need to reform it structurally.
Socializing is probably the wrong word for it.
If you change your system to a single payor system that fundamentally changes the cost structure because the single payor now has all the clout it needs when dealing with the amount it is willing to pay health care providers.
It is fundamentally different from the kind of cost discipline private health insurance companies engage in which is to deny coverage rather than deal with the cost of the service.
BB's point is well taken that health care is expensive no matter what system you use. But at the very least a single payor system has the benefit of having some actual cost discipline along with the very great benefit that everyone has access to basic health care.
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 01:17:03 PM
Meh, it all goes towards covering garbon's travel expenses anyway.
Someone has to pay for them.
If I wanted to pay for you to get laid in Europe, I'd rather cut the check directly to you instead of paying for the overhead. It'd be cheaper. :P
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 01:17:03 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 21, 2013, 11:09:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 08:35:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
What is that like 16k a year?
16K more than I'm making now, pussy cat. My COBRA benefits expire at the end of the year, which is suddenly a lot closer than it was last June. My adrenal glands will not be able to afford the medication that costs more a month than my mortgage payment without coverage.
So, 16K and benefits is better than 0K and no benefits. Then I'll work my schedule around a 2nd job hopefully.
Tea Party Nation just got a collective chubby.
:(
Meh, it all goes towards covering garbon's travel expenses anyway.
Someone has to pay for them.
I thought your parents paid for them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 01:37:59 PM
If you change your system to a single payor system that fundamentally changes the cost structure because the single payor now has all the clout it needs when dealing with the amount it is willing to pay health care providers.
That's true, but it's only a part of the equation. It just squeezes the providers. It doesn't change the cost of medical equipment, or the cost of a medical education. Or the number of doctors that can be trained and enter the market in a year.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 01:39:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 01:17:03 PM
Meh, it all goes towards covering garbon's travel expenses anyway.
Someone has to pay for them.
If I wanted to pay for you to get laid in Europe, I'd rather cut the check directly to you instead of paying for the overhead. It'd be cheaper. :P
:P
@Raz - I think it'd be very strange if my parents paid for my company to send me on business. :D
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 01:44:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 01:39:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 01:17:03 PM
Meh, it all goes towards covering garbon's travel expenses anyway.
Someone has to pay for them.
If I wanted to pay for you to get laid in Europe, I'd rather cut the check directly to you instead of paying for the overhead. It'd be cheaper. :P
:P
@Raz - I think it'd be very strange if my parents paid for my company to send me on business. :D
Your company pays for you to get laid in Europe? What kind of business are you in now?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 01:46:05 PM
Your company pays for you to get laid in Europe? What kind of business are you in now?
He's still a Medical-Industrial Complex whore.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 01:46:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 01:44:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 01:39:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2013, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2013, 01:17:03 PM
Meh, it all goes towards covering garbon's travel expenses anyway.
Someone has to pay for them.
If I wanted to pay for you to get laid in Europe, I'd rather cut the check directly to you instead of paying for the overhead. It'd be cheaper. :P
:P
@Raz - I think it'd be very strange if my parents paid for my company to send me on business. :D
Your company pays for you to get laid in Europe? What kind of business are you in now?
My company paid for me to take a weekend wilderness adventure in Oregon. Didn't get laid, though :mellow:
Medical equipment is really expensive here, however I guess even there the price is regulated indirectly by having a huge public insurance that administrates most of our healthcare budget. Hospitals and private doctors will just not have endless amounts of cash available due to the fact that they are paid according to the general catalogue of the public health insurance.
Medical education is state-run here as well, at least for doctors (nurses are probably trained in private hospitals as well). The state can at least somewhat regulate how many students are admitted into medical sciences at universities. The problem we have is not the number of available doctors per se, but rather that they cluster in big, attractive cities which have an oversupply and leave rural areas with an deficient supply. I guess an even more socialist state could solve that, but individual doctors here are obviously still free to pick their place of work.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 01:37:59 PM
Socializing is probably the wrong word for it.
If you change your system to a single payor system that fundamentally changes the cost structure because the single payor now has all the clout it needs when dealing with the amount it is willing to pay health care providers.
It is fundamentally different from the kind of cost discipline private health insurance companies engage in which is to deny coverage rather than deal with the cost of the service.
BB's point is well taken that health care is expensive no matter what system you use. But at the very least a single payor system has the benefit of having some actual cost discipline along with the very great benefit that everyone has access to basic health care.
:lmfao:
Sure, governments across Canada are having great success in enforcing cost discipline. Oh wait, they're not.
Here's a chart showing Canadian health care spending:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cihi.ca%2FCIHI-ext-portal%2Fscsdynamic%2Fidcpub%3FfileUrl%3D%2Fidcpub%2Fgroups%2Fweb_content_internet%2Fdocuments%2Fwebcontentinternet%2F%257Eexport%2FRELEASE_03NOV11_FIG1_EN%257E1%257ECIHI_GUI_TEMPLATE%257EDEFAULT_DC_LAYOUT%2F37915-1.jpg&hash=cd865d9b00441f9d6286aa543eec16cc7d40dc23)
Have you considered death panels? I'm looking forward to their implementation here.
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 01:58:05 PM
:lmfao:
Sure, governments across Canada are having great success in enforcing cost discipline. Oh wait, they're not.
Here's a chart showing Canadian health care spending:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cihi.ca%2FCIHI-ext-portal%2Fscsdynamic%2Fidcpub%3FfileUrl%3D%2Fidcpub%2Fgroups%2Fweb_content_internet%2Fdocuments%2Fwebcontentinternet%2F%257Eexport%2FRELEASE_03NOV11_FIG1_EN%257E1%257ECIHI_GUI_TEMPLATE%257EDEFAULT_DC_LAYOUT%2F37915-1.jpg&hash=cd865d9b00441f9d6286aa543eec16cc7d40dc23)
What do these two lines represent?
Total amount of health care spending in Canada.
Here's the report I grabbed it from (I linked to figure 1).
http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/release_03nov11
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 02:04:15 PM
Total amount of health care spending in Canada.
Here's the report I grabbed it from (I linked to figure 1).
http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/release_03nov11
What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this? I see the lines going up, but how can I judge whether that's a reasonable growth or not?
LOL CORPORATE FATCATS
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2013, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 02:04:15 PM
Total amount of health care spending in Canada.
Here's the report I grabbed it from (I linked to figure 1).
http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/release_03nov11
What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this? I see the lines going up, but how can I judge whether that's a reasonable growth or not?
Yeah, as a population ages (Baby Boomers) you would expect total health care costs to rise.
Quote from: sbr on February 21, 2013, 03:02:37 PM
Yeah, as a population ages (Baby Boomers) you would expect total health care costs to rise.
Not to mention the population's growing as well. The numbers aren't adjusted per capita.
Course, even when all of that is taken into account, I'd imagine health care costs to be higher now than in the 70s due to all the high tech machines in use.
Quote from: sbr on February 21, 2013, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2013, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 02:04:15 PM
Total amount of health care spending in Canada.
Here's the report I grabbed it from (I linked to figure 1).
http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/release_03nov11
What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this? I see the lines going up, but how can I judge whether that's a reasonable growth or not?
Yeah, as a population ages (Baby Boomers) you would expect total health care costs to rise.
Or just as population increases, for that matter. Comparing nominal figures, even when inflation-adjusted, is only useful if you're trying to make a misleading point. Without taking into account the sources of exposure to costs, such figures are worse than useless.
The Age of the Permanent Intern'Many of the ambitious young people who flock to Washington toil for years as low-paid interns—and count themselves lucky to do so. Is this what success looks like in 2013?'
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/the-age-of-the-permanent-intern/
QuoteIn so many ways, Kate, who was born in 1987, is a perfect reflection of the opportunities and hardships of being young today. She’s smart and motivated and has a degree from an Ivy League school, yet at 25 she worries she’ll never attain the status or lifestyle of her boomer parents. She majored in political science and has a burnished social conscience, something she honed teaching creative writing in a women’s prison. But Kate’s most salient—and at this point, defining—generational trait might be that she doesn’t have a full-time job. Instead, she has been an intern for a year and a half.
Kate moved to DC after dropping out of her first year of law school. She has cycled through one internship at a political organization and another at a media company and is now biding her time as an unpaid intern at a lobbying firm. To make ends meet, she works as a hostess in Adams Morgan three or four nights a week, which means she often clocks 15-hour days.
“I don’t mean to sound like I have an ego, but I am an intelligent, hard-working person,” Kate says. “Someone would be happy they hired me.”
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonian.com%2Farticles%2Fassets_c%2F2013%2F01%2F2013-1-28-permaterns-thumb-620xauto-49698.jpg&hash=984d1efe669f1a5e9df29cde7652035103409a73)
A year and a half? She just needs to stick at it for 6 more months then she'll have permission to apply for work.
The internships are paid too. That's great.
Lots of us weren't lucky enough to do internships.
There is too much to say about how much of a fail Kate is that I can't post it right now. Good night. :sleep:
:rolleyes: Moving to Washington to intern? Pretentious losers.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 22, 2013, 04:36:47 AM
There is too much to say about how much of a fail Kate is that I can't post it right now. Good night. :sleep:
Then tell us in the morning.
She obviously wasn't good enough to be offered a full job. I bet she thought her gams was good enough to get her a full time position. Lazy bitch.
Quote from: Tyr on February 22, 2013, 02:02:03 AM
The internships are paid too. That's great.
Lots of us weren't lucky enough to do internships.
The article points out her internship is unpaid. :contract:
This is actually what both my sisters were facing in New York and why they fled the city after graduation to build experience and cash reserves, elsewhere.
High Debt and Falling Demand Trap New Veterinarians'The problem is a boom in supply (that is, vets) and a decline in demand (namely, veterinary services). Class sizes have been rising at nearly every school, in some cases by as much as 20 percent in recent years. And the cost of vet school has far outpaced the rate of inflation. It has risen to a median of $63,000 a year for out-of-state tuition, fees and living expenses, according to the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, up 35 percent in the last decade.
This would seem less alarming if vets made more money. But starting salaries have sunk by about 13 percent during the same 10-year period, in inflation-adjusted terms, to $45,575 a year'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/business/high-debt-and-falling-demand-trap-new-veterinarians.html
QuoteHAYLEY SCHAFER chose her dream job at the age of 5. Three years later, her grandmother told her that if she wrote it down, the dream would come true. So she found a piece of blue construction paper and scrawled on it with a pencil: "Veterianian." "No one told me how to spell it," she remembers. "They just said, 'Sound it out.' "
At the age of 30, she still has the sign, which is framed on her desk at the Caring Hearts Animal Clinic in Gilbert, Ariz., where she works as a vet. She also has $312,000 in student loans, courtesy of Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts. Or rather, $312,000 was what she owed the last time she could bring herself to log into the Sallie Mae account that tracks the ever-growing balance.
"It makes me sick, watching it increase," she says. "There's also the stress of how am I going to save for retirement when I have this bear to pay off."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F02%2F24%2Fbusiness%2F24-VET-JP1%2F24-VET-JP1-articleLarge.jpg&hash=2db877bc2d70c7e1f5b0ac158ba17f4371406b37)
The problem is that nearly every profession thought to be relatively high-paying goes through boom/bust cycles. Certainly lawyering does. We are in a bust cycle now.
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
The problem is that nearly every profession thought to be relatively high-paying goes through boom/bust cycles. Certainly lawyering does. We are in a bust cycle now.
Thank god.
No, the problem is she went to St Kitts for Vet school. WTF? Vet schools are a dime a dozen and she goes there? Shame on her for not thinking ahead.
Who lends people like her $300.000? Can you get that as a lump sum? Because I have a Nigerian acquaintance that would be interested in studying veterinarian medicine on St. Kitts as well.
She was probably too stupid to get into a real vet school in the US. IIRC Caribbean medical-type schools are traditionally for rich, yet dim students. I guess if you go to one of them, but are not rich, you truly are a moron.
Quote from: Zanza on February 24, 2013, 11:18:12 AM
Who lends people like her $300.000? Can you get that as a lump sum? Because I have a Nigerian acquaintance that would be interested in studying veterinarian medicine on St. Kitts as well.
The loan is government subsidized. Banks loan it because there's no way to default. Don't pay and you end up with your wages garnished and your license to practice revoked.
From the article:
QuoteToday, her debt exceeds her salary by a factor of five — much higher than the recommended twice-starting-salary ratio. She signed up for income-based repayment, a government program available to federal student loan recipients. (A newer program with slightly more generous terms, called Pay As You Earn, or PAYE, is available to more recent graduates.) Both income-based repayment and PAYE allow graduates to lead relatively normal lives by paying back a modest percentage of their income based on a formula. After a fixed amount of time, from 10 to 25 years, the balance of the debt is discharged.
That's the good news. The bad news is that the interest on the debt keeps growing and taxes must be paid on the amount discharged, as if it is a gift. Dr. Schafer sends $400 a month to Sallie Mae, a sum that will rise. But what kind of tax bill awaits her? Asked to run the numbers, GL Advisor, a financial services company that specializes in student loans, calculated that Dr. Schafer's debt is likely to exceed $650,000 when her tax bill lands 25 years after the start of the loan, which means she will owe the Internal Revenue Service roughly $200,000. That will happen while she is still deep in her career, perhaps around the time she wants to send some children to college.
:lol: That's really a nice racket your government runs with the higher education institutions.
She can always go to the pole.
Plenty of need for veterinarians in the medical research arena; but taking care of the facilities where researchers decapitate a dozen rabbits every day to see how fast they blink afterwards isn't why most go to vet school.
Quote from: Zanza on February 24, 2013, 11:24:24 AM
From the article:
QuoteToday, her debt exceeds her salary by a factor of five — much higher than the recommended twice-starting-salary ratio. She signed up for income-based repayment, a government program available to federal student loan recipients. (A newer program with slightly more generous terms, called Pay As You Earn, or PAYE, is available to more recent graduates.) Both income-based repayment and PAYE allow graduates to lead relatively normal lives by paying back a modest percentage of their income based on a formula. After a fixed amount of time, from 10 to 25 years, the balance of the debt is discharged.
That's the good news. The bad news is that the interest on the debt keeps growing and taxes must be paid on the amount discharged, as if it is a gift. Dr. Schafer sends $400 a month to Sallie Mae, a sum that will rise. But what kind of tax bill awaits her? Asked to run the numbers, GL Advisor, a financial services company that specializes in student loans, calculated that Dr. Schafer's debt is likely to exceed $650,000 when her tax bill lands 25 years after the start of the loan, which means she will owe the Internal Revenue Service roughly $200,000. That will happen while she is still deep in her career, perhaps around the time she wants to send some children to college.
:lol: That's really a nice racket your government runs with the higher education institutions.
That's also a deeply inaccurate summary. For all IBR's (and its evolved program, PAYE's) faults, the insolvency provisions of the IRC should protect people from being completely destroyed in discharge.
Quote from: MoneyPlenty of need for veterinarians in the medical research arena; but taking care of the facilities where researchers decapitate a dozen rabbits every day to see how fast they blink afterwards isn't why most go to vet school.
Indeed. I've looked into vet school off and on, and the problem does in part (though not entirely) appear to be a reluctance to take jobs at R+D facilities and at giant factory farms. At the same time, in either case this is a lot like asking Hawkeye Pierce to go work at Auschwitz.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 24, 2013, 12:15:42 PM
Quote from: MoneyPlenty of need for veterinarians in the medical research arena; but taking care of the facilities where researchers decapitate a dozen rabbits every day to see how fast they blink afterwards isn't why most go to vet school.
Indeed. I've looked into vet school off and on, and the problem does in part (though not entirely) appear to be a reluctance to take jobs at R+D facilities and at giant factory farms. At the same time, in either case this is a lot like asking Hawkeye Pierce to go work at Auschwitz.
Yeah, I've seen the research facilities. Medical guillotines that would make Robespierre spooge. Ever wonder how they figure out what happens to lab rats when they smoke 500 cigarettes a day? And I'm not even going to describe what the monkey centrifugal chair does. You can figure that one out.
The collapse in the economy didn't help, either. Remember all those magazine cover stories just a few years ago, how Americans were spending more money on their pets than ever before? That's when these kids started going into vet school. With the disappearance of disposable income, sending Spot to the vets tends to drop a bit on the List of Things To Do.
Owing to work, I'm actually pretty familiar with pharmaceutical preclinical studies. Why can't we just use homeless people or all those excess Chinese males? The science would be sounder too.
Quote from: Caliga on February 24, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
She was probably too stupid to get into a real vet school in the US. IIRC Caribbean medical-type schools are traditionally for rich, yet dim students. I guess if you go to one of them, but are not rich, you truly are a moron.
:mad: My cousin went to a Caribbean medical school, and his family is not particularly rich.
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2013, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 24, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
She was probably too stupid to get into a real vet school in the US. IIRC Caribbean medical-type schools are traditionally for rich, yet dim students. I guess if you go to one of them, but are not rich, you truly are a moron.
:mad: My cousin went to a Caribbean medical school, and his family is not particularly rich.
Well, is he a moron? ;)
Quote from: Phillip V on February 24, 2013, 08:32:35 AM
High Debt and Falling Demand Trap New Veterinarians
'The problem is a boom in supply (that is, vets) and a decline in demand (namely, veterinary services). Class sizes have been rising at nearly every school, in some cases by as much as 20 percent in recent years. And the cost of vet school has far outpaced the rate of inflation. It has risen to a median of $63,000 a year for out-of-state tuition, fees and living expenses, according to the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, up 35 percent in the last decade.
This would seem less alarming if vets made more money. But starting salaries have sunk by about 13 percent during the same 10-year period, in inflation-adjusted terms, to $45,575 a year'
There's a huge shortage of large-animal vets in many parts of the country.
Ya, but then you have to shove your hand into their asses, while city vets get to play with kitties.
Quote from: HVC on February 24, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
Ya, but then you have to shove your hand into their asses, while city vets get to play with kitties.
Not to mention living in desolate wastelands like Wyoming or the Dakotas.
Girls become vets to take care of puppies and kitties, not to deal with livestock or to massacre various testlab animals.
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2013, 01:18:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2013, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 24, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
She was probably too stupid to get into a real vet school in the US. IIRC Caribbean medical-type schools are traditionally for rich, yet dim students. I guess if you go to one of them, but are not rich, you truly are a moron.
:mad: My cousin went to a Caribbean medical school, and his family is not particularly rich.
Well, is he a moron? ;)
He's my cousin, and I love him.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2013, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 01:37:59 PM
If you change your system to a single payor system that fundamentally changes the cost structure because the single payor now has all the clout it needs when dealing with the amount it is willing to pay health care providers.
That's true, but it's only a part of the equation. It just squeezes the providers. It doesn't change the cost of medical equipment, or the cost of a medical education. Or the number of doctors that can be trained and enter the market in a year.
Since the single payor also purchases most of the equipment it has the similar cost controls on that as well - including the ability to get better deals from manufacturers of the equipment. Drug costs are also contained since the single payor can negotiate directly with big pharma to get big discounts. The cost of medical education is heavily subsidized as well so that takes care of the problem with doctors needing to earn large amounts just to pay off their large loans.
You are right about the number of doctors though. In recent years this province has steadily increased the number of seats in medical school through direct funding the the Universities to try to increase the number of doctors that are necessary. But that remains an issue.
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 01:58:05 PM
:lmfao:
Sure, governments across Canada are having great success in enforcing cost discipline. Oh wait, they're not.
The only way health care costs in a general sense are going to go down over time is if the long life expectancy trend reverses sharply for some reason. The rising cost of health care is a function of our productivity.
I don't agree with that. We're probably going to have a decrease in the average lifespan because of the increase in prevalence of obesity/hypertension/diabetes, yet health care costs over that same time are going to rise. People are just going to be sick for longer periods of time. We have the ability to keep them alive, but not cure them.
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 01:58:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 01:37:59 PM
Socializing is probably the wrong word for it.
If you change your system to a single payor system that fundamentally changes the cost structure because the single payor now has all the clout it needs when dealing with the amount it is willing to pay health care providers.
It is fundamentally different from the kind of cost discipline private health insurance companies engage in which is to deny coverage rather than deal with the cost of the service.
BB's point is well taken that health care is expensive no matter what system you use. But at the very least a single payor system has the benefit of having some actual cost discipline along with the very great benefit that everyone has access to basic health care.
:lmfao:
Sure, governments across Canada are having great success in enforcing cost discipline. Oh wait, they're not.
Here's a chart showing Canadian health care spending:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cihi.ca%2FCIHI-ext-portal%2Fscsdynamic%2Fidcpub%3FfileUrl%3D%2Fidcpub%2Fgroups%2Fweb_content_internet%2Fdocuments%2Fwebcontentinternet%2F%257Eexport%2FRELEASE_03NOV11_FIG1_EN%257E1%257ECIHI_GUI_TEMPLATE%257EDEFAULT_DC_LAYOUT%2F37915-1.jpg&hash=cd865d9b00441f9d6286aa543eec16cc7d40dc23)
Meh. How's that compared to other OECD countries? Your population increased by 1.5 fold over 1975-2011, while health care spending in 1997 dollars increased 3 fold over that same time period. That seems pretty good given how far technology has come since 1975.
Quote from: Fate on February 25, 2013, 04:24:04 PM
I don't agree with that. We're probably going to have a decrease in the average lifespan because of the increase in prevalence of obesity/hypertension/diabetes, yet health care costs over that same time are going to rise. People are just going to be sick for longer periods of time. We have the ability to keep them alive, but not cure them.
Exactly.
Quote from: Fate on February 25, 2013, 04:24:04 PM
I don't agree with that. We're probably going to have a decrease in the average lifespan because of the increase in prevalence of obesity/hypertension/diabetes,
We'll see how that stacks up against the decline in smoking-related deaths.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 25, 2013, 03:09:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 21, 2013, 01:58:05 PM
:lmfao:
Sure, governments across Canada are having great success in enforcing cost discipline. Oh wait, they're not.
The only way health care costs in a general sense are going to go down over time is if the long life expectancy trend reverses sharply for some reason. The rising cost of health care is a function of our productivity.
Sure, life expectancy rates are a factor, but won't declining birth rates also catch up with that once all the long-lived people do eventually die? :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 25, 2013, 05:39:44 PM
Sure, life expectancy rates are a factor, but won't declining birth rates also catch up with that once all the long-lived people do eventually die? :P
Theoretically, but it's government policy to keep that population growing at all costs. to help deal with the Boomers.
Student-Loan Delinquencies Soar
'35% of people under 30 who have student loans were at least 90 days late on their payments at the end of 2012, up from 26% in 2008 and 21% at the end of 2004.
The new figures, which exclude 44% of borrowers who are still in school or aren't yet required to make payments, show that young Americans are having a tougher time repaying college loans as debt loads increase and job prospects remain shaky.
Amplifying the burden: a growing number of young adults have become student borrowers. All told, 43% of 25-year-olds had student debt in the fourth quarter of 2012, up from about 33% in the fourth quarter of 2008.
...
Nearly 47% of borrowers owe between $10,000 and $50,000, up from 38% in the fourth quarter of 2005. The share of borrowers with balances of $100,000 or more has also jumped, to 3.7% from 1.7% during this period.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323978104578332222805526516.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.wsj.net%2Fvideo%2F20121209%2F120712college3%2F120712college3_512x288.jpg&hash=e017c9dc5de7817cf24bf99c69ed4d83bb2ac95d)
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:02:36 PM
The share of borrowers with balances of $100,000 or more has also jumped, to 3.7% from 1.7% during this period.'
Well, that's an interesting statistic. To hear everyone talk, there are a lot more students than this over that $100,000 mark. I'm glad to hear that it's actually a very few who are so in debt.
Isn't much help if they can't get a job, but there's a huge difference between 3.7% of students that much in debt and the 20-30% that I imagined.
Quote from: merithyn on February 28, 2013, 01:12:28 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:02:36 PM
The share of borrowers with balances of $100,000 or more has also jumped, to 3.7% from 1.7% during this period.'
Well, that's an interesting statistic. To hear everyone talk, there are a lot more students than this over that $100,000 mark. I'm glad to hear that it's actually a very few who are so in debt.
Isn't much help if they can't get a job, but there's a huge difference between 3.7% of students that much in debt and the 20-30% that I imagined.
Everything would have already collapsed if it were 30% I suspect.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 01:16:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 28, 2013, 01:12:28 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:02:36 PM
The share of borrowers with balances of $100,000 or more has also jumped, to 3.7% from 1.7% during this period.'
Well, that's an interesting statistic. To hear everyone talk, there are a lot more students than this over that $100,000 mark. I'm glad to hear that it's actually a very few who are so in debt.
Isn't much help if they can't get a job, but there's a huge difference between 3.7% of students that much in debt and the 20-30% that I imagined.
Everything would have already collapsed if it were 30% I suspect.
If the majority are paying them back, why would that happen?
Quote from: merithyn on February 28, 2013, 01:12:28 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:02:36 PM
The share of borrowers with balances of $100,000 or more has also jumped, to 3.7% from 1.7% during this period.'
Well, that's an interesting statistic. To hear everyone talk, there are a lot more students than this over that $100,000 mark. I'm glad to hear that it's actually a very few who are so in debt.
Isn't much help if they can't get a job, but there's a huge difference between 3.7% of students that much in debt and the 20-30% that I imagined.
3.7% = 1.44 million borrowers with $100k+ in student debt
And that does not include credit card debt, family loans, and other financing methods indebted people turn to. "very few" indeed.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:20:36 PM
3.7% = 1.44 million borrowers with $100k+ in student debt
And that does not include credit card debt, family loans, and other financing methods people use. "very few" indeed.
Compared to the 9.6 to 14.4 million I thought, yeah, very few.
The uncounted 44% of student-borrowers may also be unsettling. Many have found ways---for now---to defer payment on student loans for years while interest continues to accrue... They are not included in the statistics.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:25:44 PM
The uncounted 44% of student-borrowers may also be unsettling. Many have found ways---for now---to defer payment on student loans for years while interest continues to accrue... They are not included in the statistics.
Yeah, I wonder how many of those have simply continued to be in school to finish their second, third etc degree. If that is a large percentage then a lot of them will be in the 100k+ range.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:25:44 PM
The uncounted 44% of student-borrowers may also be unsettling. Many have found ways---for now---to defer payment on student loans for years while interest continues to accrue... They are not included in the statistics.
Yeah, I wonder how many of those have simply continued to be in school to finish their second, third etc degree. If that is a large percentage then a lot of them will be in the 100k+ range.
What's the end game for those folk? Problem isn't going to get easier for them if they keep piling on debt.
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 12:19:02 PM
What's the end game for those folk? Problem isn't going to get easier for them if they keep piling on debt.
Agreed. But back in the day I ran into several who deferred their payments by continuing with studies. I assume the phenomenon continues. The justification was that if they could get more creditentials and stay in school until the economy improved all would be well.
In my experience, that rarely works. :hmm:
The women can do porn, but what can the men do? Useless bums.
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2013, 12:50:40 PM
The women can do porn, but what can the men do? Useless bums.
Actually those bums are pretty useful.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 12:23:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 12:19:02 PM
What's the end game for those folk? Problem isn't going to get easier for them if they keep piling on debt.
Agreed. But back in the day I ran into several who deferred their payments by continuing with studies. I assume the phenomenon continues. The justification was that if they could get more creditentials and stay in school until the economy improved all would be well.
This is nothing new though - I knew people back in college who were basically professional students. Hell, they pretty much could not stop going to school, because there was no way they would be able to pay back their loans.
And they always inevitably were taking relatively useless classes as well.
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2013, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 12:23:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 12:19:02 PM
What's the end game for those folk? Problem isn't going to get easier for them if they keep piling on debt.
Agreed. But back in the day I ran into several who deferred their payments by continuing with studies. I assume the phenomenon continues. The justification was that if they could get more creditentials and stay in school until the economy improved all would be well.
This is nothing new though - I knew people back in college who were basically professional students. Hell, they pretty much could not stop going to school, because there was no way they would be able to pay back their loans.
And they always inevitably were taking relatively useless classes as well.
Actually I think CC was saying it wasn't something new and that he thinks it continues on till today. So you've basically both agreed with one another. :D
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 01:59:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2013, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 12:23:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 12:19:02 PM
What's the end game for those folk? Problem isn't going to get easier for them if they keep piling on debt.
Agreed. But back in the day I ran into several who deferred their payments by continuing with studies. I assume the phenomenon continues. The justification was that if they could get more creditentials and stay in school until the economy improved all would be well.
This is nothing new though - I knew people back in college who were basically professional students. Hell, they pretty much could not stop going to school, because there was no way they would be able to pay back their loans.
And they always inevitably were taking relatively useless classes as well.
Actually I think CC was saying it wasn't something new and that he thinks it continues on till today. So you've basically both agreed with one another. :D
Jesus H. Christ, and you had to quote me so I cannot even delete my post!
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:25:44 PM
The uncounted 44% of student-borrowers may also be unsettling. Many have found ways---for now---to defer payment on student loans for years while interest continues to accrue... They are not included in the statistics.
Yeah, I wonder how many of those have simply continued to be in school to finish their second, third etc degree. If that is a large percentage then a lot of them will be in the 100k+ range.
Or just be an average student in professional school for law/medicine/pharmacy/etc... 100k is low. I think the average after 4 years is somewhere around 160k, and going up.
Quote from: Fate on March 01, 2013, 02:04:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:25:44 PM
The uncounted 44% of student-borrowers may also be unsettling. Many have found ways---for now---to defer payment on student loans for years while interest continues to accrue... They are not included in the statistics.
Yeah, I wonder how many of those have simply continued to be in school to finish their second, third etc degree. If that is a large percentage then a lot of them will be in the 100k+ range.
Or just be an average student in professional school for law/medicine/pharmacy/etc... 100k is low. I think the average after 4 years is somewhere around 160k, and going up.
Yeah, obviously people who require mulitiple steps to get where they are going are different. I have in mind the people that are digging a bigger pit simply because they cannot afford to get out.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 03:51:53 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 01, 2013, 02:04:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:25:44 PM
The uncounted 44% of student-borrowers may also be unsettling. Many have found ways---for now---to defer payment on student loans for years while interest continues to accrue... They are not included in the statistics.
Yeah, I wonder how many of those have simply continued to be in school to finish their second, third etc degree. If that is a large percentage then a lot of them will be in the 100k+ range.
Or just be an average student in professional school for law/medicine/pharmacy/etc... 100k is low. I think the average after 4 years is somewhere around 160k, and going up.
Yeah, obviously people who require mulitiple steps to get where they are going are different. I have in mind the people that are digging a bigger pit simply because they cannot afford to get out.
My take on professional students: they are digging a hole in which they intend to live (until forcefully evicted).
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2013, 02:04:15 PM
Jesus H. Christ, and you had to quote me so I cannot even delete my post!
:P
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2013, 04:03:15 PM
My take on professional students: they are digging a hole in which they intend to live (until forcefully evicted).
Yep - there is almost this point where they just become fatalistic. After all, what is the difference in defaulting on a $75k loan and a $200k loan?
Hell, you reach a point where you might as well just enjoy the ride for as long as you can...
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:25:44 PM
The uncounted 44% of student-borrowers may also be unsettling. Many have found ways---for now---to defer payment on student loans for years while interest continues to accrue... They are not included in the statistics.
Yeah, I wonder how many of those have simply continued to be in school to finish their second, third etc degree. If that is a large percentage then a lot of them will be in the 100k+ range.
What's the end game for those folk? Problem isn't going to get easier for them if they keep piling on debt.
Wrong. It remains exactly as easy.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 01, 2013, 07:33:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2013, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 28, 2013, 01:25:44 PM
The uncounted 44% of student-borrowers may also be unsettling. Many have found ways---for now---to defer payment on student loans for years while interest continues to accrue... They are not included in the statistics.
Yeah, I wonder how many of those have simply continued to be in school to finish their second, third etc degree. If that is a large percentage then a lot of them will be in the 100k+ range.
What's the end game for those folk? Problem isn't going to get easier for them if they keep piling on debt.
Wrong.
What die young and escape it all?
IBR.
My hometown friend has been unemployed since graduating two years ago; complains to me that his girlfriend of 5 months nags him to get a job. His previous girlfriend had dumped him because he was jobless. :face:
She sounds more fucked up that he does. What kind of useless whore dates somebody without a job?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2013, 02:00:58 AM
She sounds more fucked up that he does. What kind of useless whore dates somebody without a job?
Yah, it goes both way.
I advise unemployed males to focus on personal and professional development instead of chasing skirts.
I advise employed females to not date deadbeats and jerks.
Nobody listens. :(
And what incentive is there to improve? His middle class parents house him and pay for everything while he still gets laid, gamble, and play video games.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 02, 2013, 02:04:45 AM
I advise unemployed males to focus on personal and professional development instead of chasing skirts.
I advise employed females to not date deadbeats and jerks.
Nobody listens. :(
:lol: No, no they don't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2013, 02:00:58 AM
She sounds more fucked up that he does. What kind of useless whore dates somebody without a job?
:D
Quick show of hands: who here has ever gotten laid when they were unemployed?*
I'm pretty sure I never have.
*(Not counting periods of higher education.)
No kidding, right?
"So, you wanna come over to my place and watch some TV? My Mom has the premium package."
This is one of those things that work differently for gay males. :)
You people start fucking when most people introduce themselves. I don't want to fucking hear it.
*raises hand*
Chicks dig food stamps.
You're so full of shit. Shut up and polish one of your cars or leg brace or something.
I got my pickle tickled.
If anybody wants my old food stretching tips,just ask.
To make potted meat more...palatable, stir in some Miracle Whip. It helps.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2013, 09:25:34 AM
You people start fucking when most people introduce themselves. I don't want to fucking hear it.
:hmm:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 02, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
If anybody wants my old food stretching tips,just ask.
To make potted meat more...palatable, stir in some Miracle Whip. It helps.
My pro-tip was find people to buy you dinner. And then if an intern, hoard free food leftover from meetings.
I remember my family being very upset when we moved east and our brand of mayonnaise had a different name. Took some time to get used to.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 02, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
If anybody wants my old food stretching tips,just ask.
To make potted meat more...palatable, stir in some Miracle Whip. It helps.
I always liked potted meat. Made for tasty sandwiches or cracker spread.
I really hope they figure out how to clone meat in vats pretty soon.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 02, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
If anybody wants my old food stretching tips,just ask.
To make potted meat more...palatable, stir in some Miracle Whip. It helps.
And relish, too.
We called it Ham Loaf. :)
Yeah, the crunchy relish you can use for tuna fish sammiches is perfect for that.
Damn, I'd go to the grocery store and buy some of that, if it wasn't for the fact they're like little Bouncing Betties of sodium. *SPROING* HYPERTENSIVE CRISIS! MEDIC!
Speaking of sodium bombs, I fed the twins Ramen noodles a bit back. Only used half a packet of the "seasoning" packet.
When the wife found out, SHE FREAKED THE FUCK OUT about the salt. BUT I ONLY SPENT TEN CENTS YOU BITCH.
It's good for them. What doesn't kill them only weakens them a bit.
Quote from: PDH on March 02, 2013, 02:07:08 PM
It's good for them. What doesn't kill them only weakens them a bit.
I'm also feeding them arsenic so they can't be poisoned by thier rivals.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 02, 2013, 03:51:46 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 02, 2013, 02:07:08 PM
It's good for them. What doesn't kill them only weakens them a bit.
I'm also feeding them arsenic so they can't be poisoned by thier rivals.
This is what some women have been metaphorically doing to me for years; it might well be working as I'm building up a considerable immunity to most of them by now. :bowler:
Data Crunchers Now the Cool Kids on Campus
'The explosive growth in data available to businesses and researchers has brought a surge in demand for people able to interpret and apply the vast new swaths of information, from the analysis of high-resolution medical images to improving the results of Internet search engines.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478304578332850293360468.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BV257_numbgu_G_20130301171204.jpg&hash=9d1773b5ad01d3135c5fb3501211d31d470ae433)
AP Statistics. :bleeding: Never has a more useless and counter-productive class been offered.
I took one stats class in college as it was required. Each week there was an open book/note quiz instead of a final/midterm. Teacher posted detailed notes online day before quiz. I went to class once a week for the quiz. :cool:
Parent Trap
"Diana Jackson had no student debt when she got her Bachelor's degree from Miami University in Ohio in 1982. But when her daughter graduated from the school in 2011, Ms. Jackson was stuck with about $33,000 in parent loans.
The 51-year-old now faces a monthly payment of nearly $800."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324532004578362290396501134.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FSJ-AG339_24LEDE_G_20130322125408.jpg&hash=f6fff2020492fcfbfca67cf5e92f31a85ca4eae1)
QuoteMs. Jackson was stuck with about $33,000 in parent loans.
The 51-year-old now faces a monthly payment of nearly $800.
"I'm now looking at being in my mid-70s before I get that paid off," says Ms. Jackson, an adjunct professor at a community college in Columbus, Ohio.
If she pays $800 a month for another 24 years, that's $230,400. Either the interest rate on that parent loan is unbelievably high or she can't calculate.
Yeah, parental cosigning is the worst. You can't even suicide out of that. Well, I guess if the whole fam went.
I don't even know why parents cosign though, given the basically unlimited amount of fedloan money.
Quote from: Zanza on March 24, 2013, 03:20:11 AM
QuoteMs. Jackson was stuck with about $33,000 in parent loans.
The 51-year-old now faces a monthly payment of nearly $800.
"I'm now looking at being in my mid-70s before I get that paid off," says Ms. Jackson, an adjunct professor at a community college in Columbus, Ohio.
If she pays $800 a month for another 24 years, that's $230,400. Either the interest rate on that parent loan is unbelievably high or she can't calculate.
I doubt she'll be paying $800 a month, which means that she'll take a lot longer to pay the debt.
Then it's not accurate to say she faces a monthly payment of $800.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2013, 02:14:12 PM
Then it's not accurate to say she faces a monthly payment of $800.
That may be the highest amount due, unless she can show cause on why it should be lower.
$33k? At $800 a month that'd be paid off in 5 years, even if the interest rate was rather harsh.
Quote from: merithyn on March 24, 2013, 02:43:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2013, 02:14:12 PM
Then it's not accurate to say she faces a monthly payment of $800.
That may be the highest amount due, unless she can show cause on why it should be lower.
...in which case she's still not facing a monthly payment of $800. And if she is paying $800 a month, then it's highly unlikely she won't have the debt paid off until she's in her 70s.
College Grads May Be Stuck in Low-Skill Jobs
'The recession left millions of college-educated Americans working in coffee shops and retail stores. New research suggests their job prospects may not improve much when the economy rebounds.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323466204578382753004333838.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BV627_SKILLS_G_20130325175406.jpg&hash=5390c942d179779bc9edf9c318574789ac9b7ad1)
"Average earings, 2011"
I would like to congratulate Phillip for keeping this thread alive with consistently depressing articles.
:cheers:
I'm unsure why we care.
I don't think those figures can possibly be right. In 2011 the average high school graduate earned ~$21/hour? I find that hard to believe even if we're talking about the average of everyone in the workforce who only has a HS diploma (as opposed to just recent graduates).
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2013, 08:36:36 PM
I don't think those figures can possibly be right. In 2011 the average high school graduate earned ~$21/hour? I find that hard to believe even if we're talking about the average of everyone in the workforce who only has a HS diploma (as opposed to just recent graduates).
I buy it like I buy the median salary for a bachelor's holder is $70k+. It's no doubt a true figure, but takes into account Olds, who operated in a wholly different paradigm, namely "being young in a country that had jobs."
To me the figure for the bachelor's degree (and beyond, I assume) sounds like it could be correct... it's the high school on that seems like it couldn't be. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2013, 08:55:35 PM
To me the figure for the bachelor's degree (and beyond, I assume) sounds like it could be correct... it's the high school on that seems like it couldn't be. :hmm:
Lot of paying professions out there that only require a HS diploma, though.
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2013, 08:55:35 PM
To me the figure for the bachelor's degree (and beyond, I assume) sounds like it could be correct... it's the high school on that seems like it couldn't be. :hmm:
You've been brainwashed by the education-industrial complex.
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2013, 08:55:35 PM
To me the figure for the bachelor's degree (and beyond, I assume) sounds like it could be correct... it's the high school on that seems like it couldn't be. :hmm:
You're really not considering all the people in their 50s with only HSDs.
If you're talking 30s, let alone 20s, and just an HSD, I bet it's in the $20-30k range.
I see lots of old people working at Wal-Mart and White Castle too, though. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2013, 08:55:35 PM
To me the figure for the bachelor's degree (and beyond, I assume) sounds like it could be correct... it's the high school on that seems like it couldn't be. :hmm:
Those numbers are all bizarre and probably take way too many other factors as assumptions. I could see somebody with an associate's and several certifications making over 50k a year; based on the degree alone, though, no way in hell.
Built for the industrial revolution. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/naveenjain/2013/03/24/disrupting-education/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvastrm.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fpink-floyd-wall.jpg&hash=1fe8364eec4bcf86d7084eb60d21738d79420cdf)
Quote from: Forbes
Rethinking Education: Why Our Education System Is Ripe For Disruption
Our education system is not broken, it has just become obsolete
When I think of all the tremendous, seemingly impossible feats made possible by entrepreneurs, I am amazed that more has not been done to reinvent our education system. I want all entrepreneurs to take notice that this is a multi-hundred billion dollar opportunity that's ripe for disruption.
Our collective belief is that our education system is broken so we spend tremendous energy in trying to fix it. We conveniently place the blame on problems that stem from budget cuts, teacher layoffs, inadequate technology in our schools and our education policies. We need to recognize the fact that our education system is NOT BROKEN but has simply become OBSOLETE. It no longer meets the needs of the present and future generation.
Our education system was developed for an industrial era where we could teach certain skills to our children and they were able to use these skills for the rest of their lives working productively in an industry. We are now living in a fast paced technological era where every skill that we teach our children becomes obsolete in the 10 to 15 years due to exponentially growing technological advances. Meanwhile, new categories of jobs are being created because of these technological advances. It's hard to imagine that half of the jobs that exist today didn't exist 25 years ago.
Our education system today uses the mass production style manufacturing process of standardization. This process requires raw material that is grouped together based on a specific criteria. Those raw materials are then moved from one station to another station where an expert makes a small modification given the small amount of time given to complete their task. At the end of the assembly line, these assembled goods are standardized tested to see if they meet certain criteria before they are moved to the next advanced assembly line.
We are using the same process to teach our kids today, grouping them by their date of manufacturing (age). We put them on an education assembly line every day, starting with one station that teaches them a certain subject before automatically moving them to the next class after a certain period of time. Once a year we use standardized testing to see if they are ready to move to the next grade of an education advanced assembly line.
Rethinking education starts with embracing our individuality. Our life experiences are very different from one and other, and yet we seem to think every one of us can learn the same way. Some of us learn experientially, while others are more attracted to logical or conceptual learning. Why are we limiting ourselves to one format or curriculum when we know that each individual is going to learn differently? Further, why are we advancing children to the next level, or grade, on an annual basis, as opposed to when each is ready?
Just think of the opportunities we can unlock by making education as addictive as a video game. This type of experiential, addictive learning improves decision-making skills and increases the processing speed and spatial skills of the brain. When was the last time your child asked for help with a video game? Probably never, but so many kids are struggling with basic algebra and chemistry every day. Why is it that our young kids all across America can solve the most complex problems in a video game involving executive decision making and analytical thinking, yet we accept the fact that they can't add or read?
No one can possibly argue against the need for new ways of educating our children.We can't fix what's not broken but need to reinvent it. We need to allow children to learn to be creative, learn to reason, and to solve real world problems using collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches.
As we continue to pour billions of dollars into a failing education system that seeks to advance teaching methodologies, it is time we flipped the model on its head and used technology to focus on our learners. To reinvent education or solve any of the problems facing our society today, we need to think innovatively, see the promise of education outside the box and recognize that failure is not an option.
Let's not just focus all of our energy on leaving a better country for our children but focus on leaving better children for our country.
There seem to be a lot of ideas about completely changing the form that education takes. I read the Chronicle of Higher Ed's blog and they have been discussing removing the "hotel" aspects from college entirely. Other ideas are pretty radically different from what we do now. Like completely eliminating the concept of degree certification. Some are saying that the internet is exactly the system Ivan Illich claimed was necessary way back in 1970, and he was saying this "web" (yes he used that word) would completely replace the entire concept of school.
Who cares about the quality of education? Can you imagine how many teachers that would put out of work? How would adding millions of unemployable people to welfare rolls help society?
284,000: Number of American college graduates working in minimum-wage jobs in 2012.
About 8% of all minimum-wage workers held at least a bachelor's degree in 2012. Americans with some college or an associate's degree made up nearly 35% of minimum-wage workers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/30/number-of-the-week-college-grads-in-minimum-wage-jobs/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-WW709_NUMBER_E_20130329191231.jpg&hash=8ba4d30ff9915aa89e0aeb68ba2c70e557d31d06)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/opinion/ted-prize-students-teach-themselves/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
Quote
What if students learn faster without teachers?
By Richard Galant, CNN
updated 10:00 AM EDT, Tue March 26, 2013
(CNN) -- What if everything you thought you knew about education was wrong?
What if students learn more quickly on their own, working in teams, than in a classroom with a teacher?
What if tests and discipline get in the way of the learning process rather than accelerate it?
Those are the questions Sugata Mitra has been asking since the late 1990s, and for which he was awarded the $1 million TED Prize in February at the TED2013 conference.
Mitra, professor of educational technology at Newcastle University, won the prize for his concept of "self organized learning environments," an alternative to traditional schooling that relies on empowering students to work together on computers with broadband access to solve their own problems, with adults intervening to provide encouragement and admiration, rather than top-down instruction.
Mitra's work with students in India has gained wide attention and was the focus of a 2010 TED Talk on his "hole in the wall" experiment, showing the potential of computers to jump-start learning without any adult intervention.
Coming to education trained as a physicist, Mitra said he was encouraged by his boss to start teaching people how to write computer programs. When he bought his first personal computer, he was surprised to find that his 6-year-old son was able to tell him how to fix problems he had operating the machine. He thought his son was a genius, but then heard his friends saying the same thing about their children.
Thinking about children living in slums in New Delhi, he said, "It can't be possible that our sons are geniuses and they are not." Mitra set up a publicly accessible computer along the lines of a bank ATM, behind a glass barrier, and told children they could use it, with no further guidance.
They soon learned to browse the Web in English, even though they lacked facility in the language. To prove the experiment would work in an isolated environment, he set up another "hole in the wall" computer in a village 300 miles away. After a while, "one of the kids was saying we need a faster processor and a better mouse."
When the head of the World Bank came to see the experiment, Mitra said he encouraged him to go to the New Delhi slum and see for himself. After spending time with the children, bank President James Wolfensohn "came back and put his hand on my shoulder and said, 'How much?' " Mitra said he received $1.5 million, which allowed him to press on with experiments in India, Cambodia and Africa, finding self-organized learning worked to improve English-language pronunciation, reading comprehension and even the basics of DNA replication.
Mitra said the traditional system of education is largely based on the necessities created by Britain's colonial empire in which a vast amount of territory had to be governed by people writing things on paper and sending them around the world on ships. Schools turned out clerks who functioned as interchangeable parts in a vast bureaucracy where the skills of reading, writing and arithmetic were key.
He argues that today's world needs a new system in which the role of computers in aiding learning is paramount.
To help speed learning, Mitra has recruited hundreds of "grannies," volunteers from the United Kingdom, many of them retired teachers, who function more in the role of "grandparents" than teachers, skypeing into learning environments around the world, encouraging students to do their best and praising their achievements.
With the TED Prize money, Mitra intends to build a laboratory, most likely in India, where he can test his theories through experiments that supplement schoolwork. He likens it to a "safe cybercafe for children" where they can strengthen their English skills, which can be a route to economic advancement.
Mitra said he doesn't think teachers are obsolete but suggests their roles may be changing as students increasingly have access to self-learning through computers. And he argues that his self-organized teams may be an alternative to regular schools in places where teachers may not be available.
Traditional education stresses tests and punishments, two things that Mitra said causes the brain to shut down its rational processes and surrender to fear. Adopting a method closer to that of grandparents, who shower children with admiration, is "the opposite of the parent method," which relies on threats, Mitra said.
I find a lot of these TED talks fascinating. Note "trained as a physicist". Educators themselves never seem to have any creative ideas about what to do.
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all be ass deep in nuts.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 30, 2013, 03:51:22 PM
284,000: Number of American college graduates working in minimum-wage jobs in 2012.
About 8% of all minimum-wage workers held at least a bachelor's degree in 2012. Americans with some college or an associate's degree made up nearly 35% of minimum-wage workers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/30/number-of-the-week-college-grads-in-minimum-wage-jobs/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-WW709_NUMBER_E_20130329191231.jpg&hash=8ba4d30ff9915aa89e0aeb68ba2c70e557d31d06)
Yes, but they were shitty degrees. Like Classical Languages. Believe me, I know.
Quote from: Scipio on April 01, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 30, 2013, 03:51:22 PM
284,000: Number of American college graduates working in minimum-wage jobs in 2012.
About 8% of all minimum-wage workers held at least a bachelor's degree in 2012. Americans with some college or an associate's degree made up nearly 35% of minimum-wage workers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/30/number-of-the-week-college-grads-in-minimum-wage-jobs/
Yes, but they were shitty degrees. Like Classical Languages. Believe me, I know.
I would like to see that chart broken down by major, and not the overly-broad BLS categorizations.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 30, 2013, 03:51:22 PM
284,000: Number of American college graduates working in minimum-wage jobs in 2012.
About 8% of all minimum-wage workers held at least a bachelor's degree in 2012. Americans with some college or an associate's degree made up nearly 35% of minimum-wage workers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/30/number-of-the-week-college-grads-in-minimum-wage-jobs/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-WW709_NUMBER_E_20130329191231.jpg&hash=8ba4d30ff9915aa89e0aeb68ba2c70e557d31d06)
If the commercials playing during March Madness are any indication of reality then college athletes who obtain a degree can look forward to a rewarding career in the rental car sector.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 05:20:45 PM
If the commercials playing during March Madness are any indication of reality then college athletes who obtain a degree can look forward to a rewarding career in the rental car sector.
Indeed, and according to another commercial vets leaving the military can look forward to a bright future at Walmart.
Chinese Deluge U.S. Master's Programs
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FMK-CC126_MASTER_G_20130403180005.jpg&hash=72e81d358f126ce053944a817a00f54c43fd175d)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324883604578398831847621160.html
"Chinese marks buoy failing higher education system."
QuoteI find a lot of these TED talks fascinating. Note "trained as a physicist". Educators themselves never seem to have any creative ideas about what to do.
Except current educational theory (as developed by educators) in Canada regarding the role of teachers has been of the view suggested by the article for over a decade.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 03, 2013, 08:53:52 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FMK-CC126_MASTER_G_20130403180005.jpg&hash=72e81d358f126ce053944a817a00f54c43fd175d)
Great, 20 years after my sister would let me crash for the parties,
now all the almond-eyed ass shows up at Case.
SMU? Wonder what they think of the pony express?
Where are the real universities in that list?
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 09:19:33 PM
Where are the real universities in that list?
LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME I WENT TO STANFORD I WENT TO STANFORD LOOK LOOK LOOOOOOOOK
Is it even possible for you to knock this shit off for, like, ten minutes?
Quote from: Scipio on April 01, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Yes, but they were shitty degrees. Like Classical Languages. Believe me, I know.
Something that really grates at me is talking to people that majored in a foreign language, but never developed a real ability to speak it. How can you spend four years studying a language and not develop proficiency, or on the other side, how can a college give a degrees to those people?
It really isn't a language thing, it is more a failure of the university system. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that the history or biology major learned more than the spanish major that can't speak spanish.
FWIW, I think universities used to require some degree of proficiency with Greek and/or Latin for admission.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2013, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 01, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Yes, but they were shitty degrees. Like Classical Languages. Believe me, I know.
Something that really grates at me is talking to people that majored in a foreign language, but never developed a real ability to speak it. How can you spend four years studying a language and not develop proficiency, or on the other side, how can a college give a degrees to those people?
It really isn't a language thing, it is more a failure of the university system. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that the history or biology major learned more than the spanish major that can't speak spanish.
FWIW, I think universities used to require some degree of proficiency with Greek and/or Latin for admission.
I definitely learned how to read history books and analyze primary sources and that kind of shit (the finding was more difficult than the analyzing). Big fucking deal. It's been exactly as useful as if I hadn't.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:43:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2013, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 01, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Yes, but they were shitty degrees. Like Classical Languages. Believe me, I know.
Something that really grates at me is talking to people that majored in a foreign language, but never developed a real ability to speak it. How can you spend four years studying a language and not develop proficiency, or on the other side, how can a college give a degrees to those people?
It really isn't a language thing, it is more a failure of the university system. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that the history or biology major learned more than the spanish major that can't speak spanish.
FWIW, I think universities used to require some degree of proficiency with Greek and/or Latin for admission.
I definitely learned how to read history books and analyze primary sources and that kind of shit (the finding was more difficult than the analyzing). Big fucking deal. It's been exactly as useful as if I hadn't.
You missed what I was getting at. It isn't that no one learns in college--using the language example, I am sure lots of people learn languages in college. It is that people who don't learn much still get a degree.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2013, 09:48:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:43:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2013, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 01, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Yes, but they were shitty degrees. Like Classical Languages. Believe me, I know.
Something that really grates at me is talking to people that majored in a foreign language, but never developed a real ability to speak it. How can you spend four years studying a language and not develop proficiency, or on the other side, how can a college give a degrees to those people?
It really isn't a language thing, it is more a failure of the university system. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that the history or biology major learned more than the spanish major that can't speak spanish.
FWIW, I think universities used to require some degree of proficiency with Greek and/or Latin for admission.
I definitely learned how to read history books and analyze primary sources and that kind of shit (the finding was more difficult than the analyzing). Big fucking deal. It's been exactly as useful as if I hadn't.
You missed what I was getting at. It isn't that no one learns in college--using the language example, I am sure lots of people learn languages in college. It is that people who don't learn much still get a degree.
"Why learn if it doesn't matter?" is mine; and its corollary, "Why
teach if it doesn't matter?"
I dunno. I'm in a bad mood tonight.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:38:03 PM
LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME I WENT TO STANFORD I WENT TO STANFORD LOOK LOOK LOOOOOOOOK
Is it even possible for you to knock this shit off for, like, ten minutes?
Actually that wasn't my point. My point was actually that this might be more alarming if they weren't taking over UC Davis Accounting.
Woot, I now get to live my life like DGuller! :P
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2013, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 01, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Yes, but they were shitty degrees. Like Classical Languages. Believe me, I know.
Something that really grates at me is talking to people that majored in a foreign language, but never developed a real ability to speak it. How can you spend four years studying a language and not develop proficiency, or on the other side, how can a college give a degrees to those people?
It really isn't a language thing, it is more a failure of the university system. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that the history or biology major learned more than the spanish major that can't speak spanish.
FWIW, I think universities used to require some degree of proficiency with Greek and/or Latin for admission.
There is nobody to speak Latin or Ancient Greek with.
Those are good schools on that list. Just not necessarily known for Finance. Wake me when U of Chicago, Penn and Northwestern get buried with the Yerrow Peril.
Besides, they're all applying to Case Western Reserve as a cover to snatch all the biomechanical engineering and genetic research goodies anyway.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2013, 10:32:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2013, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 01, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Yes, but they were shitty degrees. Like Classical Languages. Believe me, I know.
Something that really grates at me is talking to people that majored in a foreign language, but never developed a real ability to speak it. How can you spend four years studying a language and not develop proficiency, or on the other side, how can a college give a degrees to those people?
It really isn't a language thing, it is more a failure of the university system. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that the history or biology major learned more than the spanish major that can't speak spanish.
FWIW, I think universities used to require some degree of proficiency with Greek and/or Latin for admission.
There is nobody to speak Latin or Ancient Greek with.
Sure there is--but more importantly can you read (and write) it proficiently?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 10:34:55 PM
Those are good schools on that list. Just not necessarily known for Finance. Wake me when U of Chicago, Penn and Northwestern get buried with the Yerrow Peril.
Besides, they're all applying to Case Western Reserve as a cover to snatch all the biomechanical engineering and genetic research goodies anyway.
Nah... that's just a few of them most likely. Most of them are there because they didn't get into a prestigious (or any) university back home, but their parents are rich enough that they can afford to pay their way into an American university.
How far does an American diploma get you in China?
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 10:27:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:38:03 PM
LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME I WENT TO STANFORD I WENT TO STANFORD LOOK LOOK LOOOOOOOOK
Is it even possible for you to knock this shit off for, like, ten minutes?
Actually that wasn't my point. My point was actually that this might be more alarming if they weren't taking over UC Davis Accounting.
Woot, I now get to live my life like DGuller!
:P
They can buy all the blueberries they want? :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2013, 10:53:54 PM
How far does an American diploma get you in China?
A masters degree from an American university is much better than no masters degree, that's for sure. English skills help too. And I'd you have the wherewithal to go to the US for a post-graduate degree you probably have the guangxi to do pretty well, all things considered.
I took four years of high school Spanish which puts my skills roughly in line with a four year old.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2013, 01:31:56 AM
I took four years of high school Spanish which puts my skills roughly in line with a four year old.
Company Immediately Calls Job Applicant Upon Seeing 'B.A. In Communications' On Résumé"Calling his résumé "exceptional" and "like nothing we've ever seen," the human resources department at local public relations firm Brink & Tiller called 22-year-old job applicant Corey Wilhelm immediately after noticing he had a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications, sources confirmed Wednesday.
...
Impressed and admittedly intimidated company sources went on to confirm that Wilhelm had also completed four years of high school Spanish."
http://www.theonion.com/articles/company-immediately-calls-job-applicant-upon-seein,31669/
Computers Grading Essays at College Level
'Software developed by a joint venture of Harvard and M.I.T. uses artificial intelligence to grade student essays and short written answers, freeing professors for other tasks.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/science/new-test-for-computers-grading-essays-at-college-level.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F04%2F05%2Fscience%2F05edx%2F05edx-articleLarge.jpg&hash=6285f0ca043fea1260a54bb85e08e864a6930487)
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Ha.
What will all the TAs do? :P
http://washingtonexaminer.com/mcdonalds-want-ad-demands-bachelors-degree-two-years-experience-for-cashier/article/2526145
Not surprised at all.
Speaking of which, just heard on CNN that all (?) fast food workers in NYC went on a one day strike demanding better pay.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 12:53:21 PM
Speaking of which, just heard on CNN that all (?) fast food workers in NYC went on a one day strike demanding better pay.
They demand $15/hour. Good luck with that. :P
No shit.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 04, 2013, 01:05:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 12:53:21 PM
Speaking of which, just heard on CNN that all (?) fast food workers in NYC went on a one day strike demanding better pay.
They demand $15/hour. Good luck with that. :P
Reasonable in NYC. Godspeed.
"We DEMAND that McDonalds operates its restaurants in NYC at a loss!" :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2013, 01:31:54 PM
"We DEMAND that McDonalds operates its restaurants in NYC at a loss!" :)
Really? With those prices up there?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2013, 01:34:55 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2013, 01:31:54 PM
"We DEMAND that McDonalds operates its restaurants in NYC at a loss!" :)
Really? With those prices up there?
Yeah I don't see how they would be seeing a loss at all. I "joked" that I no longer have issues with prices for food in airports as its about the same as what I pay on a daily basis. -_-
Even living with $15/hour seems rather hard in New York.
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 02:35:12 PM
Even living with $15/hour seems rather hard in New York.
You have to work two hours just to pay the bridge tolls from Jersey.
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 02:35:12 PM
Even living with $15/hour seems rather hard in New York.
There's more to NY than Manhattan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 02:35:12 PM
Even living with $15/hour seems rather hard in New York.
There's more to NY than Manhattan.
I know. I lived in Nassau County and in Hoboken and even there I would imagine it hard to live off $600 gross ~ $450 net. Must be worse if you live closer to the city itself.
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 03:03:49 PM
I know. I lived in Nassau County and in Hoboken and even there I would imagine it hard to live off $600 gross ~ $450 net. Must be worse if you live closer to the city itself.
I imagine it's extremely hard, maybe even impossible, to maintain an independent household with a full time minimum wage job.
Then what?
Then you go on strike and demand more money. Which happens to be what these people did.
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 03:03:49 PM
I know. I lived in Nassau County and in Hoboken and even there I would imagine it hard to live off $600 gross ~ $450 net. Must be worse if you live closer to the city itself.
:lol: Those places aren't exactly the cheapest options either in the area. They are a red caviar to Manhattan's black caviar, but all of them are caviar. If you want to leave on a budget in NYC, look for a place in some areas of Brooklyn, Queens, or Bronx.
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 03:21:01 PM
Then you go on strike and demand more money. Which happens to be what these people did.
Then they all get fired and replaced with people who are willing to work for less. Presumably because they don't have to maintain an independent household.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2013, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 03:03:49 PM
I know. I lived in Nassau County and in Hoboken and even there I would imagine it hard to live off $600 gross ~ $450 net. Must be worse if you live closer to the city itself.
:lol: Those places aren't exactly the cheapest options either in the area. They are a red caviar to Manhattan's black caviar, but all of them are caviar. If you want to leave on a budget in NYC, look for a place in some areas of Brooklyn, Queens, or Bronx.
Maybe - but pretty far out - meaning that you'll be hit hard by the constant MTA fair increases. I mean my sister had like 6 roommates in a converted warehouse and that was like $450.
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2013, 03:28:43 PM
Maybe - but pretty far out - meaning that you'll be hit hard by the constant MTA fair increases. I mean my sister had like 6 roommates in a converted warehouse and that was like $450.
Maybe, but the rent saved is a big multiple of the ~$100 cost of monthly MetroCard. As ridiculous as MTA fare hikes are, subways are still a great deal in NYC compared to other options.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2013, 04:16:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2013, 03:28:43 PM
Maybe - but pretty far out - meaning that you'll be hit hard by the constant MTA fair increases. I mean my sister had like 6 roommates in a converted warehouse and that was like $450.
Maybe, but the rent saved is a big multiple of the ~$100 cost of monthly MetroCard. As ridiculous as MTA fare hikes are, subways are still a great deal in NYC compared to other options.
Sure though it's a lot of time on the train. Also, the point was really just that the MTA increases hurt those poorer individuals more than those here in Manhattan who can really just walk about. What at the end of 2010, monthly was $89 and now as of march it's 112? Minimum wage hasn't really increase in the same way in that period.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324000704578390340064578654.html
QuoteTo (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me
Like me, millions of high-school seniors with sour grapes are asking themselves this week how they failed to get into the colleges of their dreams. It's simple: For years, they—we—were lied to.
Colleges tell you, "Just be yourself." That is great advice, as long as yourself has nine extracurriculars, six leadership positions, three varsity sports, killer SAT scores and two moms. Then by all means, be yourself! If you work at a local pizza shop and are the slowest person on the cross-country team, consider taking your business elsewhere.
What could I have done differently over the past years?
For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!" I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.
I also probably should have started a fake charity. Providing veterinary services for homeless people's pets. Collecting donations for the underprivileged chimpanzees of the Congo. Raising awareness for Chapped-Lips-in-the-Winter Syndrome. Fun-runs, dance-a-thons, bake sales—as long as you're using someone else's misfortunes to try to propel yourself into the Ivy League, you're golden.
Having a tiger mom helps, too. As the youngest of four daughters, I noticed long ago that my parents gave up on parenting me. It has been great in certain ways: Instead of "Be home by 11," it's "Don't wake us up when you come through the door, we're trying to sleep." But my parents also left me with a dearth of hobbies that make admissions committees salivate. I've never sat down at a piano, never plucked a violin. Karate lasted about a week and the swim team didn't last past the first lap. Why couldn't Amy Chua have adopted me as one of her cubs?
Then there was summer camp. I should've done what I knew was best—go to Africa, scoop up some suffering child, take a few pictures, and write my essays about how spending that afternoon with Kinto changed my life. Because everyone knows that if you don't have anything difficult going on in your own life, you should just hop on a plane so you're able to talk about what other people have to deal with.
Or at least hop to an internship. Get a precocious-sounding title to put on your resume. "Assistant Director of Mail Services." "Chairwoman of Coffee Logistics." I could have been a gopher in the office of someone I was related to. Work experience!
To those kids who by age 14 got their doctorate, cured a disease, or discovered a guilt-free brownie recipe: My parents make me watch your "60 Minutes" segments, and they've clipped your newspaper articles for me to read before bed. You make us mere mortals look bad. (Also, I am desperately jealous and willing to pay a lot to learn your secrets.)
To those claiming that I am bitter—you bet I am! An underachieving selfish teenager making excuses for her own failures? That too! To those of you disgusted by this, shocked that I take for granted the wonderful gifts I have been afforded, I say shhhh—"The Real Housewives" is on.
http://www.today.com/video/today/51426965#51426965
In the interview she says she was attracted to the sexy Ivy League name.
Also could soundbite - "In this day and age, we are being judged on things we can't control as opposed to things that we can." :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 03:23:54 PM
Also could soundbite - "In this day and age, we are being judged on things we can't control as opposed to things that we can." :mellow:
I actually like that, though I'd make it "as well as" instead of "as opposed to"
Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2013, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 03:23:54 PM
Also could soundbite - "In this day and age, we are being judged on things we can't control as opposed to things that we can." :mellow:
I actually like that, though I'd make it "as well as" instead of "as opposed to"
Oh like how in the past "diverse" students were judged only on things they could control?
My point being that I don't think her ignorant statement or your harsh one are particularly good.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 03:36:32 PM
My point being that I don't think her ignorant statement or your harsh one are particularly good.
You misunderstand, g. In general, I don't think
anyone should be judged on things they have no control over.
That being said, since society as a whole is still mostly slanted toward the Saltines, the graham crackers and Ritz crackers should have a bit of a leg up in the admissions office. Basically, until educations are at least on par across the board, there has to be some way to mitigate the lack of opportunity for the more exotic crackers in the world. :)
Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2013, 03:44:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 03:36:32 PM
My point being that I don't think her ignorant statement or your harsh one are particularly good.
You misunderstand, g. In general, I don't think anyone should be judged on things they have no control over.
That being said, since society as a whole is still mostly slanted toward the Saltines, the graham crackers and Ritz crackers should have a bit of a leg up in the admissions office. Basically, until educations are at least on par across the board, there has to be some way to mitigate the lack of opportunity for the more exotic crackers in the world. :)
Yeah but I'm unconvinced on that. I'm unconvinced that to make a more equitable situation/society that we have to just keep shifting discrimination back and forth.
Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2013, 03:44:46 PM
You misunderstand, g. In general, I don't think anyone should be judged on things they have no control over.
That being said, since society as a whole is still mostly slanted toward the Saltines, the graham crackers and Ritz crackers should have a bit of a leg up in the admissions office. Basically, until educations are at least on par across the board, there has to be some way to mitigate the lack of opportunity for the more exotic crackers in the world. :)
I don't know if getting a small advantage at college admissions offices really is going to change that situation much. The kids who are getting the advantages based on crackerness are already getting good enough educations to be college material so are not the ones who need help.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 03:49:27 PM
Yeah but I'm unconvinced on that. I'm unconvinced that to make a more equitable situation/society that we have to just keep shifting discrimination back and forth.
I dunno. I live in a town that up until 10 years ago had a policy that all black kids be tested for learning disabilities. Given that kind of crap only stopped due to a court sanction, I have a hard time saying that those kids should be held to the same standard as a kid who was assumed to be bright because he grew up in the right Chicago suburb and went to the right high school.
Why is this chick's rant in WSJ? It sounds like something you'd read in a student paper somewhere... except I guess not, since she didn't get accepted.
I actually saw what I thought was a pretty good suggestion.
Right now, the top notch schools are incredibly competittive to get into. When they are choosing between 10,000 1%s to pick out 1,000 to admit, it becomes almost ridiculous the lengths you have to go to to make yourself standout from the crowd. So much so, that it starts to become almost facical the stuff people do to try to make themselves a better candidate than the other already exemplary candidates.
The suggestion was that schools like the Ivy's and such quit trying to pick the very best of the very best of the very best. Rather, define a extremely high bar to consideration, and then just randomly select from those that make the cut.
So if you have 1,000 spots, define a bar that gives you 5,000 to pick from, and then randomly select from them, rather than trying to pick the best 20%. All of them are going to be great candidates, so why force them to go through ridivulous gyrations to make themselves somehow even more great than the rest?
Takes a lot of the ridiculous level of pressure of of students to be extraordinary, and lets them just be excellent, which presumably really should be good enough.
Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
I actually saw what I thought was a pretty good suggestion.
Right now, the top notch schools are incredibly competittive to get into. When they are choosing between 10,000 1%s to pick out 1,000 to admit, it becomes almost ridiculous the lengths you have to go to to make yourself standout from the crowd. So much so, that it starts to become almost facical the stuff people do to try to make themselves a better candidate than the other already exemplary candidates.
The suggestion was that schools like the Ivy's and such quit trying to pick the very best of the very best of the very best. Rather, define a extremely high bar to consideration, and then just randomly select from those that make the cut.
So if you have 1,000 spots, define a bar that gives you 5,000 to pick from, and then randomly select from them, rather than trying to pick the best 20%. All of them are going to be great candidates, so why force them to go through ridivulous gyrations to make themselves somehow even more great than the rest?
Takes a lot of the ridiculous level of pressure of of students to be extraordinary, and lets them just be excellent, which presumably really should be good enough.
That actually does sound like a reasonable approach. Which means that someone somewhere will find fault with it. ;)
That doesn't sound too unreasonable.
Or the candidate should just go where they are wanted and be happy about it. Trying to get into schools or jobs where there is no demand for you can be sadness-inducing. Like asking out a refusing girl over and over while another perhaps slightly "less" attractive nearby woman is available. And the latter will even give you anal.
The PowerBall of Higher Education? I dunno. Why work and aspire to something when it's all going to be reduced to chance anyway? How completely inspirational.
I hereby find fault with it.
Nobody is forced to apply to an Ivy. If you don't want the pressure and competition, go 2nd or 3rd tier.
We could just as easily extend the logic and say 2nd tier schools, instead of looking for "good" applicants, should set a bar of "OK" and randomly pick from that pool. After all, there are applicants out there that sweat the competition of getting into a 2nd tier school. And all the way down the food chain.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2013, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2013, 03:44:46 PM
You misunderstand, g. In general, I don't think anyone should be judged on things they have no control over.
That being said, since society as a whole is still mostly slanted toward the Saltines, the graham crackers and Ritz crackers should have a bit of a leg up in the admissions office. Basically, until educations are at least on par across the board, there has to be some way to mitigate the lack of opportunity for the more exotic crackers in the world. :)
I don't know if getting a small advantage at college admissions offices really is going to change that situation much. The kids who are getting the advantages based on crackerness are already getting good enough educations to be college material so are not the ones who need help.
This is indeed the problem with most forms of racial preference - they tend to help those who do not need it.
This is really a subset of a larger problem: that programs to benefit the disadvantaged often miss the mark.
Canada is rife with social assistance programs that end up "helping" the middle class (even upper middle class!) much moreso than the disadvantaged - for the very simple reason that navagating the bureaucracy to obtain access to the programs is a significant chore and one that those already in the middle/upper middle classes are far better able to do that chore successfully.
I like Berkut's plan. I would have had a better chance of going to my first choice college that way. I barely missed out because I was white and male. Ironically, today, being male would have helped. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2013, 04:23:14 PM
I barely missed out because I was white and male.
I call bullshit. I blame your lack of extracurricular activities.
But I guess goofing on all those Future Business Leaders of America members in the cafeteria seemed like fun at the time though, right?
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2013, 03:52:48 PM
I don't know if getting a small advantage at college admissions offices really is going to change that situation much. The kids who are getting the advantages based on crackerness are already getting good enough educations to be college material so are not the ones who need help.
That's actually not true. There are a lot of kids who are graduating from high school who have no idea what they're doing when it comes to applying for and getting into colleges. Some of them are definitely not college material right away, because their schools were lacking. Do we penalize them for that? Or do we work toward leveling the playing field for them by offering support and guidance?
I would posit, however, that it's not the crackerness of the person that's the issue. Rather, it's the cost of the box that matters most. In other words, socio-economics seem to play a much larger role anymore in college readiness than race or gender.
Socio-economics a.k.a. class.
Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2013, 04:41:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2013, 03:52:48 PM
I don't know if getting a small advantage at college admissions offices really is going to change that situation much. The kids who are getting the advantages based on crackerness are already getting good enough educations to be college material so are not the ones who need help.
That's actually not true. There are a lot of kids who are graduating from high school who have no idea what they're doing when it comes to applying for and getting into colleges. Some of them are definitely not college material right away, because their schools were lacking. Do we penalize them for that? Or do we work toward leveling the playing field for them by offering support and guidance?
I would posit, however, that it's not the crackerness of the person that's the issue. Rather, it's the cost of the box that matters most. In other words, socio-economics seem to play a much larger role anymore in college readiness than race or gender.
So if you come from a rich background and have advantages, they should say - that's nice what you've accomplished but we're going with this less talented poor kid?
Btw, when in the last decade would we say that also these "farcical" acts done to get into top schools started?
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 04:45:37 PM
So if you come from a rich background and have advantages, they should say - that's nice what you've accomplished but we're going with this less talented poor kid?
You say that as if those kids don't have something to offer an Ivy league school.
Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2013, 04:52:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 04:45:37 PM
So if you come from a rich background and have advantages, they should say - that's nice what you've accomplished but we're going with this less talented poor kid?
You say that as if those kids don't have something to offer an Ivy league school.
Not at all but you are talking about lowering the bar. After all, they are currently selecting people with lots of activities and other resume type stuff that this disadvantaged kid doesn't have...and presumably it is because that's the type that they think will thrive at their schools. You're then asking them to take on riskier applicants for the sake of society?
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2013, 04:18:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2013, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2013, 03:44:46 PM
You misunderstand, g. In general, I don't think anyone should be judged on things they have no control over.
That being said, since society as a whole is still mostly slanted toward the Saltines, the graham crackers and Ritz crackers should have a bit of a leg up in the admissions office. Basically, until educations are at least on par across the board, there has to be some way to mitigate the lack of opportunity for the more exotic crackers in the world. :)
I don't know if getting a small advantage at college admissions offices really is going to change that situation much. The kids who are getting the advantages based on crackerness are already getting good enough educations to be college material so are not the ones who need help.
This is indeed the problem with most forms of racial preference - they tend to help those who do not need it.
This is really a subset of a larger problem: that programs to benefit the disadvantaged often miss the mark.
Canada is rife with social assistance programs that end up "helping" the middle class (even upper middle class!) much moreso than the disadvantaged - for the very simple reason that navagating the bureaucracy to obtain access to the programs is a significant chore and one that those already in the middle/upper middle classes are far better able to do that chore successfully.
Worth quoting.
This is a problem in quite a few areas of public service provision over here.
Various NHS reforms, intended to make it 'fairer' end the 'postcode lottery', result in more complex 'admission'/'application' procedures that the pushy middle/upper middle class are most adept at navigating.
School admissions are another area, afflicted by this issue.
There is a genuine problem with resume-padding being a prerequisite for being judged among the "best".
Eventually, you get kids whose whole lives have been artificially sculpted by their parents into the bonsai shape of a perfect university applicant. I find it hard to believe that such kids are actually going to be "the best" as opposed to kids who, at least in part, took some real risks and did some actual stuff on their own.
Haven't most reputable studies in the last 15 years shown that affirmative action at the elite schools just tends to help wealthy minorities who already had significant advantages in life, and at the lower tier schools it often results in the less wealthy minorities getting into schools beyond what their upbringing or primary/secondary education prepared them for and thus they end up with massive first/second semester college drop out rates?
Interestingly I read one of the best systems so far demonstrated was at the University of Texas. They have a program where every student in the top 10% of the graduating class from any public high school in the state of Texas gets in, period. What this means, is the high schools in heavy black (or more common in Texas) heavy Hispanic neighborhoods are guaranteed to get at least a few students who have the option to go to UT--one of the best schools in the country. What this has lead to is a lot of the kids who precisely should have such an opportunity, poor minorities who excel in their own surroundings but are missing on most advantages available to the wealthy, end up going to a very good school and doing well there. (There is a lot more controversy about how UT handles its non 10%er admissions, as they use a racial preference criteria that has resulted in a white student suing the university. I believe that case was recently argued before the SCOTUS but yet to be ruled on.)
But in general I think "dumb" racial "points" systems where race gets you a bonus in admissions is vastly inferior to a system that gives you bonuses based on socioeconomic background. That tends to cover kids both majority and minority that are disadvantaged unfairly, and will obviously disproportionately help minorities who are more likely to be poor, but without giving an unfair boost to wealthy minorities or an unfair penalty to impoverished whites.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 04:56:25 PM
Not at all but you are talking about lowering the bar. After all, they are currently selecting people with lots of activities and other resume type stuff that this disadvantaged kid doesn't have...and presumably it is because that's the type that they think will thrive at their schools. You're then asking them to take on riskier applicants for the sake of society?
I'm saying that I don't think that it's "under the bar" to not have all of the extracurricular activities. I think that life experience is life experience, and for some that's extracurricular activites, and for others it's taking three city busses to get to school. I don't necessarily think that one is "better" or "worse" than the other. They're simply different, which will provide diversity, which I feel is essential to a good education.
As for the "riskier" applicants, I think that the benefits outweighs the risks. Not for the sake of society, though that's a strong benefit, too, but rather for the university in question. Taking on kids with differing life experiences, education, and backgrounds forces the universities to constantly re-examine how they approach a number of subjects. It prevents them from complacency, one of the biggest criticisms of the Ivy League schools as it is.
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2013, 05:02:19 PM
There is a genuine problem with resume-padding being a prerequisite for being judged among the "best".
Eventually, you get kids whose whole lives have been artificially sculpted by their parents into the bonsai shape of a perfect university applicant. I find it hard to believe that such kids are actually going to be "the best" as opposed to kids who, at least in part, took some real risks and did some actual stuff on their own.
:yes:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2013, 05:04:50 PM
Haven't most reputable studies in the last 15 years shown that affirmative action at the elite schools just tends to help wealthy minorities who already had significant advantages in life, and at the lower tier schools it often results in the less wealthy minorities getting into schools beyond what their upbringing or primary/secondary education prepared them for and thus they end up with massive first/second semester college drop out rates?
Interestingly I read one of the best systems so far demonstrated was at the University of Texas. They have a program where every student in the top 10% of the graduating class from any public high school in the state of Texas gets in, period. What this means, is the high schools in heavy black (or more common in Texas) heavy Hispanic neighborhoods are guaranteed to get at least a few students who have the option to go to UT--one of the best schools in the country. What this has lead to is a lot of the kids who precisely should have such an opportunity, poor minorities who excel in their own surroundings but are missing on most advantages available to the wealthy, end up going to a very good school and doing well there. (There is a lot more controversy about how UT handles its non 10%er admissions, as they use a racial preference criteria that has resulted in a white student suing the university. I believe that case was recently argued before the SCOTUS but yet to be ruled on.)
But in general I think "dumb" racial "points" systems where race gets you a bonus in admissions is vastly inferior to a system that gives you bonuses based on socioeconomic background. That tends to cover kids both majority and minority that are disadvantaged unfairly, and will obviously disproportionately help minorities who are more likely to be poor, but without giving an unfair boost to wealthy minorities or an unfair penalty to impoverished whites.
Remarkably, I agree on all point. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2013, 05:05:09 PM
As for the "riskier" applicants, I think that the benefits outweighs the risks. Not for the sake of society, though that's a strong benefit, too, but rather for the university in question. Taking on kids with differing life experiences, education, and backgrounds forces the universities to constantly re-examine how they approach a number of subjects. It prevents them from complacency, one of the biggest criticisms of the Ivy League schools as it is.
That might make them less of a target for their detractors but that doesn't seem like it'd actually help the university in any way that I think they strongly care about.
Also, I'm going to disagree with you in that a big part, I think, is that they think the people they are selecting are more likely to stick around for the four years. I've no idea if that's actually true - but I wouldn't leap to say it isn't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2013, 04:26:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2013, 04:23:14 PM
I barely missed out because I was white and male.
I call bullshit. I blame your lack of extracurricular activities.
But I guess goofing on all those Future Business Leaders of America members in the cafeteria seemed like fun at the time though, right?
But I was in the marching band! :cry:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2013, 05:29:13 PM
But I was in the marching band! :cry:
So was I, and you see where that landed me, don't you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2013, 06:39:36 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2013, 05:29:13 PM
But I was in the marching band! :cry:
So was I, and you see where that landed me, don't you?
In the most exclusive club of all - a regular on Languish. :hug:
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2013, 05:02:19 PM
There is a genuine problem with resume-padding being a prerequisite for being judged among the "best".
Eventually, you get kids whose whole lives have been artificially sculpted by their parents into the bonsai shape of a perfect university applicant. I find it hard to believe that such kids are actually going to be "the best" as opposed to kids who, at least in part, took some real risks and did some actual stuff on their own.
Probably wrong. Those kids may be insufferable, and in suffering, but they're going to be the one out of fifty, or more, from these latter generations that genuinely achieves the American dream (whose parents hadn't already achieved it for them).
I mean, since you'll just pooh-pooh the idea that elite universities be nationalized and their liberal arts schools be burned to the ground anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2013, 05:29:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2013, 04:26:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2013, 04:23:14 PM
I barely missed out because I was white and male.
I call bullshit. I blame your lack of extracurricular activities.
But I guess goofing on all those Future Business Leaders of America members in the cafeteria seemed like fun at the time though, right?
But I was in the marching band! :cry:
Best damn band in the land. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2013, 06:37:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2013, 05:29:13 PM
But I was in the marching band! :cry:
NERD!
I don't think quiz team members have any room to criticize :ph34r:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2013, 05:04:50 PM
Haven't most reputable studies in the last 15 years shown that affirmative action at the elite schools just tends to help wealthy minorities who already had significant advantages in life, and at the lower tier schools it often results in the less wealthy minorities getting into schools beyond what their upbringing or primary/secondary education prepared them for and thus they end up with massive first/second semester college drop out rates?
Interestingly I read one of the best systems so far demonstrated was at the University of Texas. They have a program where every student in the top 10% of the graduating class from any public high school in the state of Texas gets in, period. What this means, is the high schools in heavy black (or more common in Texas) heavy Hispanic neighborhoods are guaranteed to get at least a few students who have the option to go to UT--one of the best schools in the country. What this has lead to is a lot of the kids who precisely should have such an opportunity, poor minorities who excel in their own surroundings but are missing on most advantages available to the wealthy, end up going to a very good school and doing well there. (There is a lot more controversy about how UT handles its non 10%er admissions, as they use a racial preference criteria that has resulted in a white student suing the university. I believe that case was recently argued before the SCOTUS but yet to be ruled on.)
But in general I think "dumb" racial "points" systems where race gets you a bonus in admissions is vastly inferior to a system that gives you bonuses based on socioeconomic background. That tends to cover kids both majority and minority that are disadvantaged unfairly, and will obviously disproportionately help minorities who are more likely to be poor, but without giving an unfair boost to wealthy minorities or an unfair penalty to impoverished whites.
I totally abused the 10% rule to get into UT Austin. I was one of three white kids at my inner city Houston, majority black high school. Thank you, pseudo-affirmative action. :nelson:
Quote from: Fate on April 05, 2013, 08:21:13 PM
I totally abused the 10% rule to get into UT Austin. I was one of three white kids at my inner city Houston, majority black high school. Thank you, pseudo-affirmative action. :nelson:
That's not abuse. That's playing the odds.
As Jimmy the Greek would say, "But that's the way to bet."
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2013, 08:05:49 PM
I don't think quiz team members have any room to criticize :ph34r:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.media.myigrad.com%2Fimages%2Fcareer%2FContrarian%2520thinking%2520in%2520your%2520job%2520search.jpg&hash=7513dd559f16dfd2e7c120bd80e6c2166af5f050)
Fucking mathlete.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-jobs-crisis-at-our-best-law-schools-is-much-much-worse-than-you-think/274795/
Quote from: The Atlantic
The Jobs Crisis at Our Best Law Schools Is Much, Much Worse Than You Think
More than a fifth of students from some top-tier programs are underemployed.
Jordan Weissmann Apr 9 2013, 9:45 AM ET
The barren job market for law school grads has become a familiar reality by now. But here's something that tends to get lost in the story: The problem isn't just about no-name law schools churning out JD's nobody wants to hire. Even graduates at some of the country's top programs are struggling.
At this point, it seems, there are only a small handful of schools that could reasonably be called safe bets.
The American Bar Association recently released its annual collection of jobs placement data from all 202 accredited law schools, and the big picture was, as expected, dreadful. Nine months after graduation, just 56 percent of the class of 2012 had found stable jobs in law -- meaning full-time, long-term employment in a position requiring bar passage, or a judicial clerkship, i.e. the sorts of jobs people go to law school for in the first place. The figure had improved just 1 percent compared to the class of 2011.
Meanwhile, a full 27.7 percent were underemployed, meaning they were either in short-term or part-time jobs, jobless and hunting for work, or enrolled (read: burning cash) in another degree program.
At some of the most prestigious law schools in the country, the numbers were only marginally better. Below, I've listed the top 25 programs in the U.S. News rankings,* along with their underemployment score as calculated by Law School Transparency. Past the top 9, underemployment hits double digits. Outside of the top 15, it mostly hovers around 20 percent.*
Law_School_Underemployment_US_News_Top_25_4Fixed4.JPG
Could this just be a sign the U.S. News rankings are way off and don't really reflect the job market? In part, yes. The magazine's annual list does incorporate employment outcomes as part of its formula, and some law firms pay an absurd amount of attention to it. But after going back through the data and ranking the 25 schools with the lowest underemployment, I found that only 15 of them could be found in the U.S. News Top 25. The other 10 included schools like number #76 LSU and number #126 Campbell University.
Law_School_Underemployment_25_Lowest_Orange.JPG
In the end, though, the numbers are still bad no matter how you define the "good schools." Only 31 institutions had an underemployment rate under 15 percent. Just 66, or less than a third, have an underemployment rate below 20 percent.* And in some cases, the numbers actually obscure just how tough the market is. Many schools have taken to hiring their own graduates, or funding fellowships for them to help smooth their transition into the working world. One of the big reasons the University of Virginia has the lowest underemployment ranking is that 15 percent of its graduates are in jobs funded by the school. That's a heck of a lot better than leaving them out to dry, and some of those fellowships, which include jobs on Capitol Hill and with nonprofits, will likely lead to bigger and better opportunities. But it gives you a sense of the challenges grads -- and their schools -- are facing.
If we were talking about undergraduate students, these numbers wouldn't seem quite as awful. But JD's consistently dive six figures into debt and give up three years of other opportunities for an education that prepares them with a very specific, not-so-easily transferred skill set (please forget the old saw that "you can do anything with a law degree"). There are some schools where the investment practically always pays off -- a Harvard or University of Virginia degree is still looking good these days -- but at many schools, reputation trumps results.
Bar card = ticket to Thunderdome. It does not matter, with very and increasingly few exceptions, what school you went to.
Good. The lawyers deserve to suffer what was inflicted on everyone else.
Can we not repent?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 10, 2013, 11:20:20 PM
Can we not repent?
No. So as you have sowed, so shall you reap.
Well, do you have any positions open for a kapo?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 10, 2013, 11:25:18 PM
Well, do you have any positions open for a kapo?
It's not going to be that orderly. Justice should be a community project.
All this debt really limits the pool of potential spouses. :(
And then well-off people just marry other well-off people, increasing the wealth gap.
But the Nasdaq, DJIA and S&P all set new records this week. So there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 07:41:43 AM
But the Nasdaq, DJIA and S&P all set new records this week. So there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
My portfolio. :smoke:
Actually, the market high is something to worry about in my mind. It seems to be built on nothing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2013, 12:17:53 PM
Actually, the market high is something to worry about in my mind. It seems to be built on nothing.
Doesn't matter.
The ability of the wealthy to become even wealthier with their fixed gambling scheme and the few crumbs they toss house niggers like Cal and his portfolio along the way to convince that they're actually relevant to the big picture is the only true measure of our national economic health.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 02:31:06 PM
Doesn't matter.
The ability of the wealthy to become even wealthier with their fixed gambling scheme and the few crumbs they toss house niggers like Cal and his portfolio along the way to convince that they're actually relevant to the big picture is the only true measure of our national economic health.
Which fixed gambling scheme or schemes are you referring to?
Maybe hedge funds, like Bernie Madoff's? Or Paulson's hedge fund, which dropped 20% recently? Or maybe you're thinking of one of the hundreds of zombie private equity funds floating around out there?
Your post bears no relationship to reality.
It's an insider's game, designed by insiders for insiders. The rest of you and your precious 401ks are all just letting them put what few chips you have on the gaming table to piss away with bad, unregulated decisions without consequence.
By the way, how are those all IPOs you're allowed to get first dibs on doing these days?
Like Facebook? :lmfao:
I'm thinking of sending Seedy a 18 year old Vietnamese girl. Might make him less morose.
I can do morose too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 05:32:16 PM
It's an insider's game, designed by insiders for insiders. The rest of you and your precious 401ks are all just letting them put what few chips you have on the gaming table to piss away with bad, unregulated decisions without consequence.
By the way, how are those all IPOs you're allowed to get first dibs on doing these days?
Even the existence of the 401k is a scam, designed to get your retirement money out of your future and into their pockets.
Quote from: Neil on April 11, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 05:32:16 PM
It's an insider's game, designed by insiders for insiders. The rest of you and your precious 401ks are all just letting them put what few chips you have on the gaming table to piss away with bad, unregulated decisions without consequence.
By the way, how are those all IPOs you're allowed to get first dibs on doing these days?
Even the existence of the 401k is a scam, designed to get your retirement money out of your future and into their pockets.
Then let all these niggers mock you for a fucking change.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 07:30:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 11, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 05:32:16 PM
It's an insider's game, designed by insiders for insiders. The rest of you and your precious 401ks are all just letting them put what few chips you have on the gaming table to piss away with bad, unregulated decisions without consequence.
By the way, how are those all IPOs you're allowed to get first dibs on doing these days?
Even the existence of the 401k is a scam, designed to get your retirement money out of your future and into their pockets.
Then let all these niggers mock you for a fucking change.
Fuck 'em. I traffic in the truth.
Let us know when you two finish your circle jerk.
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2013, 11:27:01 PM
Let us know when you two finish your circle jerk.
Feeling left out?
Garbon is too hip for circles. He jerks in trapazoids and rhombuses.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 07:20:57 PM
I can do morose too.
Well, that Ed can kill two birds with one stone. Just send Yi to CdM. Yi will get morose and CdM will get an Asian. Well half.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 05:41:56 PM
Like Facebook? :lmfao:
Its a good example of the problem. Investment bankers paid huge premiums to get the first crack at buying in. They bet wrong but so did all the smaller investors that had to buy at an even larger premium when the stock started trading. Granted that premium quickly vanished.
Stanford Alumni bit let us know this (and said that this makes 4 out of the last 5 years).
http://www.princetonreview.com/college-hopes-worries.aspx
What "dream" college do you wish you (your child) could attend if acceptance and/or cost were not issues? (fill in the blank)
Students | Parents |
1 Stanford University | Stanford University |
2 Harvard College | Harvard College |
3 Columbia University | Princeton University |
4 New York University | University of Notre Dame |
5 Princeton University | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
Are Columbia and NYU very sexy?
Had a friend go to NYU to study "Social Work" instead of cheap, but respectable state school UConn.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2013, 10:56:29 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 12, 2013, 10:52:30 AM
Are Columbia and NYU very sexy?
They're in New York.
Yeah exactly. NYU is right in the heart of Manhattan so great location.
Is it like Sex and the City.
Not unless their parents are loaded and generous.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 12, 2013, 11:28:50 AM
Is it like Sex and the City.
Why, are you looking to score with some dried-up cougars with entitlement complexes?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2013, 11:37:25 AM
Why, are you looking to score with some dried-up cougars with entitlement complexes?
The little one was always doable.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 12, 2013, 11:28:50 AM
Is it like Sex and the City.
Not for most people. My sisters and I regularly joke about how we lived in two very different versions of New York (me having a full-time job and them having part-time jobs as students) - though my sisters also have always been a bit over kill on austerity measures.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2013, 11:31:22 AM
Not unless their parents are loaded and generous.
Minus the fashion piece, there is a surprisingly high amount of free/cheap things you can do in the city. You just have to have a flexible schedule which students typically have.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2013, 11:41:35 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2013, 11:37:25 AM
Why, are you looking to score with some dried-up cougars with entitlement complexes?
The little one was always doable.
Sarah Jessica Parker? I mean, sure, but she's the least attractive of the group.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 11, 2013, 07:19:48 PM
I'm thinking of sending Seedy a 18 year old Vietnamese girl. Might make him less morose.
I'll pitch in a few whatever Vietnamese currency is called if that would do the trick.
edit: whoa, is it really the "dong"? Ehm, never mind :Embarrass:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2013, 11:47:08 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2013, 11:41:35 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2013, 11:37:25 AM
Why, are you looking to score with some dried-up cougars with entitlement complexes?
The little one was always doable.
Sarah Jessica Parker? I mean, sure, but she's the least attractive of the group.
She looks like a foot.
Yeah, I don't get her appeal at all. Matthew Broderick can do better. :)
Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 11:49:19 AM
She looks like a foot.
BOC - She's as Beautiful as a Foot.
Quote from: PDH on April 12, 2013, 12:25:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 11:49:19 AM
She looks like a foot.
BOC - She's as Beautiful as a Foot.
That could be very beautiful then from a Marti perspective.
Quote from: Caliga on April 12, 2013, 12:22:19 PM
Yeah, I don't get her appeal at all. Matthew Broderick can do better. :)
She might have an awesome personality for all we know.
Neat tool
http://www.collegeriskreport.com
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2013, 05:37:35 PM
Neat tool
http://www.collegeriskreport.com
I'm going to say sure because it makes fancy graphs but otherwise not really. It told me that both only a high school diploma or associates degree (on average) would be better for me than going to Stanford...which apparently including an assumption that as a Psych major my starting income would be a median of 35k and a net increase of 2.5% each year across my lifetime. So no. :D
According to the graph it gave me after putting in my school and degree, it takes seven years for me to break even with an associates over just high school. It takes 14 years to break even with a bachelor's over just high school. It takes 7 years until a bachelor's degree goes from a net negative to a net positive (the associates is flat). And a whopping 23 years of working before having a bachelor's becomes more valuable than having only an associate's.
I bet the averages are pretty skewed and not really relevant if you went to an elite school, garbo. Much better for us plebs who went to state school. :P
I put in my wife's info and it gave me 27 years to break even over high school with the bachelor's and it never at any point was worth it to have a bachelor's over an associates. :lol:
Her major was psychology.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2013, 05:51:52 PM
I bet the averages are pretty skewed and not really relevant if you went to an elite school, garbo. Much better for us plebs who went to state school. :P
:D
I did see that it told me in 0.2 years I'd break even with an associates.
Also, I'm skeptical of that 2.5% increase. Is that making assumptions that you'll only be at the same company for long stretches with no promotions?
I think it's just the inflation rate. I got promoted way faster than that too.
Oh and it told me that only around 50 years would I be put near on part with what I would have had in lifetime earnings if I just went to high school. :D
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2013, 05:51:52 PM
I bet the averages are pretty skewed and not really relevant if you went to an elite school, garbo. Much better for us plebs who went to state school. :P
Actually thinking about it more - if they are going to take into account everything about a school's costs - then I don't think it is right to (which I'm assuming) just use the median figure for people of a major across all schools.
Just tried UCLA which was where I'd planned on going and got the same story. You are never likely at UCLA to top high school let alone an associates if you study psychology!
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 10:36:37 AM
Stanford Alumni bit let us know this (and said that this makes 4 out of the last 5 years).
http://www.princetonreview.com/college-hopes-worries.aspx
What "dream" college do you wish you (your child) could attend if acceptance and/or cost were not issues? (fill in the blank)
Students | Parents |
1 Stanford University | Stanford University |
2 Harvard College | Harvard College |
3 Columbia University | Princeton University |
4 New York University | University of Notre Dame |
5 Princeton University | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
And this is what I come home to?
A list of dream schools? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 06:10:48 PM
A list of dream schools? :unsure:
You know what you did.
Ide wanted to go to the Frunze Academy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2013, 06:12:19 PM
Ide wanted to go to the Frunze Academy.
I could've learned how to drive a tank over kulaks. :)
Quote from: PDH on April 12, 2013, 12:25:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 11:49:19 AM
She looks like a foot.
BOC - She's as Beautiful as a Foot.
:cool:
Excellent reference, now please work in one to a zombie Joan Crawford. :)
Also, Sarah Jessica Parker was never a great beauty, but she was reasonably attractive in her day. She's like five billion years old now. And she was in Ed Wood. You guys need to cut her some slack.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2013, 06:12:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 06:10:48 PM
A list of dream schools? :unsure:
You know what you did.
Yeah I spoke about something other than people whining about higher education. :o
Also, SJP isn't even 50.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2013, 06:14:28 PM
Also, Sarah Jessica Parker was never a great beauty, but she was reasonably attractive in her day. She's like five billion years old now. And she was in Ed Wood. You guys need to cut her some slack.
She is a horse face.
Quote from: garbonAlso, SJP isn't even 50.
She's not? OK, reduce my enthusiasm in defending her looks by about 10%.
Wiki says she's 48.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2013, 06:14:28 PM
Also, Sarah Jessica Parker was never a great beauty, but she was reasonably attractive in her day. She's like five billion years old now. And she was in Ed Wood. You guys need to cut her some slack.
Great. Late 40s is now "like five billion years old". :P
It is okay Mal, you can be comforted by million dollar stroller.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2013, 11:47:08 AM
Sarah Jessica Parker? I mean, sure, but she's the least attractive of the group.
The other little one. The brunette. The uptight one.
Quote from: katmai on April 12, 2013, 06:31:04 PM
It is okay Mal, you can be comforted by million dollar stroller.
Great, but I'm gonna need to hire someone to push me around in it, when I'm five billion years old.
Not a wetback, though. There are sunglasses to consider! :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2013, 06:33:08 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2013, 11:47:08 AM
Sarah Jessica Parker? I mean, sure, but she's the least attractive of the group.
The other little one. The brunette. The uptight one.
Charlotte (Kristin Davis). Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) was pretty hot at the time too, but she's about 3.5 billion years old, as she was born back in the Pre-Cambrian, slightly predating multicellular life on Earth.
I'd have fucked Samantha (Kim Catrall) too. There's no way that wouldn't have been fun.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2013, 06:39:56 PM
Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) was pretty hot at the time too, but she's about 3.5 billion years old, as she was born back in the Pre-Cambrian, slightly predating multicellular life on Earth.
I always thought she looked like a slightly effeminate man.
Ide's knowledge of that cast is suspicious.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2013, 06:42:49 PM
Ide's knowledge of that cast is suspicious.
And you people give me shit about
my viewing habits.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 06:43:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2013, 06:42:49 PM
Ide's knowledge of that cast is suspicious.
And you people give me shit about my viewing habits.
He is on my watch list.
Sarah Jessica Parker was hott enough in LA Stories.
Quote from: YiI always thought she looked like a slightly effeminate man.
She had shades of Terminator-face, but overall at the time was a pretty attractive lady.
I mean, I'd still bone her now. She's far from horrible. But she is 47. So it goes.
Quote from: MonkeybuttIde's knowledge of that cast is suspicious.
I had to google Miranda. Which is strange, because she was my favorite.
SJP? Great body, total horse face.
And I'm not talking merely horse-like, but a hardcore fighting-Sean-Connery-in-Time-Bandits magnitude of livestock.
I'll be watching the 1st movie again this weekend. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
SJP? Great body, total horse face.
And I'm not talking merely horse-like, but a hardcore fighting-Sean-Connery-in-Time-Bandits magnitude of livestock.
ha
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
SJP? Great body, total horse face.
And I'm not talking merely horse-like, but a hardcore fighting-Sean-Connery-in-Time-Bandits magnitude of livestock.
:lol:
I'm always happy to see a Time Bandits reference.
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 06:27:25 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2013, 06:14:28 PM
Also, Sarah Jessica Parker was never a great beauty, but she was reasonably attractive in her day. She's like five billion years old now. And she was in Ed Wood. You guys need to cut her some slack.
Great. Late 40s is now "like five billion years old". :P
actress years are worse the gay years. Also, she was never reasonably attractive. Not even if measured by real world standards.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
SJP? Great body, total horse face.
And I'm not talking merely horse-like, but a hardcore fighting-Sean-Connery-in-Time-Bandits magnitude of livestock.
:lol: Win. Also: not a complete dealbreaker. I tend not to worry too much about the face. :ph34r:
:zipped:
I don't even worry about the hair.
Do you worry about anything apart from making sure bones show?
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2013, 06:20:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2013, 06:14:28 PM
Also, Sarah Jessica Parker was never a great beauty, but she was reasonably attractive in her day. She's like five billion years old now. And she was in Ed Wood. You guys need to cut her some slack.
She is a horse face.
So does Julia Roberts.
But some horses are ugly, and some are not.
Julia looks like Eric. Not OK.
Quote from: The Brain on April 13, 2013, 03:53:04 PM
Julia looks like Eric. Not OK.
She has an oval face and a smaller nose.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2013, 05:37:35 PM
Neat tool
http://www.collegeriskreport.com
If I am interpreting the results correctly, my degree and institution is break even at 1.6 years, and my bachelors passes an associates at the 10-year point.
Of course, this exercise is irrelevant because I went to school on the state of Florida's dime. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 12, 2013, 10:48:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
SJP? Great body, total horse face.
And I'm not talking merely horse-like, but a hardcore fighting-Sean-Connery-in-Time-Bandits magnitude of livestock.
:lol: Win. Also: not a complete dealbreaker. I tend not to worry too much about the face. :ph34r:
I dunno, man...hottie body or not, she's got to pass the what-if-we-run-into-an-ex-in-public test.
Then again, if she's got a smokin' hot body, the ex will already know what's up. :lol:
QuoteAlmost half of Americans with a degree are in jobs that do not require one, according to a study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. Fifteen per cent of taxi drivers in the US have a degree, up from 1 per cent in 1970. Likewise, 25 per cent of sales clerks are graduates, against 5 per cent in 1970. An astonishing 5 per cent of janitors now have a bachelor's degree. They must offer endless nocturnal moments to repent those student loans. Only at the top of the system do the labour and education markets mesh well. PhDs and postgraduates are the only US category to enjoy rising incomes, often dramatically so.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52ad8b04-a2c6-11e2-bd45-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QYrXw8lA
I'd say more than half of the jobs that require a degree shouldn't.
Hey, a bankruptcy discharge.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/7th_circuit
Quote
7th Circuit OKs $25K student-loan discharge for 'destitute' paralegal
Posted Apr 10, 2013 1:20 PM CDT
By Martha Neil
A "destitute" paralegal who has made reasonable efforts to repay her student loan debt is entitled to a bankruptcy discharge of the remaining $25,000 or so despite the fact that she never enrolled in a federal income-contingent repayment plan, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Reinstating a bankruptcy court's determination that Susan M. Krieger is entitled to the discharge and reversing a federal district court's decision to the contrary, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the bankruptcy court had discretion to decide whether requiring Krieger to repay the student loan debt would be an undue hardship.
In a Wednesday opinion (PDF) authored by Judge Frank Easterbrook, the 7th Circuit also said that requiring Krieger to enroll in the income-contingent repayment plan as a show of good faith, was contrary to the purpose of bankruptcy law.
"The district judge did not doubt that Krieger has paid as much as she could during the 11 years since receiving the educational loans," the opinion states. "Instead the judge concluded that good faith entails commitment to future efforts to repay. Yet, if this is so, no educational loan ever could be discharged, because it is always possible to pay in the future should prospects improve."
In a concurring opinion, Judge Daniel Manion, said he agreed with the court that the bankruptcy judge had discretion to decide the case. However, Manion said he sympathized with the district judge's opinion that Krieger, at age 53, in good health and well-educated, could surely find work of some kind, despite being located in a rural area, where she lives with her elderly mother, and lacking resources to look for work elsewhere.
Like other well-educated individuals who are having a hard time finding good jobs, or work of any kind, in a tough economy, Krieger should be required to enroll in the William D. Ford Income-Based Repayment Plan, Manion wrote. Absent discretionary income, she would not be required to make any payments. And after 25 years of complying with the program, any remaining balance would be forgiven.
A quick google finds this (http://www.leagle.com/xmlresult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020130410118.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7).
Law degree, naturally. And divorced too.
Quote
Educational Credit conceded that part (1) of this circuit's standard has been met but argued that parts (2) and (3) have not been. Its argument was based on what it characterized as Krieger's failure to search harder for work (she has made "only" 200 or so applications during the past decade) and to accept work at jobs other than the ones for which her training best suits her (the educational debts were incurred to obtain training as a paralegal, and most of Krieger's searching has been for paralegal jobs). The bankruptcy judge concluded, however, that Krieger had made a thorough effort. Educational Credit does not contend that she has the resources to sustain herself during a wider geographical search. And the bankruptcy judge observed that Krieger's good faith is demonstrated not only by her decade-long search but also her decision to use a substantial chunk of a divorce settlement to pay off as much of the educational loan as she could. (The amount remaining is about $25,000.)
Quote
As it is presented, this case is truly an exception. But Ms. Krieger is fifty-three years old and is in good health. She resides with her seventy-five-year-old mother on a small rural farm. She has given up looking for a job, a search which she concludes is an effort in futility. Under normal circumstances that should not happen. She is healthy and well-educated. In 1999, Krieger received an Associate of Arts degree in Business Accounting from St. Charles Community College. In 2000, she enrolled at Webster University in Webster Groves, Missouri, where she earned a paralegal certificate and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Legal Studies. She had a high GPA and she received significant recognition for her academic achievements. She clearly received the education that she borrowed for. Yet as a result of years of non-payment, her remaining $17,000 student-loan debt has grown to approximately $25,000 with interest.
Quote
She is 53 years old and has not held a job since 1986, when she left the work force to raise a family. She did not earn more than $12,000 a year in her working career (between 1978 and 1986). That's not the sort of background employers are looking for.
$25k? What a crybaby.
Anyway, if 200 job applications is thorough enough, I reached the standard for discharge two years ago. GO GO BK.
That's really weird, though. I thought you had to be basically quadriplegic to successfully get an SL discharged (iirc, they've denied people older and in worse circumstances than Ex-Paralegal here). Is this the turning of the tide?
She lives on a farm, so she's a farmer? That's an occupation.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 15, 2013, 04:59:38 PM
Hey, a bankruptcy discharge.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/7th_circuit
Quote
7th Circuit OKs $25K student-loan discharge for 'destitute' paralegal
Posted Apr 10, 2013 1:20 PM CDT
By Martha Neil
A "destitute" paralegal who has made reasonable efforts to repay her student loan debt is entitled to a bankruptcy discharge of the remaining $25,000 or so despite the fact that she never enrolled in a federal income-contingent repayment plan, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Reinstating a bankruptcy court's determination that Susan M. Krieger is entitled to the discharge and reversing a federal district court's decision to the contrary, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the bankruptcy court had discretion to decide whether requiring Krieger to repay the student loan debt would be an undue hardship.
In a Wednesday opinion (PDF) authored by Judge Frank Easterbrook, the 7th Circuit also said that requiring Krieger to enroll in the income-contingent repayment plan as a show of good faith, was contrary to the purpose of bankruptcy law.
"The district judge did not doubt that Krieger has paid as much as she could during the 11 years since receiving the educational loans," the opinion states. "Instead the judge concluded that good faith entails commitment to future efforts to repay. Yet, if this is so, no educational loan ever could be discharged, because it is always possible to pay in the future should prospects improve."
In a concurring opinion, Judge Daniel Manion, said he agreed with the court that the bankruptcy judge had discretion to decide the case. However, Manion said he sympathized with the district judge's opinion that Krieger, at age 53, in good health and well-educated, could surely find work of some kind, despite being located in a rural area, where she lives with her elderly mother, and lacking resources to look for work elsewhere.
Like other well-educated individuals who are having a hard time finding good jobs, or work of any kind, in a tough economy, Krieger should be required to enroll in the William D. Ford Income-Based Repayment Plan, Manion wrote. Absent discretionary income, she would not be required to make any payments. And after 25 years of complying with the program, any remaining balance would be forgiven.
A quick google finds this (http://www.leagle.com/xmlresult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020130410118.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7).
Law degree, naturally. And divorced too.
Quote
Educational Credit conceded that part (1) of this circuit's standard has been met but argued that parts (2) and (3) have not been. Its argument was based on what it characterized as Krieger's failure to search harder for work (she has made "only" 200 or so applications during the past decade) and to accept work at jobs other than the ones for which her training best suits her (the educational debts were incurred to obtain training as a paralegal, and most of Krieger's searching has been for paralegal jobs). The bankruptcy judge concluded, however, that Krieger had made a thorough effort. Educational Credit does not contend that she has the resources to sustain herself during a wider geographical search. And the bankruptcy judge observed that Krieger's good faith is demonstrated not only by her decade-long search but also her decision to use a substantial chunk of a divorce settlement to pay off as much of the educational loan as she could. (The amount remaining is about $25,000.)
Quote
As it is presented, this case is truly an exception. But Ms. Krieger is fifty-three years old and is in good health. She resides with her seventy-five-year-old mother on a small rural farm. She has given up looking for a job, a search which she concludes is an effort in futility. Under normal circumstances that should not happen. She is healthy and well-educated. In 1999, Krieger received an Associate of Arts degree in Business Accounting from St. Charles Community College. In 2000, she enrolled at Webster University in Webster Groves, Missouri, where she earned a paralegal certificate and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Legal Studies. She had a high GPA and she received significant recognition for her academic achievements. She clearly received the education that she borrowed for. Yet as a result of years of non-payment, her remaining $17,000 student-loan debt has grown to approximately $25,000 with interest.
Quote
She is 53 years old and has not held a job since 1986, when she left the work force to raise a family. She did not earn more than $12,000 a year in her working career (between 1978 and 1986). That's not the sort of background employers are looking for.
A paralegal degree is a law degree like an LPN degree is a medical degree.
Paralegals can't practice law.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 16, 2013, 12:00:58 PM
She lives on a farm, so she's a farmer? That's an occupation.
Not really, no. A hobby farmer doesn't get to count that as a job, really. It's more of a .. hobby.
Hiring Momentum Slows for College Grads
The hiring picture for college graduates looks about the same as last year, according to a new report released on Thursday by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.
“The momentum that has built in college hiring in 2011 and 2012 has kind of come to an end here in 2013,” said Edwin Koc, who oversees research studies at NACE. “So we’re hitting a stagnant period right now.”
The director of strategic and foundation research called the results from about 200 employers “somewhat disappointing.” The shift, he said, is due to the softening of the economy at the end of the first quarter and the beginning of the second quarter this year.
“Businesses are being very hesitant to jump into the employment picture,” he said. “Ever since the recession they have been very careful when it comes to new hiring.”
In recent years, majors in business and science fields topped the list of employer demands, while those in liberal arts didn’t see the same interest from employers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/04/18/hiring-momentum-slows-for-college-grads/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-XD212_gradua_D_20130418165644.jpg&hash=4deed2e02c824a2179783b876dc60da462075589)
I interviewed a soldier who just got back from Afghanistan today. I'll probably hire him just to spite Martinus.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
I interviewed a soldier who just got back from Afghanistan today. I'll probably hire him just to spite Martinus.
I just interviewed an arts graduate, and I think I'll hire her just to spite Ide.
I ain't hiring anybody.
You're both good peeps, MIM and Xiacob.
Ed, not so much.
Surely one of you guys can hire me to spite someone on Languish?
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2013, 06:17:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
I interviewed a soldier who just got back from Afghanistan today. I'll probably hire him just to spite Martinus.
I just interviewed an arts graduate, and I think I'll hire her just to spite Ide.
:D
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
Surely one of you guys can hire me to spite someone on Languish?
If I was hiring, I'd hire Seedy first. Even though he says mean things about me.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
Surely one of you guys can hire me to spite someone on Languish?
Here you go Fahdiz, take your pick. Just dont pay too much attention about where you have to go to get the job.
http://ca.indeed.com/jobs?q=Athabasca+Oil+Sands&gclid=CNf4-deu1bYCFct7QgodsSEA3A
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2013, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
Surely one of you guys can hire me to spite someone on Languish?
If I was hiring, I'd hire Seedy first. Even though he says mean things about me.
I provide unfiltered analysis to leadership within a collaborative environment.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 06:27:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2013, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
Surely one of you guys can hire me to spite someone on Languish?
If I was hiring, I'd hire Seedy first. Even though he says mean things about me.
I provide unfiltered analysis to leadership within a collaborative environment.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 06:27:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2013, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
Surely one of you guys can hire me to spite someone on Languish?
If I was hiring, I'd hire Seedy first. Even though he says mean things about me.
I provide unfiltered analysis to leadership within a collaborative environment.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2013, 06:17:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
I interviewed a soldier who just got back from Afghanistan today. I'll probably hire him just to spite Martinus.
I just interviewed an arts graduate, and I think I'll hire her just to spite Ide.
Isn't that sort of your field though?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2013, 08:43:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2013, 06:17:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
I interviewed a soldier who just got back from Afghanistan today. I'll probably hire him just to spite Martinus.
I just interviewed an arts graduate, and I think I'll hire her just to spite Ide.
Isn't that sort of your field though?
He has a BS In Chinese Apeasement, and an AAS in flannel.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2013, 08:43:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2013, 06:17:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
I interviewed a soldier who just got back from Afghanistan today. I'll probably hire him just to spite Martinus.
I just interviewed an arts graduate, and I think I'll hire her just to spite Ide.
Isn't that sort of your field though?
Facilitating espionage for the PRC?
I didn't know he worked with Siege. I thought he worked on video games.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 06:27:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2013, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
Surely one of you guys can hire me to spite someone on Languish?
If I was hiring, I'd hire Seedy first. Even though he says mean things about me.
I provide unfiltered analysis to leadership within a collaborative environment.
I'd offer you an internship. It's how all the luminaries do it in New York.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2013, 06:17:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
I interviewed a soldier who just got back from Afghanistan today. I'll probably hire him just to spite Martinus.
I just interviewed an arts graduate, and I think I'll hire her just to spite Ide.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2013, 06:17:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
I interviewed a soldier who just got back from Afghanistan today. I'll probably hire him just to spite Martinus.
I just interviewed an arts graduate, and I think I'll hire her just to spite Ide.
How does that spite me? I'm not unhappy someone's getting a job.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 09:06:59 PM
I'd offer you an internship. It's how all the luminaries do it in New York.
Yeah, I supposed that's the tried and true method, proven successful for decades.
But hey, woohoo! 21 years old again, the hard way!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 09:06:59 PM
I'd offer you an internship. It's how all the luminaries do it in New York.
Yeah, I supposed that's the tried and true method, proven successful for decades.
But hey, woohoo! 21 years old again, the hard way!
I don't know. I had a paid internship in Chicago.
Is that really an internship, though?
He took a internship and his parents paid him. Paid internship.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 10:13:07 PM
Is that really an internship, though?
Well that was my title. :unsure:
Actually the first time I heard about unpaid internships, not for school credit - I was like hold up!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 10:13:07 PM
Is that really an internship, though?
Every non-exploitative internship in engineering is paid. Oftentimes pretty well, too. Makes me wish I'd done some during undergrad.
Remind me to tell you about the year long unpaid US atty job or the unpaid judicial clerkships I've heard about. Never mind, I guess I just did. -_-
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2013, 08:45:49 PMHe has a BS In Chinese Apeasement, and an AAS in flannel.
You think Chinese Appeasement is a science degree?!!?!?
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2013, 12:33:12 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2013, 08:45:49 PMHe has a BS In Chinese Apeasement, and an AAS in flannel.
You think Chinese Appeasement is a science degree?!!?!?
It's a 4 year degree.
America’s Biggest Entrepreneurs: High School Dropouts
'Among America’s most celebrated entrepreneurs are college dropouts like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Michael Dell.
But as it turns out, the country’s most frequent business founders are dropouts of a different kind: They dropped out of high school.'
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/americas-biggest-entrepreneurs-high-school-dropouts/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F04%2F18%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Feconomix-18entrepren%2Feconomix-18entrepren-blog480.png&hash=6af73170655299113964d35ff55b605c4e2971d6)
But they didn't learn how to critically think!
Quote from: Phillip V on April 19, 2013, 12:02:30 PM
America's Biggest Entrepreneurs: High School Dropouts
'Among America's most celebrated entrepreneurs are college dropouts like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Michael Dell.
But as it turns out, the country's most frequent business founders are dropouts of a different kind: They dropped out of high school.'
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/americas-biggest-entrepreneurs-high-school-dropouts/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F04%2F18%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Feconomix-18entrepren%2Feconomix-18entrepren-blog480.png&hash=6af73170655299113964d35ff55b605c4e2971d6)
Makes sense. People with little or nothing to lose can take big risks.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 19, 2013, 02:38:57 PM
But they didn't learn how to critically think!
True. If they had, they might have discovered the glaring flaw underlying that chart - which is discussed in the accompanying article.
Quote"These high rates for the least-educated group suggest an increased number of people entering entrepreneurship out of necessity," writes Professor Fairlie.
People with more education have more and higher-paying job opportunities available to them at existing employers. . . . The same probably isn't true for workers without a high school diploma.
Starting a new business, by the way, does not necessarily mean taking on employees. . . . . A majority of businesses showing up in these figures seem to be nonemployer businesses (sole proprietorships) . . .
So dropouts are more likely to start "businesses" because they have no other options.
If you look at the definition of what qualifies, running a lemonade stand 3 hours a day is enough.
Lol, fair enough.
Where's my damn lemonade? :mad:
Quote from: Phillip V on April 19, 2013, 03:09:49 PM
Where's my damn lemonade? :mad:
Not enough high school drop outs to meet the demand.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2013, 03:10:28 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 19, 2013, 03:09:49 PM
Where's my damn lemonade? :mad:
Not enough high school drop outs to meet the demand.
And kids are getting fined for not having proper permits. :(
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2013, 03:21:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2013, 03:10:28 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 19, 2013, 03:09:49 PM
Where's my damn lemonade? :mad:
Not enough high school drop outs to meet the demand.
And kids are getting fined for not having proper permits. :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidco)
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 10:36:37 AM
http://www.princetonreview.com/college-hopes-worries.aspx
What "dream" college do you wish you (your child) could attend if acceptance and/or cost were not issues? (fill in the blank)
Students | Parents |
1 Stanford University | Stanford University |
2 Harvard College | Harvard College |
3 Columbia University | Princeton University |
4 New York University | University of Notre Dame |
5 Princeton University | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
Ms. O'Shaughnessy said she was trying to counsel a father in New Jersey who was on the verge of making a horrendous financial decision. His daughter had received a full scholarship to attend Rutgers University but her first choice was New York University, which, even with financial aid, would cost the family $32,000 a year. The father, an engineer who was also out of work, said he was going to send her to N.Y.U.
"I can't even believe he's considering it," she said. "I was floored. It's irrational."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/your-money/measuring-college-prestige-vs-price.html
Managers to Millennials: Job Interview No Time to Text
"Hiring managers say many new college graduates perform poorly—sometimes even bizarrely—in job interviews.
Human resource professionals say they've seen recent college grads text or take calls in interviews, dress inappropriately, use slang or overly casual language, and exhibit other oddball behavior.
...
Fall and other HR executives say such quirks have become more commonplace the past three years or so, and are displayed by about one in five recent grads. They're prompting recruiters to rule out otherwise qualified candidates for entry-level positions and delay hiring decisions.
The trend reflects a generation of Millennials—ranging in age from 18 to 34—who grew up texting and using smartphones and social media, says Mara Swan, executive vice president of staffing firm Manpower.
"Life has gotten more casual," Swan says. "They don't realize (the interview) is a sales event."
So much off-the-cuff speaking in tweets and text messages has left many young people with stunted social skills, says Jonathan Singel, director of talent acquisition for Avery Dennison, a packaging and label maker.
...
About half of HR executives say most recent grads are not professional their first year on the job, up from 40 percent of executives who had that view in 2012, according to a recent survey by the Center for Professional Excellence at York College of Pennsylvania.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100684583 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100684583)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffm.cnbc.com%2Fapplications%2Fcnbc.com%2Fresources%2Fimg%2Feditorial%2F2013%2F04%2F29%2F100684627-woman-on-cell-phone-during-interview-gettyp.240x160.jpg%3Fv%3D1367245928&hash=ec5e65656cc4a1220d7f19cd04f4fc156eb0d7e7)
Why some job candidates flunked their interviews:
• Taking calls and texting. A male graduate student seeking a managerial position in Avery Dennison's research and development unit took a call on his smartphone about 15 minutes into the interview. The call, which lasted about a minute and wasn't an emergency, ruined his near-certain chance for a job offer, Singel says.
"If he thought that was OK, what else does he think is appropriate?" he says.
• Helicoptering parents. A man in his late 20s brought his father into a 45-minute interview for a material-handling job on an assembly line, says Teri Nichols, owner of a Spherion staffing-agency in Brooksville, Fla. At Cigna, a health insurance provider, the father of a recent grad who received an offer for a sales job, called to negotiate a higher salary, says Paula Welch, a Cigna HR consultant.
• Pets in tow. A college senior brought her cat into an interview for a buyer's position at clothing retailer American Eagle. She set the crate-housed cat on the interviewer's desk and periodically played with it. "It hit me like—why would you think that's OK?" says Mark Dillon, the chain's former recruiting director. "She cut herself off before she had a chance."
Wow, Millennials are Ritalin-overdosed Assburgers with an inability to communicate with other humans without direction from their parents. Color me shocked.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 11:07:56 AM
Wow, Millennials are Ritalin-overdosed Assburgers with an inability to communicate with other humans without direction from their parents. Color me shocked.
The infirmity is speading to other generations as well. My sister in law was over the weekend and she frequently would interrupt conversations to respond to a text from her daughter. Odd behaviour yes. Limited to Milennials no. It is the scourge of our time infecting everyone with anti social behaviour.
Brought a cat? :lol:
I'm glad I generally don't have to deal with this kind of bullshit anymore. It was bad enough when they stank and were poorly dressed.
Hah, kids these days! ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 11:07:56 AM
Wow, Millennials are Ritalin-overdosed Assburgers with an inability to communicate with other humans without direction from their parents. Color me shocked.
Generalize much?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 30, 2013, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 11:07:56 AM
Wow, Millennials are Ritalin-overdosed Assburgers with an inability to communicate with other humans without direction from their parents. Color me shocked.
Generalize much?
When it comes to that shitty generation, yuppers.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 30, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
Managers to Millennials: Job Interview No Time to Text
You people would not BELIEVE some of the shit I've seen from youngsters in interviews. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 01:29:01 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 30, 2013, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 11:07:56 AM
Wow, Millennials are Ritalin-overdosed Assburgers with an inability to communicate with other humans without direction from their parents. Color me shocked.
Generalize much?
When it comes to that shitty generation, yuppers.
Isn't it time for you to be getting to your nursing home?
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2013, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 30, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
Managers to Millennials: Job Interview No Time to Text
You people would not BELIEVE some of the shit I've seen from youngsters in interviews. :rolleyes:
and then you claim not to be in HR
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2013, 01:32:57 PM
Isn't it time for you to be getting to your nursing home?
No. Now move, you're blocking the TV.
Seedy was born 40 years too late.
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2013, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 30, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
Managers to Millennials: Job Interview No Time to Text
You people would not BELIEVE some of the shit I've seen from youngsters in interviews. :rolleyes:
Note that the article title and first line directly contradict each other. the title is 'managers', while the first line is 'human resources professionals'. Human resources is, as we all know, incapable of managing themselves, let alone anyone else.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 30, 2013, 03:11:18 PM
Seedy was born 40 years too late.
That must've been a painful delivery for Mrs. Seedy.
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 02:12:10 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2013, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 30, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
Managers to Millennials: Job Interview No Time to Text
You people would not BELIEVE some of the shit I've seen from youngsters in interviews. :rolleyes:
and then you claim not to be in HR
Don't anger me.
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2013, 04:31:03 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 02:12:10 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2013, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 30, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
Managers to Millennials: Job Interview No Time to Text
You people would not BELIEVE some of the shit I've seen from youngsters in interviews. :rolleyes:
and then you claim not to be in HR
Don't anger me.
hulk smash?
Or alternative reply
Will you write me up and put it in my employee file?
VERBAL WARNING
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2013, 01:31:56 PM
You people would not BELIEVE some of the shit I've seen from youngsters in interviews. :rolleyes:
I would. Hell, I've seen someone come in for an interview in
pajamas, for pete's sake.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 30, 2013, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2013, 01:31:56 PM
You people would not BELIEVE some of the shit I've seen from youngsters in interviews. :rolleyes:
I would. Hell, I've seen someone come in for an interview in pajamas, for pete's sake.
Chicks like to do that for some reason. HEY IT'S 3 PM.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 30, 2013, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2013, 01:31:56 PM
You people would not BELIEVE some of the shit I've seen from youngsters in interviews. :rolleyes:
I would. Hell, I've seen someone come in for an interview in pajamas, for pete's sake.
Do you work in a strip club or perhaps in mattress sales?
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2013, 03:59:50 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 30, 2013, 03:11:18 PM
Seedy was born 40 years too late.
That must've been a painful delivery for Mrs. Seedy.
Crowning at 8". YOU BETCHA
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2013, 05:01:53 PM
Do you work in a strip club or perhaps in mattress sales?
Music store. Same parent company as Sam Goody and The Wall. Our uniforms were pretty terrible, but this chick went out of her way to show up unprepared: sweatpants with butt text, sock-boots, hoodie over a cami, not even a t-shirt.
Basically, as soon as this girl walked off with the manager, the lead and I just looked at each other and shook our heads.
I saw that stuff when I was managing 50 people at a time and they were more entry-level jobs, but I haven't seen it recently. For the last round of hiring I am just completing, everybody wore ties.
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2013, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 01:29:01 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 30, 2013, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 11:07:56 AM
Wow, Millennials are Ritalin-overdosed Assburgers with an inability to communicate with other humans without direction from their parents. Color me shocked.
Generalize much?
When it comes to that shitty generation, yuppers.
Isn't it time for you to be getting to your nursing home?
No shit. Bunch of Olds leaping to let their biases be confirmed by an article with no quantifiable data but a handful of anecdotes? Sounds about right to me.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 30, 2013, 09:13:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2013, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 01:29:01 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 30, 2013, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 11:07:56 AM
Wow, Millennials are Ritalin-overdosed Assburgers with an inability to communicate with other humans without direction from their parents. Color me shocked.
Generalize much?
When it comes to that shitty generation, yuppers.
Isn't it time for you to be getting to your nursing home?
No shit. Bunch of Olds leaping to let their biases be confirmed by an article with no quantifiable data but a handful of anecdotes? Sounds about right to me.
Olds rule, young people drool.
Get back to work sonny.
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2013, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 30, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
Managers to Millennials: Job Interview No Time to Text
You people would not BELIEVE some of the shit I've seen from youngsters in interviews. :rolleyes:
For the entertainment of Languish, please proceed.
I saw a oldy go into an interview with a really bad toupee. Does count as stupid stuff old people do?
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:24:13 PM
I saw a oldy go into an interview with a really bad toupee. Does count as stupid stuff old people do?
Nope.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:25:07 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:24:13 PM
I saw a oldy go into an interview with a really bad toupee. Does count as stupid stuff old people do?
Nope.
what about the older lady that used to be hot but fights against reality. I work with a few. I do not want to see your wrinkly cleavage.
I will not forget the poor kid that came in with his necktie on the outside of the shirt collar. :lol:
Dad obviously tied it for him the night before and left it on the doorknob. Kid was 6 shades of red when we fixed it for him.
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:25:07 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:24:13 PM
I saw a oldy go into an interview with a really bad toupee. Does count as stupid stuff old people do?
Nope.
what about the older lady that used to be hot but fights against reality. I work with a few. I do not want to see your wrinkly cleavage.
Oh, just flatter her. Ageing ladies can be quite helpful. :)
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:25:07 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:24:13 PM
I saw a oldy go into an interview with a really bad toupee. Does count as stupid stuff old people do?
Nope.
what about the older lady that used to be hot but fights against reality. I work with a few. I do not want to see your wrinkly cleavage.
Wrinkly cleavage is not a good thing, but I work in a building with a bunch of older women that gave up a long time ago. They make no effort to be nice or anything. They're just old, nasty, and need to be forced into retirement.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 30, 2013, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:25:07 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:24:13 PM
I saw a oldy go into an interview with a really bad toupee. Does count as stupid stuff old people do?
Nope.
what about the older lady that used to be hot but fights against reality. I work with a few. I do not want to see your wrinkly cleavage.
Oh, just flatter her. Ageing ladies can be quite helpful. :)
your old lady boner is wrong and you should feel bad about yourself.
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 09:30:38 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:25:07 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:24:13 PM
I saw a oldy go into an interview with a really bad toupee. Does count as stupid stuff old people do?
Nope.
what about the older lady that used to be hot but fights against reality. I work with a few. I do not want to see your wrinkly cleavage.
Wrinkly cleavage is not a good thing, but I work in a building with a bunch of older women that gave up a long time ago. They make no effort to be nice or anything. They're just old, nasty, and need to be forced into retirement.
Welcome to Human Resources.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
I will not forget the poor kid that came in with his necktie on the outside of the shirt collar. :lol:
Dad obviously tied it for him the night before and left it on the doorknob. Kid was 6 shades of red when we fixed it for him.
guy I worked with had to get the head of IT to do his tie before a meeting with all the big wigs :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 09:30:38 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:25:07 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:24:13 PM
I saw a oldy go into an interview with a really bad toupee. Does count as stupid stuff old people do?
Nope.
what about the older lady that used to be hot but fights against reality. I work with a few. I do not want to see your wrinkly cleavage.
Wrinkly cleavage is not a good thing, but I work in a building with a bunch of older women that gave up a long time ago. They make no effort to be nice or anything. They're just old, nasty, and need to be forced into retirement.
you can look nice without trying to dress like you're still 20.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:32:06 PM
Welcome to Human Resources.
The one kid I interviewed that came in with the contact email of "beavrlikr69@" on his application did not get to meet Human Resources.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
I will not forget the poor kid that came in with his necktie on the outside of the shirt collar. :lol:
Dad obviously tied it for him the night before and left it on the doorknob. Kid was 6 shades of red when we fixed it for him.
If I ever start interviewing again, I would probably have to drive up to dad the night before to have my tie pre-tied. :Embarrass:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:35:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:32:06 PM
Welcome to Human Resources.
The one kid I interviewed that came in with the contact email of "beavrlikr69@" on his application did not get to meet Human Resources.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:35:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:32:06 PM
Welcome to Human Resources.
The one kid I interviewed that came in with the contact email of "beavrlikr69@" on his application did not get to meet Human Resources.
Brian Eavrlikr never get a interview and he never knows why.
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2013, 09:36:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
I will not forget the poor kid that came in with his necktie on the outside of the shirt collar. :lol:
Dad obviously tied it for him the night before and left it on the doorknob. Kid was 6 shades of red when we fixed it for him.
If I ever start interviewing again, I would probably have to drive up to dad the night before to have my tie pre-tied. :Embarrass:
Just get a clip on.
Or watch a youtube vid.
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:41:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:35:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2013, 09:32:06 PM
Welcome to Human Resources.
The one kid I interviewed that came in with the contact email of "beavrlikr69@" on his application did not get to meet Human Resources.
Brian Eavrlikr never get a interview and he never knows why.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
I will not forget the poor kid that came in with his necktie on the outside of the shirt collar. :lol:
Dad obviously tied it for him the night before and left it on the doorknob. Kid was 6 shades of red when we fixed it for him.
I had a witness once show up for court with a tie in hand, but no idea how to tie it. So yes, one of the many duties of my job apparently is tieing people's ties.
I appreciated the effort though. Few witnesses show up with any kind of tie. :(
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2013, 11:13:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
I will not forget the poor kid that came in with his necktie on the outside of the shirt collar. :lol:
Dad obviously tied it for him the night before and left it on the doorknob. Kid was 6 shades of red when we fixed it for him.
I had a witness once show up for court with a tie in hand, but no idea how to tie it. So yes, one of the many duties of my job apparently is tieing people's ties.
I appreciated the effort though. Few witnesses show up with any kind of tie. :(
I don't really blame them. The guy I represented in my clinical wasn't too far away from being homeless. He managed to wear a polo shirt to his trial, so, you know, good enough. Not everyone owns a suit, nor dress shirts, nor, as you say, ties--and I have a hard time saying, given the opportunity cost for such items would be dozens of meals or half of a rent payment, that they should. :(
I had to learn how to bind a tie before my oral exam. I was dead set on not wearing any, but then word of mouth was everyone was wearing one. So I rushed to the store next door, picked a nondescript one that I hoped wouldn't clash with my shirt and did what any guy in my situation would do: asked my landlady to help.
She didn't know how to bind a tie, though, because her husband and son were able to do it themselves. This was in 1999 - so internet access wasn't widespread yet. I had one at home, but not at my student room. So I spent an hour in front of the mirror, trying to produce something resembling a tie knot, instead of revising for the exam.
I managed to construct a thing that kinda looked like a proper knot, but the small end of the tie was now longer than the big one, and I'd run out of time. So I fixed it with a needle so it wouldn't show. :blush:
I'm able to bind my own ties these days. :smarty:
Quote from: Syt on May 01, 2013, 12:04:53 AM
I managed to construct a thing that kinda looked like a proper knot, but the small end of the tie was now longer than the big one, and I'd run out of time.
The always stylish "Kruschev" knot.
Quote
I managed to construct a thing that kinda looked like a proper knot, but the small end of the tie was now longer than the big one, and I'd run out of time. So I fixed it with a needle so it wouldn't show. :blush:
Its weird but lately people have given be shit about my tendancy to have the big end of my tie be smaller than the thin end. That's the way I've always known it however, it makes sense to me, stops it flopping about everywhere.
Gah, I hate ties. Pointless stuff. Ridiculous we've got stuck in a rutt of wearing them.
I wear ties most work days. By choice.
I wear a tie every now and then, but very rarely.
Quote from: Tyr on May 01, 2013, 12:41:42 AM
Quote
I managed to construct a thing that kinda looked like a proper knot, but the small end of the tie was now longer than the big one, and I'd run out of time. So I fixed it with a needle so it wouldn't show. :blush:
Its weird but lately people have given be shit about my tendancy to have the big end of my tie be smaller than the thin end. That's the way I've always known it however, it makes sense to me, stops it flopping about everywhere.
Seriously?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 30, 2013, 08:21:35 PM
I saw that stuff when I was managing 50 people at a time and they were more entry-level jobs, but I haven't seen it recently. For the last round of hiring I am just completing, everybody wore ties.
That's sexist.
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2013, 12:54:22 AM
I wear ties most work days. By choice.
Yeah, I would too. As well as keeping a spare and an extra shirt in the office. Just in case. You never know who's stopping by.
Quote from: Syt on May 01, 2013, 12:04:53 AM
I'm able to bind my own ties these days. :smarty:
Pervert.
I used to have to wear a tie to school and can do a variety of knots, including the extra-fat Windsor with short ends and the Ska skinny. Does no-one teach kids "the farmer chased the rabbit round the tree, up into the branches and down the hole" any more?
Also on the subject of yoof, my colleague mentioned yesterday that her mum's a year younger than me, "but she looks like she's in her 30s and I borrow her clothes" :weep:
Quote from: Brazen on May 01, 2013, 07:12:35 AM
Pervert.
I used to have to wear a tie to school and can do a variety of knots, including the extra-fat Windsor with short ends and the Ska skinny. Does no-one teach kids "the farmer chased the rabbit round the tree, up into the branches and down the hole" any more?
Also on the subject of yoof, my colleague mentioned yesterday that her mum's a year younger than me, "but she looks like she's in her 30s and I borrow her clothes" :weep:
Doesn't get taught so much anymore.
I very, very rarely bother with a full Windsor- just haven't been in many situations where a half-Windsor wouldn't cut it. Mostly, if I'm breaking out a tie, though, it's a last-minute thing and I just use a four-in-hand knot.
If it's any consolation, my mom is older than you. :)
Colleges Tackle Illicit Use of A.D.H.D. Pills
"Fresno State is one of dozens of colleges tightening the rules on the diagnosis of A.D.H.D. and the subsequent prescription of amphetamine-based medications like Vyvanse and Adderall.
Various studies have estimated that as many as 35 percent of college students illicitly take these stimulants to provide jolts of focus and drive during finals and other periods of heavy stress. Many do not know that it is a federal crime to possess the pills without a prescription and that abuse can lead to anxiety, depression and, occasionally, psychosis.
...
The University of Alabama and Marist College, like Fresno State, require students to sign contracts promising not to misuse pills or share them with classmates." :o
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/us/colleges-tackle-illicit-use-of-adhd-pills.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/us/colleges-tackle-illicit-use-of-adhd-pills.html)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F05%2F01%2Fus%2FSTIMULANT%2FSTIMULANT-hpMedium-v2.jpg&hash=dba66f74a3ba040f3ca14db1d5b89b390c963db4)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
I will not forget the poor kid that came in with his necktie on the outside of the shirt collar. :lol:
Dad obviously tied it for him the night before and left it on the doorknob. Kid was 6 shades of red when we fixed it for him.
Did he get the job?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2013, 08:03:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
I will not forget the poor kid that came in with his necktie on the outside of the shirt collar. :lol:
Dad obviously tied it for him the night before and left it on the doorknob. Kid was 6 shades of red when we fixed it for him.
Did he get the job?
He got to become a police cadet, yeah. He was a good kid.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 01, 2013, 07:50:53 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F05%2F01%2Fus%2FSTIMULANT%2FSTIMULANT-hpMedium-v2.jpg&hash=dba66f74a3ba040f3ca14db1d5b89b390c963db4)
Princess!
Oh, and I once hired a technician even though the contact email address she gave us was from one of the major strip clubs (http://www.yelp.com/biz/wild-orchid-reno) in town. She had legit skills.
was she hot
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2013, 12:54:22 AM
I wear ties most work days. By choice.
i never wear a tie to work.
I generally never wear one. Which makes sense given I hate things around my neck.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
Oh, and I once hired a technician even though the contact email address she gave us was from one of the major strip clubs (http://www.yelp.com/biz/wild-orchid-reno) in town. She had legit skills.
I'm sure she did :perv:
Quote from: HVC on May 02, 2013, 08:03:57 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
Oh, and I once hired a technician even though the contact email address she gave us was from one of the major strip clubs (http://www.yelp.com/biz/wild-orchid-reno) in town. She had legit skills.
I'm sure she did :perv:
I support single moms.
Quote from: katmai on May 02, 2013, 07:21:13 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2013, 12:54:22 AM
I wear ties most work days. By choice.
i never wear a tie to work.
Took the youngest son out to buy a suit last night. Do you know how hard it is to buy a kid that's 6'2" and 145 pounds a suit? He's a 38R with 30x32 pants. :frusty:
Doesn't help that I've only ever gone suit shopping like twice in my entire life, so I had no idea what would work and what wouldn't. Men's dress clothes are HARD!
Men's wherehouse or that place that gives you 3 shirts for the price of one?
If you say "Sears", I'm going to pick on you severely Meri.
:lol: There, house. :points:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2013, 08:27:37 AM
Men's wherehouse or that place that gives you 3 shirts for the price of one?
If you say "Sears", I'm going to pick on you severely Meri.
Seriously? From the man who calls it "Men's wherehouse", I'm supposed to worry about being picked on? :lol:
Kohl's, actually. I budgeted $200 for the suit, shirt, and tie, and we came in at $200.54. For a 17-year-old kid, that's fine.
Holy fuck, I did misspell it. :Embarrass:
I timmayed myself.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2013, 08:35:59 AM
Holy fuck, I did misspell it. :Embarrass:
I timmayed myself.
:lol: :hug:
S'okay. I still think you're smart
er than a shoe.
:cry:
6'2" with a 32 inseam doesn't sound very common. I'd expect someone that tall to have longer legs.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 11:26:42 AM
6'2" with a 32 inseam doesn't sound very common. I'd expect someone that tall to have longer legs.
It's actually 31, but no way in hell I'm going to find those. Luckily, I can hem like a demon. :)
And yes, he (and his father) have unusually long torsos. Jeremy, at 6'2", has the same inseam as his 5'10" and 5'9" brothers. (Oddly enough, my inseam is 30 at 5'2". :D )
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2013, 08:35:59 AM
Holy fuck, I did misspell it. :Embarrass:
I timmayed myself.
At least you didn't call it Men's Whorehouse.
That would have been hilarious.
What's wrong with Men's Warehouse? :mad:
That's where my father bought me my first suit in high school.
Was it a purple leisure suit?
Rise of Single Motherhood
"The share of births to unmarried mothers is up, according to a new report from the Census Bureau.
In 2011, of the women who reported having had a birth in the previous 12 months, 35.7 percent were unmarried. In 2005, 30.6 percent of recent births were to unmarried women."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/mapping-unwed-motherhood/ (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/mapping-unwed-motherhood/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F05%2F01%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Feconomix-01statemapbirth%2Feconomix-01statemapbirth-blog480.jpg&hash=5ddf2b4593b12be29e88bc3e87646675dc5edb55)
IIRC, 3 percent of births to college educated women were out-of-wedlock in 2005.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F05%2F01%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Feconomix-01birtheduc%2Feconomix-01birtheduc-blog480.jpg&hash=77b876024e9c0cb0e9aa689ed163154c1fa76d15)
How many are in stable long-term relationships?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 02, 2013, 02:51:51 PM
Was it a purple leisure suit?
Purple? Don't stereotype Garbon.
It was green, to match the hair. :P
Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2013, 02:55:25 PM
How many are in stable long-term relationships?
Why does that matter? They're unmarried, ergo, they're trash. :contract:
;)
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 02, 2013, 02:51:51 PM
Was it a purple leisure suit?
Purple? Don't stereotype Garbon.
It was green, to match the hair. :P
My money is on the black NOI starter kit.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 02, 2013, 02:51:51 PM
Was it a purple leisure suit?
No. What he bought me was some version of black and then a blue blazer. I think I still have them somewhere though they most definitely do not fit.
:punk:
The Idled Young Americans
"The United States has gone from having the highest share of employed 25- to 34-year-olds among large, wealthy economies to having among the lowest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/sunday-review/the-idled-young-americans.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F05%2F05%2Fopinion%2F05leonhardt-chart%2F05leonhardt-chart-popup-v2.jpg&hash=48271fb5653d61c897fc61938fab027793e3f992)
And Canada went from Second best to best. :showoff:
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 30, 2013, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2013, 09:27:23 PM
what about the older lady that used to be hot but fights against reality. I work with a few. I do not want to see your wrinkly cleavage.
Oh, just flatter her. Ageing ladies can be quite helpful. :)
your old lady boner is wrong and you should feel bad about yourself.
It's not about me. They may be trying to "keep up" so that they can be their daughter's best friend. :hug:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/302781_203867839749127_1998438044_n.jpg)
Quote from: Phillip V on May 04, 2013, 11:44:19 PM
It's not about me. They may be trying to "keep up" so that they can be their daughter's best friend. :hug:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/302781_203867839749127_1998438044_n.jpg
Which one's the mother and which one's the daughter? :hmm:
Generally, the older one is the mom. :secret:
The mom has something odd with her teeth (like her smile is too gummy or something) but other than that I'd do her.
I think she looks like Catherine Keener.
Bigger nose and not as thin.
Pointy elbows.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 07, 2013, 11:57:48 AM
Pointy elbows.
How do you know? Not visible in the shot. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2013, 09:48:30 AM
The mom has something odd with her teeth (like her smile is too gummy or something) but other than that I'd do her.
She has old people teeth.
:D
fahdiz was probably replying to my comment and re-reading it I realize I phrased it rather poorly. I wasn't trying to say "I wouldn't do this woman", but rather "I would do her but I just wish her teeth werent' horsey like that". But I still think she's hot and worth jackhammering. :)
The whole Mommy-Daughter Best Friends motif is annoying as shit. Except in porn.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2013, 07:01:54 PM
The whole Mommy-Daughter Best Friends motif is annoying as shit. Except in porn.
You ever watch one of those pornos? They freak me the fuck out even though they're obviously fake (often times the 'mommy' is pretty obviously only about 10 years older and looks nothing like the daughter).
I no longer taint my soul with porno.
Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2013, 07:34:51 PM
You ever watch one of those pornos?
I watch lots of stuff.
I watch the women oil wrestling videos my wife sends me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2013, 07:38:34 PM
I watch the women oil wrestling videos my wife sends me.
I'm a big fan of your wife.
Pedo bear?
:lol:
Quote from: Phillip V on May 03, 2013, 02:47:55 PM
The Idled Young Americans
"The United States has gone from having the highest share of employed 25- to 34-year-olds among large, wealthy economies to having among the lowest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/sunday-review/the-idled-young-americans.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F05%2F05%2Fopinion%2F05leonhardt-chart%2F05leonhardt-chart-popup-v2.jpg&hash=48271fb5653d61c897fc61938fab027793e3f992)
I assume they mean G7 there. As kind of selective accounting to ignore Spain.
Quote from: Tyr on May 09, 2013, 06:48:16 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 03, 2013, 02:47:55 PM
The Idled Young Americans
"The United States has gone from having the highest share of employed 25- to 34-year-olds among large, wealthy economies to having among the lowest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/sunday-review/the-idled-young-americans.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F05%2F05%2Fopinion%2F05leonhardt-chart%2F05leonhardt-chart-popup-v2.jpg&hash=48271fb5653d61c897fc61938fab027793e3f992)
I assume they mean G7 there. As kind of selective accounting to ignore Spain.
"The United States has gone from having the highest share of employed 25- to 34-year-olds among
large, wealthy economies to having among the lowest." ;)
Quote from: Phillip V on May 09, 2013, 07:03:30 PM
"The United States has gone from having the highest share of employed 25- to 34-year-olds among large, wealthy economies to having among the lowest." ;)
To me Spain would fit into that. Pretty broad wording they're using just so they can scare people.
Nice cropping job Squeeze. :thumbsup:
Hope your example shames the others. :pope:
Oh wait, you were the others. :lol:
Obama Plan Would Ease Burden, but Critics Say It Could Promote Overborrowing
"The White House proposes that the government forgive billions of dollars in student debt, cheering student advocates. Critics say it would encourage too much borrowing and stick taxpayers with the bill."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324059704578471223436096876.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.wsj.net%2Fvideo%2F20130509%2F050913moneybeatcollege1%2F050913moneybeatcollege1_512x288.jpg&hash=98a885f72fa532379fa941c22b251e291e0373d2)
QuoteThe White House proposes that the government forgive billions of dollars in student debt
Ohboyohoboyohboyohboy
SUBSCRIPTION ONLY GIVE ME A SUMMARY MAN
Quote from: Ideologue on May 11, 2013, 09:31:44 AM
QuoteThe White House proposes that the government forgive billions of dollars in student debt
Ohboyohoboyohboyohboy
SUBSCRIPTION ONLY GIVE ME A SUMMARY MAN
The proposal, included in President Barack Obama's budget for next year, would increase the number of borrowers eligible for a program known casually as income-based repayment.
Borrowers in the program make monthly payments equivalent to 10% of their income after taxes and basic living expenses, regardless of how much they owe. After 20 years of on-time payments—10 years for those who work in public or nonprofit jobs—the balance is forgiven.
Under the program, most borrowers with loans issued since October 2007 are eligible to participate. The budget proposal—which requires congressional approval—would let all borrowers with pre-2007 loans participate and would make tax exempt any debt forgiven through the program. (Loan forgiveness can be considered taxable income.)
...
Liliana Rodriguez-Marshall, a 30-year-old mother of three who graduated from Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles in December owing more than $300,000 in federal loans, plans to take advantage of the current program.
"Without it [my debt] would be unmanageable," she said.
Ms. Rodriguez-Marshall said she racked up the debt by spreading her degree over 4½ years from the normal three and taking out student loans to cover living expenses, which the government allows.
During her studies her husband was laid off and
she twice had to take out emergency student loans totaling more than $30,000 to make home repairs, pay unexpected medical costs and keep up with the family's $1,000-per-month health-insurance bills, she said.
She now is applying for government jobs that pay about $55,000 a year. According to a repayment calculator created by the New American Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, Ms. Rodriguez-Marshall would pay $273 per month in her first year under the program; without it, she would owe $3,562 a month. Under the program, she would pay about $102,000 over 10 years, and the government would forgive about $639,000, which includes interest.
...
Critics say the administration underestimates the costs. Economists at Barclays PLC said the current program, along with loan defaults, could cost the government $300 billion between now and 2020. Barclays hasn't released an estimate of the Obama proposal's costs.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BW317_STUDEN_D_20130509175312.jpg&hash=2b5a72bbbd41b043231d09e6557370bf6871ed1f)
Quote from: Phillip V on May 11, 2013, 11:23:25 AM
During her studies her husband was laid off and she twice had to take out emergency student loans totaling more than $30,000 to make home repairs, pay unexpected medical costs and keep up with the family's $1,000-per-month health-insurance bills, she said.
But see, that's all her fault.
It's cap & groan time
The class of '13 has no luck at all. As the graduates take to the streets with their six-month grace periods before their student loan debt bills begin arriving, they face a horrific job market.
"At 16.2 percent, the March 2013 unemployment rate of workers under age 25 was [roughly] twice as high as the national average," in the words of a recent report on young people entering the work force. Young people starting out are normally at a disadvantage because they are trying to establish themselves in a profession.
Like Kristine Gutierrez, 22, of Park Slope, who recently graduated from the University of Colorado. She has two part-time jobs earning under $24,000 a year and has college debt she is trying to pay off. Gutierrez says she "is struggling to pay for things in New York," and had to move in with friends.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/it_cap_groan_time_nO6yKVt81n2qa5mwvMC0PO (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/it_cap_groan_time_nO6yKVt81n2qa5mwvMC0PO)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fr%2Fnypost%2F2013%2F05%2F05%2Fbusiness%2Fweb_photos%2Fweb_college--525x238.jpg&hash=47de044ef8e4ece0c166e80edede6e952a328e25)
I can't worry about new grads, I've got my own problems.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2013, 11:36:28 AM
I can't worry about new grads, I've got my own problems.
you're over looking the opportunity to be a sugar daddy :P
Quote from: HVC on May 11, 2013, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2013, 11:36:28 AM
I can't worry about new grads, I've got my own problems.
you're over looking the opportunity to be a sugar daddy :P
Not much market for unemployed sugar daddies. That's more like sugar-free.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2013, 11:52:13 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 11, 2013, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2013, 11:36:28 AM
I can't worry about new grads, I've got my own problems.
you're over looking the opportunity to be a sugar daddy :P
Not much market for unemployed sugar daddies. That's more like sugar-free.
you'll get sugar before they do. Long term planning ;)
I've got a cat.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 11, 2013, 11:35:36 AM
Like Kristine Gutierrez, 22, of Park Slope, who recently graduated from the University of Colorado. She has two part-time jobs earning under $24,000 a year and has college debt she is trying to pay off. Gutierrez says she "is struggling to pay for things in New York," and had to move in with friends.
Most people her age struggle to pay for things in New York and have to have roommates. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2013, 12:14:46 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 11, 2013, 11:35:36 AM
Like Kristine Gutierrez, 22, of Park Slope, who recently graduated from the University of Colorado. She has two part-time jobs earning under $24,000 a year and has college debt she is trying to pay off. Gutierrez says she "is struggling to pay for things in New York," and had to move in with friends.
Most people her age struggle to pay for things in New York and have to have roommates. :huh:
Manhattan, yes. Park Slope, not necessarily.
Quote from: DGuller on May 11, 2013, 12:28:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2013, 12:14:46 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 11, 2013, 11:35:36 AM
Like Kristine Gutierrez, 22, of Park Slope, who recently graduated from the University of Colorado. She has two part-time jobs earning under $24,000 a year and has college debt she is trying to pay off. Gutierrez says she "is struggling to pay for things in New York," and had to move in with friends.
Most people her age struggle to pay for things in New York and have to have roommates. :huh:
Manhattan, yes. Park Slope, not necessarily.
Most people I know in the outer boroughs have roommates...whereas most people I know who can afford to live in Manhattan...live alone. :D
Besides Park Slope isn't really that cheap - maybe if we were talking Bushwick.
You know, the cost of higher education in teh US has gone up something like 1000% over the last few decades.
Economically, that is simply not possible in anything even approaching a closed system.
The only rational explanation for how that could possibly happen is rather obvious - when you have some external factor pouring huge amounts of money into the pockets of those who purchase the commodity for the express purpose of buying said commodity, then gee, what a shock - the business looking to get as much of that cash as they can are going to raise their prices to pull in more and more and more of those dollars.
So yeah, great plan, lets just go an dump some more external billions into that side of ledger. What could go wrong?
QuoteHow Colleges Are Selling Out the Poor to Court the Rich (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/how-colleges-are-selling-out-the-poor-to-court-the-rich/275725/)
A new report finds hundreds of schools are charging low-income students obscene prices, even while lavishing tuition discounts on their wealthier classmates.
Neat fact: If the federal government were to take all of the money it pours into various forms of financial aid each year, it could go ahead and make tuition free, or close to it, for every student at every public college in the country.
Will it ever happen? Ha. Not unless Bernie Sanders somehow leads a Latin American-style coup down Pennsylvania Avenue. But one of the reasons I argued for the idea a couple of months back was that it would allow us to finally stop burning money subsidizing obscenely expensive tuition at dubiously worthwhile private institutions. At the time, I singled out the for-profit college industry, which has been rightfully savaged for devouring federal aid dollars while charging poor students backbreaking prices.
Today, though, I'd like to apologize to the University of Phoenix and its kin. It seems there are plenty of traditional, non-profit colleges leeching off the system as well.
For proof, see the demoralizing report released this week by Stephen Burd of the New America Foundation on the state of financial aid in higher ed. It documents the obscene prices some of the poorest undergraduates are asked to pay at hundreds of educational institutions across the country, even as these same schools lavish discounts on the children of wealthier families in order to lure them onto campus.
And here's the key bit: Many colleges, he argues, appear to be playing an "elaborate shell game," relying on federal grants to cover the costs of needy students while using their own resources to furnish aid to richer undergrads.
"With their relentless pursuit of prestige and revenue," Burd writes, "the nation's public and private four-year colleges and universities are in danger of shutting down what has long been a pathway to the middle class for low-income and working-class students."
You can read the rest over on the Atlantic's site.
I'm not sure how that's news. It's been going on for ages. Poorer kids get Federal grants and loans, while wealthier kids do not. So, in order to make college affordable for them, too, they get "grants" from the colleges. Otherwise, middle-class kids are the ones who get the shaft because they can't afford college on their own, but they don't qualify for much financial aid because they make too much money.
My wife's parents live on the income of a poor person, yet are joint owners of the farm he works which owns millions of dollars worth of property and assets. Also debts about as big. She could get no aid.
Public University Presidents Prosper
"Four public university presidents had compensation over $1 million, according to an annual pay report, the highest paid $2.9 million.
...
The biggest growth last year was in the $600,000 to $700,000 range, a category that included 28 chief executives, up from only 13 the previous year.
The median total compensation for the presidents of public research universities was $441,392, up 4.7 percent from the previous year’s $421,395."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/education/university-presidents-are-prospering-study-finds.html
Imagine that. Executive compensation rises. Go fig.
If we don't stop it there it could spread to rest of America!!!
I for one look forward to the impact of the socio-economic crisis of wage disparities between McDonald's store managers and part-time crew members.
Why you gotta dis Ide's prospects like that :(
Ide? Fuck, I'm talking about mine, dammit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 12, 2013, 09:41:46 PM
Ide? Fuck, I'm talking about mine, dammit.
he is management and you are part time crew!
Well, duh. Why do you think I'm worried. FEDERLINE! FRIES!
Just making sure we are on same page :hug:
Eat me. Super sized.
No JiBs on the east coast. :(
Not enough Chick-fil-A on the west coast.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 12, 2013, 10:54:31 PM
Not enough Chick-fil-A on the west coast.
i don't know of any :unsure:
Upon further review LA has few, a couple in east Bay of No Cal and over in Idaho is about how west they have made it.
I suppose this thread is as good as any for this article.
QuoteThe Long Shadow of Bad Credit in a Job Search
By GARY RIVLIN
THE first couple of times Alfred J. Carpenter was turned down for a job, he didn't know what to think.
He been laid off early in the recession and then had the bad fortune of tearing tendons in his knee just when he didn't have health insurance. The job market was terrible and he had been out of work for more than a year. But the managers at the first two shoe stores to which he applied in the summer of 2010 seemed to be taken by his résumé. He had sold shoes for six years at Salvatore Ferragamo on Fifth Avenue and later at J. M. Weston, where a pair of men's dress shoes can cost $2,000. The manager at one shop was already discussing salary. The other, he said, invited him to fill out the paperwork normally done on the first day on a job.
"Who does that if they're not planning on hiring you?" Mr. Carpenter asked.
Yet neither job materialized. One manager, he said, "basically hung up on me."
A friend at Bergdorf Goodman, the high-end clothier, secured him an interview for an opening in the shoe department. But when Mr. Carpenter confided to his friend that his finances were a mess, "he tells me, 'Oh, you've got bad credit? They'll never hire you.' " Sure enough, a week or two later, Mr. Carpenter said, he received a notice from Bergdorf informing him that while running a credit check, the store found information that played a role in its hiring decision. It was a so-called adverse action letter that by law a business conducting a credit report is supposed to send to an applicant.
Mr. Carpenter kept applying for jobs and kept checking off the box granting his would-be employer permission to look into his past. And he kept being turned down. There was the recession and there may have been dozens of applicants for each of these jobs. But while Bergdorf was the only company to follow up a job rejection with an adverse action letter, Mr. Carpenter became convinced that his credit report was a curse.
"No one lets me explain, 'Hey, I had this freak injury when I didn't have health insurance,' " he said. "It's black and white: 'You have these bad marks on your record, you don't get hired.' " Down to his last $200, he applied for and was granted food stamps and federal housing assistance.
"There's no reason," he said, "a strong, able guy like me should have to go on welfare."
PEOPLE tend to think of banks and other lenders as the main users of credit reports. But over the last several decades, credit reporting bureaus have been selling their services to a much wider range of buyers.
"Credit reports are really seeping into the soil," said Sarah Ludwig, co-director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, a New York-based nonprofit. "It's taken an outsized role in employment, housing and insurance."
For those seeking a job, it can lead to what Chi Chi Wu, a staff lawyer at the National Consumer Law Center in Boston, calls "a bizarre, Kafkaesque experience."
"Someone loses their job," Ms. Wu said, "so they can't pay their bills — and now they can't get a job because they couldn't pay their bills because they lost a job? It's this Catch-22 that makes no sense." It can also be a kind of backdoor job discrimination, Ms. Wu contends, given the numerous studies that demonstrate that those black, Latino or simply poor are more likely to have lower credit scores than those who are white and have means.
Experian, one of the big three credit reporting bureaus, states in its marketing materials, "Credit information provides insight into an applicant's integrity and responsibility toward his or her financial obligations."
But to Ms. Wu and others, a credit report says more about a person's economic circumstances than his or her moral character. "Some people can go to daddy and say, 'I can't pay my bills, will you bail me out?' " Ms. Wu said. "And others can't."
Nearly half — 47 percent — of employers use credit checks when making a hiring decision, according to a 2012 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. Most businesses use credit checks only to screen for certain positions, but one in eight, the survey found, does a credit check before every hire. "We've heard from dozens of people over the past several years who say they're being denied jobs specifically because of a credit check," Ms. Ludwig said. The people contacting her group, she said, are "mostly lower-wage workers," especially those applying to big retail chains.
"Prohibiting the use of credit checks in employment is now our number one campaign," Ms. Ludwig said. "Because it's discriminatory. And because the last thing we need in a recession is another barrier to employment."
Lawmakers in some jurisdictions have proved sympathetic to those arguments. Nine states have adopted legislation that curbs the use of credit reports to judge prospective hires — seven of them since the start of 2010. Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat from Tennessee, has sponsored federal legislation that would restrict their use. The New York Legislature and the New York City Council are considering strict new laws that would greatly limit an employer's ability to do credit screening.
Advocates and lawmakers are already seeing the impact of their efforts. The Society for Human Resource Management started polling members about use of credit reports as a pre-employment tool in 2004. Over the years, the numbers were consistent: six in 10 businesses indicated that they used them. But in its most recent survey in 2012, that number fell to just below five in 10. That decline no doubt is the result, in part, of new state prohibitions and the attention the issue has received in the last few years, said Kate Kennedy, a spokeswoman for the society. But she also notes that her association has been educating its members in the importance of looking at "how relevant a credit check is for a particular position."
That is bad news for the big three credit reporting bureaus: Experian, TransUnion and Equifax. But how bad is anyone's guess. None of the three reveal what portion of overall revenue is derived from employment-related credit checks. Even if they did, the number would only offer a partial picture, said Terry W. Clemans, executive director of the National Consumer Reporting Association, an industry trade group based in Roselle, Ill. "There are several hundred companies out there that specialize in employment screenings," he said.
Mr. Clemans saw the rapid increase of employment screening through the 1990s and into the 2000s, and considers the rising concern about its use in the last few years "hysteria." "Credit is one data point that businesses are using to get an overall feel," Mr. Clemans said. "Does this consumer have a lifestyle that fits the job? Is this someone who I can trust?" It is not the only factor.
"People are assuming because they checked that box agreeing to a consumer report and they were late in paying their Visa bills, that's why they didn't get a job," Mr. Clemans said. It's easier to blame the credit bureaus, in other words, than to accept that you weren't the best possible candidate.
STEVEN BURMAN is the founder and president of Credit Advocates, a nonprofit in New York that helps consumers who have credit problems. In the past, people who were rejected for bad credit for a job in financial services might show up for help, but by and large his clients were trying to secure a home loan.
"What's changed over the last four or five years is now I'm hearing from all these people who are concerned about finding work," he said. And instead of stockbrokers, Mr. Burman is seeing "regular people looking for blue-collar low-wage jobs" such as security guard or retail clerk.
The problem is most pronounced among women he counsels at a homeless shelter in the Bronx. Those clients are almost all out-of-work single mothers. "They all want to do the right thing," he said. "But they have terrible credit and none of them can get jobs because of it. It's a vicious cycle."
Despite his sympathy for his clients, Mr. Burman told me that he never makes a full-time hire at Credit Advocates without first pulling that person's credit report. An employee dealing with bill collectors could be a distracted worker, he said. And how financial problems are explained could offer insights into an applicant's character: Does he take responsibility for debts, or does she blame problems on someone or something else?
"I see it as the start of a dialogue," he said.
Besides, a credit check is relatively inexpensive. A basic employment screening package can cost $19 to $50 per applicant. "If you have five people and can't make up your mind, why not pull credit reports?" Mr. Burman asked.
The millions of Americans who saw their credit damaged during the financial crisis in 2008, however, might find Mr. Burman's rationale unfair.
Gustavo Panesso, a man in his 50s who lives in Queens, was driving to his orientation to be a sales associate at the J. Crew store in Rockefeller Center in August 2010, he said, when his cellphone rang. "It was the man who was supposed to be my supervisor," Mr. Panesso said. "He tells me, 'Gustavo, I regret to say that we're going to have to cancel your orientation because there was a problem with your credit report.' "
In Mr. Panesso's case, the trouble was related to a pair of credit cards he had co-signed for his sister; she had lost her job a few years earlier and the cards were in default. He tried explaining the situation to his would-be bosses, and even hired a lawyer, "but they told me unless I cleared up this discrepancy, we can't hire you."
Moreover, credit reports are often inaccurate. In February, the Federal Trade Commission released a report indicating that one in four consumers was likely to find at least one mistake in his or her credit report.
Mr. Panesso was rejected for jobs at several more big national retail chains. But J. Crew, he said, was the only business to send him an adverse action letter. Did that mean the others rejected his application for other reasons? It's impossible to know for sure.
Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst at the liberal-leaning policy group Demos, and the author of "Discredited: How Employment Credit Checks Keep Qualified Workers Out of a Job," a report released in March, says that the law requiring an adverse action letter is rarely enforced. "We found that many employers don't" send them, Ms. Traub said.
Mr. Panesso now picks up odd jobs when he can find them. "Quite frankly," he said, "I gave up."
ALFRED CARPENTER, the shoe salesman, can relate. Now a fit man in his 50s, he lives in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, where he grew up. After graduating with a two-year associate's degree from Kingsborough Community College, he worked his way up in the shoe business, landing at Ferragamo. In a good year, he said, he would earn $60,000 to $70,000.
In his mid-30s, he quit Ferragamo to study acting. But after two years of trying to catch his big break, he ran out of money and, in 1999, he returned to selling shoes. In 2007 he took a job at Paul & Shark, a store specializing in yachting clothes. In August 2007, four months after he started, Mr. Carpenter was laid off. Not appreciating the size of the economic cataclysm that was about to rock the globe, he decided to take several months off before looking for another job.
"I figured with my résumé, I'd get another job easy," he said. He also decided he wasn't going to waste money buying health insurance. "I'm a healthy guy," he said. "And it was too expensive."
One day, playing in his regular Saturday morning roller hockey game, he ripped the tendons in one knee. The medical bills — the ambulance, the surgery, rehabilitation — piled up. "Every time I'd open my mailbox," Mr. Carpenter said, "there'd be another six or seven bills." A clerk in the hospital's billing department suggested that he could wipe out his nearly $50,000 in medical costs by filing for bankruptcy.
Sitting at a metal table in his kitchen, he held up the final bankruptcy notice. "This is the cause of all my problems," he declared. "Without this, I could've worked anywhere in the city. I would have had a hundred jobs."
Mr. Carpenter would try talking to the employers who turned him down. "Was it the bankruptcy?" he would ask. But he never got a satisfying answer, just hemming and hawing. "I could hear it in their voice," Mr. Carpenter said. After a while, he tried pre-emptively bringing up the bankruptcy in interviews, but that only led to more awkwardness.
Luckily, Mr. Carpenter said, he still lived in the rent-controlled apartment in which he grew up. The monthly rent was $600 and he was able to split the cost with a roommate once things turned bad. The federal assistance amounted to $400 or so a month. But even then he feared ending up homeless, worried that he would never find another job.
"I tell the woman my story during intake," Mr. Carpenter said about his visit to apply for food stamps and other aid. "And she goes, 'We hear that story all the time, about the credit.' She said, 'Yeah, we know, if you've got bad credit, you're not getting a job.' "
SOME jobs require a credit check by law. Depending on the state, that includes positions as teachers, police officers, firefighters and day care operators, said Ms. Kennedy at the human resource society.
Most of the state laws curbing the use of credit reports as an employment screen carve out exceptions for people applying for supervisory positions or executive positions inside a financial institution. Mr. Cohen's House bill creates exemptions for those seeking a national security clearance.
But what about everyone else?
Companies that use credit reports as an employment screen seem generally reluctant to talk about how or why they use them. Bergdorf Goodman declined to comment, as did several other retailers who rejected Mr. Carpenter for a position. A J. Crew representative said that the company stopped reviewing credit reports in 2012.
"Employers are looking for a sense of responsibility," said Richard Mellor, a vice president at the National Retail Federation. "They want to see that an individual pays their bills on time and takes responsibility for what they buy."
The Web site of a pre-employment screening company, Info Cubic, says, "A credit report can be an important indicator of financial responsibility for employees with fiduciary or cash handling responsibilities, access to expensive equipment, other people's property, or otherwise placed in a position of financial trust."
Experian's pitch is more ominous: "Every time you hire a new employee you put a lot on the line," says a company brochure. "The wrong decision could jeopardize your firm's assets, reputation, or security."
Consumer advocates say that there is little evidence for the industry's claims of a connection between a credit report and an employee's trustworthiness. One study published in 2008 in the International Journal of Selection and Assessment suggested a correlation between a person's financial history and workplace theft. But a 2011 study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found no link between a person's credit score and what it called "deviant" behavior like workplace theft. (It did, however, find a correlation between a low credit score and an agreeable personality.)
Critics also have the testimony of the TransUnion official who told the Oregon Legislature in 2010, "We don't have any research to show any statistical correlation between what's in somebody's credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud."
"As a researcher, I'd like to think that if about half of all employers are doing this, they must have some real evidence that it's valuable," said Ms. Traub of Demos. "But in this case that evidence is really lacking."
MR. CARPENTER finally landed a job at the end of 2011. He caught a break after he confided his troubles to a friend in the shoe business. The friend, too, had credit problems but had found work at a Manhattan shoe store. Mr. Carpenter secured a job there and, last fall, he moved to another store where the pay was better. "I'm happy," he said, but he also feels shellshocked.
"I have this accident and mess up my credit," Mr. Carpenter said, "and now I'm the guy people don't see as trustworthy."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 12, 2013, 10:58:53 PM
MR. CARPENTER finally landed a job at the end of 2011. He caught a break after he confided his troubles to a friend in the shoe business. The friend, too, had credit problems but had found work at a Manhattan shoe store. Mr. Carpenter secured a job there and, last fall, he moved to another store where the pay was better.
ungrateful SOB :P
Takes money to make money, yo.
Quote from: katmai on May 12, 2013, 10:55:19 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 12, 2013, 10:54:31 PM
Not enough Chick-fil-A on the west coast.
i don't know of any :unsure:
Upon further review LA has few, a couple in east Bay of No Cal and over in Idaho is about how west they have made it.
There's three in the San Diego area, none close enough to go for fast food.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 12, 2013, 11:24:33 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 12, 2013, 10:55:19 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 12, 2013, 10:54:31 PM
Not enough Chick-fil-A on the west coast.
i don't know of any :unsure:
Upon further review LA has few, a couple in east Bay of No Cal and over in Idaho is about how west they have made it.
There's three in the San Diego area, none close enough to go for fast food.
i was trying to find closest to the Fhdz and me.
You need me to overnight express some to you, let me know. I HAS DRY ICE
I've never actually been to one. Living here full time last 8 years I've missed out on them,Chipotle, five guys or whatever burgers.
Damn, son...you are lost in the wilderness.
You need anything, let me know. I'll use a medical transport service, tell 'em it's a kidney on ice. :D
Dude this town was all excited when Olive Garden opened....
In 2011!
Quote from: katmai on May 13, 2013, 01:00:50 AM
Dude this town was all excited when Olive Garden opened....
In 2011!
Did they make you: family? :)
:hmm:
I guess it depends how you define 'East Coast'. There are some in Nashville and IIRC Chicago also, but to me that ain't 'East Coast'. To the best of my knowledge there aren't any along the eastern seaboard.
edit: Just checked and apparently there are two of them in Cincinnati also. :huh:
North Carolina has at least one. I know as I looked this up just the other day when I saw an online coupon.
Hmm, you're right... there are a whole bunch of them in Charlotte. :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 12, 2013, 10:58:53 PM
Consumer advocates say that there is little evidence for the industry's claims of a connection between a credit report and an employee's trustworthiness. One study published in 2008 in the International Journal of Selection and Assessment suggested a correlation between a person's financial history and workplace theft. But a 2011 study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found no link between a person's credit score and what it called "deviant" behavior like workplace theft. (It did, however, find a correlation between a low credit score and an agreeable personality.)
Critics also have the testimony of the TransUnion official who told the Oregon Legislature in 2010, "We don't have any research to show any statistical correlation between what's in somebody's credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud."
"As a researcher, I'd like to think that if about half of all employers are doing this, they must have some real evidence that it's valuable," said Ms. Traub of Demos. "But in this case that evidence is really lacking."
Evidence is lacking that this is indicative of negative traits in the individual, and yet it's keeping hundreds of people out of work. How do companies justify this?
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 08:15:10 AM
Evidence is lacking that this is indicative of negative traits in the individual, and yet it's keeping hundreds of people out of work. How do companies justify this?
Pretty easily.
A company can hire who they want and credit worthiness (or lack thereof) isn't a protected class.
Although I do highly agree that it sucks. If you're unemployed long enough eventually your credit is going to take a hit. It's another filter that hits those who have been unemployed the longest. Not only do you have a resume gap you have to explain now you have to hope no one checks your credit score.
Employers discriminate against employees for a variety of reasons that there isn't any verifiable evidence that there is any link to the category and their job performance.
Hell, we've made fun of applicants on Languish who check their cell phone messages in interviews, or don't know hot to tie a tie properly. Is there some peer reviewed journal article somewhere linking tie tying ability to job performance?
You don't need "evidence" of that manner to draw conclusions about people. You may not draw accurate conclusions, but that happens all the time. If companies want to hire good people, they will try their best to make rational evaluations about them.
Personally, I could imagine using someone's credit score as a data point in how they manage their finances and such. Not really definitive, of course, and it would depend on the job.
But there isn't anything especially egregious about this "soft" variable in the hiring process compared to many others.
When I went to get my auto loan a couple years ago, the finance guy at the dealership said I had no beacon score when he ran my report. Nothing. Nada.
He said the only people he sees in that situation are either people from the NSA, or people who've been serving time in prison. :lol:
Nothing at all, simply because I don't play the revolving debt game. I've got my mortgage and my car payment, and that's it. It's not that I have bad credit, I simply have no real credit metrics on my report at all.
Ergo, my credit report rating suffers accordingly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 08:40:50 AM
Nothing at all, simply because I don't play the revolving debt game. I've got my mortgage and my car payment, and that's it. It's not that I have bad credit, I simply have no real credit metrics on my report at all.
Ergo, my credit report rating suffers accordingly.
I got my first credit card in 15 years a few months ago. I hate the damn things, but I needed something to offset the medical bills on my credit report. Now, we have a car payment, too, something we've also avoided for the past 10 years by paying cash.
Whatever you do, don't get sick when you're unemployed. You'll never get another job again.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 08:39:01 AM
Employers discriminate against employees for a variety of reasons that there isn't any verifiable evidence that there is any link to the category and their job performance.
Hell, we've made fun of applicants on Languish who check their cell phone messages in interviews, or don't know hot to tie a tie properly. Is there some peer reviewed journal article somewhere linking tie tying ability to job performance?
You don't need "evidence" of that manner to draw conclusions about people. You may not draw accurate conclusions, but that happens all the time. If companies want to hire good people, they will try their best to make rational evaluations about them.
Personally, I could imagine using someone's credit score as a data point in how they manage their finances and such. Not really definitive, of course, and it would depend on the job.
But there isn't anything especially egregious about this "soft" variable in the hiring process compared to many others.
I think it's a quick way to "weed" through people, which hurts those who need the job the most. Ultimately, I would guess that those who need the job the most are going to be your best employees because, well fuck, they don't want to be back out there again.
But whatever.
Get a CC with a relatively high limit, buy a dinky purchase one a month, pay it off on time, and since you'll have a bunch of unused credit you'll inflate your credit score in no time. Game the system :P
Quote from: HVC on May 13, 2013, 08:48:15 AM
Get a CC with a relatively high limit, buy a dinky purchase one a month, pay it off on time, and since you'll have a bunch of unused credit you'll inflate your credit score in no time. Game the system :P
No.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 08:46:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 08:39:01 AM
Employers discriminate against employees for a variety of reasons that there isn't any verifiable evidence that there is any link to the category and their job performance.
Hell, we've made fun of applicants on Languish who check their cell phone messages in interviews, or don't know hot to tie a tie properly. Is there some peer reviewed journal article somewhere linking tie tying ability to job performance?
You don't need "evidence" of that manner to draw conclusions about people. You may not draw accurate conclusions, but that happens all the time. If companies want to hire good people, they will try their best to make rational evaluations about them.
Personally, I could imagine using someone's credit score as a data point in how they manage their finances and such. Not really definitive, of course, and it would depend on the job.
But there isn't anything especially egregious about this "soft" variable in the hiring process compared to many others.
I think it's a quick way to "weed" through people, which hurts those who need the job the most. Ultimately, I would guess that those who need the job the most are going to be your best employees because, well fuck, they don't want to be back out there again.
But whatever.
ACtually, I bet statistically people who "need the job the most" are not your best employees. People who need the job the most are probably people who have trouble keeping a job. And those are most definitely NOT your best employees, for the most part.
In fact, the best employees, as a group, are probably those who don't need THIS job at all, because they already have a job.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 08:44:34 AM
Whatever you do, don't get sick when you're unemployed. You'll never get another job again.
Oh, I know...my doctor wanted me to consider going on medical disability last year. I said there was no way in hell I was going to do that. God Bless America.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 08:50:13 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 13, 2013, 08:48:15 AM
Get a CC with a relatively high limit, buy a dinky purchase one a month, pay it off on time, and since you'll have a bunch of unused credit you'll inflate your credit score in no time. Game the system :P
No.
you're so contrarian :D
It's not a matter of being contrarian; I simply see no reason why I should join the debt game and I will not pay to use someone else's money any more than I already am for a mortgage and a car payment.
Aquinas and Aristotle certainly wouldn't have credit cards today, either. What with them being dead and all, but still.
You don't have to pay a cent for using someone else's money.
You can see "no reason" even after you mentioned that you have no credit rating and this has been a problem?
Sounds a lot like being contrarian to me. :P
OK, so maybe it's a wee bit contrarian. :unsure: By I have my reasons, and they are valid.
And I have a credit rating. It's in the "Fair" category. :P
My credit rating is in the "ZOMG THIS GUY PROBABLY HACKED THE SYSTEM THAT NUMBER IS SO HIGH" category.
But to be honest, that is 100% because of my wife. I am...poor when it comes to handling debt. I tend to forget to pay things. Consistently.
The wife on the other hand...it is fucking DEFCON 1 if a credit card payment is made a day late or a dollar short. The thought of paying any interest to her is like suggesting we sell a kid or something.
Me too but it's because of that gaming the system thing HVC mentioned.
The problem with all these automatic disqualifiers is that it creates a situation where employers have no qualified candidates to hire, while many unemployed are unemployable for no good reason. It's one of those paradoxes where a sum total of rational decisions is decidedly irrational. I think this is a huge problem for our society, given that pretty much everyone has to depend on another person to hire them to make a living.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 09:15:51 AM
My credit rating is in the "ZOMG THIS GUY PROBABLY HACKED THE SYSTEM THAT NUMBER IS SO HIGH" category.
But to be honest, that is 100% because of my wife. I am...poor when it comes to handling debt. I tend to forget to pay things. Consistently.
The wife on the other hand...it is fucking DEFCON 1 if a credit card payment is made a day late or a dollar short. The thought of paying any interest to her is like suggesting we sell a kid or something.
My wife is the same. :wub:
Did yours grow up poor too? :hmm:
My wife has an excellent credit rating. I dont actually exist anywhere. :ph34r:
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2013, 11:00:51 AM
The problem with all these automatic disqualifiers is that it creates a situation where employers have no qualified candidates to hire, while many unemployed are unemployable for no good reason. It's one of those paradoxes where a sum total of rational decisions is decidedly irrational. I think this is a huge problem for our society, given that pretty much everyone has to depend on another person to hire them to make a living.
Yes. There was a lot of nonsense going around the HR world in the middle of the recession about a lack of qualified candidates.
The problem is, you can make sure there are no qualified candidates just by adding more qualifications. We're drowning ourselves in them.
What are the chances that these are all just growing pains while companies (and people) get used to computers being the first to sort through applications? I mean, there's got to be some tweaking that takes place, and the past few years has really seen a huge influx in this in hiring practices. One can only guess that things will get ironed out in the next year or so, and it won't be so ridiculous.
Or am I just being overly optimistic? :unsure:
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2013, 11:18:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 09:15:51 AM
My credit rating is in the "ZOMG THIS GUY PROBABLY HACKED THE SYSTEM THAT NUMBER IS SO HIGH" category.
But to be honest, that is 100% because of my wife. I am...poor when it comes to handling debt. I tend to forget to pay things. Consistently.
The wife on the other hand...it is fucking DEFCON 1 if a credit card payment is made a day late or a dollar short. The thought of paying any interest to her is like suggesting we sell a kid or something.
My wife is the same. :wub:
Did yours grow up poor too? :hmm:
Berkut grew up poor.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 12:31:16 PM
What are the chances that these are all just growing pains while companies (and people) get used to computers being the first to sort through applications? I mean, there's got to be some tweaking that takes place, and the past few years has really seen a huge influx in this in hiring practices. One can only guess that things will get ironed out in the next year or so, and it won't be so ridiculous.
Or am I just being overly optimistic? :unsure:
I don't think it's going to stay as bad. However, part of the problem is that these kinds of system to make sense on an individual company level. It's just that on a combined level, that amounts to an economic embargo on certain classes of people, and results in erosion of economic capital.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 08:39:01 AMPersonally, I could imagine using someone's credit score as a data point in how they manage their finances and such. Not really definitive, of course, and it would depend on the job.
But there isn't anything especially egregious about this "soft" variable in the hiring process compared to many others.
Yeah, I agree. I just think credit scores should be private information.
I believe in Canada you have to explicitly consent to your credit score being checked, and I don't think I've ever heard of anyone's score being checked for a job.
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 01:30:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 08:39:01 AMPersonally, I could imagine using someone's credit score as a data point in how they manage their finances and such. Not really definitive, of course, and it would depend on the job.
But there isn't anything especially egregious about this "soft" variable in the hiring process compared to many others.
Yeah, I agree. I just think credit scores should be private information.
I believe in Canada you have to explicitly consent to your credit score being checked, and I don't think I've ever heard of anyone's score being checked for a job.
That's not really much of a protection. Any right that can be waived to a much more powerful agent is not a right at all.
So...what if you only pay for things in cash and thus have no credit score? I guess nobody will ever give you a job then? 'Get out there and go into debt so we can see how responsible you are!'
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2013, 01:36:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 01:30:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 08:39:01 AMPersonally, I could imagine using someone's credit score as a data point in how they manage their finances and such. Not really definitive, of course, and it would depend on the job.
But there isn't anything especially egregious about this "soft" variable in the hiring process compared to many others.
Yeah, I agree. I just think credit scores should be private information.
I believe in Canada you have to explicitly consent to your credit score being checked, and I don't think I've ever heard of anyone's score being checked for a job.
That's not really much of a protection. Any right that can be waived to a much more powerful agent is not a right at all.
Indeed. If I hadn't consented to a credit check, I wouldn't have been able to get any of my apartments.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2013, 11:51:39 AM
Yes. There was a lot of nonsense going around the HR world in the middle of the recession about a lack of qualified candidates.
The problem is, you can make sure there are no qualified candidates just by adding more qualifications. We're drowning ourselves in them.
That is still going around, and with a whole lot of seriousness, in the tech world. Read Hacker News or /r/cscareerquestions long enough and you hit the contradiction of there being craploads of unemployed programmers and no "qualified" candidates.
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 01:37:54 PM
So...what if you only pay for things in cash and thus have no credit score? I guess nobody will ever give you a job then? 'Get out there and go into debt so we can see how responsible you are!'
I guess it depends on the position. If some sort of white collar/office job - I think it'd be a flag if you only ever pay for things in cash.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 13, 2013, 01:44:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2013, 11:51:39 AM
Yes. There was a lot of nonsense going around the HR world in the middle of the recession about a lack of qualified candidates.
The problem is, you can make sure there are no qualified candidates just by adding more qualifications. We're drowning ourselves in them.
That is still going around, and with a whole lot of seriousness, in the tech world. Read Hacker News or /r/cscareerquestions long enough and you hit the contradiction of there being craploads of unemployed programmers and no "qualified" candidates.
And when you look at the typical "qualification" list it is pretty obvious why. They are utterlly idiotic for the most part.
I got a troll from a job placers asking if I would be interested in a job that *required* a senior level of development expertise in JAVA to include managing other developers, along with the interest and ability to install, maintain, and configure Oracle databases and a deep understanding and interest in using.building, and managing a network of Linux machines.
Sure. I would fucking love a senior development position where I am expected to be a DBA, developer, and lets throw in fucking Linux network admin while we are at it.
The funny part is that when I pointed out how absurd the job requirement list was to the HR tech recruiting "specialist", they had no idea why this was an issue.
I don't know what was scarier - the idea that someone could put out a job search like that, or the idea that there might really be a job out there that expects one person to do all those things.
It is ridiculous. ttrying to fill a position here last year, they had a list for a senior level network tech: masters degree in CS; 5 years management experience (for a non-management job); 5+ years technical experience; and a range of database development and programming requirements. Starting pay: 55k.
Same when they tried to hire a programmer a few years ago. Its OK to aim for a Supperman. But they gotta boost that pay by 2x or 3x to get it.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 02:07:31 PM
And when you look at the typical "qualification" list it is pretty obvious why. They are utterlly idiotic for the most part.
I got a troll from a job placers asking if I would be interested in a job that *required* a senior level of development expertise in JAVA to include managing other developers, along with the interest and ability to install, maintain, and configure Oracle databases and a deep understanding and interest in using.building, and managing a network of Linux machines.
Sure. I would fucking love a senior development position where I am expected to be a DBA, developer, and lets throw in fucking Linux network admin while we are at it.
The funny part is that when I pointed out how absurd the job requirement list was to the HR tech recruiting "specialist", they had no idea why this was an issue.
I don't know what was scarier - the idea that someone could put out a job search like that, or the idea that there might really be a job out there that expects one person to do all those things.
:huh: I'm neither a DBA, developer, nor a Linux network admin, and in fact I don't even know anything about what these jobs entail, but that list of requirements doesn't strike me as unreasonable.
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2013, 02:24:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 02:07:31 PM
And when you look at the typical "qualification" list it is pretty obvious why. They are utterlly idiotic for the most part.
I got a troll from a job placers asking if I would be interested in a job that *required* a senior level of development expertise in JAVA to include managing other developers, along with the interest and ability to install, maintain, and configure Oracle databases and a deep understanding and interest in using.building, and managing a network of Linux machines.
Sure. I would fucking love a senior development position where I am expected to be a DBA, developer, and lets throw in fucking Linux network admin while we are at it.
The funny part is that when I pointed out how absurd the job requirement list was to the HR tech recruiting "specialist", they had no idea why this was an issue.
I don't know what was scarier - the idea that someone could put out a job search like that, or the idea that there might really be a job out there that expects one person to do all those things.
:huh: I'm neither a DBA, developer, nor a Linux network admin, and in fact I don't even know anything about what these jobs entail, but that list of requirements doesn't strike me as unreasonable.
I assume the issue is the IT-world equivalent of: "We need a Medical Doctor who also has his Actuary designation and is a practicing trial Lawyer".
Its like advertising for a job, the requirements of which are that you have years of experience designing cars and can lead a team of car designers, and also have the ability to do a brake job, change out a carbeurator, and maybe design and maintain the robots that make the cars while you are at it.
Yes, the jobs all have some relationship to one another, but they are not skills you would expect to find in one person, nor are they sets of skills one person is likely to want to do all of - if you are senior level JAVA developer, you sure as hell aren't likely to be interested in a job that involves installing and maintaining Oracle. Or vice versa.
The problem with HR driven hiring in the technology world is that it is almost completely skills based, and those skills are often incredibly specific. Do you know STRUTS? Have you worked with some particular flavor of IDE? What, you used Eclipse? Oh, the requirement here says NetBeans. YOU FAIL! It's like saying you won't hire someone because they used some particular brand instead of some other, when the reality is that those who are good at it excel regardless of what tool they are using, because being good is not about knowing a tool.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:32:20 PM
Berkut grew up poor.
I think a fair number of us did. I wonder how that relates to how we ended up here? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2013, 01:36:49 PMThat's not really much of a protection. Any right that can be waived to a much more powerful agent is not a right at all.
The point is that it's protected by social conventions too, because no one is waiving it. Alternately, maybe there's legislation preventing employers from requesting the information.
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2013, 02:30:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2013, 02:24:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 02:07:31 PM
And when you look at the typical "qualification" list it is pretty obvious why. They are utterlly idiotic for the most part.
I got a troll from a job placers asking if I would be interested in a job that *required* a senior level of development expertise in JAVA to include managing other developers, along with the interest and ability to install, maintain, and configure Oracle databases and a deep understanding and interest in using.building, and managing a network of Linux machines.
Sure. I would fucking love a senior development position where I am expected to be a DBA, developer, and lets throw in fucking Linux network admin while we are at it.
The funny part is that when I pointed out how absurd the job requirement list was to the HR tech recruiting "specialist", they had no idea why this was an issue.
I don't know what was scarier - the idea that someone could put out a job search like that, or the idea that there might really be a job out there that expects one person to do all those things.
:huh: I'm neither a DBA, developer, nor a Linux network admin, and in fact I don't even know anything about what these jobs entail, but that list of requirements doesn't strike me as unreasonable.
I assume the issue is the IT-world equivalent of: "We need a Medical Doctor who also has his Actuary designation and is a practicing trial Lawyer".
A medical doctor example would be "We need a senior vascular surgeon with extensive experience in the realm of anestheseology and a firm grounding in emergency room nursing principles who is willing to maintain our in house pharmacy".
Sure...it is all medical stuff...
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 02:48:07 PM
I got a troll from a job placers asking if I would be interested in a job that *required* a senior level of development expertise in JAVA to include managing other developers, along with the interest and ability to install, maintain, and configure Oracle databases and a deep understanding and interest in using.building, and managing a network of Linux machines.
There are people who are fully qualified and capable of doing all of these things, but there's only 24 hours in a day and sometimes they have to sleep. I suppose they could be hoping for the "half-assed at everything" approach.
Quote from: frunk on May 13, 2013, 03:14:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 02:48:07 PM
I got a troll from a job placers asking if I would be interested in a job that *required* a senior level of development expertise in JAVA to include managing other developers, along with the interest and ability to install, maintain, and configure Oracle databases and a deep understanding and interest in using.building, and managing a network of Linux machines.
There are people who are fully qualified and capable of doing all of these things, but there's only 24 hours in a day and sometimes they have to sleep. I suppose they could be hoping for the "half-assed at everything" approach.
No doubt there are - someone, for example, who has done exactly that job. But it is stupid to make that your requirements for a new applicant.
Rather, you need to define what the core skillset that is needed, then hire the best person who has THAT skill set. Secondary skills might be nice, but are not going to define whether or not the hire is successful, and just serves to constrain the pool, because the people doing the initial screening often don't even know what it all means.
The particular example you give strikes me as one written by HR or a staffing agency as opposed to the IT folks themselves, yeah.
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2013, 03:44:32 PM
The particular example you give strikes me as one written by HR or a staffing agency as opposed to the IT folks themselves, yeah.
I think the problem is one of communication a lot of times.
Some technical manager needs a new guy for whatever.
HR is tasked with writing up the job posting, so they ask tech manager what he needs.
Tech manager spends about 46 seconds thinking about all the various jobs the last guy did, jots them all down, throws in a few more that he would like the new guy to have (and why not? All things are possible!) and shoots it off to HR.
They are clueless, because if they had a brain or a clue they wouldn't be in HR, so they just throw all those "requirements" into the job posting, and post it. Voila! Done!
WTF? WHY AREN"T THERE ANY QUALIFIED PEOPLE FOR THIS JOB? ZOMG!
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2013, 03:44:32 PM
The particular example you give strikes me as one written by HR or a staffing agency as opposed to the IT folks themselves, yeah.
:yes: You would know.
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2013, 04:03:41 PM
@Berk
That seems entirely possible. Actually, take a look at the below (heavily edited) real email from my company to an agency:
Can you see what might be a problem here when the agency tries to turn this into a job description based on the question asked?
Cal not nearly enough, one line of googling reveals your employer.
To be safe maybe you should edit/redact the post ?
What we have here is an employment of "if all 5 conditions are satisfied" logic where "if 3 out of 5 conditions are satisfied" logic is more appropriate. To be fair, the former is a much simpler statement to evaluate, and simple logic appeals to simple people.
Quote from: mongers on May 13, 2013, 04:12:51 PM
Cal not nearly enough, one line of googling reveals your employer.
To be safe maybe you should edit/redact the post ?
I re-read it like 3 times and don't see how, but post deleted. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2013, 04:14:20 PM
What we have here is an employment of "if all 5 conditions are satisfied" logic where "if 3 out of 5 conditions are satisfied" logic is more appropriate. To be fair, the former is a much simpler statement to evaluate, and simple logic appeals to simple people.
Indeed.
And the other issue is that even if your attitude is "3/5 is good", putting down all 5 means some people are simply not going to apply because they don't think they have the skills you are looking for.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 04:44:49 PM
And the other issue is that even if your attitude is "3/5 is good", putting down all 5 means some people are simply not going to apply because they don't think they have the skills you are looking for.
That was th ebiggest one for me. Learning to apply for positions even if I didn't think I met all the criteria.
Yeah, you don't need to eliminate yourself as a candidate. Let the hiring company do that.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 05:06:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 04:44:49 PM
And the other issue is that even if your attitude is "3/5 is good", putting down all 5 means some people are simply not going to apply because they don't think they have the skills you are looking for.
That was th ebiggest one for me. Learning to apply for positions even if I didn't think I met all the criteria.
Except that in the tech-world, in particular, computers do the initial scanning and if you don't hit all of the criteria, you're automatically rejected.
To the best of my knowledge we don't use any sort of pre-screening software. We get a lot of our resumes from recruiters and I know for a fact at least some of the agencies don't eliminate candidates that way.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 06:28:23 PM
Except that in the tech-world, in particular, computers do the initial scanning and if you don't hit all of the criteria, you're automatically rejected.
No shit. I applied for a position that was practically a mirror image of my last job description; at the very end, I had the 5 mandatory questions to answer, and filled out 4 of 5 with "Yes". The automated rejection email thanked me for disqualifying myself.
QuoteDear John,
Thank you for taking the time to apply for our opening for ***** in Washington. Unfortunately, you have indicated that you do not meet the minimum qualifications for this particular position.
What was the wrong answer I gave? My degree isn't in Emergency Management. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 06:44:43 PM
What was the wrong answer I gave? My degree isn't in Emergency Management. :lol:
:blink:
That sounds like a job they don't intend to fill, like ever.
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2013, 06:42:54 PM
To the best of my knowledge we don't use any sort of pre-screening software. We get a lot of our resumes from recruiters and I know for a fact at least some of the agencies don't eliminate candidates that way.
That's a rare occurrence, unless it comes directly to the hiring manager from an inside source, in my experience.
We don't have an HRIS system*, so that might explain it.
* ...yet. :menace:
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2013, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 06:44:43 PM
What was the wrong answer I gave? My degree isn't in Emergency Management. :lol:
:blink:
That sounds like a job they don't intend to fill, like ever.
Oh, I'm sure there's some unique snowflake out there with it. Welcome to my world, where resumes go to die.
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2013, 06:48:57 PM
We don't have an HRIS system*, so that might explain it.
* ...yet. :menace:
Good luck with that when you get it.
QuoteThe "out of the box creative thinking" companies claim they want is weeded out automatically. If you don't fill out a "required" box, your creative thinking is rejected. The employer gets only applicants who perfunctorily follow all the rules. Rules that don't work well at all.
That online form? It's connected to an online job description. This is where an employer throws in the kitchen sink. They ask for everything, and if you lack anything on the list, you're out. And the employer loses -- because while you may lack one or two "qualifications," you're a fast learner who will get rejected. Meanwhile, you could be learning the job while the employer complains of the "talent shortage" and the job goes begging while the board of directors wonders why profits are down.
Which States Have Highest Student-Loan Delinquencies?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Fmedia%2Fstudentdebt0513.PNG&hash=cbcbcfc1bf2d22df117e310272c7e0127a7d8ea9)
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/05/14/which-states-have-highest-student-loan-delinquencies/
So, the states with the most student debtors are also the states with the lowest delinquency rates.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2013, 02:03:29 PM
So, the states with the most student debtors are also the states with the lowest delinquency rates.
I notice that...weird huh?
The North once again carries the South. Go fig.
getting more loans thus deferring payments? (ie still in school)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 02:13:46 PM
The North once again carries the South. Go fig.
You got to pay for Lettow's paper of steaming Stonewall Jackson apologism. How you feeling about that?
Midwestern honesty.
Why is that when you map any fucked up thing you can think of, Louisiana and Mississippi always take the top spots? You would think that if they did less worse at anything, it would be doing less worse at negative things associated with getting an education.
The thing about places like Mississippi and Louisiana is that once people start getting successful, they leave. Their condition is self-perpetuating.
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2013, 03:07:54 PM
Why is that when you map any fucked up thing you can think of, Louisiana and Mississippi always take the top spots? You would think that if they did less worse at anything, it would be doing less worse at negative things associated with getting an education.
With the Rapture being immnent and all, it seems wasteful to spend money on education. Who needs algebra when you are with Jesus?
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2013, 04:11:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2013, 03:07:54 PM
Why is that when you map any fucked up thing you can think of, Louisiana and Mississippi always take the top spots? You would think that if they did less worse at anything, it would be doing less worse at negative things associated with getting an education.
With the Rapture being immnent and all, it seems wasteful to spend money on education. Who needs algebra when you are with Jesus?
Reminds me of a bizzare conversation I witnessed this weekend.
I went up to the far northern cabin to help my dad out launching the boat. The guy from whom we used to rent the boat storage place from is an elderly American ex-pat whom my dad has known for decades. He was always a bit strange, but he's since gone even stranger.
This was proved when my dad visited him to say hello (with me in tow). Somehow, this guy steered the conversation to a job he used to have lifting rocks for "a senator" back home in Louisiana. He mentioned that the senator's wife was "crazy" because she used to pay his brother to cover himself in grease and dive naked into her pool. :huh:
The mention of rocks and crazy women led him to a discussion of his girlfriend. He had recent occasion to "ream her out" because she insisted on making him visit her tombstone. He told her, "woman, you ain't dead yet. And further, you ain't gonna need that tombstone anyhow. The Rapture gonna come any day now- Bible says so".
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2013, 04:21:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2013, 04:11:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2013, 03:07:54 PM
Why is that when you map any fucked up thing you can think of, Louisiana and Mississippi always take the top spots? You would think that if they did less worse at anything, it would be doing less worse at negative things associated with getting an education.
With the Rapture being immnent and all, it seems wasteful to spend money on education. Who needs algebra when you are with Jesus?
Reminds me of a bizzare conversation I witnessed this weekend.
I went up to the far northern cabin to help my dad out launching the boat. The guy from whom we used to rent the boat storage place from is an elderly American ex-pat whom my dad has known for decades. He was always a bit strange, but he's since gone even stranger.
This was proved when my dad visited him to say hello (with me in tow). Somehow, this guy steered the conversation to a job he used to have lifting rocks for "a senator" back home in Louisiana. He mentioned that the senator's wife was "crazy" because she used to pay his brother to cover himself in grease and dive naked into her pool. :huh:
The mention of rocks and crazy women led him to a discussion of his girlfriend. He had recent occasion to "ream her out" because she insisted on making him visit her tombstone. He told her, "woman, you ain't dead yet. And further, you ain't gonna need that tombstone anyhow. The Rapture gonna come any day now- Bible says so".
He was screwing a future zombie ? :unsure:
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2013, 04:21:06 PM
Reminds me of a bizzare conversation I witnessed this weekend.
I went up to the far northern cabin to help my dad out launching the boat. The guy from whom we used to rent the boat storage place from is an elderly American ex-pat whom my dad has known for decades. He was always a bit strange, but he's since gone even stranger.
This was proved when my dad visited him to say hello (with me in tow). Somehow, this guy steered the conversation to a job he used to have lifting rocks for "a senator" back home in Louisiana. He mentioned that the senator's wife was "crazy" because she used to pay his brother to cover himself in grease and dive naked into her pool. :huh:
The mention of rocks and crazy women led him to a discussion of his girlfriend. He had recent occasion to "ream her out" because she insisted on making him visit her tombstone. He told her, "woman, you ain't dead yet. And further, you ain't gonna need that tombstone anyhow. The Rapture gonna come any day now- Bible says so".
:hmm: He had me going there for a while, until that last bit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 02:13:46 PM
The North once again carries the South. Go fig.
It's because the for-profit schools prey on ignorant poor blacks... so I'm not surprised MS, LA, and AR are so badly off.
Quote from: Caliga on May 14, 2013, 05:54:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 02:13:46 PM
The North once again carries the South. Go fig.
It's because the for-profit schools prey on ignorant poor blacks... so I'm not surprised MS, LA, and AR are so badly off.
Riiiiiight, Cletus.
:huh: They do.
I sincerely doubt the majority of the weight of the college debt imbalance falls upon "ignorant poor blacks".
For-profit schools prey on ignorant poor people of all races. And those three states mentioned happen to have plenty. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 06:34:33 PM
I sincerely doubt the majority of the weight of the college debt imbalance falls upon "ignorant poor blacks".
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/01/for-profit_colleges_mostly_black_and_latino_students_face_higher_debt_and_unemployment.html (http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/01/for-profit_colleges_mostly_black_and_latino_students_face_higher_debt_and_unemployment.html)
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/02/latimer (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/02/latimer)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/as-minority-enrollments-s_n_916541.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/as-minority-enrollments-s_n_916541.html)
http://www.epi.org/press/profit-colleges-taxpayer-dollars-recruit/ (http://www.epi.org/press/profit-colleges-taxpayer-dollars-recruit/)
Female, age 25
Graduated high school 2006
Graduated low-rated college with BA English 2011
2011-present: work part-time at disabled childcare center
Her: "To get, or not to get my Masters, that is the question?"
Me: "Which masters programs are you looking into?"
Her: "I've been a well rounded person. I've been missing my music skills lately. I like to express my emotions and feelings down on paper and maybe make a song out of it. I think I played clarinet, but I would find piano or guitar more useful."
Other people:
"GET IT!!!!!! you're still young with plenty of time"
"Get it!!! That's going to be good for you!! I'm getting mine:)"
The music isn't in Phil. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 16, 2013, 05:15:03 PM
The music isn't in Phil. :(
But is Phil in the music-maker? ;)
I've got the music in me
Retirement: (n) An economic and societal construct unique to the 20th and early 21st centuries, in which people were no longer required to work until their deaths.
QuoteGreat Recession will haunt millions into their retirement years, study finds
The Great Recession hurt a lot of people and this loss of wealth will follow millions into retirement, according to a report released Thursday.
Early baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1955) may be "the last group on track to retire with enough savings to maintain their financial security through their golden years," the study finds. But the rest of us are in for a world of hurt -- especially Gen-Xers (born between 1966 and 1975).
The study by Pew Charitable Trusts, Retirement Security Across Generations: Are Americans Prepared for Their Golden Years? shows that early boomers lost 28 percent of their median net worth; late boomers (born between 1956 and 1965) lost 25 percent from 2007 to 2010. However, Gen-Xers lost nearly half (45 percent) of their wealth – about $33,000 on average – during that same time period. And they didn't have that much savings to begin with.
"Gen-X is the first generation that's unlikely to exceed the wealth of the group that came before it and face downward mobility in retirement," said Erin Currier, director of Pew's Economic Mobility Project. "They have lower financial net worth than previous groups had at this same age and they lost nearly half of their wealth in the recession."
Financial planners generally recommend that you save enough to replace 70 to 100 percent of your pre-retirement income when you leave the workforce. Pew's research shows the typical Gen-Xer will only be able to replace half of that income.
When it comes to retirement savings, late boomers (born between 1956 and 1965) are more like Gen-X than early boomers. They're on track to replace only 60 percent of their pre-retirement income.
You may be surprised to learn that some people saw their wealth grow during the recession. Pew found that a sizable minority of households – 39 to 44 percent – had a positive change in wealth between 2007 and 2009.
"As an example, more than a third of households in this age group experienced gains in home equity during that two-year period," Currier noted.
Gen-X: the most financially-challenged group
Gen-X wasn't in very good shape before the recession hit. Their net worth was less than other age groups that came before them. They also had lowest rates of home ownership of all the groups studied.
The recession only made things worse. They experienced the largest percentage decline in median net worth, losing nearly half of their wealth.
Gen-X has significantly higher levels of debt than those in the other groups did at the same age. Pew found that the average Gen-Xer has already accumulated $80,000 in debt.
Key Findings
Early boomers are financially prepared for retirement: Those born between 1946 and 1955 are approaching retirement in better financial shape than the age groups that came before them. This group benefited from both the dot-com boom and the housing bubble. Americans in their 50s and 60s have higher overall wealth, financial net worth, and home equity than Depression babies (born between 1926 and 1935) or war babies (born between 1936 and 1945) had at the same ages.
Wealth accumulation and savings for Americans born after 1955 is mixed: Neither Gen-Xers (in their 30s and 40s) nor late boomers (in their late 40's and 50's) are on track to exceed the financial position of those immediately preceded them.
Baby boomers and Gen-Xers have significantly lower asset-to-debt ratios than do older Americans: Depression and war babies spent the last two decades reducing their debt, while baby boomers and Gen-Xers have been accumulating it. In 2010, war babies had accumulated assets worth 27 times more than their debts. In contrast, assets for late boomers were only four times their debts. Gen-Xers' assets were about double their debts.
Pew's Erin Currier believes there is a clear takeaway message for America's policymakers from this data.
"As they focus attention on America's retirement security, particular consideration should be paid to helping the youngest groups change course to make up for these losses in order to prevent downward mobility in the long-term," she said.
:nelson: I was born in '76.
HR always has it made.
Quote from: Caliga on May 17, 2013, 06:46:16 AM
:nelson: I was born in '76.
Figures you are a douchebag Y'er.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 06:49:16 AM
HR always has it made.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_VwkNmQIWc0s%2FS79cnMuirPI%2FAAAAAAAAAS8%2F6V8YGUWBkXU%2Fs1600%2Fangry-homer.gif&hash=64c78bdd9406c89b3a8c73d9edc0d2761979b8f7)
Quote from: Phillip V on May 16, 2013, 04:56:47 PM
Female, age 25
Graduated high school 2006
Graduated low-rated college with BA English 2011
2011-present: work part-time at disabled childcare center
Her: "To get, or not to get my Masters, that is the question?"
Me: "Which masters programs are you looking into?"
Her: "I've been a well rounded person. I've been missing my music skills lately. I like to express my emotions and feelings down on paper and maybe make a song out of it. I think I played clarinet, but I would find piano or guitar more useful."
Other people:
"GET IT!!!!!! you're still young with plenty of time"
"Get it!!! That's going to be good for you!! I'm getting mine:)"
You can learn guitar and piano for free on youtube. She's making an excuse to crawl back in the womb.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 17, 2013, 12:06:49 PM
You can learn guitar and piano for free on youtube. She's making an excuse to crawl back in the womb.
Yep. That is lunacy.
Yeah, it seems to me that Master's degrees in music are pretty much for people who are already somewhat talented with their instrument and are looking to score a position in an orchestra or teach music classes themselves.
My boss from Dartmouth said my ideas about getting rid of the bulk of liberal arts degrees was stupid.
Because her English degree from an IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL has worked out so well for her? :wacko:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 18, 2013, 11:26:03 PM
My boss from Dartmouth said my ideas about getting rid of the bulk of liberal arts degrees was stupid.
Because her English degree from an IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL has worked out so well for her? :wacko:
What's bad about being your boss? :hmm:
Well, for starters, my boss is still a temp doing basically the same nearly-mindless work I do for the same or not significantly more pay. Second, and before some cad says it first, doesn't the question answers itself? :P
Not everyone makes good use of a top tier education.
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2013, 11:38:11 PM
Not everyone makes good use of a top tier education.
Think of it as a career memento mori, Stanford. :P
Very few people are willing to "regret" past decisions, even horrible ex-lovers that abused and cheated on them.
February 18: So im definitely going to do my best to cut of all contact. If i even see him im going to act like he doesnt exist and carry on. I actually care about myself and my well being now and he just destroys that which is my own fault for allowing him to. If i end up talking to him i will consider myself a failure and deserve nothing so i better not! I know im not the best person but im not too bad and i have a good heart so i know i dont deserve how he treats me
Two months later in April I consented to my yearly "catch-up" meeting with her, and for the third time she had returned to the cocaine-using, impregnator-of-other-girls, former demoted Marine referenced above. I sighed and bid her adieu till next year's meeting.
Sometimes I suspect women don't actually like being treated well.
It's like not eating meat: I only do it because it's a moral imperative.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 18, 2013, 11:51:12 PM
Sometimes I suspect women don't actually like being treated well.
It's like not eating meat: I only do it because it's a moral imperative.
Plenty of people - men and women - don't know how to treat other people well, and mistake abuse for caring. They often find each other.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dear-class-of-13-youve-been-scammed-2013-05-17
Quote from: Zanza on May 19, 2013, 02:48:47 AM
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dear-class-of-13-youve-been-scammed-2013-05-17
LEARNING HOW TO THINK IS PRICELESS.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 18, 2013, 11:51:12 PM
Sometimes I suspect women don't actually like being treated well.
It's like not eating meat: I only do it because it's a moral imperative.
But but... this young woman I quote recently earned a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 18, 2013, 11:45:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2013, 11:38:11 PM
Not everyone makes good use of a top tier education.
Think of it as a career memento mori, Stanford. :P
I guess so but when you do a comparison of graduation year ('07) to now, I come out ahead hands down. Almost like my disability year with depression didn't even happen. :D
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 01:30:48 PM
and I don't think I've ever heard of anyone's score being checked for a job.
It happens, especially for people who want to work for US-based companies. Your industry is a little unusual in their hiring practices.
Grads Shocked by Their Own College Debt
'70% of the college Class of 2013 owes, on average, $35,000 in student loan debt private and public, as well as debt owed on credit cards and from family loans... college graduates didn't see this burden coming -- the Fidelity study says that about 50% of new college grads are surprised by how much student loan debt they own and 39% of college graduates would have made different choices if they realized how much debt they'd pile up.'
...
"The number of graduates reporting surprise by the level of student debt they have accumulated is a big concern and shows that there is a considerable need for families to better understand the total cost of college," says Keith Bernhardt, vice president of college planning at Fidelity.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11927336/1/grads-shocked-by-their-own-college-debt.html
What? How the fuck are they surprised? It isn't as if the amount of money a college costs is a surprise. :huh:
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2013, 07:19:19 PM
"The number of graduates reporting surprise by the level of student debt they have accumulated is a big concern and shows that there is a considerable need for families to better understand the total cost of college learn how to fucking read a letter.
Do they keep the total amount and interest rates hidden somewhere? Like under that gray stuff on a scratch-off you need a nickel to rub off to read first?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 07:36:02 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2013, 07:19:19 PM
"The number of graduates reporting surprise by the level of student debt they have accumulated is a big concern and shows that there is a considerable need for families to better understand the total cost of college learn how to fucking read a letter.
:yes:
Yeah like I said the total cost bit is not a secret at all.
Yeah, the problem isn't that the costs are out-of-the-blue, the problem is that the education you receive is no longer a good value. That's an entirely different issue.
Well those surveyed seem to say it is an issue but I can only see that meaning that they were kids when they made college decisions and didn't really understand what costs would mean.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 07:50:31 PM
Well those surveyed seem to say it is an issue but I can only see that meaning that they were kids when they made college decisions and didn't really understand what costs would mean.
I know that when I went to college I certainly didn't grasp that I'd still be paying off my loans at age 38. Having said that, that's not the college's fault, it was mine.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 20, 2013, 07:53:15 PM
I know that when I went to college I certainly didn't grasp that I'd still be paying off my loans at age 38.
That's quite a bit different than being surprised at the total amount of indebtedness.
It's more an issue of being divorced from the amount. You get a letter every now and then that says, "As soon as you're done, you're going to owe $XXX,XXX." But that's like Monopoly money. And not only that, but what are your options? You get that letter at the end of your second year of school, realize how fast that amount is adding up... and what do you do? Quit, and start paying right away, your expectations of getting a decent job pretty much nil? Or keep at it, praying that that piece of paper will do what quitting won't?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 07:56:58 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 20, 2013, 07:53:15 PM
I know that when I went to college I certainly didn't grasp that I'd still be paying off my loans at age 38.
That's quite a bit different than being surprised at the total amount of indebtedness.
Yes, I agree. But I think when you're that age it's easy to read a number and go "oh, that sounds like a lot, but not a LOT lot" and then when you actually start having to make payments and shit you go "jesus, that really WAS a lot".
EDIT: Or, yeah. Basically what Meri said. :D
Young people are stupid.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 16, 2013, 05:15:03 PM
The music isn't in Phil. :(
I just spent the last 2 hours singing along to music instead of going to sleep. :D
But then I will wake up early in the morning to actually work a real job. :contract:
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2013, 10:37:39 PM
But then I will wake up early in the morning to actually work a real job. :contract:
Oh, I thought you worked in an office. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on May 16, 2013, 05:39:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 16, 2013, 05:15:03 PM
The music isn't in Phil. :(
But is Phil in the music-maker? ;)
She's flaky personally just as professionally. Periodically messages and calls me out of the blue wanting to hang out, but then backs out when I respond with my available time. I shrug and propose the available time to another person.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 20, 2013, 10:39:32 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2013, 10:37:39 PM
But then I will wake up early in the morning to actually work a real job. :contract:
Oh, I thought you worked in an office. :hmm:
"real" = $$$ in this context :blush:
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2013, 10:43:49 PM
She's flaky personally just as professionally.
YOU DON'T SAY
Quote from: Neil on May 19, 2013, 09:16:21 AM
It happens, especially for people who want to work for US-based companies. Your industry is a little unusual in their hiring practices.
Thank god :cheers:
Is your credit that bad?
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 11:53:46 PM
Is your credit that bad?
Nah... it's probably perfect or near perfect at this point in time. I'm just happy I don't have to put up with bullshit :)
Well you'd only have to put up with it if it's bad. Also, I think most don't check.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/americas-top-colleges-have-a-rich-kid-problem/276195/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FCentury_Colleges_Socioeconomic_Makeup.JPG&hash=1854d0017b41bb06168fb3ff540789a0dc666b3f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FHoxby_High_Achievers.png&hash=16916034dd5a48a187c824ec0bdb24c1005df35b)
Quote from: fahdiz on May 20, 2013, 07:53:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 07:50:31 PM
Well those surveyed seem to say it is an issue but I can only see that meaning that they were kids when they made college decisions and didn't really understand what costs would mean.
I know that when I went to college I certainly didn't grasp that I'd still be paying off my loans at age 38. Having said that, that's not the college's fault, it was mine.
That's slave morality.
The exact opposite. A free man makes choices and lives with the repercussions.
Define freedom.
Quote from: The Brain on May 25, 2013, 06:31:36 AM
Define freedom.
Yi's freedom is the freedom to sell yourself into debt bondage.
Quote from: Zanza on May 25, 2013, 06:34:53 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 25, 2013, 06:31:36 AM
Define freedom.
Yi's freedom is the freedom to sell yourself into debt bondage.
Well one should have the freedom to make some poor choices, otherwise you're left with only the "good" choices that have been predefined for you.
Quote from: garbon on May 25, 2013, 09:01:24 AM
Well one should have the freedom to make some poor choices, otherwise you're left with only the "good" choices that have been predefined for you.
Says the guy who gives lotto winners shit about how they spend their money.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2013, 09:14:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 25, 2013, 09:01:24 AM
Well one should have the freedom to make some poor choices, otherwise you're left with only the "good" choices that have been predefined for you.
Says the guy who gives lotto winners shit about how they spend their money.
Are you saying that criticizing the actions of people is the same as not allowing them to do what they want? :huh:
Maybe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2013, 05:21:24 AM
The exact opposite. A free man makes choices and lives with the repercussions.
Maybe I meant "mentality."
Winners don't take responsibility. Winners successfully externalize negative consequences.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2013, 12:25:49 PM
Maybe I meant "mentality."
Winners don't take responsibility. Winners successfully externalize negative consequences.
Perhaps I should cancel our bet. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2013, 12:25:49 PM
Maybe I meant "mentality."
Winners don't take responsibility. Winners successfully externalize negative consequences.
Perhaps I should cancel our bet. :hmm:
Not when you're this close to losing, pal!
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2013, 12:48:30 PM
Not when you're this close to losing, pal!
Your comments about externalizing negative consequences forces me to consider counterparty risk.
QuoteMaster's degree programs surge at nation's colleges and universities
By Nick Anderson, Published: May 25
Washingtonpost.com
The nation's colleges and universities are churning out master's degrees in sharply rising numbers, responding to a surge in demand for advanced credentials from young professionals who want to stand out in the workforce and earn more money.
From 2000 to 2012, the annual production of master's degrees jumped 63 percent, federal data show, growing 18 percentage points more than the output of bachelor's degrees. It is a sign of a quiet but profound transformation underway at many prominent universities, which are pouring more energy into job training than ever before.
The master's degree, often priced starting at $20,000 to $30,000, is seen by some universities as a moneymaker in a time of fiscal strain. It is seen by students as a ticket to promotions or new careers. For them, the lure of potentially increasing their salary by many thousands of dollars a year outweighs the risk of taking on large tuition bills and possibly debt.
The Washington region is a major driver of the trend. George Washington, Georgetown and Johns Hopkins universities all award far more master's than bachelor's degrees each year, a Post analysis of federal data found.
Georgetown, for example, awarded 1,871 bachelor's degrees and 2,838 master's degrees in 2012. Its annual bachelor's output rose 12 percent over eight years. Its growth in master's: 82 percent.
Doug Stone, 28, an analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, graduated this month from Georgetown with a master's in public relations and corporate communications, a degree that cost him about $27,000. He had decided that his bachelor's degree in political science from Ohio State University was not quite enough in a city filled with college-educated strivers.
"I work with a very tech-heavy, tech-savvy crowd," Stone said. "If you want to position yourself, you need to have at minimum a master's."
In generations past — with notable exceptions in fields such as education and business administration — the master's often played a secondary role within universities. Sometimes it was considered a steppingstone on the way to a PhD, or a consolation prize for those who fell short of a doctorate.
Those views are fading.
"The master's degree has become a much more important part of the American mobility story," said Katherine S. Newman, dean of arts and sciences at Hopkins. "Once upon a time, American industry would have expected people to learn on the job. Increasingly, employers are looking to universities. We are becoming more of a training machine for American industry at the high-skill end."
Sarah Theos, 34, of Montgomery County, is a case in point. Theos, a saleswoman for the biotechnology company Promega, holds a bachelor's degree in biology from Virginia Tech and knows her way around a laboratory. Two years ago, she enrolled in a part-time master's program in biotechnology at Hopkins, and she is finishing up this month. Some classes she took online, others at a Hopkins satellite in Rockville. She said the degree, priced at about $32,000, will help her connect with customers. Promega and Theos split the tuition.
"In my sales industry," Theos said, "they like you to have the advanced degree, so you can talk the talk."
Adam Jadhav, 30, was a political journalist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for a few years until he felt a calling to go overseas to write, teach and volunteer. He got his passport stamped in Kenya, Ecuador and India. In fall 2011, he started work on a master's in global environmental policy from American University, with a focus on political science, economics and sustainable development.
Grants and a fellowship offset much of the $56,000 cost, but Jadhav said he took out about $50,000 in loans to cover living, research and travel expenses. The AU program helped him win a Fulbright research grant to study fishing communities in India after his graduation this month.
"The master's degree for me has opened a whole bunch of doors and is really allowing me to do things I want to do with the rest of my life," he said. The bachelor's degree he earned from the University of Illinois several years ago now strikes Jadhav as the "bare minimum" that people like him need to thrive in the modern economy.
The cachet of the master's is rising even among college freshmen. The University of California at Los Angeles found last year in a national survey that 42 percent of freshmen are aiming for a master's — nearly twice the share that said a bachelor's degree was their highest goal. Forty years earlier, the survey found freshmen were more likely to aim for a bachelor's than for a master's.
Depending on the employment field, census and other data show that many people who hold a master's degree are better paid than those who hold a bachelor's.
"On the whole, it is true that the earnings return for post-baccalaureate degrees is very high," said Anthony P. Carnevale, director of the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown. He said that is especially true for degrees in engineering and other technology-driven jobs.
Virginia data show that those who earn a master's degree in electrical and electronics engineering in the state command a median salary after graduation of about $75,000. A bachelor's degree in the same field draws $56,000.
A similar salary premium is found in another booming master's field — nursing. The bachelor's degree in nursing, figures from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia show, yields a median starting salary in the state of about $48,000. For the master's it is about $66,000, a 38 percent differential.
Shawna Brennfleck, 29, a registered nurse at Inova Fairfax Hospital, is finishing up a master's in nursing from GWU with a goal of becoming a nurse practitioner. Priced at about $34,000, her degree required online coursework and various clinical experiences over three years.
The emerging online access of many master's degrees is a big draw for students who want or need to continue working while they are enrolled.
"Every week you have assignments, a test you have to complete," Brennfleck said. "You can do them on your own time. You definitely have to be self-motivated."
GWU awarded about 3,900 master's degrees in 2012, ranking 18th in the nation. Hopkins, with about 4,800, ranked ninth. Among others in the top 20 were New York (2nd), Columbia (3rd) and Harvard (15th) universities. The online unit of the for-profit University of Phoenix, which awarded about 18,600, ranked first.
Experts say many young professionals went back to school after the 2008 financial crisis, which bolstered the master's pipeline. As the job market improves, there are signs that new enrollment in master's programs has fallen slightly.
"It may turn out nationally that the growth in master's [degrees] will taper," GWU Provost Steven Lerman said. "There's no guarantee it will go on forever."
But the expansion of master's degrees began well before the 2008 crisis and has become a driving force in higher education.
Business and education, long dominant subjects in this sector of academia, account for about half of more than 750,000 master's degrees awarded each year. The venerable MBA — master's in business administration — is now available in a host of part-time, online, executive and specialty programs. But other programs are proliferating too — in bioinformatics, regulatory science, geographic information systems, media entrepreneurship, sustainability management and many more.
George Mason, the largest public university in Virginia, launches new master's programs nearly every year. The latest: computer game design and data analytics. "The rationale for both of these degrees," said GMU Provost Peter Stearns, "is they're going to be hot in the market."
Some analysts wonder if the expansion of master's programs has gone too far.
Jeffrey J. Selingo, editor at large of the Chronicle of Higher Education, said that when universities offer more master's degrees and programs, job recruiters take note. When recruiters take note, so do students. When students seek more master's degrees, universities offer more. "The whole thing is an endless loop," Selingo said.
Others say demand for the advanced degree is legitimate.
"It's not just because employers like to have extra letters after the name of the person they hire," said Debra W. Stewart, president of the Council of Graduate Schools. "The fact of the matter is, it's the complexity of the knowledge economy that's driving more education."
If a person has a master's you know they're gonna do a good job.
A master's degree doesn't make much sense unless you're independently wealthy, your parents are, or you have a solid sense that the money you are spending is going to be recouped by whatever promotion door you think that opens. So far, I've not really seen where it'd be helpful.
One Third Of Millennials Regret Going To College
'One-third of millennials say they would have been better off working, instead of going to college and paying tuition.
That's a according to a new Wells Fargo study which surveyed millennials between the ages of 22 and 32. More than half of them financed their education through student loans, and many say the if they had $10,000 the "first thing" they'd do is pay down their student loan or credit card debt.
That's no surprise when you consider student borrowing topped the $100 billion threshold for the first time in 2010, and total outstanding loans exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in 2011. Student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt in the U.S. which stands at about $798 billion.
Delinquencies are also on the rise. The number of borrowers who are at least 90 days late on student loan payments has jumped from 8.5% in 2011 to 11.7% today.
...
79% of millennials think personal finance should be taught in high school; basic investing, how to save for retirement and how loans work were the top three topics they "wished" they'd learned more about.'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/05/22/student-loan-problems-one-third-of-millennials-regret-going-to-college/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fb-i.forbesimg.com%2Fhalahtouryalai%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F05%2Fstudent-loan-debt.jpg&hash=1d96752fb79c55f86c065e6facc3757dd870a119)
BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU LEARN TO THINK CRITICALLY PHIL.
0% of millennials think critical thinking should be taught in high school.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 31, 2013, 09:41:44 PM
...and many say the if they had $10,000 the "first thing" they'd do is pay down their student loan or credit card debt.
Not sure why this is news, other than the fact that 100% of those who borrowed to pay for their education didnt say yes. It was the first thing I did.
I still have student loan debt, and I am 41.
Of course, that is mostly because everytime I pick some debt to pay off, I notice that my student loan is the lowest interest rate, so I pay off a car or something instead.
Is there such a thing as car loan refinancing?
Yup.
Really?
I've seen people take out consolidation loans to pay off cars (usually with a home equity LOC), but never heard of someone refinancing a car loan. I am surprised a bank would be interested in taking on a used car as collateral like that.
Sure, I refinanced my auto loan for my Jeep from Ally Financial with my credit union last year; dropped the rate 3%, with a little bonus for direct withdrawal. Only real difference is they send you a new title with the current lien holder on it.
Check with your bank, see what kind of deals they're offering on auto loan refinancing.
Definitely.
I rather doubt they can beat the 3.something percent I have on the last few thousand I owe on the Subaru. And not likely worth the trouble in any case.
I don't have a car loan!
Every thread has to be about Grab On.
:)
I'm still just really happy that my car is paid off.
Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2013, 03:16:45 PM
I rather doubt they can beat the 3.something percent I have on the last few thousand I owe on the Subaru. And not likely worth the trouble in any case.
Well, if it's only a little bit left, it may not be a big deal. It took me less than an hour.
I just looked up Bank of America's rates for New Yauk, just for giggles. Not bad.
QuoteToday's Rates for New York
June 02, 2013, 05:38 PM Eastern
Loan amounts from $7,500 up to $100,000
Annual Percentage Rates (APR) -
Loan Type Up to 60 Months (%) 61 - 72 Months (%)
New car 2.29 2.44
Used car (franchise) 2.34 2.49
Used car (private) 2.69 2.84
Refinance 2.44 2.64
Lease buyout 3.09 3.29
Damn, that makes me want to go buy a new car.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Ave-atque-vale-7653 (http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Ave-atque-vale-7653)
In his retirement speech, Donald Kagan discusses the value of a liberal education and the shortcomings of today's universities in teaching it.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/professor-allegedly-fat-shames-phd-applicants-161627809.html
QuoteProfessor allegedly fat-shames Ph.D. applicants
A New York University visiting professor, Geoffrey Miller, seems to believe overweight students thinking about a Ph.D. need not apply.
Miller, who specializes in evolutionary psychology and is teaching at NYU's Stern School of Business, tweeted on Sunday: "Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn't have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation #truth."
Miller, a tenured professor at the University of New Mexico, quickly deleted his tweet—but not before others had the chance to take screenshots of the message and circulate those images on various social media platforms.
Accused of fat-shaming, Miller has since backtracked on his statement. He reportedly claims the tweet was "part of a research project."
According to the New York Observer, Miller won't lose his post at NYU. But his future at UNM is less certain.
"We are deeply concerned about the impact of the statement, which in no way reflects the policies or admission standards of UNM," UNM said in an official statement issued on Monday. "We are investigating every aspect of this incident and will take appropriate action."
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 12:06:14 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/professor-allegedly-fat-shames-phd-applicants-161627809.html
QuoteProfessor allegedly fat-shames Ph.D. applicants
A New York University visiting professor, Geoffrey Miller, seems to believe overweight students thinking about a Ph.D. need not apply.
Miller, who specializes in evolutionary psychology and is teaching at NYU's Stern School of Business, tweeted on Sunday: "Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn't have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation #truth."
Miller, a tenured professor at the University of New Mexico, quickly deleted his tweet—but not before others had the chance to take screenshots of the message and circulate those images on various social media platforms.
Accused of fat-shaming, Miller has since backtracked on his statement. He reportedly claims the tweet was "part of a research project."
According to the New York Observer, Miller won't lose his post at NYU. But his future at UNM is less certain.
"We are deeply concerned about the impact of the statement, which in no way reflects the policies or admission standards of UNM," UNM said in an official statement issued on Monday. "We are investigating every aspect of this incident and will take appropriate action."
Combining "evolutionary psychology" with "teaches at a business school" - that's already like three strikes against him. :lol:
Well, evolutionary psychology's all well and good, but business school? Get a rope.
When I hear the term "evolutionary psychology", I reach for my Beretta WHICH NO LONGER MISFIRES OR FALLS APART IN ANY FASHION SO FUCK YOU IN ADVANCE SEEDY AND ED.
Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2013, 12:44:24 PM
When I hear the term "evolutionary psychology", I reach for my Beretta WHICH NO LONGER MISFIRES OR FALLS APART IN ANY FASHION SO FUCK YOU IN ADVANCE SEEDY AND ED.
You only do that because your hunter-gatherer ancestors who reacted to frustration with aggression got to mate with the big-titted cavewomen. ;)
Man this whole fat-shaming combatting craze is going up faster than Americans' average....
nevermind :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2013, 12:58:35 PM
Man this whole fat-shaming combatting craze is going up faster than Americans' average....
nevermind :ph34r:
It's almost becoming a mass movement.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2013, 01:11:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2013, 12:58:35 PM
Man this whole fat-shaming combatting craze is going up faster than Americans' average....
nevermind :ph34r:
It's almost becoming a mass movement.
The situation certainly has gravity.
Quote from: Caliga on June 04, 2013, 12:44:24 PM
When I hear the term "evolutionary psychology", I reach for my Beretta WHICH NO LONGER MISFIRES OR FALLS APART IN ANY FASHION SO FUCK YOU IN ADVANCE SEEDY AND ED.
MAH HOLSTER
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2013, 01:21:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2013, 01:11:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2013, 12:58:35 PM
Man this whole fat-shaming combatting craze is going up faster than Americans' average....
nevermind :ph34r:
It's almost becoming a mass movement.
The situation certainly has gravity.
One could even say Weighty
Doc, this is heavy.
Faltering Economy in China Dims Job Prospects for Graduates
'A record seven million students will graduate from universities and colleges across China in the coming weeks, but their job prospects appear bleak — the latest sign of a troubled Chinese economy.
...
Lu Mai, the secretary general of the elite, government-backed China Development Research Foundation, acknowledged in a speech this month that less than half of this year's graduates had found jobs so far.
Graduating seniors at all but a few of China's top universities say that very few people they know are finding jobs — and that those who did receive offers over the winter were seeing them rescinded as the economy has weakened in recent weeks.
...
A national survey released last winter found that in the age bracket of 21- to 25-year-olds, 16 percent of the men and women with college degrees were unemployed.
But only 4 percent of those with an elementary school education were unemployed, a sign of voracious corporate demand persisting for blue-collar workers. Wages for workers who have come in from rural areas to urban factories have surged 70 percent in the last four years; wages for young people in white-collar sectors have barely stayed steady or have even declined.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/business/global/faltering-economy-in-china-dims-job-prospects-for-graduates.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F06%2F17%2Fworld%2Fasia%2F17chinagrad%2F17chinagrad-articleLarge.jpg&hash=5f51094513c5b1d9da2319d1a8bd35d05411161b)
That just breaks my heart.
:lol:
From what I hear there is a huge fluctuation among white collar workers in international corporations in China. When employee retention is low, you have to wonder whether it makes sense to hire someone and train him instead of just getting a consultant to do the job.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 17, 2013, 07:13:56 AM
That just breaks my heart.
It should
Because there is always work at the PLAN.
N.Y.U. Gives Its Stars Loans for Summer Homes
'New York University has given its executives and professors multimillion-dollar loans for second homes, an unusual practice that it says helps attract talent.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/nyregion/nyu-gives-stars-loans-for-summer-homes.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F06%2F18%2Fnyregion%2FNYU%2FNYU-articleInline-v2.jpg&hash=447937ab55be742fc492338e9f752393adab1c02)
As long as they find suckers to pay those tuition fees...
NYU degrees are pretty useless...:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2013, 09:58:02 AM
NYU degrees are pretty useless...:hmm:
People don't go to NYU to get jobs. People go to NYU because their dad is rich and they want to party in New York.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 10:34:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2013, 09:58:02 AM
NYU degrees are pretty useless...:hmm:
People don't go to NYU to get jobs. People go to NYU because their dad is rich and they want to party in New York.
My father isn't particularly reach. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2013, 11:16:00 AMMy father isn't particularly reach. :hmm:
He reached your mom, though, and she has money, right?
That's sufficient, I think.
Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2013, 11:24:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2013, 11:16:00 AMMy father isn't particularly reach. :hmm:
He reached your mom, though, and she has money, right?
That's sufficient, I think.
:D
Well no, they had long been split up by the time anyone in my family went to NYU.
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2013, 11:16:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 10:34:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2013, 09:58:02 AM
NYU degrees are pretty useless...:hmm:
People don't go to NYU to get jobs. People go to NYU because their dad is rich and they want to party in New York.
My father isn't particularly reach. :hmm:
Why would I care about you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2013, 12:21:16 PM
That satisfies my world view.
Unfortunately your world view involves more nuclear exchanges than some us are prepared to tolerate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 12:23:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2013, 12:21:16 PM
That satisfies my world view.
Unfortunately your world view involves more nuclear exchanges than some us are prepared to tolerate.
Can't make a Chinese omerette without breaking a few eggs.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 11:36:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2013, 11:16:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 10:34:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2013, 09:58:02 AM
NYU degrees are pretty useless...:hmm:
People don't go to NYU to get jobs. People go to NYU because their dad is rich and they want to party in New York.
My father isn't particularly reach. :hmm:
Why would I care about you?
A conflicting data point. Anyway, it wouldn't be about me as I didn't go to NYU.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 17, 2013, 12:06:49 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 16, 2013, 04:56:47 PM
Female, age 25
Graduated high school 2006
Graduated low-rated college with BA English 2011
2011-present: work part-time at disabled childcare center
Her: "To get, or not to get my Masters, that is the question?"
Me: "Which masters programs are you looking into?"
Her: "I've been a well rounded person. I've been missing my music skills lately. I like to express my emotions and feelings down on paper and maybe make a song out of it. I think I played clarinet, but I would find piano or guitar more useful."
Other people:
"GET IT!!!!!! you're still young with plenty of time"
"Get it!!! That's going to be good for you!! I'm getting mine:)"
You can learn guitar and piano for free on youtube. She's making an excuse to crawl back in the womb.
Her (today):
"I'm so excited right now, I finally know what I'm going to do! I'm applying to go to Grad school at Sacred Heart University and get my certification as a reading specialist/English Teacher. I'm so happy! :D"
:nelson:
Is that a real school or a fake for-profit?
It is a real school in CT.
Anyway, I think it isn't sporting to make fun of this woman. She's clearly in a confused place and mocking her is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Fish who consistently find themselves in barrels deserve to be shot.
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:40:18 AM
Fish who consistently find themselves in barrels deserve to be shot.
Well have at it. Sounds dull to me though.
I dunno... laughing at her for not putting the cash nexus first seems kind of like something a bitter, grown-up nerd would do.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:43:22 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:40:18 AM
Fish who consistently find themselves in barrels deserve to be shot.
Well have at it. Sounds dull to me though.
i don't care about this fish and her chronically bad choices. Given the story teller she's probably fake anyway. I'm talking mainly about other fish in other barrels in general. Or something. I'm sleepy.
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:46:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:43:22 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:40:18 AM
Fish who consistently find themselves in barrels deserve to be shot.
Well have at it. Sounds dull to me though.
i don't care about this fish and her chronically bad choices. Given the story teller she's probably fake anyway. I'm talking mainly about other fish in other barrels in general. Or something. I'm sleepy.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 19, 2013, 07:45:09 AM
I dunno... laughing at her for not putting the cash nexus first seems kind of like something a bitter, grown-up nerd would do.
hey! I'm bitter and kind of grown up, but not a nerd :P
Do whatcha want just don't bitch when you have a huge loan and can't find a job with your interpretive dance degree from 3rd Choice University.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:46:51 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:46:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:43:22 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:40:18 AM
Fish who consistently find themselves in barrels deserve to be shot.
Well have at it. Sounds dull to me though.
i don't care about this fish and her chronically bad choices. Given the story teller she's probably fake anyway. I'm talking mainly about other fish in other barrels in general. Or something. I'm sleepy.
:rolleyes:
don't your eyes ever get tired? :P
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 19, 2013, 07:45:09 AM
I dunno... laughing at her for not putting the cash nexus first seems kind of like something a bitter, grown-up nerd would do.
Not putting the cash nexus first is how people end up with 8 useless degrees and $200K in student debt.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 19, 2013, 07:45:09 AM
I dunno... laughing at her for not putting the cash nexus first seems kind of like something a bitter, grown-up nerd would do.
I'm not laughing at her for not putting $$ first. I feel sorry that nobody every told her she doesn't need to dig herself into a debt hole to find self-insight and self-actualization and such.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 19, 2013, 07:45:09 AM
I dunno... laughing at her for not putting the cash nexus first seems kind of like something a bitter, grown-up nerd would do.
When people like her cause the education bubble to pop and economy takes a nosedive, the tons of people losing their jobs will only cause our numbers to multiply. But seriously I just feel sorta bad for her.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 07:49:39 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 19, 2013, 07:45:09 AM
I dunno... laughing at her for not putting the cash nexus first seems kind of like something a bitter, grown-up nerd would do.
Not putting the cash nexus first is how people end up with 8 useless degrees and $200K in student debt.
Not that you shouldn't do honest and serious cost-benefit analyses of your educational choices - I'm more commenting on the tone of the post.
So much easier to goof on people trying to improve their professional job prospects when you've already got a job.
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:49:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:46:51 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:46:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:43:22 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:40:18 AM
Fish who consistently find themselves in barrels deserve to be shot.
Well have at it. Sounds dull to me though.
i don't care about this fish and her chronically bad choices. Given the story teller she's probably fake anyway. I'm talking mainly about other fish in other barrels in general. Or something. I'm sleepy.
:rolleyes:
don't your eyes ever get tired? :P
The muscles are well practiced.
What's wrong with being an English teacher? Seems like there's a decent market for it.
Not sure what a "reading specialist is", though.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 08:28:35 AM
Not sure what a "reading specialist is", though.
Advanced training in helping kids work through their learning disabilities like dyslexia. But going and getting a degree in that would be silly what with loan debt and all, lolz hahaha suckers.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 08:28:35 AM
What's wrong with being an English teacher? Seems like there's a decent market for it.
Not sure what a "reading specialist is", though.
To me the problem stems from her willingness to just throw money around for her various whims (unless of course she or her family are independently wealthy and then I say carry on. :bowler:) - as it was just recently that she needed to go study music.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 08:46:45 AM
To me the problem stems from her willingness to just throw money around for her various whims (unless of course she or her family are independently wealthy and then I say carry on. :bowler:) - as it was just recently that she needed to go study music.
Yeah this. It could be she just found her calling, and in that case good luck to her.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 19, 2013, 08:37:03 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 08:28:35 AM
Not sure what a "reading specialist is", though.
Advanced training in helping kids work through their learning disabilities like dyslexia. But going and getting a degree in that would be silly what with loan debt and all, lolz hahaha suckers.
Getting a degree in that would be pretty smart given the growing demand for such teachers.
Yeah, if anything I would think this shift from "ZOMG I WANT TO ACTUALIZE MY INNER ANGST THROUGH MUSIC!" to "I want to become a teacher" is a pretty significantly positive adjustment.
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 09:26:56 AM
Yeah, if anything I would think this shift from "ZOMG I WANT TO ACTUALIZE MY INNER ANGST THROUGH MUSIC!" to "I want to become a teacher" is a pretty significantly positive adjustment.
:yes:
She knows she has to do something, and the teaching is at least an almost guaranteed job, especially in that specialty. Can't blame her for trying to figure things out.
Oh wait. This is Languish. Yes you can. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 09:26:56 AM
Yeah, if anything I would think this shift from "ZOMG I WANT TO ACTUALIZE MY INNER ANGST THROUGH MUSIC!" to "I want to become a teacher" is a pretty significantly positive adjustment.
:yes:
She knows she has to do something, and the teaching is at least an almost guaranteed job, especially in that specialty. Can't blame her for trying to figure things out.
Oh wait. This is Languish. Yes you can. :rolleyes:
Um most of the posts have been defending her.
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2013, 09:41:28 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 09:26:56 AM
Yeah, if anything I would think this shift from "ZOMG I WANT TO ACTUALIZE MY INNER ANGST THROUGH MUSIC!" to "I want to become a teacher" is a pretty significantly positive adjustment.
:yes:
She knows she has to do something, and the teaching is at least an almost guaranteed job, especially in that specialty. Can't blame her for trying to figure things out.
Oh wait. This is Languish. Yes you can. :rolleyes:
Um most of the posts have been defending her.
Um half of them have not been.
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2013, 09:41:28 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 09:26:56 AM
Yeah, if anything I would think this shift from "ZOMG I WANT TO ACTUALIZE MY INNER ANGST THROUGH MUSIC!" to "I want to become a teacher" is a pretty significantly positive adjustment.
:yes:
She knows she has to do something, and the teaching is at least an almost guaranteed job, especially in that specialty. Can't blame her for trying to figure things out.
Oh wait. This is Languish. Yes you can. :rolleyes:
Um most of the posts have been defending her.
Shhh, this is Languish. Dont let the facts get in the way of a good Stazi Cabal rant about how terrible we all are.
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 09:26:56 AM
Yeah, if anything I would think this shift from "ZOMG I WANT TO ACTUALIZE MY INNER ANGST THROUGH MUSIC!" to "I want to become a teacher" is a pretty significantly positive adjustment.
:yes:
She knows she has to do something, and the teaching is at least an almost guaranteed job, especially in that specialty. Can't blame her for trying to figure things out.
Oh wait. This is Languish. Yes you can. :rolleyes:
I can only speak definitively about Canada, but am led to believe the situation is similar in the US - teaching is far from a guaranteed job. Several of my university buddies wound up in teaching. They had to struggle for years and years before finding a remotely decent full time position.
Teaching in general may not be a growth industry, but I'm pretty sure special needs teaching is.
Quote from: Barrister on June 19, 2013, 09:47:10 AM
I can only speak definitively about Canada, but am led to believe the situation is similar in the US - teaching is far from a guaranteed job. Several of my university buddies wound up in teaching. They had to struggle for years and years before finding a remotely decent full time position.
Finding teachers with a reading specialty is hard. We had four openings at the Middle School where I worked that we had to place reading specialists. We interviewed six people for those four places, and only one was suitable for the school. (In contrast, the same year we had an opening for a math and a social studies teachers, and we had a plethora of individuals to choose from for those jobs.) The principal ended up having to get an override from the School Board to hire non-reading specialists for the openings as "temp" employees while they either worked on that specialization or we found someone else who was qualified.
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:43:49 AM
Um half of them have not been.
Sorry, I have an opinion that loads of debt is a really really bad idea. I hope this is at least the most cost effective way she could find to get that advanced degree.
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2013, 10:01:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:43:49 AM
Um half of them have not been.
Sorry, I have an opinion that loads of debt is a really really bad idea. I hope this is at least the most cost effective way she could find to get that advanced degree.
Okay. :)
Quote from: Barrister on June 19, 2013, 09:47:10 AM
I can only speak definitively about Canada, but am led to believe the situation is similar in the US - teaching is far from a guaranteed job. Several of my university buddies wound up in teaching. They had to struggle for years and years before finding a remotely decent full time position.
They probably had general teaching certificates or degrees if they were in that position. Like most general degrees those folks are a dime a dozen. But people that go on to obtain training for areas in demand are snapped up immediately.
iirc teachers who have degrees in math, science or special needs education are in demand because the supply of people with that training is small relative to the positions available.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 19, 2013, 09:47:10 AM
I can only speak definitively about Canada, but am led to believe the situation is similar in the US - teaching is far from a guaranteed job. Several of my university buddies wound up in teaching. They had to struggle for years and years before finding a remotely decent full time position.
They probably had general teaching certificates or degrees if they were in that position. Like most general degrees those folks are a dime a dozen. But people that go on to obtain training for areas in demand are snapped up immediately.
iirc teachers who have degrees in math, science or special needs education are in demand because the supply of people with that training is small relative to the positions available.
Fair point. My own mother got some kind of post baccalaureate in special needs education and never had any trouble finding work.
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 09:26:56 AM
Yeah, if anything I would think this shift from "ZOMG I WANT TO ACTUALIZE MY INNER ANGST THROUGH MUSIC!" to "I want to become a teacher" is a pretty significantly positive adjustment.
:yes:
She knows she has to do something, and the teaching is at least an almost guaranteed job, especially in that specialty. Can't blame her for trying to figure things out.
Oh wait. This is Languish. Yes you can. :rolleyes:
Wasn't there a study in WaPo or some paper recently that claimed tat teacher education/training in the U.S. is horrible to mediocre for the most part?
Quote from: Syt on June 19, 2013, 11:59:40 AM
Wasn't there a study in WaPo or some paper recently that claimed tat teacher education/training in the U.S. is horrible to mediocre for the most part?
That's okay, our education system is horrible to mediocre for the most part as well.
Yes it's terrible. My mom does more or less the same thing. They give her the worst classes with the most disadvantaged kids because she's good at it and has a great track record with them. But the vast majority of the people she works with are complete idiots that I wouldn't trust to so much as babysit my cat.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:29:44 AM
Anyway, I think it isn't sporting to make fun of this woman. She's clearly in a confused place and mocking her is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I can only assume that this is sarcasm, given this poster's usual high level of cruelty.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 12:23:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2013, 12:21:16 PM
That satisfies my world view.
Unfortunately your world view involves more nuclear exchanges than some us are prepared to tolerate.
Perhaps a couple of nuclear exchanges would prove good for mankind.
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2013, 12:27:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:29:44 AM
Anyway, I think it isn't sporting to make fun of this woman. She's clearly in a confused place and mocking her is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I can only assume that this is sarcasm, given this poster's usual high level of cruelty.
I'm not really that cruel. Sometimes callous, but cruel?
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 12:41:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2013, 12:27:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:29:44 AM
Anyway, I think it isn't sporting to make fun of this woman. She's clearly in a confused place and mocking her is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I can only assume that this is sarcasm, given this poster's usual high level of cruelty.
I'm not really that cruel. Sometimes callous, but cruel?
I don't know. You're never above kicking someone when they're down. But then again, maybe I just see the worst side of you in absolutely everything you do.
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2013, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 12:41:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2013, 12:27:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:29:44 AM
Anyway, I think it isn't sporting to make fun of this woman. She's clearly in a confused place and mocking her is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I can only assume that this is sarcasm, given this poster's usual high level of cruelty.
I'm not really that cruel. Sometimes callous, but cruel?
I don't know. You're never above kicking someone when they're down. But then again, maybe I just see the worst side of you in absolutely everything you do.
Yeah I think you are imagining things or perhaps conflating me with someone else.
I think Neil is confusing callous with simply being a supreme bitch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 19, 2013, 01:14:11 PM
I think Neil is confusing callous with simply being a supreme bitch.
Bitchiness and cruelty are the same thing.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 01:10:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2013, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 12:41:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2013, 12:27:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:29:44 AM
Anyway, I think it isn't sporting to make fun of this woman. She's clearly in a confused place and mocking her is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I can only assume that this is sarcasm, given this poster's usual high level of cruelty.
I'm not really that cruel. Sometimes callous, but cruel?
I don't know. You're never above kicking someone when they're down. But then again, maybe I just see the worst side of you in absolutely everything you do.
Yeah I think you are imagining things or perhaps conflating me with someone else.
Who else could I be mixing you up with?
More Young People Ditching Credit Cards
'Younger adults seem to be developing an aversion to credit cards and the debt that comes with them.
A new analysis of data about millions of consumers from FICO, creator of the widely used FICO credit score, finds that in 2012, 16 percent of those aged 18 to 29 had no credit cards at all. That's up from 9 percent in 2005, before the recession.'
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/more-young-people-ditching-credit-cards/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F06%2F20%2Fbusiness%2Fficodebt%2Fficodebt-blog480.jpg&hash=755635bd96a235d52d74c42f3a2b69adf1513cb5)
Best news in this thread yet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 09:47:17 PM
Best news in this thread yet.
Until their poor credit rating due to no credit makes them unemployable.
We're talking bigger picture here.
How is that good? No job + student loans = poor economic picture, with or without credit card debt.
Capitalism = Bad according to CdM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 10:18:51 PM
Capitalism = Bad according to CdM
Paying interest for the sake of interest = Bad according to Augustine
Paying money to someone to use money = Bad according to Aristotle
So go fuck yourself, you stupid fucking Wall Street nigger bitch.
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:16:57 PM
How is that good? No job + student loans = poor economic picture, with or without credit card debt.
Because those young people will become detached from the system and hopefully more violent.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 10:23:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 10:18:51 PM
Capitalism = Bad according to CdM
Paying interest for the sake of interest = Bad according to Augustine
Paying money to someone to use money = Bad according to Aristotle
So go fuck yourself, you stupid fucking Wall Street nigger bitch.
Gots to pay to play.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 10:23:15 PM
Paying interest for the sake of interest = Bad according to Augustine
Paying money to someone to use money = Bad according to Aristotle
So go fuck yourself, you stupid fucking Wall Street nigger bitch.
I agree that minimizing credit card debt is good. I'm just concerned with how doing that is going to affect these kids' hire-ability.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 10:23:15 PM
Paying interest for the sake of interest = Bad according to Augustine
Paying money to someone to use money = Bad according to Aristotle
As bad as capitalism is, it beats the heck out of the classical slave economy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 20, 2013, 10:33:14 PM
As bad as capitalism is, it beats the heck out of the classical slave economy.
As opposed to the current slave economy. Gotcha.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 07:49:39 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 19, 2013, 07:45:09 AM
I dunno... laughing at her for not putting the cash nexus first seems kind of like something a bitter, grown-up nerd would do.
Not putting the cash nexus first is how people end up with 8 useless degrees and $200K in student debt.
After about $100k it's Monopoly money.
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 09:26:56 AM
Yeah, if anything I would think this shift from "ZOMG I WANT TO ACTUALIZE MY INNER ANGST THROUGH MUSIC!" to "I want to become a teacher" is a pretty significantly positive adjustment.
:yes:
She knows she has to do something, and the teaching is at least an almost guaranteed job
Hahaha. Oh God, you mean it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 09:47:17 PM
Best news in this thread yet.
Sure. If you like nondischargeable debt taken on to pay for an intangible good.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 20, 2013, 11:11:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 09:47:17 PM
Best news in this thread yet.
Sure. If you like nondischargeable debt taken on to pay for an intangible good.
There is nothing wrong with a newer generation learning not to want to buy things they can't afford. It will restore balance.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 20, 2013, 10:33:14 PM
As bad as capitalism is, it beats the heck out of the classical slave economy.
As opposed to the current slave economy. Gotcha.
Your metaphorical cross doesn't hurt like a real one. :contract:
How will they build credit?
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:07:54 PM
Until their poor credit rating due to no credit makes them unemployable.
It almost makes CdM's conspiracy theories about us all being slaves seem plausible that this is your reaction to young people taking on less %20+ interest unsecured loans. :lol:
It is sort of messed up that having a decent sense of math and your own interests would make you unemployable.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 05:18:41 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:07:54 PM
Until their poor credit rating due to no credit makes them unemployable.
It almost makes CdM's conspiracy theories about us all being slaves seem plausible that this is your reaction to young people taking on less %20+ interest unsecured loans. :lol:
It is sort of messed up that having a decent sense of math and your own interests would make you unemployable.
Or you could just make purchases on your credit card(s) that you could already afford to pay.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 06:47:14 AM
Or you could just make purchases on your credit card(s) that you could already afford to pay.
Or you could just make purchases with cash. Last I heard, there's no interest charged to do that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 06:48:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 06:47:14 AM
Or you could just make purchases on your credit card(s) that you could already afford to pay.
Or you could just make purchases with cash. Last I heard, there's no interest charged to do that.
And develop no credit. Besides it isn't like you have interest if you pay off your monthly balance.
Not really.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 07:15:27 AM
Not really.
Yes it is. The FICO score is a: I love debt lots and love to be in it as much as possible score. I will never understand why this is considered a mark of excellent responsibility.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 06:47:14 AM
Or you could just make purchases on your credit card(s) that you could already afford to pay.
Yes I am going to take out a super high interest loan unnecessarily!!111
So responsible, hire this person immediately!
Credit scores, at least in Canada, scores how well you pay off debt. Low debt with consistent payment= High score. Just having more credit available without taking the debt lowers your score. I got a line of credit (untouched) and I went down like 15 points.
There is nothing wrong with responsible credit card use. Racking up the purchases and paying off the minimum is not responsible use.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 07:15:27 AM
Not really.
Yeah, you can't really call it a debt. Maybe a debt record, but if you're paying it off, it's not really debt.
Quote from: HVC on June 21, 2013, 07:50:51 AM
Credit scores, at least in Canada, scores how well you pay off debt. Low debt with consistent payment= High score. Just having more credit available without taking the debt lowers your score. I got a line of credit (untouched) and I went down like 15 points.
Yep.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 07:46:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 07:15:27 AM
Not really.
Yes it is. The FICO score is a: I love debt lots and love to be in it as much as possible score. I will never understand why this is considered a mark of excellent responsibility.
:huh: I've never had debt not paid off immediately until I leased my car, and my FICO score has been consistently near 800.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 10:23:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 10:18:51 PM
Capitalism = Bad according to CdM
Paying interest for the sake of interest = Bad according to Augustine
Paying money to someone to use money = Bad according to Aristotle
So go fuck yourself, you stupid fucking Wall Street nigger bitch.
What do they know? They lived in a different world.
That having been said, I am disinclined to play the credit game, but if I took a stand it would be my family that suffered.
Strangely, as far as I know, my credit score has never mattered to me in any way. Maybe it did out of my knowledge. I have no idea what my credit score is.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 06:50:39 AM
And develop no credit. Besides it isn't like you have interest if you pay off your monthly balance.
And that barely helps your credit. In order to build credit, you have to carry a balance and pay monthly. To pay it off each month doesn't help your credit much at all.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 06:50:39 AM
And develop no credit. Besides it isn't like you have interest if you pay off your monthly balance.
And that barely helps your credit. In order to build credit, you have to carry a balance and pay monthly. To pay it off each month doesn't help your credit much at all.
Not true at all.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 08:59:00 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 06:50:39 AM
And develop no credit. Besides it isn't like you have interest if you pay off your monthly balance.
And that barely helps your credit. In order to build credit, you have to carry a balance and pay monthly. To pay it off each month doesn't help your credit much at all.
Not true at all.
Absolutely true. If your score is high, it has little to do with you paying your credit cards off each month and probably everything to do with a car loan (debt), a mortgage (debt), or a student loan (debt) that you've carried and paid on each month.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 08:46:54 AM
Strangely, as far as I know, my credit score has never mattered to me in any way. Maybe it did out of my knowledge. I have no idea what my credit score is.
Sadly I actually have no idea. I've only known in on occasion as I've had to submit it for rental applications.
edit: Actually I don't know that I've ever known my credit score, only just seen my credit report! :o
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 07:47:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 06:47:14 AM
Or you could just make purchases on your credit card(s) that you could already afford to pay.
Yes I am going to take out a super high interest loan unnecessarily!!111
So responsible, hire this person immediately!
:huh:
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 08:46:54 AM
Strangely, as far as I know, my credit score has never mattered to me in any way. Maybe it did out of my knowledge. I have no idea what my credit score is.
That is perhaps because your family income is in the sort of range that even if you had no credit history nobody would care and if you do have a credit history it is most likely excellent.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:00:57 AM
Absolutely true. If your score is high, it has little to do with you paying your credit cards off each month and probably everything to do with a car loan (debt), a mortgage (debt), or a student loan (debt) that you've carried and paid on each month.
I had a score of 790 before I had any of those things. Since then the only debt I ever had was a car lease, which I think counts as a car loan.
I borrow cars sometimes.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 08:46:54 AM
Strangely, as far as I know, my credit score has never mattered to me in any way. Maybe it did out of my knowledge. I have no idea what my credit score is.
Sadly I actually have no idea. I've only known in on occasion as I've had to submit it for rental applications.
edit: Actually I don't know that I've ever known my credit score, only just seen my credit report! :o
The people I rented from for a decade before buying my house would not have known what a credit score was, and they certainly did not ask us to submit any - in fact, we never signed any sort of contract with them: handshake only. They were a very naive (if lovely) old Ukranian couple, who mostly rented to us because they could talk to my wife in their language.
We did borrow a lot of cash from my wife's credit union when we bought our place, but they were not concerned about the risk because we were paying half down. We were able to negotiate a pretty good deal, and they never asked us to produce credit reports.
I've never leased a car - we always buy.
They don't ask you to produce a credit report; they just check automatically as they process your loan application.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 09:14:43 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 08:46:54 AM
Strangely, as far as I know, my credit score has never mattered to me in any way. Maybe it did out of my knowledge. I have no idea what my credit score is.
That is perhaps because your family income is in the sort of range that even if you had no credit history nobody would care and if you do have a credit history it is most likely excellent.
:yes:
Credit scores are for middle-class and poor people.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:00:57 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 08:59:00 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 06:50:39 AM
And develop no credit. Besides it isn't like you have interest if you pay off your monthly balance.
And that barely helps your credit. In order to build credit, you have to carry a balance and pay monthly. To pay it off each month doesn't help your credit much at all.
Not true at all.
Absolutely true. If your score is high, it has little to do with you paying your credit cards off each month and probably everything to do with a car loan (debt), a mortgage (debt), or a student loan (debt) that you've carried and paid on each month.
are credit scores really that different down there? Mortgages don't count here and you score goes down if you carry a high debt balance. Don't know if student loans show up, never had one.
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 09:29:22 AM
They don't ask you to produce a credit report; they just check automatically as they process your loan application.
Makes sense. As I said, people could be checking this stuff all the time, and I would not know it.
Quote from: HVC on June 21, 2013, 09:31:22 AM
are credit scores really that different down there? Mortgages don't count here and you score goes down if you carry a high debt balance. Don't know if student loans show up, never had one.
No, that's the same here, but it's a ratio of debt to income, not an absolute debt amount.
So, if you have $10,000 in debt (not including mortgage), make $100,000 a year, and pay regularly, you have good credit. If, however, you have $10,000 in debt (not including mortgage), make $20,000 a year and pay regularly, your score isn't going to be as high.
Student loans very much show up on your credit report down here. Missing one payment can, in fact, result in 12-15 "slow payment" hits on your credit report; one for each semester loan you took out.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 09:17:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:00:57 AM
Absolutely true. If your score is high, it has little to do with you paying your credit cards off each month and probably everything to do with a car loan (debt), a mortgage (debt), or a student loan (debt) that you've carried and paid on each month.
I had a score of 790 before I had any of those things. Since then the only debt I ever had was a car lease, which I think counts as a car loan.
And you've never carried any credit card debt over from one month to the next? Every single month of your life, you've paid off your credit cards? You had no student loans, either?
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:29:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 09:14:43 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 08:46:54 AM
Strangely, as far as I know, my credit score has never mattered to me in any way. Maybe it did out of my knowledge. I have no idea what my credit score is.
That is perhaps because your family income is in the sort of range that even if you had no credit history nobody would care and if you do have a credit history it is most likely excellent.
:yes:
Credit scores are for middle-class and poor people.
I'm no banking dude, but I suspect the way it works is that credit scores are important if you want to borrow money but don't have any assets to put up as security for the loan.
Once you have an asset (like a fully paid-off house), I'd assume that the existence of the asset is more important than the credit score.
Of course, upper middle class and rich people are more likely to own assets they can use for security. The net result being that, on average, the poorer you are, the more important the credit score.
In my case though, I've gone from being poor to upper middle class, but for various reasons I've never experienced the credit score as significant.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 09:41:27 AM
I'm no banking dude, but I suspect the way it works is that credit scores are important if you want to borrow money but don't have any assets to put up as security for the loan.
Once you have an asset (like a fully paid-off house), I'd assume that the existence of the asset is more important than the credit score.
Of course, upper middle class and rich people are more likely to own assets they can use for security. The net result being that, on average, the poorer you are, the more important the credit score.
In my case though, I've gone from being poor to upper middle class, but for various reasons I've never experienced the credit score as significant.
That's exactly it. Think of it as the "you have to have money to make money" kind of thing. If you have money, then getting a loan is easy. Those who need it most are the least likely to be able to get a loan, because they show as the highest risk.
One more way to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. :)
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:43:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 09:41:27 AM
I'm no banking dude, but I suspect the way it works is that credit scores are important if you want to borrow money but don't have any assets to put up as security for the loan.
Once you have an asset (like a fully paid-off house), I'd assume that the existence of the asset is more important than the credit score.
Of course, upper middle class and rich people are more likely to own assets they can use for security. The net result being that, on average, the poorer you are, the more important the credit score.
In my case though, I've gone from being poor to upper middle class, but for various reasons I've never experienced the credit score as significant.
That's exactly it. Think of it as the "you have to have money to make money" kind of thing. If you have money, then getting a loan is easy. Those who need it most are the least likely to be able to get a loan, because they show as the highest risk.
One more way to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. :)
Hey, it's
easy to get a loan if you are poor - at least, so those ads for payday loan places keep telling me. ;)
But yeah, basically. Banks want to loan money to people who don't need it, because of the risk factor.
There is also this - if you owe the bank $100,000, the bank owns you; but if you owe the bank $500,000,000, you own the bank. ;)
Do poor people really need loans they can't afford to pay back?
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:40:37 AM
And you've never carried any credit card debt over from one month to the next? Every single month of your life, you've paid off your credit cards? You had no student loans, either?
Occasionally I forgot to make a payment on time, but other than that, no, I've never carried a credit card balance. That's a very, very ruinous financial habit. I didn't have any student loans either, I had a full scholarship.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:43:21 AM
That's exactly it. Think of it as the "you have to have money to make money" kind of thing. If you have money, then getting a loan is easy. Those who need it most are the least likely to be able to get a loan, because they show as the highest risk.
One more way to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. :)
Joke?
Lending money to the rich typically doesn't make them richer and denying loans to the poor typically doesn't make them poorer.
Indeed. It seems that it is actually lending money to poor people that makes them poorer. You give them a student loan, and then they waste the money on a degree, which is totally worthless.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:43:21 AM
That's exactly it. Think of it as the "you have to have money to make money" kind of thing. If you have money, then getting a loan is easy. Those who need it most are the least likely to be able to get a loan, because they show as the highest risk.
One more way to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. :)
Joke?
Lending money to the rich typically doesn't make them richer and denying loans to the poor typically doesn't make them poorer.
Depends on what you do with the money. Having access to credit will definitely make you richer if you have a good investment idea (which may be as simple as buying a house to live in in some areas).
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:43:21 AM
One more way to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. :)
Except that both Malthus and I have gone from being poor to being fairly well off.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:43:21 AM
That's exactly it. Think of it as the "you have to have money to make money" kind of thing. If you have money, then getting a loan is easy. Those who need it most are the least likely to be able to get a loan, because they show as the highest risk.
One more way to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. :)
Joke?
Lending money to the rich typically doesn't make them richer and denying loans to the poor typically doesn't make them poorer.
Access to available credit significantly enhances your ability to make money, and lack of access can be crippling.
To take a common example, the ability to borrow to pay for an education is a major asset.
Obviously, if you are borrowing to pay for hookers and blow, that's a different story. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:09:09 AM
To take a common example, the ability to borrow to pay for an education is a major asset.
Access to credit for education is, in most developed countries, completely divorced from credit-worthiness.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:09:09 AM
Access to available credit significantly enhances your ability to make money, and lack of access can be crippling.
To take a common example, the ability to borrow to pay for an education is a major asset.
Obviously, if you are borrowing to pay for hookers and blow, that's a different story. :lol:
As DGuller said it depends on what the money was used for. Two of the things you and I have in common is that we obtained our educations through, then, highly subsidized educational systems (both in terms of the cost of university educations and the student loans to pay for those costs) and we both were frugal when our incomes increased (although lately you maintain the discipline much better than I do).
In the result we both now have a standard of living which is much higher than we otherwise would have had. But both sides of that equation are important - the money to obtain an asset and spending less than we make.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:09:09 AM
To take a common example, the ability to borrow to pay for an education is a major asset.
Access to credit for education is, in most developed countries, completely divorced from credit-worthiness.
How about borrowing money to start up a business? Even buying a truck and lawnmower to do some landscaping requires cash.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:09:09 AM
To take a common example, the ability to borrow to pay for an education is a major asset.
Access to credit for education is, in most developed countries, completely divorced from credit-worthiness.
Not entirely true. Your parents' ability to get a loan can affect what school you go to, or even if you can go to school. Our credit is factored in for Parent Loans, which are part of the Financial Aid Package that's developed through the FAFSA.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:17:13 AM
How about borrowing money to start up a business? Even buying a truck and lawnmower to do some landscaping requires cash.
Note I said typically. Of course leverage *can* magnify wealth creation. It can also magnify wealth destruction if your investment goes in the shitter.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:14:48 AM
As DGuller said it depends on what the money was used for. Two of the things you and I have in common is that we obtained our educations through, then, highly subsidized educational systems (both in terms of the cost of university educations and the student loans to pay for those costs) and we both were frugal when our incomes increased (although lately you maintain the discipline much better than I do).
In the result we both now have a standard of living which is much higher than we otherwise would have had. But both sides of that equation are important - the money to obtain an asset and spending less than we make.
Certainly.
Indeed, I did one better than most people - my undergraduate education was entirely free to me, thanks to a very useful perk my dad got by being a prof at the same university I went to. :D
But yeah, of course doing well financially requires that borrowing be for sensible purposes. Borrowing for pure consumption makes no financial sense whatsoever. But having access to credit to increase one's ability to earn is vital.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:21:10 AM
But having access to credit to increase one's ability to earn is vital.
Agreed.
Btw having a university prof as a dad means you were not poor. :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:21:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:14:48 AM
As DGuller said it depends on what the money was used for. Two of the things you and I have in common is that we obtained our educations through, then, highly subsidized educational systems (both in terms of the cost of university educations and the student loans to pay for those costs) and we both were frugal when our incomes increased (although lately you maintain the discipline much better than I do).
In the result we both now have a standard of living which is much higher than we otherwise would have had. But both sides of that equation are important - the money to obtain an asset and spending less than we make.
Certainly.
Indeed, I did one better than most people - my undergraduate education was entirely free to me, thanks to a very useful perk my dad got by being a prof at the same university I went to. :D
But yeah, of course doing well financially requires that borrowing be for sensible purposes. Borrowing for pure consumption makes no financial sense whatsoever. But having access to credit to increase one's ability to earn is vital.
Exactly. Well said.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:17:13 AM
How about borrowing money to start up a business? Even buying a truck and lawnmower to do some landscaping requires cash.
Note I said typically. Of course leverage *can* magnify wealth creation. It can also magnify wealth destruction if your investment goes in the shitter.
The point is not that there can be an upside and a downside - take that as given. If you borrow for pure consuption, or if you borrow to invest and your investment crashes, you can indeed be worse off.
But here's my point:
if you can't borrow, it is very difficult to increase your earning powers through entreprenureal means. In short, while borrowing has an upside and a downside, you would find it very difficult to experience any "upside" without access to credit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:22:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:21:10 AM
But having access to credit to increase one's ability to earn is vital.
Agreed.
Btw having a university prof as a dad means you were not poor. :P
Evidently you do not know my dad. :lol:
But yeah, I certainly came from a family with advantages - everyone in it was highly educated. That did not stop me, personally, from lacking any money as a young dude, particularly when attempting to live on the wages of a potter's assistant. :D
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
Evidently you do not know my dad. :lol:
But yeah, I certainly came from a family with advantages - everyone in it was highly educated. That did not stop me, personally, from lacking any money as a young dude, particularly when attempting to live on the wages of a potter's assistant. :D
:rolleyes: Malthus, just because your dad didn't give you allowance when you went to college doesn't make you poor.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 10:29:27 AM
:rolleyes: Malthus, just because your dad didn't give you allowance when you went to college doesn't make you poor.
I'm thinking more of the years I spent working after I went to university and realized my degree in anthropology wasn't exactly breaking down employment doors.
I can still remember the flavour of Ramen noodles. :D
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:25:24 AM
The point is not that there can be an upside and a downside - take that as given. If you borrow for pure consuption, or if you borrow to invest and your investment crashes, you can indeed be worse off.
But here's my point: if you can't borrow, it is very difficult to increase your earning powers through entreprenureal means. In short, while borrowing has an upside and a downside, you would find it very difficult to experience any "upside" without access to credit.
No argument. If you look back, the original proposition was that the system has the effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The fact that the rich have an option that the poor do not does not prove that thesis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 10:33:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:25:24 AM
The point is not that there can be an upside and a downside - take that as given. If you borrow for pure consuption, or if you borrow to invest and your investment crashes, you can indeed be worse off.
But here's my point: if you can't borrow, it is very difficult to increase your earning powers through entreprenureal means. In short, while borrowing has an upside and a downside, you would find it very difficult to experience any "upside" without access to credit.
No argument. If you look back, the original proposition was that the system has the effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The fact that the rich have an option that the poor do not does not prove that thesis.
How about: 'lack of ability to access credit makes it more difficult for the poor to become rich'?
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 10:29:27 AM
:rolleyes: Malthus, just because your dad didn't give you allowance when you went to college doesn't make you poor.
I'm thinking more of the years I spent working after I went to university and realized my degree in anthropology wasn't exactly breaking down employment doors.
I can still remember the flavour of Ramen noodles. :D
Doesn't matter. Being poor means you have no assets and no social standing to tap into. It's about not having a choice. You did not have means at ready disposal for a while, but that was by choice. Your dad chose not to support you, and you chose not to push the issue. People that are truly poor don't really have a choice in the matter.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
Evidently you do not know my dad. :lol:
But yeah, I certainly came from a family with advantages - everyone in it was highly educated. That did not stop me, personally, from lacking any money as a young dude, particularly when attempting to live on the wages of a potter's assistant. :D
I would argue that voluntary poverty is significantly different from real poverty. If you were ever in real trouble you knew you had a family with some means to assist you. In other words, you may not have had money to spend but you were never poor.
The biggest part of being poor is the constant threat of not being able to provide the necessities of life. If you have never missed a proper meal because your parents could not afford to feed you that night/week then I would say you have never been poor.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:36:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
Evidently you do not know my dad. :lol:
But yeah, I certainly came from a family with advantages - everyone in it was highly educated. That did not stop me, personally, from lacking any money as a young dude, particularly when attempting to live on the wages of a potter's assistant. :D
I would argue that voluntary poverty is significantly different from real poverty. If you were ever in real trouble you knew you had a family with some means to assist you. In other words, you may not have had money to spend but you were never poor.
The biggest part of being poor is the constant threat of not being able to provide the necessities of life. If you have never missed a proper meal because your parents could not afford to feed you that night/week then I would say you have never been poor.
:yes: Better said.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:36:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
Evidently you do not know my dad. :lol:
But yeah, I certainly came from a family with advantages - everyone in it was highly educated. That did not stop me, personally, from lacking any money as a young dude, particularly when attempting to live on the wages of a potter's assistant. :D
I would argue that voluntary poverty is significantly different from real poverty. If you were ever in real trouble you knew you had a family with some means to assist you. In other words, you may not have had money to spend but you were never poor.
The biggest part of being poor is the constant threat of not being able to provide the necessities of life. If you have never missed a proper meal because your parents could not afford to feed you that night/week then I would say you have never been poor.
Fair enough, I was never "poor" in that sense, because if I was literally dying of starvation my parents would not let that happen, and had the ability to prevent it. Not that they would give me a dime otherwise, mind.
What simple, one-word description should one use to mean, "when I was young I had no money because I could not earn very much, what little I did earn went to basic stuff like food and accomodation, my parents had made it perfectly clear it was up to me now and they would not help out [unless I was dying], and I feared that unless I did something different, I never do any better"? I've been using "I was poor" for that.
But Malthus, you always had a saftey net that people who are poor dont have.
You were just the poor little rich kid.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
But Malthus, you always had a saftey net that people who are poor dont have.
You were just the poor little rich kid.
Fine. Assume I went on being a 'poor little rich kid' and living in communal houses working as a potter's assistant or whatever.
Would I still be a 'poor little rich kid' in my middle 40s, or would I be genuinely "poor"? :D
I think what you are missing from the equation is the possibility of actual downward social mobility - something I've seen in my friends (the few I have left) from those days.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:25:24 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:17:13 AM
How about borrowing money to start up a business? Even buying a truck and lawnmower to do some landscaping requires cash.
Note I said typically. Of course leverage *can* magnify wealth creation. It can also magnify wealth destruction if your investment goes in the shitter.
The point is not that there can be an upside and a downside - take that as given. If you borrow for pure consuption, or if you borrow to invest and your investment crashes, you can indeed be worse off.
But here's my point: if you can't borrow, it is very difficult to increase your earning powers through entreprenureal means. In short, while borrowing has an upside and a downside, you would find it very difficult to experience any "upside" without access to credit.
What percentage of people are actually making money through entrepreneurial means? I mean even if credit was freely available to everyone, I feel like there are lots of people who aren't really in the entrepreneurial vein.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:42:45 AM
Fair enough, I was never "poor" in that sense, because if I was literally dying of starvation my parents would not let that happen, and had the ability to prevent it. Not that they would give me a dime otherwise, mind.
What simple, one-word description should one use to mean, "when I was young I had no money because I could not earn very much, what little I did earn went to basic stuff like food and accomodation, my parents had made it perfectly clear it was up to me now and they would not help out [unless I was dying], and I feared that unless I did something different, I never do any better"? I've been using "I was poor" for that.
I believe "not living up to your potential" would work, but that's more than one word. ;)
That being said, I have to agree with DG and CC. Having been truly poor most of my life - no connections, no fall-back, no safety net - your situation and mine are vastly different. On top of that, having educated, well-off parents means that you learned life skills from your youth forward that sustained you, skills that I had to learn on my own as an adult after making a myriad of mistakes learned from my parents.
That doesn't mean that one can't overcome that - my siblings definitely have - but it's much harder.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:42:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:36:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
Evidently you do not know my dad. :lol:
But yeah, I certainly came from a family with advantages - everyone in it was highly educated. That did not stop me, personally, from lacking any money as a young dude, particularly when attempting to live on the wages of a potter's assistant. :D
I would argue that voluntary poverty is significantly different from real poverty. If you were ever in real trouble you knew you had a family with some means to assist you. In other words, you may not have had money to spend but you were never poor.
The biggest part of being poor is the constant threat of not being able to provide the necessities of life. If you have never missed a proper meal because your parents could not afford to feed you that night/week then I would say you have never been poor.
Fair enough, I was never "poor" in that sense, because if I was literally dying of starvation my parents would not let that happen, and had the ability to prevent it. Not that they would give me a dime otherwise, mind.
What simple, one-word description should one use to mean, "when I was young I had no money because I could not earn very much, what little I did earn went to basic stuff like food and accomodation, my parents had made it perfectly clear it was up to me now and they would not help out [unless I was dying], and I feared that unless I did something different, I never do any better"? I've been using "I was poor" for that.
Now that you have edited this I will respond more fully.
Malthus, you are focusing only on the period after you left your family home. What about all those years you were growing up? Hardly poverty. And I doubt very much your family would have waited until you were on your death bed before they gave you assistance if you really needed it.
Your story is the same as all other upper/middle class kids who went out on their own. You lived off what you made but you were never poor in the sense that you have never been in situation where you doubted where your next meal might come from. You have never had to rely on handouts from the community. Your biggest problem was that in your early years you did not earn enough to replicate the standard of living your parents gave you growing up. That is not poverty.
QuoteI think what you are missing from the equation is the possibility of actual downward social mobility - something I've seen in my friends (the few I have left) from those days
Sure, but the reason I didnt include it is because you didnt actually suffer it. The potential of downward mobility is something everyone risks to one degree or another. Except the poor :P If you have suffered downward mobility and had in fact become poor then we wouldnt be having this discussion. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:49:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
But Malthus, you always had a saftey net that people who are poor dont have.
You were just the poor little rich kid.
Fine. Assume I went on being a 'poor little rich kid' and living in communal houses working as a potter's assistant or whatever.
Would I still be a 'poor little rich kid' in my middle 40s, or would I be genuinely "poor"? :D
I think what you are missing from the equation is the possibility of actual downward social mobility - something I've seen in my friends (the few I have left) from those days.
I think that's always an interesting question - the same one tied in with social class and when does yours become divorced from that of one's parents. I guess to what you immediately said though, I wonder if you have to factor in potential inheritance amounts.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 10:51:35 AM
What percentage of people are actually making money through entrepreneurial means?
I bet those in private equity and venture capital are.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 10:54:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 10:51:35 AM
What percentage of people are actually making money through entrepreneurial means?
I bet those in private equity and venture capital are.
That doesn't answer my question but thanks for your snide aside.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 10:51:35 AM
What percentage of people are actually making money through entrepreneurial means? I mean even if credit was freely available to everyone, I feel like there are lots of people who aren't really in the entrepreneurial vein.
I was actually thinking things like cars and houses. If you have poor credit, you can't get a loan for a car, which limits your earning potential, not to mention the jobs you lose because of the poor credit. If you have poor credit, you can't get a mortgage, which limits your ability to build equity to help you build up your financial portfolio.
For the people that I know, buying a business is kind of low on the totem pole. Having a steady income and a permanent place to live, however... well, that's important.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 10:52:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:42:45 AM
Fair enough, I was never "poor" in that sense, because if I was literally dying of starvation my parents would not let that happen, and had the ability to prevent it. Not that they would give me a dime otherwise, mind.
What simple, one-word description should one use to mean, "when I was young I had no money because I could not earn very much, what little I did earn went to basic stuff like food and accomodation, my parents had made it perfectly clear it was up to me now and they would not help out [unless I was dying], and I feared that unless I did something different, I never do any better"? I've been using "I was poor" for that.
I believe "not living up to your potential" would work, but that's more than one word. ;)
That being said, I have to agree with DG and CC. Having been truly poor most of my life - no connections, no fall-back, no safety net - your situation and mine are vastly different. On top of that, having educated, well-off parents means that you learned life skills from your youth forward that sustained you, skills that I had to learn on my own as an adult after making a myriad of mistakes learned from my parents.
That doesn't mean that one can't overcome that - my siblings definitely have - but it's much harder.
That's all fair enough, but two people's situations don't have to be identical to be covered by the same word.
Being poor simply means having no money.
The fact is that none of you can come up with a better term. There certainly is a distinction between "I was poor in the sense that I, personally, had no money, but I came from an educated middle class family" and "I was poor because my parents had literally nothing", sure. But both people are "poor".
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 10:53:13 AM
I think that's always an interesting question - the same one tied in with social class and when does yours become divorced from that of one's parents. I guess to what you immediately said though, I wonder if you have to factor in potential inheritance amounts.
In my case that would not help much.
My grandparents on both sides lived to an inordinately elderly age - my grandma on my dad's side lived to be 95.
My parents are still very spry in their middle 70s, chances are I would not inherit until I myself was in my 60s. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
The fact is that none of you can come up with a better term.
"Slumming." :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
That's all fair enough, but two people's situations don't have to be identical to be covered by the same word.
Being poor simply means having no money.
The fact is that none of you can come up with a better term. There certainly is a distinction between "I was poor in the sense that I, personally, had no money, but I came from an educated middle class family" and "I was poor because my parents had literally nothing", sure. But both people are "poor".
I'd say the distinction is between "broke" and "poor". You were broke; I was poor.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 10:55:03 AM
That doesn't answer my question but thanks for your snide aside.
:P "Snide Aside". I like that. That will be my production company's name.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 11:08:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 10:55:03 AM
That doesn't answer my question but thanks for your snide aside.
:P "Snide Aside". I like that. That will be my production company's name.
:D
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
That's all fair enough, but two people's situations don't have to be identical to be covered by the same word.
Being poor simply means having no money.
The fact is that none of you can come up with a better term. There certainly is a distinction between "I was poor in the sense that I, personally, had no money, but I came from an educated middle class family" and "I was poor because my parents had literally nothing", sure. But both people are "poor".
I'd say the distinction is between "broke" and "poor". You were broke; I was poor.
No, because "broke" means a purely temporary condition - having literally no money at that particular moment. "Wanna go out for drinks tonight? - Naw, I can't, I'm broke until payday"
I was never "broke". I had money, because I worked. I just had very
little money, because I only earned a little. In short, I was what most people (except I guess languishites) call "poor". ;)
Couple of months ago, I stepped out of my apartment and forgot my wallet, with all the cash and credit/debit cards inside. That brief period of poverty was very traumatic. :( Never again! :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 11:13:14 AM
Couple of months ago, I stepped out of my apartment and forgot my wallet, with all the cash and credit/debit cards inside. That brief period of poverty was very traumatic. :( Never again! :mad:
I assume it took until now for you to find your way back again? :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 11:12:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
That's all fair enough, but two people's situations don't have to be identical to be covered by the same word.
Being poor simply means having no money.
The fact is that none of you can come up with a better term. There certainly is a distinction between "I was poor in the sense that I, personally, had no money, but I came from an educated middle class family" and "I was poor because my parents had literally nothing", sure. But both people are "poor".
I'd say the distinction is between "broke" and "poor". You were broke; I was poor.
No, because "broke" means a purely temporary condition - having literally no money at that particular moment. "Wanna go out for drinks tonight? - Naw, I can't, I'm broke until payday"
I was never "broke". I had money, because I worked. I just had very little money, because I only earned a little. In short, I was what most people (except I guess languishites) call "poor". ;)
Maybe it is voluntary poverty vs. not - particularly when there still at the end of the day is a safety net that could help you out.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 11:13:14 AM
Couple of months ago, I stepped out of my apartment and forgot my wallet, with all the cash and credit/debit cards inside. That brief period of poverty was very traumatic. :( Never again! :mad:
Same when I lost my wallet in Paris and had access to 4 Euros that I promptly spent on a beer.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 11:12:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
That's all fair enough, but two people's situations don't have to be identical to be covered by the same word.
Being poor simply means having no money.
The fact is that none of you can come up with a better term. There certainly is a distinction between "I was poor in the sense that I, personally, had no money, but I came from an educated middle class family" and "I was poor because my parents had literally nothing", sure. But both people are "poor".
I'd say the distinction is between "broke" and "poor". You were broke; I was poor.
No, because "broke" means a purely temporary condition - having literally no money at that particular moment. "Wanna go out for drinks tonight? - Naw, I can't, I'm broke until payday"
I was never "broke". I had money, because I worked. I just had very little money, because I only earned a little. In short, I was what most people (except I guess languishites) call "poor". ;)
Maybe it is voluntary poverty vs. not - particularly when there still at the end of the day is a safety net that could help you out.
Exactly. The point being that it was a temporary thing for you, and given your opportunites, was always going to be a temporary thing for you.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 11:12:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
That's all fair enough, but two people's situations don't have to be identical to be covered by the same word.
Being poor simply means having no money.
The fact is that none of you can come up with a better term. There certainly is a distinction between "I was poor in the sense that I, personally, had no money, but I came from an educated middle class family" and "I was poor because my parents had literally nothing", sure. But both people are "poor".
I'd say the distinction is between "broke" and "poor". You were broke; I was poor.
No, because "broke" means a purely temporary condition - having literally no money at that particular moment. "Wanna go out for drinks tonight? - Naw, I can't, I'm broke until payday"
I was never "broke". I had money, because I worked. I just had very little money, because I only earned a little. In short, I was what most people (except I guess languishites) call "poor". ;)
Maybe it is voluntary poverty vs. not - particularly when there still at the end of the day is a safety net that could help you out.
Exactly. The point being that it was a temporary thing for you, and given your opportunites, was always going to be a temporary thing for you.
Well always "potentially" temporary. He could conceivably have continued to live that way, by choice.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Maybe it is voluntary poverty vs. not - particularly when there still at the end of the day is a safety net that could help you out.
I don't get why you people are saying it was "voluntary". :huh: Like I could someow just
choose to be earning more, or if I just asked, my parents would give me an income.
Sure they would not literally allow me to
starve, but in Canada, that's not a realistic possibility anyway.
They had made it pretty clear that, in their opinions, I was on my own.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:16:38 AM
Exactly. The point being that it was a temporary thing for you, and given your opportunites, was always going to be a temporary thing for you.
I dunno, seems that plenty of folks with a useless BA can't just wave that magic wand and get a high-paying job these days from "choice" - hence this thread.
I don't know Canadian inheritance laws but generally speaking being in line for money is worth money.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 11:19:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Maybe it is voluntary poverty vs. not - particularly when there still at the end of the day is a safety net that could help you out.
I don't get why you people are saying it was "voluntary". :huh: Like I could someow just choose to be earning more, or if I just asked, my parents would give me an income.
Sure they would not literally allow me to starve, but in Canada, that's not a realistic possibility anyway.
They had made it pretty clear that, in their opinions, I was on my own.
Because you clearly had the talent/skills/connections to do better things? ;)
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 10:52:08 AMOn top of that, having educated, well-off parents means that you learned life skills from your youth forward that sustained you, skills that I had to learn on my own as an adult after making a myriad of mistakes learned from my parents.
That doesn't mean that one can't overcome that - my siblings definitely have - but it's much harder.
I dunno, I'd say I learned those life skills BECAUSE my parents were poor. :P
I count having that background as an advantage. I learned that it doesn't matter how much or how hard you work. Life does not reward work. It rewards risk.
Hey, Malthus, I'm curious. How long was it between your undergrad degree and law school?
And I should also say that I'm not discounting that it was a difficult time for you. What I'm saying is that while you may have been less well off than your parents, it doesn't sound like you were ever really poor, as I understand it. You had a home, food, clothing, and necessities, and you had the ability to progress. From my perspective, that's not poor so much as not rich.
In my case, there were days without food unless we were fed by the school or the neighbors (which is why I lived with my neighbors for several years). Clothes came from the church, not a store. And government cheese and milk weren't a "perk", they were a necessity.
I don't consider myself poor now, though I'm by no means wealthy. I have a home, I have food, and I have the necessities to get by. Not a whole lot extra, but certainly not where I was as a child. I am, however, frequently broke. :D
Gave Teh Malthus Issue a little thought. "I have been poor," is OK. "I used to be poor" or "I was poor" is misleading.
"I have once seen a poor" is OK.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 11:59:18 AM
Gave Teh Malthus Issue a little thought. "I have been poor," is OK. "I used to be poor" or "I was poor" is misleading.
That seems fair.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 11:59:18 AM
Gave Teh Malthus Issue a little thought. "I have been poor," is OK. "I used to be poor" or "I was poor" is misleading.
:hmm: This is one of those times I wish English were my first language.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 12:07:29 PM
:hmm: This is one of those times I wish English were my first language.
Try it like this:
"I have been poor," is OK. "I used to be a poor" or "I was a poor" is misleading.
Malthus,
Without wanting to pile on too much. There was a period in my childhood when my parents could not afford to buy new clothes for me. That was a problem because this was a period when I was growing rapidly. There were no charities that could provide clothes to me because who thinks to donate clothes of that size :)
Likely for me a local merchant offered a "deal" to my dad. The merchant gave me my clothes and allowed my dad to pay him back when he got the money - interest free. That is more in line with what I consider being poor.
When I got my first sholarship money I went to pay back the amount left over (my dad had paid back some but not all of the amount). The merchant refused the money and wished me luck.
I was fortunate to have recieved this kindness but obviously not all people recieve these benefits.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:50:05 AM
Hey, Malthus, I'm curious. How long was it between your undergrad degree and law school?
And I should also say that I'm not discounting that it was a difficult time for you. What I'm saying is that while you may have been less well off than your parents, it doesn't sound like you were ever really poor, as I understand it. You had a home, food, clothing, and necessities, and you had the ability to progress. From my perspective, that's not poor so much as not rich.
In my case, there were days without food unless we were fed by the school or the neighbors (which is why I lived with my neighbors for several years). Clothes came from the church, not a store. And government cheese and milk weren't a "perk", they were a necessity.
I don't consider myself poor now, though I'm by no means wealthy. I have a home, I have food, and I have the necessities to get by. Not a whole lot extra, but certainly not where I was as a child. I am, however, frequently broke. :D
Four years.
This ain't the third world, anyone who has to resort to ramen noodles on a regular basis can legitimately claim to be "poor".
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 12:08:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 12:07:29 PM
:hmm: This is one of those times I wish English were my first language.
Try it like this:
"I have been poor," is OK. "I used to be a poor" or "I was a poor" is misleading.
Does anyone ever say "I used to be a poor"?
In any event, I'm not seeing the significant difference here.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 12:07:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 11:59:18 AM
Gave Teh Malthus Issue a little thought. "I have been poor," is OK. "I used to be poor" or "I was poor" is misleading.
:hmm: This is one of those times I wish English were my first language.
Careful.
I have been naked. I used to be naked. I was naked.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 12:14:01 PM
In any event, I'm not seeing the significant difference here.
Have been denotes a temporary, passing condition.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 12:08:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 12:07:29 PM
:hmm: This is one of those times I wish English were my first language.
Try it like this:
"I have been poor," is OK. "I used to be a poor" or "I was a poor" is misleading.
:hmm: Still don't see the distinction.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 12:09:21 PM
Malthus,
Without wanting to pile on too much. There was a period in my childhood when my parents could not afford to buy new clothes for me. That was a problem because this was a period when I was growing rapidly. There were no charities that could provide clothes to me because who thinks to donate clothes of that size :)
Likely for me a local merchant offered a "deal" to my dad. The merchant gave me my clothes and allowed my dad to pay him back when he got the money - interest free. That is more in line with what I consider being poor.
When I got my first sholarship money I went to pay back the amount left over (my dad had paid back some but not all of the amount). The merchant refused the money and wished me luck.
I was fortunate to have recieved this kindness but obviously not all people recieve these benefits.
That's a wonderful anecdote, but I dunno how having a childhood deprived of clothes is
necessary to having an adulthood episode of being poor.
Again, you guys are simply ignoring the possibility of downward social mobility - presumably, according to you, everyone who has educated parents and who gets an undergraduate degree forefits forever any right to later consideration for being poor, because, you know, if they later lack the ability to earn money, it was just their voluntary
choice.
That I can't fathom. :huh: Particularly these days, when there are literally millions of folks who cannot, no matter what they do, get decent jobs even with a BA.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 12:14:01 PM
In any event, I'm not seeing the significant difference here.
Have been denotes a temporary, passing condition.
Used to be denotes a condition in the past, just like have been.
Have been does not, to my ear, imply temporary, just that it is past.
Malthus, I think what people take issue with is the fact that you want your narrative to be "I was poor, but I pulled myself up by my bootstraps to become a Jewish lawyer". In reality, your narrative should be "I grew up in a well-off highly-educated family, and did not piss away that good fortune".
Yes and no. He posts on Languish.
Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2013, 12:18:10 PM
I have been naked. I used to be naked. I was naked.
I was a naked.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 12:23:00 PM
Used to be denotes a condition in the past, just like have been.
Have been does not, to my ear, imply temporary, just that it is past.
I used to be shy around girls. I used to be a practicing Jew. Both of those strongly suggest to me that you started life in that condition and then the condition ended.
I have been shy around girls. It happens from time to time. I have been a practicing Jew. I briefly dated a religious Jewchick.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 12:23:56 PM
Malthus, I think what people take issue with is the fact that you want your narrative to be "I was poor, but I pulled myself up by my bootstraps to become a Jewish lawyer". In reality, your narrative should be "I grew up in a well-off highly-educated family, and did not piss away that good fortune".
But I never said anything of the sort.
My narrative was and always has been that I experienced what it was like to be poor, hated it (and feared that I'd be stuck there forever if I didn't do something about it, like half my friends at the time have proven to be), and went to law school to
escape that. Also, that this experience has made me cautious with money ever since.
I never made any secret of the fact that my family was highly educated, and in fact in this very thread triggered CC by pointing out that, as an undergrad, I had the distinct advantage of having my undergrad education free because my dad worked at the same university. How does me making a point of that fit with this fictional narrative you've saddled me with? :huh:
It is true that I paid my own way through law school, but at the time, that was easy to do because fees were heavily subsidized by the state.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 12:30:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 12:23:00 PM
Used to be denotes a condition in the past, just like have been.
Have been does not, to my ear, imply temporary, just that it is past.
I used to be shy around girls. I used to be a practicing Jew. Both of those strongly suggest to me that you started life in that condition and then the condition ended.
I have been shy around girls. It happens from time to time. I have been a practicing Jew. I briefly dated a religious Jewchick.
Unless you qualify it with other information, I would not distinguish between "I used to be a practicing Jew" and "I have been a practicing Jew".
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 12:33:54 PM
Unless you qualify it with other information, I would not distinguish between "I used to be a practicing Jew" and "I have been a practicing Jew".
I suggest you reconsider your position. For one thing, Meri is on my side. For another, I'm going to assign Raz the project of watching all of your posts to see if this interpretation is reflected in your own communication.
Fhdz used to be a Catholic. Fhdz has been a Catholic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 12:36:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 12:33:54 PM
Unless you qualify it with other information, I would not distinguish between "I used to be a practicing Jew" and "I have been a practicing Jew".
I suggest you reconsider your position. For one thing, Meri is on my side. For another, I'm going to assign Raz the project of watching all of your posts to see if this interpretation is reflected in your own communication.
Bringing out the nuclear option I see. :(
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 12:39:26 PM
Bringing out the nuclear option I see. :(
I'm playing for keeps.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 12:36:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 12:33:54 PM
Unless you qualify it with other information, I would not distinguish between "I used to be a practicing Jew" and "I have been a practicing Jew".
I suggest you reconsider your position. For one thing, Meri is on my side. For another, I'm going to assign Raz the project of watching all of your posts to see if this interpretation is reflected in your own communication.
:P
I'm not, really. I just see a distinction in levels of poverty that appears to be missing here.
From what Malthus has said, he just doesn't seem like he was all that poor. Not having money to go to a movie and not having money to eat are two different things. I mean, sure, eating Ramen Noodles isn't exactly gourmet, but unless you had it every meal for months at a time, I'm not sure why the fact that you've eaten them means anything.
If, however, you say that in fact, you weren't sure where your next meal was coming from, or you did, in fact, eat Ramen Noodles every meal every day for months at a time, then I'll happily revise my opinion.
I say that you weren't poor because, by the standards that I grew up with, you weren't. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 12:37:45 PM
Fhdz used to be a Catholic. Fhdz has been a Catholic.
A balloo is a bear. A younker is a young man.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 12:21:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 12:09:21 PM
Malthus,
Without wanting to pile on too much. There was a period in my childhood when my parents could not afford to buy new clothes for me. That was a problem because this was a period when I was growing rapidly. There were no charities that could provide clothes to me because who thinks to donate clothes of that size :)
Likely for me a local merchant offered a "deal" to my dad. The merchant gave me my clothes and allowed my dad to pay him back when he got the money - interest free. That is more in line with what I consider being poor.
When I got my first sholarship money I went to pay back the amount left over (my dad had paid back some but not all of the amount). The merchant refused the money and wished me luck.
I was fortunate to have recieved this kindness but obviously not all people recieve these benefits.
That's a wonderful anecdote, but I dunno how having a childhood deprived of clothes is necessary to having an adulthood episode of being poor.
Again, you guys are simply ignoring the possibility of downward social mobility - presumably, according to you, everyone who has educated parents and who gets an undergraduate degree forefits forever any right to later consideration for being poor, because, you know, if they later lack the ability to earn money, it was just their voluntary choice.
That I can't fathom. :huh: Particularly these days, when there are literally millions of folks who cannot, no matter what they do, get decent jobs even with a BA.
Not having clothing is not a necessary condition. But it is a sufficient condition of being poor. You describe a life in which you did not live in concern of when you might next eat, whether you might have clothing and you were certainly never in any doubt that there would always be a roof over your head in one form or another.
I have not ignored the possibility of your downward mobility. I expressly addressed it. You might have missed the post where I said in part:
Quotethe reason I didnt include [a reference to downward mobility] is because you didnt actually suffer it. The potential of downward mobility is something everyone risks to one degree or another. Except the poor If you have suffered downward mobility and had in fact become poor then we wouldnt be having this discussion
.
DGuller identified the problem quite well. It is a bit comical to hear someone who I would have considered rich at the time I was poor to try to make out the case that he was in the same socio-economic circumstances simply because he suffered from some concern of downward mobility. The poor dont have that concern. They are already there. The concern of the poor is how to find the necessities of life.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 12:51:52 PM
:P
I'm not, really. I just see a distinction in levels of poverty that appears to be missing here.
From what Malthus has said, he just doesn't seem like he was all that poor. Not having money to go to a movie and not having money to eat are two different things. I mean, sure, eating Ramen Noodles isn't exactly gourmet, but unless you had it every meal for months at a time, I'm not sure why the fact that you've eaten them means anything.
If, however, you say that in fact, you weren't sure where your next meal was coming from, or you did, in fact, eat Ramen Noodles every meal every day for months at a time, then I'll happily revise my opinion.
I say that you weren't poor because, by the standards that I grew up with, you weren't. :)
Maybe I wasn't poor by your exacting standards, but then, I suspect that if your standards are 'worried about literally starving/eating ramen for months straight', pretty well no-one in Canada outside a native reservation is "poor" by your standards - our social safety net is rather more robust than that down south. :hmm:
Poverty is relative. I'm sure someone from the Congo could tell you how mistaken you are to think you were "poor". :lol:
To my mind, working a menial occupation that pays little more than minimum wage and with no possibility of making more in the future is "poor" - maybe "working poor" as opposed to "welfare-collecting poor", but "poor" nonetheless.
I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.
If the hot water, electricity and heat didn't constantly get shut off, I might not have learned the importance of using only what I need and paying for it on time.
If my parents had all kinds of connections that I could use to help get ahead, I would never have needed to learn how to build those relationships myself.
If my parents had been able to pay for my school, I would probably have wasted all the time that I otherwise spent in the working world getting the experience that boosted me into having a career.
If the living environment at my parents house had been pleasant, it would probably not have been as important to me as it was to get the fuck on my own and upgrade my life.
If I hadn't seen my parents working hard and getting nowhere, I might have the false impression that hard work is all you need to have to get ahead, or that people deserve a living just because they work hard.
Being poor: ADVANTAGE
Lucky fuck. :glare:
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.
Exactly, now put yourself in the postion of a family that does make that kind of money or less and you start to have an idea of what being poor really is.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 21, 2013, 01:08:03 PMBeing poor: ADVANTAGE
Sounds like you turned it into an advantage. It doesn't sound like it was an advantage for your parents.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.
:mellow:
And my point is that my mother was raising three kids and caring for a sick husband on exactly that kind of wages. I'm not sure that's "exacting standards". Everyone in my neighborhood was in the same situation. Hell, everyone I knew with the exception of one uncle was in the same situation.
I agree that poor is a relative term. Nonetheless, it's hard to come from the situation that I grew up in and accept your understanding of poor as valid. Maybe that's unfair, but as you say... it's all relative.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 21, 2013, 01:08:03 PM
If the hot water, electricity and heat didn't constantly get shut off, I might not have learned the importance of using only what I need and paying for it on time.
If my parents had all kinds of connections that I could use to help get ahead, I would never have needed to learn how to build those relationships myself.
If my parents had been able to pay for my school, I would probably have wasted all the time that I otherwise spent in the working world getting the experience that boosted me into having a career.
If the living environment at my parents house had been pleasant, it would probably not have been as important to me as it was to get the fuck on my own and upgrade my life.
If I hadn't seen my parents working hard and getting nowhere, I might have the false impression that hard work is all you need to have to get ahead, or that people deserve a living just because they work hard.
Being poor: ADVANTAGE
One learns many things in life, regardless of their situation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 01:00:44 PM
Not having clothing is not a necessary condition. But it is a sufficient condition of being poor. You describe a life in which you did not live in concern of when you might next eat, whether you might have clothing and you were certainly never in any doubt that there would always be a roof over your head in one form or another.
I have not ignored the possibility of your downward mobility. I expressly addressed it. You might have missed the post where I said in part:
Quotethe reason I didnt include [a reference to downward mobility] is because you didnt actually suffer it. The potential of downward mobility is something everyone risks to one degree or another. Except the poor If you have suffered downward mobility and had in fact become poor then we wouldnt be having this discussion
.
DGuller identified the problem quite well. It is a bit comical to hear someone who I would have considered rich at the time I was poor to try to make out the case that he was in the same socio-economic circumstances simply because he suffered from some concern of downward mobility. The poor dont have that concern. They are already there. The concern of the poor is how to find the necessities of life.
Except that I've never, in fact,
denied that our circumstances were totally different. It is "comical" (to use your expression) to see people arguing so strenuously against straw men of your own manufacture - such as you and DGuller. I never claimed that I came from the socio-economic class background of "the poor", merely that I was, after leaving university, "poor". I have never hidden the fact my family was well-educated and middle-class. In fact, this whole argument was triggered by my pointing out I had advantages other people lacked - namely, free undergrad as a perk to my dad's job as a prof.
The term "poor" I was using meaning, very simply, someone who earned little money. That's the usual use of the term, and why you are objecting to it boggles the mind.
As I've said all along, I'd happily use a different word, just to make you happy. But despite repeated requests, none of you can think of one that works. So maybe you shouldn't complain so much about my use of the term? :hmm:
It was a poor choice of words.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 01:10:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.
Exactly, now put yourself in the postion of a family that does make that kind of money or less and you start to have an idea of what being poor really is.
According to Meri, unless you have eaten Ramen noodles for months straight you weren't "poor" either.
Look guys lay off Malthus. It must be painful for him to relive that time in his life when he could only afford the $500.00 stroller.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 21, 2013, 01:08:03 PM
If the hot water, electricity and heat didn't constantly get shut off, I might not have learned the importance of using only what I need and paying for it on time.
If my parents had all kinds of connections that I could use to help get ahead, I would never have needed to learn how to build those relationships myself.
If my parents had been able to pay for my school, I would probably have wasted all the time that I otherwise spent in the working world getting the experience that boosted me into having a career.
If the living environment at my parents house had been pleasant, it would probably not have been as important to me as it was to get the fuck on my own and upgrade my life.
If I hadn't seen my parents working hard and getting nowhere, I might have the false impression that hard work is all you need to have to get ahead, or that people deserve a living just because they work hard.
Being poor: ADVANTAGE
You're mistaken. You could/would have learned most of those things without being poor.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 01:11:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.
:mellow:
And my point is that my mother was raising three kids and caring for a sick husband on exactly that kind of wages.
And
I didn't want to end up in that situation. My sole point: I knew the money I was making was for shit, that it was okay to do that in my 20s but that it would suck to be doing that in my 30s and having a family. Right?
Hard to afford the ... expensive stroller then. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 01:10:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.
Exactly, now put yourself in the postion of a family that does make that kind of money or less and you start to have an idea of what being poor really is.
According to Meri, unless you have eaten Ramen noodles for months straight you weren't "poor" either.
I clarified in a follow-up post, Malthus. The eating-Ramen-noodles comment was an example, not a definitive clarifier.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 01:11:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.
:mellow:
And my point is that my mother was raising three kids and caring for a sick husband on exactly that kind of wages.
And I didn't want to end up in that situation. My sole point: I knew the money I was making was for shit, that it was okay to do that in my 20s but that it would suck to be doing that in my 30s and having a family. Right?
Hard to afford the ... expensive stroller then. ;)
So again, voluntary. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:20:55 PM
And I didn't want to end up in that situation. My sole point: I knew the money I was making was for shit, that it was okay to do that in my 20s but that it would suck to be doing that in my 30s and having a family. Right?
Hard to afford the ... expensive stroller then. ;)
:D
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 01:10:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.
Exactly, now put yourself in the postion of a family that does make that kind of money or less and you start to have an idea of what being poor really is.
Dude. My whole reason for doing what I did, was that I could easily see what being in that situation was like, just by looking around. And I did not like it, no, not one little bit. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
And I did not like it, no, not one little bit. :lol:
You can always tell that parent who has read 'The Cat in the Hat' too many times.
Malthus might have been poor, but he wasn't part of 'The Poor'. Yi's 'slumming' might have been the most apt term.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2013, 02:34:54 PM
Malthus might have been poor, but he wasn't part of 'The Poor'. Yi's 'slumming' might have been the most apt term.
Heh. Hindsight is 20-20.
If I'd kept doing what I was doing, I'd be part of "the poor" all right by now. :D
Many of the people I knew did (and are). My best friend (at the time)'s dad was Chair of Fine Arts at OCA, so he clearly wasn't "poor" as a kid. Last I saw him, a couple of years ago, he was doing odd jobs at a bar and selling a little weed to get by. He's in his mid-40s now, same as me. Is he "slumming"?
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 02:53:56 PM
If I'd kept doing what I was doing, I'd be part of "the poor" all right by now. :D
Absolutely. Being a part of the poor means having no prospects. You were young and doing crap jobs, but your accumulated social capital and potential hadn't yet withered away. When you have no money and no opportunity to improve yourself, that's when you join the poor.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 01:00:44 PM
Not having clothing is not a necessary condition. But it is a sufficient condition of being poor. You describe a life in which you did not live in concern of when you might next eat, whether you might have clothing and you were certainly never in any doubt that there would always be a roof over your head in one form or another.
I have not ignored the possibility of your downward mobility. I expressly addressed it. You might have missed the post where I said in part:
Quotethe reason I didnt include [a reference to downward mobility] is because you didnt actually suffer it. The potential of downward mobility is something everyone risks to one degree or another. Except the poor If you have suffered downward mobility and had in fact become poor then we wouldnt be having this discussion
.
DGuller identified the problem quite well. It is a bit comical to hear someone who I would have considered rich at the time I was poor to try to make out the case that he was in the same socio-economic circumstances simply because he suffered from some concern of downward mobility. The poor dont have that concern. They are already there. The concern of the poor is how to find the necessities of life.
Except that I've never, in fact, denied that our circumstances were totally different. It is "comical" (to use your expression) to see people arguing so strenuously against straw men of your own manufacture - such as you and DGuller. I never claimed that I came from the socio-economic class background of "the poor", merely that I was, after leaving university, "poor". I have never hidden the fact my family was well-educated and middle-class. In fact, this whole argument was triggered by my pointing out I had advantages other people lacked - namely, free undergrad as a perk to my dad's job as a prof.
The term "poor" I was using meaning, very simply, someone who earned little money. That's the usual use of the term, and why you are objecting to it boggles the mind.
As I've said all along, I'd happily use a different word, just to make you happy. But despite repeated requests, none of you can think of one that works. So maybe you shouldn't complain so much about my use of the term? :hmm:
I apologize if I misunderstood you to mean that you were poor when you said you were poor.
I propose "low income."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:25:00 PM
I propose "low income."
Meh, my kids are low income. But they have a standard of living and quality of life within the top percentiles of Canadian society. Kind of like the way Malthus grew up. :P
Obviously this begs for a poll. Coincidentally, one has just been set up to answer this captivating question once and for all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 03:27:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:25:00 PM
I propose "low income."
Meh, my kids are low income. But they have a standard of living and quality of life within the top percentiles of Canadian society. Kind of like the way Malthus grew up. :P
In short, I can't be "poor" and I can't be "low income".
Any suggestions for what I could use to describe myself when I was in that situation? :hmm:
"Temporarily short of funds"?
"Finding yourself"?
"Hippie".
Bohemian?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 03:27:51 PM
Meh, my kids are low income. But they have a standard of living and quality of life within the top percentiles of Canadian society. Kind of like the way Malthus grew up. :P
We're talking specificially about the four years between undergrad and law school, during which Malthus established an independent household and paid all his living expenses.
"Bourgeois Bohemian"?
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:38:25 PM
"Bourgeois Bohemian"?
That usually means you're loaded.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:40:11 PMThat usually means you're loaded.
I think it get applied more indiscriminately than that. Possibly because the people who like to use the phrase are poor at distinguishing between bohemians from well off backgrounds with money, and bohemians from well off backgrounds without money.
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:38:25 PM
"Bourgeois Bohemian"?
Heh, someone calling themselves that, I'd imagine they'd have cash and to spare - and be really stylish about it, to boot. :D
Low income does not make one poor. Spending and a lack of assets does.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 03:43:27 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:38:25 PM
"Bourgeois Bohemian"?
Heh, someone calling themselves that, I'd imagine they'd have cash and to spare - and be really stylish about it, to boot. :D
Yeah... though I don't most people call themselves that; I reckon it's more of a disparaging term. Much like hipster.
Also, I have no doubt you were stylish back then.
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:43:03 PM
I think it get applied more indiscriminately than that. Possibly because the people who like to use the phrase are poor at distinguishing between bohemians from well off backgrounds with money, and bohemians from well off backgrounds without money.
It's a term of the literati, not the gammas. People very adept at ascertaining income.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:47:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:43:03 PM
I think it get applied more indiscriminately than that. Possibly because the people who like to use the phrase are poor at distinguishing between bohemians from well off backgrounds with money, and bohemians from well off backgrounds without money.
It's a term of the literati, not the gammas. People very adept at ascertaining income.
Well, I stand corrected then :)
I didn't realize you were part of the literati set.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2013, 03:18:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 02:53:56 PM
If I'd kept doing what I was doing, I'd be part of "the poor" all right by now. :D
Absolutely. Being a part of the poor means having no prospects. You were young and doing crap jobs, but your accumulated social capital and potential hadn't yet withered away. When you have no money and no opportunity to improve yourself, that's when you join the poor.
:yes:
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:49:05 PM
I didn't realize you were part of the literati set.
Two snippets of snippiness in a brief time span indicates a pattern Jake.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:51:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:49:05 PM
I didn't realize you were part of the literati set.
Two snippets of snippiness in a brief time span indicates a pattern Jake.
In all honesty, I think the pattern is that you are being extra sensitive.
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:52:25 PM
In all honesty, I think the pattern is that you are being extra sensitive.
You can be a pretty mean dude, but unfortunately (fortunately?) for you I have an immensely thick skin... or maybe I'm just thick. :)
I have an immensely thick foreskin.
Quote from: Caliga on June 21, 2013, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:52:25 PM
In all honesty, I think the pattern is that you are being extra sensitive.
You can be a pretty mean dude, but unfortunately (fortunately?) for you I have an immensely thick skin... or maybe I'm just thick. :)
I can totally be a pretty mean dude.
But how is "I didn't know you were part of the literati set" mean?
I don't know. I was just commenting generally. :hmm:
It is surprisingly difficult for even the experts to agree on what constitutes poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada
http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm
According to the above, the cut-off in the 1990s was around $18K, though not an "official" measure. I can't remember how much I earned, but I'm pretty sure it was less than that.
Of course, if CC is right, income-based measures are pointless because one isn't "really" poor unless one takes into account what one's parents make. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on June 21, 2013, 03:57:56 PM
I don't know. I was just commenting generally. :hmm:
Gotcha.
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:52:25 PM
In all honesty, I think the pattern is that you are being extra sensitive.
I'm not weeping myself to sleep at the moment, just curious what's up with you.
Two instances of put-downs unprovoked by me, which did not appear to have the intention of amusing me with your good natured ribbing. It's Garbonesque.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 03:58:46 PM
It is surprisingly difficult for even the experts to agree on what constitutes poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada
http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm
According to the above, the cut-off in the 1990s was around $18K, though not an "official" measure. I can't remember how much I earned, but I'm pretty sure it was less than that.
Of course, if CC is right, income-based measures are pointless because one isn't "really" poor unless one takes into account what one's parents make. :hmm:
lol, if you really think you had such a difficult time of it, actually living like most other people, during that brief period of your life when you had to fend for youself on minimal income, then I apologize for bruising your priviledged sensibilities.
Rich Kids. :rolleyes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2013, 04:02:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 03:58:46 PM
It is surprisingly difficult for even the experts to agree on what constitutes poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada
http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm
According to the above, the cut-off in the 1990s was around $18K, though not an "official" measure. I can't remember how much I earned, but I'm pretty sure it was less than that.
Of course, if CC is right, income-based measures are pointless because one isn't "really" poor unless one takes into account what one's parents make. :hmm:
lol, if you really think you had such a difficult time of it, actually living like most other people, during that brief period of your life when you had to fend for youself on minimal income, then I apologize for bruising your priviledged sensibilities.
Rich Kids. :rolleyes:
Heh, actually, I had a pretty
good time of it - I just knew that what was a pretty good time in your 20s isn't so fun in your 30s and would really suck in your 40s. :D
I'm just proving my point with, you know, facts and cites and stuff.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:59:33 PM
I'm not weeping myself to sleep at the moment, just curious what's up with you.
Two instances of put-downs unprovoked by me, which did not appear to have the intention of amusing me with your good natured ribbing. It's Garbonesque.
I say this with 100% sincerity and 0% snippiness: I do not consider insinuations that you are part of the literati set to be a put down in any shape or form.
Rather - having accepted your correction - it was a request (though admittedly oblique) for you to elaborate.
I accept your explanation. :)
Cardboard box - Oxbridge set - middle of road
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 04:18:48 PM
I accept your explanation. :)
:hug:
... now will you tell us about your adventures amongst the literati set?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 21, 2013, 11:34:32 AM
I learned that it doesn't matter how much or how hard you work. Life does not reward work. It rewards risk.
Is that why you have a hot wife?
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 04:22:08 PM
:hug:
... now will you tell us about your adventures amongst the literati set?
I don't think I've had any.
Quote from: mongers on June 21, 2013, 04:21:34 PM
Cardboard box - Oxbridge set - middle of road
.........you were lucky :mad:
Quote from: mongers on June 21, 2013, 04:21:34 PM
Cardboard box - Oxbridge set - middle of road
?
Trout man - toaster - gas tank
Hold on Jake. I was dragged to a poetry reading once. :bleeding:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 04:26:30 PM
Hold on Jake. I was dragged to a poetry reading once. :bleeding:
So you once gave a poetry recital whilst cross-dressing. :cool:
edit:I apologise, this post should have been funnier/funny, in my defence some elements were there, I just couldn't be arsed to make a go of it. :blush:
Have another go mongers. Never say die. :)
So besides Malthus Silver spoon and Gargantua's glandular problems as a child anything new in this thread.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 21, 2013, 11:34:32 AM
I learned that it doesn't matter how much or how hard you work. Life does not reward work. It rewards risk.
Is that why you have a hot wife?
Yes sir. Took a risk.
Marriage is an ongoing risk. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 21, 2013, 05:33:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 04:22:26 PM
Is that why you have a hot wife?
Yes sir. Took a risk.
I've tried that several times. Of course, I called it "taking a risk". District Court of Maryland called it "stalking".
Underemployed? Study says blame college degree'The U.S. labor market is "oversaturated" with college graduates who are underemployed, according to a new study by PayScale.
The employment research firm said it analyzed 40 million career profiles in its database to come up with the 10 most underemployed majors for graduates with no more than a bachelor's degree.'
http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/biz-beat/2013/jun/20/underemployed-study-says-blame-college-degree/ (http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/biz-beat/2013/jun/20/underemployed-study-says-blame-college-degree/)
PayScale economist Katie Bardaro said for some majors, degrees are far-outpacing employment demand. "The labor pool is oversaturated with college graduates, and job opportunities are simply not there, Bardaro said in releasing the study this week. "Underemployment is a concern for many college graduates, but underemployment is definitely real for certain majors, like business, criminal justice and drama."
Making the Top 10 list of underemployed majors: (1) business administration and management; (tied for No. 2) drama and theater arts, criminal justice; (4) anthropology; (5) liberal arts; (6) history; (7) psychology; (8) biology; (9) English; (10) economics.
PayScale says underemployment among business administration and management majors is eight times what is typical nationally.
Among the other findings:
- Among college departments, business schools have the highest underemployment while engineering schools have the lowest.
- Some of the most common jobs for underemployed workers include administrative assistants, customer service representatives and paralegal/legal assistants.
- The typical starting median pay for underemployed graduates can range from $19,000 to $49,600.
- The typical starting median pay for workers in the 10 most underemployed metropolitan ranges from $30,100 in the Youngstown, Ohio, area to $38,500 in Stockton, Calif.
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/underemployed/slideshow
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fmoney%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F130618181414-college-jobs-620xa.jpg&hash=555250fba58ee204c00d42200da50892b99e8dda)
Psychology majors are almost twice as likely to end up working as a barista than other underemployed grads, PayScale found.
Hey look, another article poo-poohing the Liberal Arts.
Quote"The labor pool is oversaturated with college graduates, and job opportunities are simply not there,
Guess what, the labor pool is oversaturated with non-college graduates, and job opportunities are simply not there for them, either.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 21, 2013, 06:01:42 PM
Psychology majors are almost twice as likely to end up working as a barista than other underemployed grads, PayScale found.
:yeah:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 06:14:20 PM
Hey look, another article poo-poohing the Liberal Arts.
Because they fucking suck and should not be subsidized.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 21, 2013, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 06:14:20 PM
Hey look, another article poo-poohing the Liberal Arts.
Because they fucking suck and should not be subsidized.
We should stop subsidizing your movie reviews.
We should stop subsidizing your health benefits.
More Korea!
Less Ide!
More katmai! There's still some matter in the universe left unabsorbed!
Quote from: Ideologue on June 21, 2013, 07:16:37 PM
We should stop subsidizing your health benefits.
What the fuck are you waiting for then.
:(
I was just kidding.
I'm not. This shit is taking forever.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:00:57 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2013, 08:59:00 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2013, 06:50:39 AM
And develop no credit. Besides it isn't like you have interest if you pay off your monthly balance.
And that barely helps your credit. In order to build credit, you have to carry a balance and pay monthly. To pay it off each month doesn't help your credit much at all.
Not true at all.
Absolutely true. If your score is high, it has little to do with you paying your credit cards off each month and probably everything to do with a car loan (debt), a mortgage (debt), or a student loan (debt) that you've carried and paid on each month.
On a lighter note, I disagree. I have a 780 credit score and I've never had a credit card, a mortgage, or taken out a loan for a car. Everything I've bought so far I've paid with cash, even large purchases - car, motorcycle.
I can only imagine the score comes from just paying my bills every month on time? Phone, electric/gas, cable, and insurance?
Nothing else really explains it.
Quote from: Alcibiades on June 21, 2013, 09:48:59 PM
On a lighter note, I disagree. I have a 780 credit score and I've never had a credit card, a mortgage, or taken out a loan for a car. Everything I've bought so far I've paid with cash, even large purchases - car, motorcycle.
I can only imagine the score comes from just paying my bills every month on time? Phone, electric/gas, cable, and insurance?
Nothing else really explains it.
Those bills don't usually report to credit companies. I wonder if the cash purchases were somehow reported.
I admit that it's been at least five years since I read up on this stuff, but when I was writing for a finance newsletter in 2006, no credit like you're discussing would make it impossible to get a car or house loan. If your score is that high, obviously things have changed.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 21, 2013, 06:01:42 PM
Underemployed? Study says blame college degree
'The U.S. labor market is "oversaturated" with college graduates who are underemployed, according to a new study by PayScale.
The employment research firm said it analyzed 40 million career profiles in its database to come up with the 10 most underemployed majors for graduates with no more than a bachelor's degree.'
http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/biz-beat/2013/jun/20/underemployed-study-says-blame-college-degree/ (http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/biz-beat/2013/jun/20/underemployed-study-says-blame-college-degree/)
PayScale economist Katie Bardaro said for some majors, degrees are far-outpacing employment demand. "The labor pool is oversaturated with college graduates, and job opportunities are simply not there, Bardaro said in releasing the study this week. "Underemployment is a concern for many college graduates, but underemployment is definitely real for certain majors, like business, criminal justice and drama."
Making the Top 10 list of underemployed majors: (1) business administration and management; (tied for No. 2) drama and theater arts, criminal justice; (4) anthropology; (5) liberal arts; (6) history; (7) psychology; (8) biology; (9) English; (10) economics.
PayScale says underemployment among business administration and management majors is eight times what is typical nationally.
Among the other findings:
- Among college departments, business schools have the highest underemployment while engineering schools have the lowest.
- Some of the most common jobs for underemployed workers include administrative assistants, customer service representatives and paralegal/legal assistants.
- The typical starting median pay for underemployed graduates can range from $19,000 to $49,600.
- The typical starting median pay for workers in the 10 most underemployed metropolitan ranges from $30,100 in the Youngstown, Ohio, area to $38,500 in Stockton, Calif.
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/underemployed/slideshow
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fmoney%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F130618181414-college-jobs-620xa.jpg&hash=555250fba58ee204c00d42200da50892b99e8dda)
Psychology majors are almost twice as likely to end up working as a barista than other underemployed grads, PayScale found.
Yeah, but unemployed psychology majors ending up as baristas are all just "slumming". They are *choosing* to be that way. :D
Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2013, 10:47:20 AM
Yeah, but unemployed psychology majors ending up as baristas are all just "slumming". They are *choosing* to be that way. :D
I'd bet most psych majors do not come from wealthy backgrounds.
QuoteEditorial | Sunday Observer
The Decline and Fall of the English Major
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: June 22, 2013
In the past few years, I've taught nonfiction writing to undergraduates and graduate students at Harvard, Yale, Bard, Pomona, Sarah Lawrence and Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism. Each semester I hope, and fear, that I will have nothing to teach my students because they already know how to write. And each semester I discover, again, that they don't.
They can assemble strings of jargon and generate clots of ventriloquistic syntax. They can meta-metastasize any thematic or ideological notion they happen upon. And they get good grades for doing just that. But as for writing clearly, simply, with attention and openness to their own thoughts and emotions and the world around them — no.
That kind of writing — clear, direct, humane — and the reading on which it is based are the very root of the humanities, a set of disciplines that is ultimately an attempt to examine and comprehend the cultural, social and historical activity of our species through the medium of language.
The teaching of the humanities has fallen on hard times. So says a new report on the state of the humanities by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and so says the experience of nearly everyone who teaches at a college or university. Undergraduates will tell you that they're under pressure — from their parents, from the burden of debt they incur, from society at large — to choose majors they believe will lead as directly as possible to good jobs. Too often, that means skipping the humanities.
In other words, there is a new and narrowing vocational emphasis in the way students and their parents think about what to study in college. As the American Academy report notes, this is the consequence of a number of things, including an overall decline in the experience of literacy, the kind of thing you absorbed, for instance, if your parents read aloud to you as a child. The result is that the number of students graduating in the humanities has fallen sharply. At Pomona College (my alma mater) this spring, 16 students graduated with an English major out of a student body of 1,560, a terribly small number.
In 1991, 165 students graduated from Yale with a B.A. in English literature. By 2012, that number was 62. In 1991, the top two majors at Yale were history and English. In 2013, they were economics and political science. At Pomona this year, they were economics and mathematics.
Parents have always worried when their children become English majors. What is an English major good for? In a way, the best answer has always been, wait and see — an answer that satisfies no one. And yet it is a real answer, one that reflects the versatility of thought and language that comes from studying literature. Former English majors turn up almost anywhere, in almost any career, and they nearly always bring with them a rich sense of the possibilities of language, literary and otherwise.
The canon — the books and writers we agree are worth studying — used to seem like a given, an unspoken consensus of sorts. But the canon has always been shifting, and it is now vastly more inclusive than it was 40 years ago. That's a good thing. What's less clear now is what we study the canon for and why we choose the tools we employ in doing so.
A technical narrowness, the kind of specialization and theoretical emphasis you might find in a graduate course, has crept into the undergraduate curriculum. That narrowness sometimes reflects the tight focus of a professor's research, but it can also reflect a persistent doubt about the humanistic enterprise. It often leaves undergraduates wondering, as I know from my conversations with them, just what they've been studying and why.
STUDYING the humanities should be like standing among colleagues and students on the open deck of a ship moving along the endless coastline of human experience. Instead, now it feels as though people have retreated to tiny cabins in the bowels of the ship, from which they peep out on a small fragment of what may be a coastline or a fog bank or the back of a spouting whale.
There is a certain literal-mindedness in the recent shift away from the humanities. It suggests a number of things. One, the rush to make education pay off presupposes that only the most immediately applicable skills are worth acquiring (though that doesn't explain the current popularity of political science). Two, the humanities often do a bad job of explaining why the humanities matter. And three, the humanities often do a bad job of teaching the humanities. You don't have to choose only one of these explanations. All three apply.
What many undergraduates do not know — and what so many of their professors have been unable to tell them — is how valuable the most fundamental gift of the humanities will turn out to be. That gift is clear thinking, clear writing and a lifelong engagement with literature.
Maybe it takes some living to find out this truth. Whenever I teach older students, whether they're undergraduates, graduate students or junior faculty, I find a vivid, pressing sense of how much they need the skill they didn't acquire earlier in life. They don't call that skill the humanities. They don't call it literature. They call it writing — the ability to distribute their thinking in the kinds of sentences that have a merit, even a literary merit, of their own.
Writing well used to be a fundamental principle of the humanities, as essential as the knowledge of mathematics and statistics in the sciences. But writing well isn't merely a utilitarian skill. It is about developing a rational grace and energy in your conversation with the world around you.
No one has found a way to put a dollar sign on this kind of literacy, and I doubt anyone ever will. But everyone who possesses it — no matter how or when it was acquired — knows that it is a rare and precious inheritance.
I just saw on facebook that one of my Stanford peers has taken a position as a cashier at Best Buy. Rough!
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 09:36:23 PM
I just saw on facebook that one of my Stanford peers has taken a position as a cashier at Best Buy. Rough!
*garbon likes this*
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 09:36:23 PM
I just saw on facebook that one of my Stanford peers has taken a position as a cashier at Best Buy. Rough!
What's his/her story. How does that happen? :wacko:
I believe it is his part-time / summer job apárt from being a teacher. How that happens? Decide to become a public school teacher.
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2013, 09:45:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 09:36:23 PM
I just saw on facebook that one of my Stanford peers has taken a position as a cashier at Best Buy. Rough!
*garbon likes this*
I was kinda appalled by the people who did.
Will he be: forced to push drastically overpriced cables on old people! :(
QuoteThey can meta-metastasize any thematic or ideological notion they happen upon. And they get good grades for doing just that. But as for writing clearly, simply, with attention and openness to their own thoughts and emotions and the world around them — no.
Maybe he should have been more open to his own thoughts when he composed that paragraph.
Anyway, I judge too harshly, since I do that shit all the time. I'll give a pass for trying to be clever and failing. It's better than not trying.
What's not better is that it's just another rubbish article written by a person with an obvious financial and personal bias toward their own rubbish profession. At least she's honest enough to admit there's no ROI to investing in one of her rubbish degrees, but cognitively dissonant enough to suggest we throw money into the garbage can for her anyway. What a monster.
QuoteThe canon — the books and writers we agree are worth studying — used to seem like a given, an unspoken consensus of sorts. But the canon has always been shifting, and it is now vastly more inclusive than it was 40 years ago. That's a good thing. What's less clear now is what we study the canon for and why we choose the tools we employ in doing so.
Why? Well, the only obvious reason is "for fun," since it's become obvious that the "canon" has no bearing on anything that provides a living. And, as it likely never has, except when only people who were already rich went to college and did so for a social and doctrinal education such as the "canon" dubiously provides, only the dregs of the 21st century world would choose a tool like an English professor to explore it.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
I believe it is his part-time / summer job apárt from being a teacher. How that happens? Decide to become a public school teacher.
If teachers are paid so low wherever that dude lives that they have to take jobs as cashiers at fucking Best Buy, then something is seriously wrong.
Teachers with no/little experience are underpaid. Teachers with 20-30 years of experience are still doing the exact same thing but getting paid pretty well. Obviously garbon's classmate doesn't have many years under his belt.
Teaching is not a path to riches by any means, but the stats I've seen put average teaching salaries consistently above median income. The argument most often put up that teachers are underpaid is comparing them by education level. Should teachers make as much as lawyers? No. Lawyers should make as little as teachers. :P
Do teacher pay scales have 20-30 steps on them where you live?
Looks to be 17.
http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/94/Teachers.pdf (http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/94/Teachers.pdf)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 01:33:20 AM
Looks to be 17.
http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/94/Teachers.pdf (http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/94/Teachers.pdf)
I assume that's just base salary. Do they eventually qualify for tenure, early retirement, and pensions/healthcare?
Yes, salary only. They get benefits on top.
Saw another page saying average SD teacher got 68k salary and 24k benefits.
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2013, 09:56:46 PM
Will he be: forced to push drastically overpriced cables on old people! :(
Monster cables are monstrously good.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 25, 2013, 12:44:28 AM
If teachers are paid so low wherever that dude lives that they have to take jobs as cashiers at fucking Best Buy, then something is seriously wrong.
Have you considered the possibility that rather than being forced into a retail job because of penury, they're doing it because they didn't want to sit around with their thumb up their ass for three months?
In Sweden most teachers are grossly overpaid. Schools have declined in productivity for at least 40 years and are now a joke.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 06:31:19 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 25, 2013, 12:44:28 AM
If teachers are paid so low wherever that dude lives that they have to take jobs as cashiers at fucking Best Buy, then something is seriously wrong.
Have you considered the possibility that rather than being forced into a retail job because of penury, they're doing it because they didn't want to sit around with their thumb up their ass for three months?
No, I haven't considered that. Retail is pretty dreadful that I can't see picking it up as a fun time killer.
Some people are strange. /shrug
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:50:26 AM
No, I haven't considered that. Retail is pretty dreadful that I can't see picking it up as a fun time killer.
Yeah, it has to be one of those two: either a fun time killer or eating cat food.
I can very easily see someone with three months on their hands saying I might as well do something I get paid for.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 06:59:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:50:26 AM
No, I haven't considered that. Retail is pretty dreadful that I can't see picking it up as a fun time killer.
Yeah, it has to be one of those two: either a fun time killer or eating cat food.
I can very easily see someone with three months on their hands saying I might as well do something I get paid for.
And the only option is cashier at Best Buy? Granted he is in Iowa but you'd hope even there, someone highly educated could find something better.
There aren't a lot of high end jobs that hire somebody just for a couple months.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 25, 2013, 06:25:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2013, 09:56:46 PM
Will he be: forced to push drastically overpriced cables on old people! :(
Monster cables are monstrously good.
Oh look, an old guy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 07:04:17 AM
There aren't a lot of high end jobs that hire somebody just for a couple months.
When I was in college I worked for an ISP doing tech support one summer. The pay wasn't phenomenal (IIRC it was $15/hr) but it was certainly better than a retail cashier's job (when I was in high school I worked retail btw).
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 07:04:34 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 25, 2013, 06:25:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2013, 09:56:46 PM
Will he be: forced to push drastically overpriced cables on old people! :(
Monster cables are monstrously good.
Oh look, an old guy.
Its the gold that makes the difference. It alters the dynamics of the audio-experience.
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 07:06:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 07:04:17 AM
There aren't a lot of high end jobs that hire somebody just for a couple months.
When I was in college I worked for an ISP doing tech support one summer. The pay wasn't phenomenal (IIRC it was $15/hr) but it was certainly better than a retail cashier's job (when I was in high school I worked retail btw).
But did you get a 15% discount on your purchases? Huh? HUH?? :contract:
I'm with Yi, here. There are a lot of reasons to work in the summer at a Best Buy. He probably gets paid enough to live on, but figures a little more can't hurt. Besides, he's likely still paying off those student loans for going to Stanford, which can cut the biggest paycheck down to size.
Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 08:19:44 AM
But did you get a 15% discount on your purchases? Huh? HUH?? :contract:
I'm with Yi, here. There are a lot of reasons to work in the summer at a Best Buy. He probably gets paid enough to live on, but figures a little more can't hurt. Besides, he's likely still paying off those student loans for going to Stanford, which can cut the biggest paycheck down to size.
Shit, I worked at a Best Buy for a couple of months once. Spent more than I earned with that discount.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 08:24:26 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 08:19:44 AM
But did you get a 15% discount on your purchases? Huh? HUH?? :contract:
I'm with Yi, here. There are a lot of reasons to work in the summer at a Best Buy. He probably gets paid enough to live on, but figures a little more can't hurt. Besides, he's likely still paying off those student loans for going to Stanford, which can cut the biggest paycheck down to size.
Shit, I worked at a Best Buy for a couple of months once. Spent more than I earned with that discount.
I did the same when I worked at Borders for the Christmas Holidays. :blush:
When I'd just graduated high school, I worked at B&N. My discount was 30% and it also applied with affiliates of the time like Software Etc.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 08:50:12 AM
like Software Etc.
Old school right there. They actually sold software.
Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 08:19:44 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 07:06:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 07:04:17 AM
There aren't a lot of high end jobs that hire somebody just for a couple months.
When I was in college I worked for an ISP doing tech support one summer. The pay wasn't phenomenal (IIRC it was $15/hr) but it was certainly better than a retail cashier's job (when I was in high school I worked retail btw).
But did you get a 15% discount on your purchases? Huh? HUH?? :contract:
I'm with Yi, here. There are a lot of reasons to work in the summer at a Best Buy. He probably gets paid enough to live on, but figures a little more can't hurt. Besides, he's likely still paying off those student loans for going to Stanford, which can cut the biggest paycheck down to size.
I wonder then if going to Stanford wasn't net - a poor decision for him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 08:51:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 08:50:12 AM
like Software Etc.
Old school right there. They actually sold software.
Actually that reminds me regarding the other name I couldn't recall Electronic's Boutique. Needless to say my 30% discount on games was dangerous. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 08:59:17 AM
Actually that reminds me regarding the other name I couldn't recall Electronic's Boutique. Needless to say my 30% discount on games was dangerous. :blush:
Heh, I worked at an Electronics Boutique after high school. What a blast.
Ah, the days before software copy protection. Take it home, copy it, brink it back and fire up the shrinkwrap machine before the store opens.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 25, 2013, 08:02:46 AM
Its the gold that makes the difference. It alters the dynamics of the audio-experience.
Yep, especially when it's a digital signal. :)
Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 08:19:44 AM
But did you get a 15% discount on your purchases? Huh? HUH?? :contract:
No, but I did get a free dialup account. After I went back to college they forgot to disable it and my brother and dad used it for like a year. :ph34r:
I did get a 10% discount when I worked at Caldor, though. I: brought home the difference. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 09:14:02 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 08:19:44 AM
But did you get a 15% discount on your purchases? Huh? HUH?? :contract:
No, but I did get a free dialup account. After I went back to college they forgot to disable it and my brother and dad used it for like a year. :ph34r:
I did get a 10% discount when I worked at Caldor, though. I: brought home the difference. :cool:
So you're essentially a thief.
No. But the woman who trained me there was. She was arrested after the first summer I worked there for running a theft ring out of the warehouse. :)
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
No. But the woman who trained me there was. She was arrested after the first summer I worked there for running a theft ring out of the warehouse. :)
And just how well did she train you? :yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on June 25, 2013, 01:30:41 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
No. But the woman who trained me there was. She was arrested after the first summer I worked there for running a theft ring out of the warehouse. :)
And just how well did she train you? :yeahright:
Caliga's never been arrested. :)
I've never even gotten a speeding ticket. I am the very model of a modern model citizen. :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 04:15:45 PM
I've never even gotten a speeding ticket. I am the very model of a modern model citizen. :bowler:
I've had...2.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 07:03:24 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 06:59:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 06:50:26 AM
No, I haven't considered that. Retail is pretty dreadful that I can't see picking it up as a fun time killer.
Yeah, it has to be one of those two: either a fun time killer or eating cat food.
I can very easily see someone with three months on their hands saying I might as well do something I get paid for.
And the only option is cashier at Best Buy? Granted he is in Iowa but you'd hope even there, someone highly educated could find something better.
Yeah, no kidding. There are a million interesting ways to spend the summers, some of which are paid. To me working as a cashier at Best Buy is only something I'd do if I were desperate, but I admit that may not be true for everyone.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 25, 2013, 07:24:12 PM
Yeah, no kidding. There are a million interesting ways to spend the summers, some of which are paid. To me working as a cashier at Best Buy is only something I'd do if I were desperate, but I admit that may not be true for everyone.
Gee, you make it sound like jobs are plentiful, and everyone has the pick of their choosing. It must be nice to live on your planet.
Well he did run all the way to China for work as couldn't find none in Canada?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 07:28:24 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 25, 2013, 07:24:12 PM
Yeah, no kidding. There are a million interesting ways to spend the summers, some of which are paid. To me working as a cashier at Best Buy is only something I'd do if I were desperate, but I admit that may not be true for everyone.
Gee, you make it sound like jobs are plentiful, and everyone has the pick of their choosing. It must be nice to live on your planet.
I think the individual who prompted this conversation really should have more opportunities open to him than the average joe. My mother told me that I need to help him get a job outside of poorly paid teaching. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 07:28:24 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 25, 2013, 07:24:12 PM
Yeah, no kidding. There are a million interesting ways to spend the summers, some of which are paid. To me working as a cashier at Best Buy is only something I'd do if I were desperate, but I admit that may not be true for everyone.
Gee, you make it sound like jobs are plentiful, and everyone has the pick of their choosing. It must be nice to live on your planet.
The dude already had a job in this scenario.
Third of student loan borrowers never earned degree
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57591376/third-of-student-loan-borrowers-never-earned-degree/
Quote from: Phillip V on June 28, 2013, 09:30:53 PM
Third of student loan borrowers never earned degree
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57591376/third-of-student-loan-borrowers-never-earned-degree/
They still got it, right?
Sex on Campus: She Can Play That Game, Too
Hooking up is a functional strategy for today’s hard-charging and ambitious young women, allowing them to have enjoyable sex lives while focusing most of their energy on academic and professional goals.
...
Now, she said, she and her best friend had changed their romantic goals, from finding boyfriends to finding “hookup buddies,” which she described as “a guy that we don’t actually really like his personality, but we think is really attractive and hot and good in bed.”
...
One girl, explaining why her encounters freshman and sophomore year often ended with fellatio, said that usually by the time she got back to a guy’s room, she was starting to sober up and didn’t want to be there anymore, and giving the guy oral sex was an easy way to wrap things up and leave.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/fashion/sex-on-campus-she-can-play-that-game-too.html
I don't understand why the NYT is having a piece on that. So what?
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2013, 11:50:21 AM
I don't understand why the NYT is having a piece on that. So what?
Don't all major papers have a "lifestyle" section? Well, besides maybe the WSJ.
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2013, 11:50:21 AM
I don't understand why the NYT is having a piece on that. So what?
The idea that young 21st century women may behave like young 21st century women is newsworthy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 13, 2013, 11:51:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2013, 11:50:21 AM
I don't understand why the NYT is having a piece on that. So what?
Don't all major papers have a "lifestyle" section? Well, besides maybe the WSJ.
Sure but you'd think it'd want to covering something vaguely interesting and not the standard of behavior in college for at least the past decade.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 13, 2013, 11:52:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2013, 11:50:21 AM
I don't understand why the NYT is having a piece on that. So what?
The idea that young 21st century women may behave like young 21st century women is newsworthy.
Newspaper subscribers are 20th century men and women, so they don't know such things. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 13, 2013, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 13, 2013, 11:52:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2013, 11:50:21 AM
I don't understand why the NYT is having a piece on that. So what?
The idea that young 21st century women may behave like young 21st century women is newsworthy.
Newspaper subscribers are 20th century men and women, so they don't know such things. ;)
Disagree that people reading the NYT, particularly online, wouldn't be aware of that trend.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 13, 2013, 11:37:51 AM
Sex on Campus: She Can Play That Game, Too
So people thought only men were having sex on campus? Who did they thing they were having sex with?
NYT readers seemed to think college was just one big gay sex orgy after the next.
In the ask the shrink part of "my" paper today a slut wondered why men don't respect her.
When you get whole packs of them regularly, they tend to lose their value.
Student Debt Derails Dreams of Parenthood
The U.S. birth rate has generally fallen since the Great Recession began in 2007, and some of the sharpest drops have been among women in their 20s. In 2011, the birth rate for those 20 to 24 hit a record low of 85.3 births per 1,000 women, according to the most recent detailed data available from the Centers for Disease Control.
For the 25-to-29 group, the birth rate of 107.2 births per 1,000 women was the lowest since 1976.
...
Many people appear to have deferred having kids not because they lost their job or had some other setback, but because they're afraid they could be next to get a pink slip or eviction notice. "There's no way that the whole birth dearth has been driven by only the foreclosed, or only the unemployed," Schneider said.
It's not clear when those would-be parents will start to feel secure enough to make the economic commitment of having a family.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/07/10/How-Student-Debt-Derails-Dreams-Of-Parenthood.aspx
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefiscaltimes.com%2FApp_Data%2FMediaFiles%2F7%2F7%2F7%2F%257B7774B69F-176D-4A53-B688-75682B5B4AF4%257D07102013_college_cost_diaper_article.jpg&hash=a894b8121be555d53be81fd8292b4c77e45159ff)
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 04:15:45 PM
I've never even gotten a speeding ticket. I am the very model of a modern model citizen. :bowler:
Got a speeding ticket, no biggy. Never arrested. I got cuffed once, but convinced the officer that it wasn't a good idea to take me in.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 13, 2013, 11:37:51 AM
Sex on Campus: She Can Play That Game, Too
Hooking up is a functional strategy for today's hard-charging and ambitious young women, allowing them to have enjoyable sex lives while focusing most of their energy on academic and professional goals.
...
Now, she said, she and her best friend had changed their romantic goals, from finding boyfriends to finding "hookup buddies," which she described as "a guy that we don't actually really like his personality, but we think is really attractive and hot and good in bed."
...
One girl, explaining why her encounters freshman and sophomore year often ended with fellatio, said that usually by the time she got back to a guy's room, she was starting to sober up and didn't want to be there anymore, and giving the guy oral sex was an easy way to wrap things up and leave.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/fashion/sex-on-campus-she-can-play-that-game-too.html
Doesn't sound that enjoyable.
I do wonder more and more these days whether unbridled hedonism - or attempts at it - could ever bring much happiness. But then, perhaps I'm just turning into an Old.
Sounds to me like hedonism has very little to do with it.
How so?
In the sense that hedonism is about pleasure, and what's described there sounds more like work that has to be performed to achieve status, or to fit in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 10:57:10 PM
In the sense that hedonism is about pleasure, and what's described there sounds more like work that has to be performed to achieve status, or to fit in.
Yep.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 10:57:10 PM
In the sense that hedonism is about pleasure, and what's described there sounds more like work that has to be performed to achieve status, or to fit in.
Not really. I'm not sure that the hard-driving CEO of tomorrow archetype that that article alludes to is terribly representative of the hedonistic hookup culture, even if you accept the premise that the career and emotional spheres can be separated (which I don't).
Graduates During Worst Years Still Face Few Prospects
'College graduates from two or three years ago, during one of the worst jobs markets in history, are being overlooked by recruiters eager to scoop up those from the latest graduating class.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/business/recent-graduates-lose-out-to-those-with-even-fresher-degrees.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F07%2F20%2Fbusiness%2FJOBS-illo%2FJOBS-articleInline.jpg&hash=7656fc6c6e58169f282f16c4be407833df3ca10a)
No surprise. Not long ago Gen Xers were being tossed aside forthe obnoxious Millennials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html
Could be titled: "Why I left Ohio."
With map.
Quote
In Climbing Income Ladder, Location Matters
...
..."Where you grow up matters," said Nathaniel Hendren, a Harvard economist and one of the study's authors. "There is tremendous variation across the U.S. in the extent to which kids can rise out of poverty."
What they found surprised them, said Raj Chetty, one of the authors and the most recent winner of the John Bates Clark Medal, which the American Economic Association awards to the country's best academic economist under the age of 40.
The researchers concluded that larger tax credits for the poor and higher taxes on the affluent seemed to improve income mobility only slightly. The economists also found only modest or no correlation between mobility and the number of local colleges and their tuition rates or between mobility and the amount of extreme wealth in a region.
But the researchers identified four broad factors that appeared to affect income mobility, including the size and dispersion of the local middle class. All else being equal, upward mobility tended to be higher in metropolitan areas where poor families were more dispersed among mixed-income neighborhoods.
Income mobility was also higher in areas with more two-parent households, better elementary schools and high schools, and more civic engagement, including membership in religious and community groups.
So I guess George Lucas has it right, and we should be putting low-income housing in rich neighborhoods.
http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/
Quit bragging.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2013, 01:36:10 PM
Quit bragging.
:huh:
It's garbon. He's second only to Martinus in terms of the effort he puts in to making sure people know how great he thinks he is.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 01:32:44 PM
http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/
My alma mater is #183. :showoff:
Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2013, 01:40:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2013, 01:36:10 PM
Quit bragging.
:huh:
It's garbon. He's second only to Martinus in terms of the effort he puts in to making sure people know how great he thinks he is.
I copied that from facebook where stanford kids were all excited. :D
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2013, 03:38:35 PM
So I guess George Lucas has it right, and we should be putting low-income housing in rich neighborhoods.
The ghetto model has managed to continue to work and achieve its aims, though.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2013, 02:03:24 PM
We're #126. GO HENS :punk:
LOL I got kicked out of #127, and graduated from #400. Now
that's academic accomplishment!
OSU is #138. And apparently 40 grand a year. Yay?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2013, 01:36:10 PM
Quit bragging.
Actually I think this is the only place where I've spoken positively about my old school.
Generally it goes something like this:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/06/26/060626fa_fact
QuoteOne of the things they did back then was start you off with a modesty seminar, an eight-hour session that all the freshmen had to sit through. It might be different today, but in my time it took the form of a role-playing exercise, my classmates and I pretending to be graduates, and the teacher assuming the part of an average citizen: the soldier, the bloodletter, the whore with a heart of gold.
"Tell me, young man. Did you attend a university of higher learning?"
To anyone holding a tool or a weapon, we were trained to respond, "What? Me go to college?" If, on the other hand, the character held a degree, you were allowed to say, "Sort of," or, sometimes, "I think so."
"So where do you sort of think you went?"
And it was the next bit that you had to get just right. Inflection was everything, and it took the foreign students forever to master it.
"Where do you sort of think you went?"
And we'd say, "Umm, Princeton?"—as if it were an oral exam, and we weren't quite sure that this was the correct answer.
"Princeton, my goodness," the teacher would say. "That must have been quite something!"
You had to let him get it out, but once he started in on how brilliant and committed you must be it was time to hold up your hands, saying, "Oh, it isn't that hard to get into."
Then he'd say, "Really? But I heard—"
"Wrong," you'd tell him. "You heard wrong. It's not that great of a school."
This was the way it had to be done—you had to play it down, which wasn't easy when your dad was out there, reading your acceptance letter into a bullhorn.
A: "Where'd you go?"
Me: "Oh a school in the bay area"
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 01:32:44 PM
http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/
Quote from: Forbes
We look at factors that directly concern today's incoming students (and their families) who will be be footing a bill which has multiplied into the six figures: ... Is it likely I will graduate in four years?
I have a problem with that metric, specifically that there are many engineering programs that can or should be five-year undergrad degrees. Additionally, there are many dual BS-MS programs in engineering and other majors that take five years to complete. Making an absolute completion time a metric unfairly penalizes schools with significant enrolments in such programs. A better metric would be measuring the rate of students who graduate on time for their program.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 02:21:55 PMActually I think this is the only place where I've spoken positively about my old school.
A: "Where'd you go?"
Me: "Oh a school in the bay area"
Yeah, when we met in person you didn't come across even remotely as braggy as you do here. I wonder what it is about languish...?
A buddy of mine at grad school used to call it dropping the H bomb. As in "i was hitting on this chick at the party and I dropped the H bomb on her."
Man, Arizona is 200something. I thought they would be considerably higher than that.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2013, 02:32:36 PM
Man, Arizona is 200something. I thought they would be considerably higher than that.
They kick ass in the hot babes per square mile category.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 24, 2013, 02:27:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 01:32:44 PM
http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/
Quote from: Forbes
We look at factors that directly concern today's incoming students (and their families) who will be be footing a bill which has multiplied into the six figures: ... Is it likely I will graduate in four years?
I have a problem with that metric, specifically that there are many engineering programs that can or should be five-year undergrad degrees. Additionally, there are many dual BS-MS programs in engineering and other majors that take five years to complete. Making an absolute completion time a metric unfairly penalizes schools with significant enrolments in such programs. A better metric would be measuring the rate of students who graduate on time for their program.
That said, they do seem to look longer out though too. In the detailed profile of each college, they list what % graduate in 4 years and what % graduate in 6.
Hmm. I have degrees from #83 and (hah!) #427.
University rankings are poop.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 02:21:55 PM
A: "Where'd you go?"
Me: "Oh a school in the bay area"
I hope a giant stop-motion octopus takes Stanford into the sea.
:hmm: Actually, Beeb's right, they are poop.
My two are both on the first page. :blush:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 24, 2013, 06:45:58 PM
My two are both on the first page. :blush:
Okay garbon lite.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2013, 03:15:52 PM
University rankings are poop.
Your school didn't even get a rank? :console:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2013, 02:42:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2013, 02:32:36 PM
Man, Arizona is 200something. I thought they would be considerably higher than that.
They kick ass in the hot babes per square mile category.
Indeed they do.
I take great solace however, in two things:
1. We are of course vastly higher than ASU.
2. The Pac-10 has a corner on the top schools that are not the Ivy League.
3. We are top-50 for research schools! Whatever that means.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2013, 02:28:32 PM
A buddy of mine at grad school used to call it dropping the H bomb. As in "i was hitting on this chick at the party and I dropped the H bomb on her."
Yeah Yi isn't such a loudmouth like others...
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2013, 06:49:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2013, 02:42:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2013, 02:32:36 PM
Man, Arizona is 200something. I thought they would be considerably higher than that.
They kick ass in the hot babes per square mile category.
Indeed they do.
I take great solace however, in two things:
1. We are of course vastly higher than ASU.
2. The Pac-10 has a corner on the top schools that are not the Ivy League.
3. We are top-50 for research schools! Whatever that means.
Who isn't? :P
My alma matter is in the top 239. :yeah:
Quote from: katmai on July 24, 2013, 06:48:34 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 24, 2013, 06:45:58 PM
My two are both on the first page. :blush:
Okay garbon lite.
Come on, there's a lot of things wrong with me, but a status-obsessed braggart, I'm not. I agree that the rankings are generally crap and not relevant to most people's lives. Though this one at least looked at outcomes and such rather than SAT scores, etc.
And I only did undergrad once. So, darnit, I guess I can only count #6, not #8. :( :humblebrag: :P And like you, hermano, my Delco roots go back further than college.
199! Way better than any other university in Wyoming!
Undergrads Blow It With Student Loan Refunds
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2013/07/24/undergrads-blow-it-with-student-loan-refunds (http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2013/07/24/undergrads-blow-it-with-student-loan-refunds)
The tipping point was when he approached the school's student loan office to get help with his $3,000 tuition payment, he says. He walked away with $16,000 for that quarter, starting a cycle that would continue for the rest of his undergraduate career.
"Every quarter I got more free money," he says. "I needed new clothes. I needed a cool car. I needed a nice place to stay."
Smith bought a Jeep, stereo equipment, televisions and more. What he didn't spend, he invested, and lost.
When he graduated in 1997 with his bachelor's in sports marketing and management, Smith was confronted with a harsh reality. At $1,400 per month, his student loan payments were double his rent, and he was unemployed.
...
Christina Meehan splurged on a trip to Italy when she received one of her student loan refunds.
"I always took out way more than I needed," Meehan said in an email. "I thought if it as 'free money' that I would eventually have to pay back when I was living like Carrie from Sex and the City."
Now 31, with a bachelor's and two master's under her belt, Meehan's student loans total nearly $200,000. She currently works as an online media manager at Rosemont College in Pennsylvania, but said she makes less now than she did straight out of undergrad.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usnews.com%2Fpubdbimages%2Fimage%2F52548%2FWideModern_springbreak_07242013250x163.jpg&hash=d93fcce3cbacbb507643520c07cb86ed9ee120a9)
That's nothing new, students have been doing that for years.
Hell, I remember the first student loan check Dragon Lady got for law school, she ordered $700 in shoes. That's part of the reason her ass was $80K in debt by the end.
Only rankings that matter are football rankings.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2013, 07:17:34 PM
That's nothing new, students have been doing that for years.
Hell, I remember the first student loan check Dragon Lady got for law school, she ordered $700 in shoes. That's part of the reason her ass was $80K in debt by the end.
Yeah, although I imagine it was also monstrously expensive. I wound up with about $110k in debt (which has since increased, natch), but tuition was a bit over $60k, so less than $50k in three years for rent, food, entertainment, etc/, which, while not ultra-poor, I don't think is too excessive.
As a personal financial decision--distinct from what's good for America--I should've taken out more than I did. If I could've taken out a million dollars in student loans, I should have, because the personal end result is exactly the same.
I think that's called a "perverse incentive," and is what happens when you abdicate the responsibility, but not the funding, for a public good to actors insulated from the costs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2013, 07:17:34 PM
That's part of the reason her ass was $80K in debt by the end.
Did she have a nice ass.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2013, 08:02:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2013, 07:17:34 PM
That's nothing new, students have been doing that for years.
Hell, I remember the first student loan check Dragon Lady got for law school, she ordered $700 in shoes. That's part of the reason her ass was $80K in debt by the end.
Yeah, although I imagine it was also monstrously expensive. I wound up with about $110k in debt (which has since increased, natch), but tuition was a bit over $60k, so less than $50k in three years for rent, food, entertainment, etc/, which, while not ultra-poor, I don't think is too excessive.
She lived with her parents the whole time. :lol:
Quote from: Phillip V on July 24, 2013, 08:16:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2013, 07:17:34 PM
That's part of the reason her ass was $80K in debt by the end.
Did she have a nice ass.
It was magnificent.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2013, 09:01:17 PM
She lived with her parents the whole time. :lol:
So did I, but I used it as an opportunity to graduate with $0 debt. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2013, 07:33:32 PM
Only rankings that matter are football rankings.
This.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 25, 2013, 12:35:09 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2013, 07:33:32 PM
Only rankings that matter are football rankings.
This.
I can't think of why that would be relevant at all.
I was reminded of this thread last week, when the Chinese girl I met in Turkey told me she was borrowing ~$60k a year to attend Cornell ($40k tuition + expenses). :wacko:
Other than the military academies, looks like BYU is easily the best bargain.
Mormons win again . . .
According to the methodology, the two biggest components in the Forbes list are:
1) How many alumni find their way into the "CCAP Leaders list" of "Influencers"
2) Scores given by the students to faculty on "Ratemyprofessor.com"
Together, those two factors give more than 1/3 of the final score.
The grain of salt that needs to accompany this chart is ground very fine indeed.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 25, 2013, 09:24:26 AM
I was reminded of this thread last week, when the Chinese girl I met in Turkey told me she was borrowing ~$60k a year to attend Cornell ($40k tuition + expenses). :wacko:
What is her life plan?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2013, 07:17:34 PM
That's nothing new, students have been doing that for years.
Hell, I remember the first student loan check Dragon Lady got for law school, she ordered $700 in shoes. That's part of the reason her ass was $80K in debt by the end.
Is there a way to opt out of getting that money? I never knew of how, though I tried. The Financial Aid office just looked at me like I'd lost my mind when I asked about it.
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 10:38:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2013, 07:17:34 PM
That's nothing new, students have been doing that for years.
Hell, I remember the first student loan check Dragon Lady got for law school, she ordered $700 in shoes. That's part of the reason her ass was $80K in debt by the end.
Is there a way to opt out of getting that money? I never knew of how, though I tried. The Financial Aid office just looked at me like I'd lost my mind when I asked about it.
I know there is an opt out function for both grants and loans on the students account page at the CC I taught at.
Pardon me, I raped grammar. :blush:
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 10:38:49 AM
Is there a way to opt out of getting that money? I never knew of how, though I tried. The Financial Aid office just looked at me like I'd lost my mind when I asked about it.
What they need to do is cut the student out of the mix; the Feds should send the loan directly to the school, and living stipends should be dealt with separately.
Giving a kid a check for that kind of money and expecting them to do the non-stupid kid thing is a bit much.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 10:38:49 AM
Is there a way to opt out of getting that money? I never knew of how, though I tried. The Financial Aid office just looked at me like I'd lost my mind when I asked about it.
What they need to do is cut the student out of the mix; the Feds should send the loan directly to the school, and living stipends should be dealt with separately.
Giving a kid a check for that kind of money and expecting them to do the non-stupid kid thing is a bit much.
When I got a loan to cover the tuition for my aborted Masters degree, the loan money did go straight to the university.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 10:38:49 AM
Is there a way to opt out of getting that money? I never knew of how, though I tried. The Financial Aid office just looked at me like I'd lost my mind when I asked about it.
What they need to do is cut the student out of the mix; the Feds should send the loan directly to the school, and living stipends should be dealt with separately.
Giving a kid a check for that kind of money and expecting them to do the non-stupid kid thing is a bit much.
The tuition money does go straight to the school. The check is whatever is left over from your financial aid. Part of the financial aid package includes living expenses.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 25, 2013, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 25, 2013, 09:24:26 AM
I was reminded of this thread last week, when the Chinese girl I met in Turkey told me she was borrowing ~$60k a year to attend Cornell ($40k tuition + expenses). :wacko:
What is her life plan?
Get a job and pay it back, I guess. She did seem fairly thrifty and intelligent, so she might do fine in the end.
Failing that, she could always run back to China. :P
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 11:03:36 AM
The tuition money does go straight to the school. The check is whatever is left over from your financial aid. Part of the financial aid package includes living expenses.
Well, fuck 'em then. They deserve their fucking debt so Caliga cannot hire them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2013, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 11:03:36 AM
The tuition money does go straight to the school. The check is whatever is left over from your financial aid. Part of the financial aid package includes living expenses.
Well, fuck 'em then. They deserve their fucking debt so Caliga cannot hire them.
My question was one of opting out. Just because you received a certain Financial Aid package doesn't mean that you should have to accept the debt. Someone living at home isn't going to need the same living expense amount as someone living in the dorms. That's where I think a lot of the problem comes in.
I think that I agree with you in that the living expenses should be a separate fund all together.
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 11:25:23 AM
My question was one of opting out. Just because you received a certain Financial Aid package doesn't mean that you should have to accept the debt. Someone living at home isn't going to need the same living expense amount as someone living in the dorms. That's where I think a lot of the problem comes in.
I think that I agree with you in that the living expenses should be a separate fund all together.
Grants were automatically applied. Each loan had to be explicitly accepted.
Quote from: Maximus on July 25, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 25, 2013, 11:25:23 AM
My question was one of opting out. Just because you received a certain Financial Aid package doesn't mean that you should have to accept the debt. Someone living at home isn't going to need the same living expense amount as someone living in the dorms. That's where I think a lot of the problem comes in.
I think that I agree with you in that the living expenses should be a separate fund all together.
Grants were automatically applied. Each loan had to be explicitly accepted.
So that's changed since I went to school last, and I didn't realize that you had to do that. Thanks. :)
Quote from: Maximus on July 25, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
Grants were automatically applied. Each loan had to be explicitly accepted.
Now that you mention it, when I got my loans I had to explicitly accept them, as well as specifically accept the amount for each. I could have received more money than my schooling cost, but I chose not to.
Overweight graduate school applicants could face bias in admissions
Researchers analyzed the grad school applications of 97 applicants, and found that candidates with a higher body-mass index who were asked to do a face-to-face interview had lower admission rates than thinner applicants and overweight applicants who didn't have to do in-person interviews. For women, the negative correlation between weight and the chance of getting accepted was even higher. "We have yet another example of weight bias at work," says Ted Kyle, chair of the advocacy committee for the Obesity Society.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/grad-school-slim-chance-for-heavier-applicants-2013-07-25
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fei.marketwatch.com%2FMultimedia%2F2012%2F04%2F30%2FPhotos%2FMD%2FMW-AR217_gradua_20120430115345_MD.jpg&hash=3c19a52c6c0050b9f3f1ff6d7722e550c3b45098)
Ha. Fat fucks should count their blessings along with their calories.
The Great Society may have been a decent idea, the Obesity Society not so much.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 02:39:11 PM
Ha. Fat fucks should count their blessings along with their calories.
God, you're a prick.
I'm a product of my environment.
All kidding aside, obviously I don't support appearance being a metric by which prospective grad students are judged. It's unfair, meaningless, and wrong. Happy?
You can't go all obese on people and expect them to treat you like they treat norms.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:08:49 PM
All kidding aside, obviously I don't support appearance being a metric by which prospective grad students are judged. It's unfair, meaningless, and wrong. Happy?
No fat chicks.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2013, 06:49:32 PM
Indeed they do.
I take great solace however, in two things:
1. We are of course vastly higher than ASU.
2. The Pac-10 has a corner on the top schools that are not the Ivy League.
3. We are top-50 for research schools! Whatever that means.
Uh, no.
While the Pac 12 has five schools in the top 100 and the Big Ten only 6, (for the top 150 that's 7 and 10), there are 5 Pac 12 teams lower than the lowest-ranked Big Ten school (Iowa, at 183). In fact, the lowest Pac 12 school (WSU) is down at 328, which I believe is below the level of human mentation.
Both conferences do have one of the eight Public Ivies, but the ACC has two, so we won't go there.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:06:34 PM
I'm a product of my environment.
Except your environment is one that encourages poor people to get fat.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:08:49 PM
All kidding aside, obviously I don't support appearance being a metric by which prospective grad students are judged. It's unfair, meaningless, and wrong. Happy?
But it's life. Research has found taller, better looking people do better in life in general. We live in a social world here giving off a good impression is important
Quote from: Tyr on July 28, 2013, 05:30:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:08:49 PM
All kidding aside, obviously I don't support appearance being a metric by which prospective grad students are judged. It's unfair, meaningless, and wrong. Happy?
But it's life. Research has found taller, better looking people do better in life in general. We live in a social world here giving off a good impression is important
If only there were some kind of easy solution to obesity. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on July 28, 2013, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 28, 2013, 05:30:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 03:08:49 PM
All kidding aside, obviously I don't support appearance being a metric by which prospective grad students are judged. It's unfair, meaningless, and wrong. Happy?
But it's life. Research has found taller, better looking people do better in life in general. We live in a social world here giving off a good impression is important
If only there were some kind of easy solution to obesity. :(
aren't you short? if so it'd be in your best interest for there to be more fat people. You'll look better in comparison :P
I'm not.
No, but he's a smoker. That's even worse than fat.
I'd never seen the Forbes list before, it sounds like it actually tries to correct all the problems I've always had with the U.S. News & World Report list, I wonder why I've never heard of it and why the U.S. News Rankings are still so prominent? I half-wonder if the reason is colleges much prefer a list like USN&WR because it focuses on things they can easily control (selectivity) instead of things they might not be able to compete in even if they tried--results. Anyway, I also like that the USMA is ranked #7 on the Forbes list. USN&WR doesn't even rank us as a national university.
But it corrects those problems by committing a bunch of new and distinct mistakes.
USNWR at least has the virtue of measuring some particular dimension, whatever its actual importance. Forbes is just a jumbled grab bag of factors and the way some of the individual constituents are measured is really head-scratching.
The bigger problem is the very notion of having a single generic rating for a university. Begs the question of: rating for what?
The Forbes 1-2 ranking of Stanford and Pomona is a great illustration. It's like ranking the best food and saying: (1) ribeye steak, (2) creme brulee
Quote from: grumbler on July 27, 2013, 02:57:43 PM
In fact, the lowest Pac 12 school (WSU) is down at 328, which I believe is below the level of human mentation.
Plausible...the students there have been known to riot over access to beer.
QuoteCourt: Cooley Law grads can't sue over tuition, jobs
Ed White
Associated Press
Detroit —Today's lesson: Are graduates of the largest Michigan law school entitled to a tuition refund if they don't find satisfactory jobs? Not according to a federal appeals court.
The court ruled Tuesday in a case involving a dozen unhappy graduates from Thomas M. Cooley Law School, which has campuses across Michigan and in Tampa, Fla.
The graduates claimed they were fooled by rosy employment statistics published by the school. The appeals court, however, said Michigan's consumer protection law doesn't apply, and the graduates put too much reliance on Cooley's job survey of other graduates.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 3-0, affirmed a similar decision by a federal judge in Grand Rapids.
"Our survey was reported accurately, not fraudulently. That's the bottom line of the case," said James Thelen, Cooley's general counsel.
The graduates who sued Cooley said they had difficulty finding full-time, paid jobs. Shane Hobbs of Pennsylvania graduated in 2010 but has worked as a substitute teacher and at a golf course. Danny Wakefield of Utah graduated in 2007 but ended up managing the delivery of phone books, according to the 6th Circuit decision.
The Cooley graduates accused the school of fraud by reporting in 2010 that 76 percent of graduates were employed within nine months. The graduates claimed that should be interpreted as full-time positions requiring a law degree. But it actually included jobs outside law.
The appeals court said it wasn't fraud because it wasn't false. The survey listed the number of graduates in private law practice, government, academia and business.
"I completely disagree that we were painting a rosy picture," Thelen said. "They never bothered to call us and ask what the 76 percent meant."
Cooley's tuition ranges from $34,800 a year for 24 credits to $43,500 for 30 credits. It's slightly less expensive after the first 30 credits.
Despite the defeat, an attorney who represented the graduates, Jesse Strauss, believes the lawsuit and similar ones against other schools have improved how job surveys are reported to students. The American Bar Association, for example, has told schools to provide more information about how many graduates are in jobs that require a law degree.
"There's been a general discussion about the value of a law degree. That discussion wasn't in the mainstream before," Strauss said.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130730/SCHOOLS/307300111#ixzz2aejdhNaZ
Unless your career goal was to harvest sugarcane, you really should have known better than to go to a place called "Cooley Law."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2013, 03:56:13 PM
It's like ranking the best food and saying: (1) ribeye steak, (2) creme brulee
That sounds fairly reasonable. :P
QuoteMillennials, in Their Parents' Basements
Last year, a record 36 percent of people 18 to 31 years old — roughly the age range of the generation nicknamed the millennials — were living in their parents' homes, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. That compares to 32 percent of their same-aged counterparts in 2007, the year the recession began.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/millennials-in-their-parents-basements/?ref=business
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2013, 11:33:31 AM
QuoteMillennials, in Their Parents' Basements
Last year, a record 36 percent of people 18 to 31 years old — roughly the age range of the generation nicknamed the millennials — were living in their parents' homes, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. That compares to 32 percent of their same-aged counterparts in 2007, the year the recession began.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/millennials-in-their-parents-basements/?ref=business (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/millennials-in-their-parents-basements/?ref=business)
I'll be 32 next week for your information.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2013, 11:33:31 AM
QuoteMillennials, in Their Parents’ Basements
Last year, a record 36 percent of people 18 to 31 years old — roughly the age range of the generation nicknamed the millennials — were living in their parents’ homes, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. That compares to 32 percent of their same-aged counterparts in 2007, the year the recession began.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/millennials-in-their-parents-basements/?ref=business
And people say families are not as close as they used to be.
QuoteU.S. hiring slows in July but jobless rate falls to four-year low
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers slowed their pace of hiring in July but the jobless rate fell anyway, mixed signals that could make the U.S. Federal Reserve more cautious about drawing down its huge economic stimulus program.
The number of jobs outside the farming sector increased by 162,000, the Labor Department said on Friday.
That was below the median forecast in a Reuters poll of 184,000. Compounding that miss, the government also cut its previous estimates for hiring in May and June.
At the same time, the jobless rate fell two tenths of a point to 7.4 percent, its lowest since December 2008. Gains in employment fueled some of that decline, but the labor force also shrank during the month, robbing some of the luster from the decline in the unemployment rate.
The data reinforces the view that the job market is inching toward recovery, with the broader economy still stuck in low gear.
"We're sort of grinding along here," said Gordon Charlop, managing director at Rosenblatt Securities in New York.
The question is whether the pace of job gains is enough for the Fed to feel the U.S. economy is ready to get by with less support. The U.S. central bank currently buys $85 billion a month in bonds to keep borrowing costs low.
The growth in payrolls left the three-month average gain at 175,000, and investor reactions were mixed to the payrolls data.
Yields on U.S. government debt fell, suggesting investors were less confident the Fed could soon begin easing its bond purchases. Traders of short-term U.S. interest-rate futures boosted bets that the Fed would wait until 2015 before raising short-term borrowing costs.
At the same time, futures for U.S. stocks were mostly flat, with the S&P index moving between slight gains and losses while Dow and Nasdaq futures were modestly higher.
The Fed's stimulus program has lowered interest rates, spurring growth in the country's beleaguered housing market and boosting car sales. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said last month the U.S. central bank would likely reduce the level of monthly purchases by the end of the year, and end them by mid-2014.
The Fed's policymaking committee wrapped up a two-day meeting on Wednesday without any change to the program. The panel's statement, however, referenced new factors that could be seen as risks to growth: a recent rise in mortgage rates and persistently low inflation. Central bank policymakers next meet in September.
STRUCTURAL CONCERNS
Other data on Friday showed a slight gathering of inflationary pressures, with the 12-month reading of the Commerce Department's gauge of core inflation rising to 1.2 percent in June from 1.1 percent a month earlier. That could allay some concerns at the Fed that low inflation poses a risk to the economy.
But the jobs report will entertain darker views on the economy.
For one, analysts wonder if the pace of job creation can be sustained given slower-than-expected economic growth.
Gross domestic product, a measure of the nation's economic output, grew at a mere 1.4 percent annual rate in the first half of the year, down from 2.5 percent in the same period of 2012.
Most economists expect GDP will accelerate in the second half of this year, which would make it more plausible for the current hiring trend to continue.
But the fact that job creation has been relatively robust despite weak output might point to a frightening possibility: perhaps the economy's growth potential has fallen.
This would mean less output is needed to create jobs, but that incomes would grow at a slower pace over the long run. The prospect of such a structural shift worries economists and investors.
Friday's report showed the average work week declined to 34.4 hours, while average earnings slipped 0.1 percent.
The report also showed 5.7 percent of Americans who had jobs in June could not get enough hours to qualify as full-time workers.
While the unemployment rate has fallen by eight tenths of a point over the last year, the share of part-time workers who want more hours has barely dropped.
Also, the number of long-term unemployed, while falling, remains historically high. Bernanke has warned this situation could deal lasting damage to the economy's growth potential.
That is because workers out of work for extended periods might never work again. In July, 4.25 million Americans had been unemployed for at least six months.
"The labor market remains stuck in quicksand," said Todd Schoenberger, managing partner at LandColt Capital in New York.
I'm going to be hiring seasonal workers soon. :)
But they'll mostly be Amish youngsters.
Student-Loan Load Kills Startup Dreams
'The rising mountain of student debt, recently closing in on $1.2 trillion, is forcing some entrepreneurs to abandon startup dreams and others, including Christine Carney of Orono, Maine, to radically reshape their business plans.
Ms. Carney, 29 years old, and her husband, John, 31, started Thick & Thin Designs, making and selling food picks in the shapes of zombies, bikes and deer antlers after a brainstorming session while she was cooking dinner. The couple, both students at the University of Maine, where he is earning a master's degree in fine arts and she is earning her second undergraduate degree, in zoology, sell the picks for about $12 a dozen as decorative cupcake toppers.
But they chose not to purchase a laser cutter, because doing so would require them to take out a business loan—and together they have $140,000 in leftover student debt.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323446404579008930399820764.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FMI-BX853_STULOA_E_20130813170200.jpg&hash=6715e5b5e53ed2c2f364f97076bdd4531b8977ce)
Well, there ya go. Fine Arts and Zoology. Useless disciplines. No need for them in the modern society.
Now, if they went and got their CISSP and CCNA certifications, then all their problems would be solved.
In fact, everybody should get IT certifications. Everybody.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
Well, there ya go. Fine Arts and Zoology. Useless disciplines. No need for them in the modern society.
Now, if they went and got their CISSP and CCNA certifications, then all their problems would be solved.
In fact, everybody should get IT certifications. Everybody.
I disagree.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
Well, there ya go. Fine Arts and Zoology. Useless disciplines. No need for them in the modern society.
I don't think you need them to make plastic garbage for cupcakes.
No, no, no...it's been established in this thread, and throughout our society at large, that the humanities and humanities-based disciplines are useless pursuits in today's modern economy, and that the hard tech skill sets are the only viable option to a lifetime in the food service industry.
That is also correct.
This story vindicates Seedy. No way to put glasses on a cupcake without $140,000 worth of education.
You'd think with all that collected liberal arts education, they'd come up with something better than party favors. Shit, if I want that, I can go down to Party City and buy ones made in China from lead paint and melamine.
I'd draw swastikas on my cupcakes.
MEIN CUPCAKES
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 13, 2013, 08:37:31 PM
I'd draw swastikas on my cupcakes.
MEIN CUPCAKES
There's a market for that.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 13, 2013, 08:16:32 PM
The couple, both students at the University of Maine, where he is earning a master's degree in fine arts and she is earning her second undergraduate degree, in zoology
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3b%2FParis_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg%2F300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg&hash=b60964f732fbd6263816cae6d7d12fb172b729b6)
Because the world needs more accountants.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2013, 08:59:02 PM
Because the world needs more accountants.
I don't know about the world, but those two could certainly use one.
if you want a zoology degree to do something in that field, more power to you, if you're getting a zoology degree to run your decorative cupcake toppings your parents did you a great disservice somewhere along the line.
*edit* there's never an excuse for racking up a 140k debt for a fine arts degree. Ever.
Quote from: HVC on August 13, 2013, 09:25:32 PM
if you want a zoology degree to do something in that field, more power to you, if you're getting a zoology degree to run your decorative cupcake toppings your parents did you a great disservice somewhere along the line.
*edit* there's never an excuse for racking up a 140k debt for a fine arts degree. Ever.
Thank god boomers have kept education affordable
Quote from: KwangTiger on August 13, 2013, 09:41:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 13, 2013, 09:25:32 PM
if you want a zoology degree to do something in that field, more power to you, if you're getting a zoology degree to run your decorative cupcake toppings your parents did you a great disservice somewhere along the line.
*edit* there's never an excuse for racking up a 140k debt for a fine arts degree. Ever.
Thank god boomers have kept education affordable
Wuzzup Kwang? :hug:
There's nothing wrong with studying the humanities, but it really is the sort of thing you should be doing if you're rich already. If you expect to do a lot of working, you don't really belong.
My main objection to studying the humanities is not the study of the humanities in itself--obviously, as history is a hobby, it has some value to me--it's the grotesque educational-industrial complex devoted to siphoning money off of people in exchange for the false promise that studying the humanities makes you any more employable than possession of your free high school degree.
It is a phenomenon that should not exist.
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2013, 10:55:17 PM
There's nothing wrong with studying the humanities, but it really is the sort of thing you should be doing if you're rich already. If you expect to do a lot of working, you don't really belong.
:yes: I was about to post this.
Yes, the humanities should be relegated only to the wealthy and those with means.
Between Neil and Otto, we'll be back to the 19th century in no time. :yeah:
Unlike real subjects, the quality of the humanities doesn't matter very much (at least the way they are done today). Therefore restricting the humanities to rich people has very little negative consequence.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2013, 10:46:33 AM
I'm going to be hiring seasonal workers soon. :)
But they'll mostly be Amish youngsters.
Seedy for overseer?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2013, 12:37:16 AM
Yes, the humanities should be relegated only to the wealthy and those with means.
Between Neil and Otto, we'll be back to the 19th century in no time. :yeah:
I dunno. You're the one holding onto the belief that having been cultured makes one a gentleman or lady, let's say a social success, rather than the possession of hard skills or money.
Quote from: KwangTiger on August 13, 2013, 09:41:43 PM
Thank god boomers have kept education affordable
I don't really see what baby boomers had to do with it.
Deeply subsidized higher education made sense, or at least wasn't so noticeable, back when maybe 10% of high school graduates went on to college. Now that half or more do, where should the money come from? You could raise taxes, but that's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 14, 2013, 01:08:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 14, 2013, 12:37:16 AM
Yes, the humanities should be relegated only to the wealthy and those with means.
Between Neil and Otto, we'll be back to the 19th century in no time. :yeah:
I dunno. You're the one holding onto the belief that having been cultured makes one a gentleman or lady, let's say a social success, rather than the possession of hard skills or money.
The only belief I'm holding on to is the one that told you not to go to law school.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 14, 2013, 01:02:05 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2013, 10:46:33 AM
I'm going to be hiring seasonal workers soon. :)
But they'll mostly be Amish youngsters.
Seedy for overseer?
They don't need much supervision.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 14, 2013, 01:02:05 AM
Seedy for overseer?
Ed would contract that shit out anyway. It's how the 1% do things.
She should have stopped at one undergrad degree?
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 06:28:03 AM
She should have stopped at one undergrad degree?
Not sure she needed even that to make cupcake decorations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 06:31:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 06:28:03 AM
She should have stopped at one undergrad degree?
Not sure she needed even that to make cupcake decorations.
Because she was told since first grade that she had to go to college and get a degree, any degree, to have any chance at a life that doesn't involve french fries and paper hats.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2013, 07:36:04 AM
Because she was told since first grade that she had to go to college and get a degree, any degree, to have any chance at a life that doesn't involve french fries and paper hats.
Well, that one's been popped full of shareholder value holes.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2013, 07:36:04 AM
Because she was told since first grade that she had to go to college and get a degree, any degree, to have any chance at a life that doesn't involve french fries and paper hats.
I get that. And it goes further than that; she's been told that she'll get a great paying job as soon as they hand her a diploma.
Still doesn't change the fact that you don't need a higher education to put plastic sunglasses on top of cupcakes.
I'm also starting to get a sense that the untold story of Teh student loan crisis is folks living high on the hog during college. A couple articles have been linked here about swanky resort style campuses and abundant travel (hot button issue!). I also met a dude at my boozer who's paying $1,200 rent with his loan money.
YOLO
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 07:55:33 AM
YOLO
Bureau YOLO trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkkxRdIoTIQ
Quote from: ulmont on August 14, 2013, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 07:55:33 AM
YOLO
Bureau YOLO trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkkxRdIoTIQ
Wait a minute... XCOM and Fedoras?
I'm in.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 07:55:33 AM
YOLO
Never understood that reasoning. If you only live once, surely that's a reason to be careful with your health and money? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 12:35:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 07:55:33 AM
YOLO
Never understood that reasoning. If you only live once, surely that's a reason to be careful with your health and money? :unsure:
YCTIWY
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 06:31:14 AMNot sure she needed even that to make cupcake decorations.
I expect that when she started her undergraduate degree she was not aiming to make cupcake decorations.
I'm a bit surprised by the unsympathetic tone people are taking about this.
They've apparently found a way to run a profitable business. While it has nothing to do with their undergraduate degrees (though I think the Fine Arts degree probably helped a fair bit).
They see an opportunity to expand their business, presumably making more money along the way, but due to their student debt burden they're unable to secure the credit to do so.
Given the amount of student debt the current generation of young Americans carry, it seems like their scope for turning the most American of solutions - being entrepreneurs - is vastly curtailed, hampering both them and the greater American economy.
Being snide about their choice of undergraduate degrees at this point, and about the specifics of their business niche, seems rather beside the point.
Jake, I think some of have seen way too many people thinking their Sanskrit or other bullshit degree will pull in six figures.
Also, enjoy the shoutout to PCU.
Also, I enjoy being snide. I'm old.
And a cupcake business? Jeez. There is some originality there.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 12:48:14 PM
Jake, I think some of have seen way too many people thinking their Sanskrit or other bullshit degree will pull in six figures.
Worked for me, if only for a while.
No degree worked for me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 12:52:09 PM
No degree worked for me.
Probably because the ones you got were not as valuable as a fine arts degree specializing in grammar.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 12:45:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 06:31:14 AMNot sure she needed even that to make cupcake decorations.
I expect that when she started her undergraduate degree she was not aiming to make cupcake decorations.
I'm a bit surprised by the unsympathetic tone people are taking about this.
They've apparently found a way to run a profitable business. While it has nothing to do with their undergraduate degrees (though I think the Fine Arts degree probably helped a fair bit).
They see an opportunity to expand their business, presumably making more money along the way, but due to their student debt burden they're unable to secure the credit to do so.
Given the amount of student debt the current generation of young Americans carry, it seems like their scope for turning the most American of solutions - being entrepreneurs - is vastly curtailed, hampering both them and the greater American economy.
Being snide about their choice of undergraduate degrees at this point, and about the specifics of their business niche, seems rather beside the point.
Couple of things.
The article never says they are running a profitable business. It's merely described as a new business. And to my mind a business making cupcake toppers sounds like a terrible business to get into. The cupcake fad has long since peaked. They're trying to sell bell-bottom jeans and disco balls in 1982.
So a couple already deeply in debt is complaining they can't go even deeper into debt. It sounds like they just don't "get it".
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 12:45:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 06:31:14 AMNot sure she needed even that to make cupcake decorations.
I expect that when she started her undergraduate degree she was not aiming to make cupcake decorations.
I'm a bit surprised by the unsympathetic tone people are taking about this.
They've apparently found a way to run a profitable business. While it has nothing to do with their undergraduate degrees (though I think the Fine Arts degree probably helped a fair bit).
They see an opportunity to expand their business, presumably making more money along the way, but due to their student debt burden they're unable to secure the credit to do so.
Given the amount of student debt the current generation of young Americans carry, it seems like their scope for turning the most American of solutions - being entrepreneurs - is vastly curtailed, hampering both them and the greater American economy.
Being snide about their choice of undergraduate degrees at this point, and about the specifics of their business niche, seems rather beside the point.
:yes:
I tried to say something like this earlier, but gave up midway through typing it. You said it far better than I would have.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2013, 12:54:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 12:52:09 PM
No degree worked for me.
Probably because the ones you got were not as valuable as a fine arts degree specializing in grammar.
I bent my wookie.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:04:43 PM
Couple of things.
The article never says they are running a profitable business. It's merely described as a new business. And to my mind a business making cupcake toppers sounds like a terrible business to get into. The cupcake fad has long since peaked. They're trying to sell bell-bottom jeans and disco balls in 1982.
I'm going to disagree here. While the cupcake businesses (as in storefronts) may have gone by the wayside, it's just now really hitting Mommyville Homebakers. There are still dozens of cupcake decorating classes at the local Joann's, as well as a multi-million dollar industry selling cupcake accoutrements that's been ongoing for decades. It may not be huge money - they're small and sell for very little - but there is definitely a market for them.
QuoteSo a couple already deeply in debt is complaining they can't go even deeper into debt. It sounds like they just don't "get it".
Given that you don't know their plans for expansion or potential for capital growth, I'd argue that you're the one that doesn't "get it".
Couple other things.
She may not have thought she would end up making cupcake decorations when she started undergrad, but she's continuing with another (totally unrelated) undergrad degree while doing so.
Yes student loans are a problem, but it's hard not to be snide when this couple racked up massive debt getting an MFA and a second bachelor's in zoology.
I don't know anyone who popped out of college, walked down to the bank and said "I've got an idea, shoot me a couple hundred thou." Kids who start up businesses get start up money from their rich parents. If you go to a bank they want to see collateral.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 12:49:55 PM
And a cupcake business? Jeez. There is some originality there.
The thing is, their little doodads have been sold for years, and sold well. If they were to expand the business to include larger items for cakes, they'd be doing fairly well, I'd think. Hell, just take a peak down any craft store bakery aisle for how much that crap is, and it sells!
Making cupcakes? Bad idea. Making decorations for cakes and cupcakes? Not a bad way to go.
Don't expect me to read the article. I just wave my cane at young people.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:04:43 PM
So a couple already deeply in debt is complaining they can't go even deeper into debt. It sounds like they just don't "get it".
But what you are complaining about is why capitalism is supposed to be the most efficient allocator of resources. If you were a government planner in charge of cupcakes and other baked goods you would never approve of the idea. But they seem to think they can make a go of it and the only thing holding them back is the externality of their incredibly expensive education.
Which is really the point of the article. Educating people has become so expensive that the debts incurred is creating a drag on business creation and expansion.
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2013, 01:11:51 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 12:49:55 PM
And a cupcake business? Jeez. There is some originality there.
The thing is, their little doodads have been sold for years, and sold well.
Where are you getting that from? It isn't in the article.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 01:11:10 PM
I don't know anyone who popped out of college, walked down to the bank and said "I've got an idea, shoot me a couple hundred thou." Kids who start up businesses get start up money from their rich parents. If you go to a bank they want to see collateral.
And that is in any way related to this story how?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2013, 01:14:15 PM
Which is really the point of the article. Educating people has become so expensive that the debts incurred is creating a drag on business creation and expansion.
Yeah the point is the drain on the economy and society not to build up sympathy for these particular people.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2013, 01:15:51 PM
And that is in any way related to this story how?
You're totally awesome.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:15:14 PMWhere are you getting that from? It isn't in the article.
Perhaps she has seen them in stores for years?
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:15:14 PM
Where are you getting that from? It isn't in the article.
Life experience as the mother of four kids? :unsure:
Those stupid things show up at every birthday party my kids have ever been to. They show up at bridal and baby showers, at holiday parties, and at Mommy Meets. They're pretty ubiquitous, and they have to come from somewhere. Most are bought at Dharma Trading company, but they have a limited selection. If you want something that's custom-made, there are few options.
Given the huge number of SAHMs who take cake and cupcake decorating classes (based on the fact that they regularly book up at the three major craft stores in town who have them), I'm going with the fact that the whole "homebaked cakes" phenom isn't going away anytime soon. Those plastic picks are almost always included in the decor of the cupcake stuff.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2013, 01:14:15 PMBut what you are complaining about is why capitalism is supposed to be the most efficient allocator of resources. If you were a government planner in charge of cupcakes and other baked goods you would never approve of the idea. But they seem to think they can make a go of it and the only thing holding them back is the externality of their incredibly expensive education.
Which is really the point of the article. Educating people has become so expensive that the debts incurred is creating a drag on business creation and expansion.
Exactly, but the response seems to be mostly warmed over platitudes to justify dismissive snideness unrelated to the point in question.
I mean, for Ed it's fine. He's suffering from pain so he lashes out, and he doesn't pretend there's some sort of objective basis or moral component to his mockery.
:)
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:15:14 PM
Where are you getting that from? It isn't in the article.
Life experience as the mother of four kids? :unsure:
Those stupid things show up at every birthday party my kids have ever been to. They show up at bridal and baby showers, at holiday parties, and at Mommy Meets. They're pretty ubiquitous, and they have to come from somewhere. Most are bought at Dharma Trading company, but they have a limited selection. If you want something that's custom-made, there are few options.
Given the huge number of SAHMs who take cake and cupcake decorating classes (based on the fact that they regularly book up at the three major craft stores in town who have them), I'm going with the fact that the whole "homebaked cakes" phenom isn't going away anytime soon. Those plastic picks are almost always included in the decor of the cupcake stuff.
BB would make a terrible Minister for the production and allocation of cupcake thingies
I must admit when i hear students telling me they are majoring in Music, I want to bash their faces in.
I'm confused on something, though. It's nearly impossible to get financial aid for a second BA. Any loans incurred for it would have to be private loans, and have little to do with the FAFSA. So, if the woman in this discussion got a second BA (in Zoology, this time), she had to have paid for it out of pocket, or taken out unsecured student loans. It shouldn't be included in this article as proof that education loans are crippling.
Also, there's no mention in the article on what her first degree was in. If she already has a degree in Biology, and then moves on to Zoology, that makes sense. It puts her in a better position for a job with a zoo, or animal studies. Just saying she has a second BA doesn't really tell anyone much of anything without the context of her first degree.
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:15:14 PM
Where are you getting that from? It isn't in the article.
Life experience as the mother of four kids? :unsure:
Those stupid things show up at every birthday party my kids have ever been to. They show up at bridal and baby showers, at holiday parties, and at Mommy Meets. They're pretty ubiquitous, and they have to come from somewhere. Most are bought at Dharma Trading company, but they have a limited selection. If you want something that's custom-made, there are few options.
Given the huge number of SAHMs who take cake and cupcake decorating classes (based on the fact that they regularly book up at the three major craft stores in town who have them), I'm going with the fact that the whole "homebaked cakes" phenom isn't going away anytime soon. Those plastic picks are almost always included in the decor of the cupcake stuff.
You said "their doodads". Have you seen toppers from this particular company, Thick and Thin Designs? If so then point taken.
If not, then it sounds even worse - they're trying to enter a crowded market.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:15:14 PM
Where are you getting that from? It isn't in the article.
Life experience as the mother of four kids? :unsure:
Those stupid things show up at every birthday party my kids have ever been to. They show up at bridal and baby showers, at holiday parties, and at Mommy Meets. They're pretty ubiquitous, and they have to come from somewhere. Most are bought at Dharma Trading company, but they have a limited selection. If you want something that's custom-made, there are few options.
Given the huge number of SAHMs who take cake and cupcake decorating classes (based on the fact that they regularly book up at the three major craft stores in town who have them), I'm going with the fact that the whole "homebaked cakes" phenom isn't going away anytime soon. Those plastic picks are almost always included in the decor of the cupcake stuff.
You said "their doodads". Have you seen toppers from this particular company, Thick and Thin Designs? If so then point taken.
If not, then it sounds even worse - they're trying to enter a crowded market.
:hmm:
http://www.partycity.com/category/birthday+parties/cake+supplies/cupcake+supplies.do
Huh. My male brain hurts.
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2013, 01:30:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:15:14 PM
Where are you getting that from? It isn't in the article.
Life experience as the mother of four kids? :unsure:
Those stupid things show up at every birthday party my kids have ever been to. They show up at bridal and baby showers, at holiday parties, and at Mommy Meets. They're pretty ubiquitous, and they have to come from somewhere. Most are bought at Dharma Trading company, but they have a limited selection. If you want something that's custom-made, there are few options.
Given the huge number of SAHMs who take cake and cupcake decorating classes (based on the fact that they regularly book up at the three major craft stores in town who have them), I'm going with the fact that the whole "homebaked cakes" phenom isn't going away anytime soon. Those plastic picks are almost always included in the decor of the cupcake stuff.
You said "their doodads". Have you seen toppers from this particular company, Thick and Thin Designs? If so then point taken.
If not, then it sounds even worse - they're trying to enter a crowded market.
:hmm:
In fact I could not find any on the Dharma Trading company website. :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:29:09 PMYou said "their doodads". Have you seen toppers from this particular company, Thick and Thin Designs? If so then point taken.
If not, then it sounds even worse - they're trying to enter a crowded market.
I find it somewhat amusing that you're trying to make some sort of analysis of the soundness of their business plan given you know next to nothing of the industry, the market, the competitors, their track record with their business, or the specifics of their plan.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 01:33:40 PM
I find it somewhat amusing that you're trying to make some sort of analysis of the soundness of their business plan given you know next to nothing of the industry, the market, the competitors, their track record with their business, or the specifics of their plan.
He's not. He's questioning Meri's assumptions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 01:36:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 01:33:40 PM
I find it somewhat amusing that you're trying to make some sort of analysis of the soundness of their business plan given you know next to nothing of the industry, the market, the competitors, their track record with their business, or the specifics of their plan.
He's not. He's questioning Meri's assumptions.
Which assumption is that? The one that counters his assumption that their business plan is crap?
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2013, 01:37:57 PM
Which assumption is that? The one that counters his assumption that their business plan is crap?
My bad. Jacob made the assumption the company was profitable, not you.
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2013, 01:37:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 01:36:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 01:33:40 PM
I find it somewhat amusing that you're trying to make some sort of analysis of the soundness of their business plan given you know next to nothing of the industry, the market, the competitors, their track record with their business, or the specifics of their plan.
He's not. He's questioning Meri's assumptions.
Which assumption is that? The one that counters his assumption that their business plan is crap?
You keep saying this is a successful business. I pointed out that is not stated in the original article. You said their products are sold on Dharma Trading Company. I told you I sure can't find them.
http://www.dharmatrading.com/
Where are you getting this information from? If it is personal experience then why not just answer my question - "yes I have seen products from this company offered for sale lots of times".
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 12:35:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 07:55:33 AM
YOLO
Never understood that reasoning. If you only live once, surely that's a reason to be careful with your health and money? :unsure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c)
UMaine is a public uni. Tution and fees are 10k a year. So the level of debt reported in the story probably involves borrowing for room and board. That plus the fact that two people aged 29 and 31 have not completed a post-undergrad degree between them. I don't intend this as a criticism: there may have been good reasons to make those choices. But some choices in life have the effect of limited or foreclosing others. It is common for young entrepeneurs to eschew college or leave early to avoid those substantial opportunity costs. Those entrepeneurs that elect to incur those costs will, everything else equal, have less time and financial flexibility.
The US has a great tertiary education system but the benefits are spread unequally. Compared to say Germany, US universities have better facilities and resources and more options. Far greater proportion of school leavers attend. On the other hand tution fees in Germany tend to range from zero to very low even by US public university standards. Germany has a much better and more extensive system of vocational and technical education. One downside of the German system is that it tends to stream people early in their lives, perhaps before they really understand what they want to do. But for many kinds of jobs and occupations, the German system probably does better at preparing youths for work without imposing costs on them.
The US system is a lot more flexible. It works best for the very top students that can take advantage of the elite unviersities with names that will always get the graduate "in the door" with employers, regardless of major choice. It also can work for young people that may want to pursue less conventional options but are very disciplined about how they go about doing it. And it also works for young people that take advantage of the public university system to get employable qualifications at a reasonable cost. But for others it doesn't work as well and the availability of unguided choice, high expenses, but easy financing can be deadly.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:43:21 PM
You keep saying this is a successful business. I pointed out that is not stated in the original article. You said their products are sold on Dharma Trading Company. I told you I sure can't find them.
http://www.dharmatrading.com/
Where are you getting this information from? If it is personal experience then why not just answer my question - "yes I have seen products from this company offered for sale lots of times".
:huh:
I never said that I thought they had a profitable company. I said that the industry they've chosen to go into is a profitable industry.
And I misspoke. It's Oriental Trading Company that I'm thinking of, not Dharma. (I go to Dharma for silk painting supplies, so I often confuse the two.)
Oriental Trading (http://www.orientaltrading.com/api/search?Ntt=cupcake+picks)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 01:24:55 PM
I must admit when i hear students telling me they are majoring in Music, I want to bash their faces in.
Yeah if you want to be a musician you need to get out there and play music. People in the music business do not care about a degree, only how good you are.
Though I suppose you might need the degree if you want to teach music or maybe in some specialty fields like wanting to be a symphony orchestra director or something.
Maybe it's wise not to expect to be able to make two big investments in a row if you don't have any money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 01:41:49 PMMy bad. Jacob made the assumption the company was profitable, not you.
I think it's a reasonable assumption to make - albeit with small profits - but I'm willing to concede on that point as it is secondary to my amusement at BB. What I'm finding funny are statements such as these:
Quote from: BarristerBoyAnd to my mind a business making cupcake toppers sounds like a terrible business to get into. The cupcake fad has long since peaked. They're trying to sell bell-bottom jeans and disco balls in 1982.
Quote from: BarristerBoyIf not, then it sounds even worse - they're trying to enter a crowded market.
He knows nothing of their business, their plan, their prior success, or the market they're in (except what Meri tells him) yet he's ready to call say their plan is terrible; presumably due to a dislike of cupcakes, young people with student loans, and/or people with degrees he doesn't like.
As CC said, BB would make a terrible minister responsible for planning the allocation of cupcake thingies.
Quote from: merithyn on August 14, 2013, 01:47:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:43:21 PM
You keep saying this is a successful business. I pointed out that is not stated in the original article. You said their products are sold on Dharma Trading Company. I told you I sure can't find them.
http://www.dharmatrading.com/
Where are you getting this information from? If it is personal experience then why not just answer my question - "yes I have seen products from this company offered for sale lots of times".
:huh:
I never said that I thought they had a profitable company. I said that the industry they've chosen to go into is a profitable industry.
And I misspoke. It's Oriental Trading Company that I'm thinking of, not Dharma. (I go to Dharma for silk painting supplies, so I often confuse the two.)
Oriental Trading (http://www.orientaltrading.com/api/search?Ntt=cupcake+picks)
Glad we could straighten that out. :hug:
Trying to enter an already existing industry can be tough though. What differentiates them from the existing companies that make cupcake toppers? What competitive advantage would they have?
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:56:34 PMGlad we could straighten that out. :hug:
Trying to enter an already existing industry can be tough though. What differentiates them from the existing companies that make cupcake toppers? What competitive advantage would they have?
You should email them and ask.
If their answers satisfy you - and we know that will be a challenge - perhaps we can pool some resources and invest in the $140K laser cutter they need. The "Languish Cupcake Thingie Company" could make us all rich :bowler:
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 01:41:49 PMMy bad. Jacob made the assumption the company was profitable, not you.
I think it's a reasonable assumption to make - albeit with small profits - but I'm willing to concede on that point as it is secondary to my amusement at BB. What I'm finding funny are statements such as these:
Quote from: BarristerBoyAnd to my mind a business making cupcake toppers sounds like a terrible business to get into. The cupcake fad has long since peaked. They're trying to sell bell-bottom jeans and disco balls in 1982.
Quote from: BarristerBoyIf not, then it sounds even worse - they're trying to enter a crowded market.
He knows nothing of their business, their plan, their prior success, or the market they're in (except what Meri tells him) yet he's ready to call say their plan is terrible; presumably due to a dislike of cupcakes, young people with student loans, and/or people with degrees he doesn't like.
As CC said, BB would make a terrible minister responsible for planning the allocation of cupcake thingies.
I'm glad that I can amuse you Jacob, but I find it puzzling that someone talking about an issue without having all the facts is amusing. This is Languish after all - we see this phenomenon on an hourly basis. :cool:
I freely concede I don't know much about the industry (other than the fact that at Andrew's 1st birthday a month ago we had cupcakes with toppers), which is why I continue to use words like "sounds like". I offer opinion and speculation, not hard facts. -_-
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:56:34 PM
Glad we could straighten that out. :hug:
Trying to enter an already existing industry can be tough though. What differentiates them from the existing companies that make cupcake toppers? What competitive advantage would they have?
That they could make custom toppers if they had a laser cutter? :huh:
I thought that point was made ages ago.
Isn't a cutter a kind of small boat? Let's discuss this at length.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2013, 01:48:41 PM
Though I suppose you might need the degree if you want to teach music or maybe in some specialty fields
Maybe in some places. But in our school the band teacher is a jazz trumpet player they hired out of Chicago. He is the awesomest.
Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2013, 02:00:45 PM
Isn't a cutter a kind of small boat? Let's discuss this at length.
A cutting remark from the Brain. So typical.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 01:59:18 PMI'm glad that I can amuse you Jacob, but I find it puzzling that someone talking about an issue without having all the facts is amusing. This is Languish after all - we see this phenomenon on an hourly basis. :cool:
:cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 01:55:16 PM
He knows nothing of their business, their plan, their prior success, or the market they're in (except what Meri tells him) yet he's ready to call say their plan is terrible; presumably due to a dislike of cupcakes, young people with student loans, and/or people with degrees he doesn't like.
No need to presume; he spelled out his logic. The storefront cupcake market appears to be cresting. His mistake was in forgetting about the Martha Stewart home market.
And there's nothing at all illogical about pointing out that a lot of participants means a crowded market, which makes success harder.
there is another unexplained assumption here:
How exactly is the personal uni debt stopping them from getting a business loan?
It is true that the personal debt lowers the value of a personal guarantee.
But if the sales of the business are sufficiently strong and business plan robust, a community bank may still lend, or alternatively, the business owner can get an SBA guarantee.
The SBA microloan program (up to 50K/6yrs) seems tailor-made for this particular business need.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 01:41:49 PMMy bad. Jacob made the assumption the company was profitable, not you.
I think it's a reasonable assumption to make - albeit with small profits - but I'm willing to concede on that point as it is secondary to my amusement at BB. What I'm finding funny are statements such as these:
Quote from: BarristerBoyAnd to my mind a business making cupcake toppers sounds like a terrible business to get into. The cupcake fad has long since peaked. They're trying to sell bell-bottom jeans and disco balls in 1982.
Quote from: BarristerBoyIf not, then it sounds even worse - they're trying to enter a crowded market.
He knows nothing of their business, their plan, their prior success, or the market they're in (except what Meri tells him) yet he's ready to call say their plan is terrible; presumably due to a dislike of cupcakes, young people with student loans, and/or people with degrees he doesn't like.
As CC said, BB would make a terrible minister responsible for planning the allocation of cupcake thingies.
To my mind, from the article, the main problem appears to be that both of them are attempting to run a small-manufacturing business while
at the same time pursue university degrees.
QuoteMs. Carney, 29 years old, and her husband, John, 31, started Thick & Thin Designs, making and selling food picks in the shapes of zombies, bikes and deer antlers after a brainstorming session while she was cooking dinner. The couple, both students at the University of Maine, where he is earning a master's degree in fine arts and she is earning her second undergraduate degree, in zoology, sell the picks for about $12 a dozen as decorative cupcake toppers.
But they chose not to purchase a laser cutter, because doing so would require them to take out a business loan—and together they have $140,000 in leftover student debt. Instead, they use a university-owned laser cutter, which limits the size of the acrylic sheets they can work with. Having the student-loan debt "is preventing me from being able to take a lot of chances or risks that are usually necessary when starting a business," Ms. Carney says.
One of the "chances" most people who attempt startups take, is to pursue the thing whole-heartedly, foregoing such things as a simultaneous academic career. I find it extremely difficult to believe that any couple can, at the very same time, (1) run a successful manufacturing business, and (2) seriously pursue University degrees.
The problem with the article, to my eyes, is that the 'problem' these two are encountering is most likely more to do with their lack of focus, than with their debt load. If I was a bank, I'd not lend these two start-up money if they are doing the business while pursuing degrees, even if they had zero loans already. Why should I have faith in the success of their business if they don't, and want to hedge their bets by pursuing degrees at the same time?
Admittedly, I know nothing of the cupcake-topper business. But I am assuming it is like other businesses in that it takes time, hard work, dedication and money to pursue with success.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2013, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 01:24:55 PM
I must admit when i hear students telling me they are majoring in Music, I want to bash their faces in.
Yeah if you want to be a musician you need to get out there and play music. People in the music business do not care about a degree, only how good you are.
Though I suppose you might need the degree if you want to teach music or maybe in some specialty fields like wanting to be a symphony orchestra director or something.
My brother-in-law majored in music. AFAIK his plan was always to go into construction after college.
As a pure aside, I wonder why they'd want a laser cutter? A 3-D printer sounds ideal for their intended purpose and, although they are expensive, they can be had for much much less than $140k.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 02:05:37 PMAnd there's nothing at all illogical about pointing out that a lot of participants means a crowded market, which makes success harder.
Who said it was illogical?
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
As a pure aside, I wonder why they'd want a laser cutter? A 3-D printer sounds ideal for their intended purpose and, although they are expensive, they can be had for much much less than $140k.
Do they say how much the cutter costs? The 140 K is the amount of their debt, which they say prevents them from getting a business loan.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 02:17:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
As a pure aside, I wonder why they'd want a laser cutter? A 3-D printer sounds ideal for their intended purpose and, although they are expensive, they can be had for much much less than $140k.
Do they say how much the cutter costs? The 140 K is the amount of their debt, which they say prevents them from getting a business loan.
My mistake.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 02:17:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
As a pure aside, I wonder why they'd want a laser cutter? A 3-D printer sounds ideal for their intended purpose and, although they are expensive, they can be had for much much less than $140k.
Do they say how much the cutter costs? The 140 K is the amount of their debt, which they say prevents them from getting a business loan.
I think I introduced that error to the thread. Mea culpa :blush:
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
Who said it was illogical?
No one. You said it was funny. I assumed you found it funny because it did not make sense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 02:24:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
Who said it was illogical?
No one. You said it was funny. I assumed you found it funny because it did not make sense.
So many assumptions flying around in this thread :)
I found it funny because as far as I'm concerned you need to do your due diligence and understand the particulars of your field to develop a good business plan. I thought it ironic that someone would dismiss a business plan without knowing any of the particulars of either the plan nor the field.
It's not that funny anymore, though :(
Now this thread is getting funny.
My assumptions, based on the very few facts available in the article, are that this couple are not really serious about pursuing the business and have limited information concerning the actual costs and profits involved in doing it on their own outside of the University setting - and that these are more serious barriers to their success than their student loans.
IT Certs, people. It's the only solution.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
To my mind, from the article, the main problem appears to be that both of them are attempting to run a small-manufacturing business while at the same time pursue university degrees.
The article states that they are currently using a university owned laser-cutter for their current business. Presumably that wouldn't be available to them if they weren't students. We don't know that they would continue to pursue their degrees if they had a bigger laser cutter.
While I doubt that the two presented in the article are some mute inglorious Bill Hewletts; they're only meant to draw you into the article. The writer is giving you a human example that you can relate to in order to explain how student loans stymie entrepreneurship. Obviously she failed to factor in the Languish element.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2013, 02:05:39 PM
there is another unexplained assumption here:
How exactly is the personal uni debt stopping them from getting a business loan?
It is true that the personal debt lowers the value of a personal guarantee.
But if the sales of the business are sufficiently strong and business plan robust, a community bank may still lend, or alternatively, the business owner can get an SBA guarantee.
The SBA microloan program (up to 50K/6yrs) seems tailor-made for this particular business need.
The need is $140k, not $50k. That's a factor. And when it comes to small business loans, banks generally look at personal credit, too. At least, they did when the toffee company I worked for was looking for a loan.
Though this does sort of look like a good candidate for Kickstarter. :hmm:
EDIT: Just saw that the need isn't known, despite Jacob's statement otherwise. :glare: Anyway, the point still stands. Banks will look at personal credit history for business loans.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2013, 02:30:10 PM
So many assumptions flying around in this thread :)
I found it funny because as far as I'm concerned you need to do your due diligence and understand the particulars of your field to develop a good business plan. I thought it ironic that someone would dismiss a business plan without knowing any of the particulars of either the plan nor the field.
It's not that funny anymore, though :(
This doesn't really explain why Beeb's comment about a crowded market is funny--excuse me, used to be funny.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 14, 2013, 02:37:39 PM
Obviously she failed to factor in the Languish element.
What sane person would?
Quote from: Savonarola on August 14, 2013, 02:37:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
To my mind, from the article, the main problem appears to be that both of them are attempting to run a small-manufacturing business while at the same time pursue university degrees.
The article states that they are currently using a university owned laser-cutter for their current business. Presumably that wouldn't be available to them if they weren't students. We don't know that they would continue to pursue their degrees if they had a bigger laser cutter.
Exactly so. They are manufacturing a product using the University's equipment (we don't know at what cost to them, but it's a reasonable assumption that it isn't at full, commercial rates).
There is exactly zero evidence that they could make a profit in this business if they had to do it on their own, paying commercial rates for the equipment they use.
Add to that the fact that they are doing this business as a side-line while simultaneously pursuing academic degrees, which raises its own red flags, and it looks to me like they are not the best poster-people for the problem alleged in the article.
QuoteWhile I doubt that the two presented in the article are some mute inglorious Bill Hewletts; they're only meant to draw you into the article. The writer is giving you a human example that you can relate to in order to explain how student loans stymie entrepreneurship. Obviously she failed to factor in the Languish element.
Exactly so. What I'm saying is that the writer made the wrong choice of example. My heart does not go out to their plight, because in two brief paragraphs the picture the author presents is not one of buding entrepreneurs stimied by student loan debt.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 02:48:54 PM
Exactly so. What I'm saying is that the writer made the wrong choice of example. My heart does not go out to their plight, because in two brief paragraphs the picture the author presents is not one of buding entrepreneurs stimied by student loan debt.
Only because you require "evidence" that they have a good business plan. Something which would deflect the story from the point it is trying to make. Which is why writers should never have Languish in mind as a target audience. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2013, 02:51:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 02:48:54 PM
Exactly so. What I'm saying is that the writer made the wrong choice of example. My heart does not go out to their plight, because in two brief paragraphs the picture the author presents is not one of buding entrepreneurs stimied by student loan debt.
Only because you require "evidence" that they have a good business plan. Something which would deflect the story from the point it is trying to make. Which is why writers should never have Languish in mind as a target audience. ;)
No, not at all. I've said I know nothing about the market.
What I require is that the article
not include actual evidence that the alleged problem is unlikely to be the real issue.
'I'm pursuing my masters while doing a start-up using university equipment, and for some strange reason the bank won't gimme a loan - must be my student debt! Damn you, university, for screwing me!' :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 02:59:26 PM
'I'm pursuing my masters while doing a start-up using university equipment, and for some strange reason the bank won't gimme a loan - must be my student debt! Damn you, university, for screwing me!' :hmm:
Actually, running a business using university equipment while pursing a degree is a time honoured way of starting a business. They are just doing it more creatively.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2013, 03:01:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 02:59:26 PM
'I'm pursuing my masters while doing a start-up using university equipment, and for some strange reason the bank won't gimme a loan - must be my student debt! Damn you, university, for screwing me!' :hmm:
Actually, running a business using university equipment while pursing a degree is a time honoured way of starting a business. They are just doing it more creatively.
Pursuing a small manufacturing business making cupcake decorations while getting a masters in Zoology? The two have nothing to do with each other. :lol:
It sort of fits with the MFA, I guess.
Assuming they want a laser cutter that cuts relatively small pieces of plastic we are not talking about a lot of money here, something in the range of $5000. (assumption 1)
I think that assumption is sound looking at the pictures and descriptions - they are plastic doodads and small enough to fit on a cupcake.
From a banks POV, whether they have 150K in student debt or none at all doesn't matter much; either way they have no collateral. The bank is going to evaluate this as a loan to the business, secured by the laser cutter, which presumably carries some decent resale value. (assumption 2)
If they can show a good track record of sales and profits on those sales AND if they can show their order flow supports expansion, they have a decent chance of getting that loan. And if the bank balks due to risk, they can always go to the SBA. That involves a lot of PITA paperwork but it can work.
So either:
+ the business isn't strong enough to support the loan, or
+ the local banks in Maine are all very nervous and this couple for some reason can't deal with the SBA application process, or
+ they haven't tried that hard to get the business loan, or
+ there is some other factor at play not mentioned.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2013, 02:43:48 PMThis doesn't really explain why Beeb's comment about a crowded market is funny--excuse me, used to be funny.
It does.
Again, it is because he does not know whether the market is crowded or not for their particular line of products, yet he reacts to a simple anecdote as if it gives him solid factual basis to offer analysis of their business plan.
The device works particularly well because Meri's anecdote causes him to immediately reverse his analysis while maintaining his conclusion unchanged; at first the plan is terrible because there's no market for their product, then when an anecdote indicates that there is indeed a market the plan is terrible because he deems the market overcrowded.
Thus the reader is led to conclude that BB would remain loyal to his initial conclusion and would shape his interpretation of data and anecdotes to support that loyalty; the amusement is derived from watching this process.
Alas, this explanation has done a disservice to both the amusement (killed it through dissection) and BB himself (as there is nothing unique about this on languish, pretty much everyone does it from time to time and with varying degrees of success).
Part of the issue may be that finding good subjects for an article like this is tough.
Take JR's (I think valid) points regarding those who start their own businesses not staying in school so long. A budding entrepreneur has a few options to stay in JR's good graces:
a) forgo education: if the business is successful, then the subject makes education seem unnecessary. If the business fails, the subject looks like just a random uneducated dropout.
b) forgo being an entrepreneur. I'm sure that is what many professionals have done. Random office drone #956482 bringing home a decent paycheck probably has made peace with his decision, and in any event the opportunity loss to the person (and the economy) isn't obvious.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 03:07:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2013, 03:01:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 02:59:26 PM
'I'm pursuing my masters while doing a start-up using university equipment, and for some strange reason the bank won't gimme a loan - must be my student debt! Damn you, university, for screwing me!' :hmm:
Actually, running a business using university equipment while pursing a degree is a time honoured way of starting a business. They are just doing it more creatively.
Pursuing a small manufacturing business making cupcake decorations while getting a masters in Zoology? The two have nothing to do with each other. :lol:
Which is often the case actually. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2013, 03:19:04 PM
It sort of fits with the MFA, I guess.
Assuming they want a laser cutter that cuts relatively small pieces of plastic we are not talking about a lot of money here, something in the range of $5000. (assumption 1)
I think that assumption is sound looking at the pictures and descriptions - they are plastic doodads and small enough to fit on a cupcake.
From a banks POV, whether they have 150K in student debt or none at all doesn't matter much; either way they have no collateral. The bank is going to evaluate this as a loan to the business, secured by the laser cutter, which presumably carries some decent resale value. (assumption 2)
If they can show a good track record of sales and profits on those sales AND if they can show their order flow supports expansion, they have a decent chance of getting that loan. And if the bank balks due to risk, they can always go to the SBA. That involves a lot of PITA paperwork but it can work.
So either:
+ the business isn't strong enough to support the loan, or
+ the local banks in Maine are all very nervous and this couple for some reason can't deal with the SBA application process, or
+ they haven't tried that hard to get the business loan, or
+ there is some other factor at play not mentioned.
I've never tried to take out a small business loan, but it strikes me that with a start-up business with essentially no assets, the banks might require the principals of that business to make loan guarantees on behalf of the business. Being deep in debt may prevent the bank from accepting loan guarantees from them.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 03:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2013, 03:19:04 PM
It sort of fits with the MFA, I guess.
Assuming they want a laser cutter that cuts relatively small pieces of plastic we are not talking about a lot of money here, something in the range of $5000. (assumption 1)
I think that assumption is sound looking at the pictures and descriptions - they are plastic doodads and small enough to fit on a cupcake.
From a banks POV, whether they have 150K in student debt or none at all doesn't matter much; either way they have no collateral. The bank is going to evaluate this as a loan to the business, secured by the laser cutter, which presumably carries some decent resale value. (assumption 2)
If they can show a good track record of sales and profits on those sales AND if they can show their order flow supports expansion, they have a decent chance of getting that loan. And if the bank balks due to risk, they can always go to the SBA. That involves a lot of PITA paperwork but it can work.
So either:
+ the business isn't strong enough to support the loan, or
+ the local banks in Maine are all very nervous and this couple for some reason can't deal with the SBA application process, or
+ they haven't tried that hard to get the business loan, or
+ there is some other factor at play not mentioned.
I've never tried to take out a small business loan, but it strikes me that with a start-up business with essentially no assets, the banks might require the principals of that business to make loan guarantees on behalf of the business. Being deep in debt may prevent the bank from accepting loan guarantees from them.
Yeah, the only thing the bank is really going to be concerned about is collateral vs personal debts of the guarrantors. In this case, after their debt load is taken into consideration, they probably didnt have the collateral to secure small amount they needed (using JR's assumptions).
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 03:38:13 PM
I've never tried to take out a small business loan, but it strikes me that with a start-up business with essentially no assets, the banks might require the principals of that business to make loan guarantees on behalf of the business. Being deep in debt may prevent the bank from accepting loan guarantees from them.
I expect it varies from place to place, but what I've been advised - and what little I've seen myself - small business loans from banks are not useful for start ups. The banks are simply too risk averse.
Either you have the financial substance to personally guarantee the loans anyhow - but using your line of credit or a second mortgage makes it essentially a personal loan.
Alternately, you're the kind of person whose personal history (family, connections, education, social skills) and rock solid business plan means that you may convince the bank to lend you money; but if you have all that, you're likely to be able to secure venture capital or friends & family funding, on better terms than the bank.
... but most likely, the bank won't even look at you until you don't need their help anymore.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 03:38:13 PM
I've never tried to take out a small business loan, but it strikes me that with a start-up business with essentially no assets, the banks might require the principals of that business to make loan guarantees on behalf of the business. Being deep in debt may prevent the bank from accepting loan guarantees from them.
:yes:
This was most definitely the case with the toffee shop. :contract:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2013, 03:47:14 PMYeah, the only thing the bank is really going to be concerned about is collateral vs personal debts of the guarrantors. In this case, after their debt load is taken into consideration, they probably didnt have the collateral to secure small amount they needed (using JR's assumptions).
Which actually supports the article's point.
The heavy student loan burden makes the kind of personally guaranteed small loans that are often crucial to get a small scale entrepreneurial business up and running out of reach for practically a whole generation.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 03:38:13 PM
I've never tried to take out a small business loan, but it strikes me that with a start-up business with essentially no assets, the banks might require the principals of that business to make loan guarantees on behalf of the business. Being deep in debt may prevent the bank from accepting loan guarantees from them.
personal guarantees are almost always required.
But the amount of debt is not going to matter for that purpose if there are no assets.
I.e. from the banks perspective, 0 assets, 0 debt is not much better for guaranty purposes than 0 assets, 140k debt. Either way, there isn't anything to collect on.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2013, 03:19:04 PM
It sort of fits with the MFA, I guess.
Assuming they want a laser cutter that cuts relatively small pieces of plastic we are not talking about a lot of money here, something in the range of $5000. (assumption 1)
I think that assumption is sound looking at the pictures and descriptions - they are plastic doodads and small enough to fit on a cupcake.
From a banks POV, whether they have 150K in student debt or none at all doesn't matter much; either way they have no collateral. The bank is going to evaluate this as a loan to the business, secured by the laser cutter, which presumably carries some decent resale value. (assumption 2)
If they can show a good track record of sales and profits on those sales AND if they can show their order flow supports expansion, they have a decent chance of getting that loan. And if the bank balks due to risk, they can always go to the SBA. That involves a lot of PITA paperwork but it can work.
Suddenly I understand how people can spend three years writing their doctoral thesis on minor characters in Jane Austen novels.
QuoteSo either:
+ the business isn't strong enough to support the loan, or
+ the local banks in Maine are all very nervous and this couple for some reason can't deal with the SBA application process, or
+ they haven't tried that hard to get the business loan, or
+ there is some other factor at play not mentioned.
I can't access the article anymore, but I don't think they tried for the loan at all. They don't think they can afford both payments for their student loans and for their business loans.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 14, 2013, 03:36:06 PM
Part of the issue may be that finding good subjects for an article like this is tough.
Take JR's (I think valid) points regarding those who start their own businesses not staying in school so long. A budding entrepreneur has a few options to stay in JR's good graces:
a) forgo education: if the business is successful, then the subject makes education seem unnecessary. If the business fails, the subject looks like just a random uneducated dropout.
b) forgo being an entrepreneur. I'm sure that is what many professionals have done. Random office drone #956482 bringing home a decent paycheck probably has made peace with his decision, and in any event the opportunity loss to the person (and the economy) isn't obvious.
I don't make the rules.
As a society, we celebrate the entrepeneur. And indeed society as a whole benefits from new business generation.
But from the perspective of the individual, the risks of failure are considerable. Keynes observed that venturing activity is essentially irrational as a sound risk calculation (hence the need for "animal spirits) and he had a good point.
You can lower the cost of entrepeneurship or take the sting out of failure but at the cost of loosening the discipline of the market test. During the late 90s there was something of a natural experiment along those lines as young people with no experience found that they could get new business ventures funded simply by saying ".com". Some of those ventures succeeded but many failed quite badly due to poor business plans and lack of execution. What the overall impact was on the economy is open to question.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2013, 03:51:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2013, 03:38:13 PM
I've never tried to take out a small business loan, but it strikes me that with a start-up business with essentially no assets, the banks might require the principals of that business to make loan guarantees on behalf of the business. Being deep in debt may prevent the bank from accepting loan guarantees from them.
personal guarantees are almost always required.
But the amount of debt is not going to matter for that purpose if there are no assets.
I.e. from the banks perspective, 0 assets, 0 debt is not much better for guaranty purposes than 0 assets, 140k debt. Either way, there isn't anything to collect on.
Fair enough, makes sense to me. Zero is the same as -140K, because either way, you won't be paid back.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 12:35:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 07:55:33 AM
YOLO
Never understood that reasoning. If you only live once, surely that's a reason to be careful with your health and money? :unsure:
Apologies if someone already posted this. I'm just getting caught up on the day. :blush:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 05:52:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 12:35:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 07:55:33 AM
YOLO
Never understood that reasoning. If you only live once, surely that's a reason to be careful with your health and money? :unsure:
Apologies if someone already posted this. I'm just getting caught up on the day. :blush:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c
I did. :lol: No apologies needed, though. :hug:
Btw, my entrepreneur-y friends (Shameless plug: http://www.customeeple.com/ (http://www.customeeple.com/)) bought a laser cutter a few weeks ago, and they didn't need a loan, so they can't be *that* expensive.
Quote from: The Larch on August 14, 2013, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2013, 05:52:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2013, 12:35:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2013, 07:55:33 AM
YOLO
Never understood that reasoning. If you only live once, surely that's a reason to be careful with your health and money? :unsure:
Apologies if someone already posted this. I'm just getting caught up on the day. :blush:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c
I did. :lol: No apologies needed, though. :hug:
Btw, my entrepreneur-y friends (Shameless plug: http://www.customeeple.com/ (http://www.customeeple.com/)) bought a laser cutter a few weeks ago, and they didn't need a loan, so they can't be *that* expensive.
:hug:
Google shows them running 2-6k.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2013, 04:03:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 14, 2013, 03:36:06 PM
Part of the issue may be that finding good subjects for an article like this is tough.
Take JR's (I think valid) points regarding those who start their own businesses not staying in school so long. A budding entrepreneur has a few options to stay in JR's good graces:
a) forgo education: if the business is successful, then the subject makes education seem unnecessary. If the business fails, the subject looks like just a random uneducated dropout.
b) forgo being an entrepreneur. I'm sure that is what many professionals have done. Random office drone #956482 bringing home a decent paycheck probably has made peace with his decision, and in any event the opportunity loss to the person (and the economy) isn't obvious.
I don't make the rules.
As a society, we celebrate the entrepeneur. And indeed society as a whole benefits from new business generation.
But from the perspective of the individual, the risks of failure are considerable. Keynes observed that venturing activity is essentially irrational as a sound risk calculation (hence the need for "animal spirits) and he had a good point.
You can lower the cost of entrepeneurship or take the sting out of failure but at the cost of loosening the discipline of the market test. During the late 90s there was something of a natural experiment along those lines as young people with no experience found that they could get new business ventures funded simply by saying ".com". Some of those ventures succeeded but many failed quite badly due to poor business plans and lack of execution. What the overall impact was on the economy is open to question.
And yet it's still a lot easier to fail as an entrepreneur than it is to choose the wrong kind of education, insofar as a personal guaranty involves some sort of basic underwriting and are dischargeable, neither of which features student loans possess.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2013, 04:03:36 PM
I don't make the rules.
As a society, we celebrate the entrepeneur. And indeed society as a whole benefits from new business generation.
But from the perspective of the individual, the risks of failure are considerable. Keynes observed that venturing activity is essentially irrational as a sound risk calculation (hence the need for "animal spirits) and he had a good point.
You can lower the cost of entrepeneurship or take the sting out of failure but at the cost of loosening the discipline of the market test. During the late 90s there was something of a natural experiment along those lines as young people with no experience found that they could get new business ventures funded simply by saying ".com". Some of those ventures succeeded but many failed quite badly due to poor business plans and lack of execution. What the overall impact was on the economy is open to question.
I wouldn't say it is a question of lowering the cost of entrepreneurship beyond what some theoretical market test would impose. I'd argue that the educational and regulatory system we have today is significantly increasing the cost of failure. For example, I don't think soaring educational costs is just the free market at work---government action is having a significant impact.
Ideologue, AR: I agree with the points that the current educational finance system in the US is suboptimal and that government action has contributed to that.
That also relates to my earlier post where I questioned the overall effectiveness and equity of the US tertiary educational system.
I don't think however that the critical symptom of that problem is a decline in entrepeneurial options among FMA grads in their early 30s.
I prefer to characterize it as government inaction.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2013, 10:20:31 AM
I prefer to characterize it as government inaction.
That's your diagnosis of everything. ;)
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2013/08/15/report-half-of-all-homes-are-being-purchased-with-cash/?mod=e2tw (http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2013/08/15/report-half-of-all-homes-are-being-purchased-with-cash/?mod=e2tw)
QuoteThere's no exact way to know who is responsible for all of these cash purchases, though they are likely to include some combination of investors, foreign buyers, and wealthy homeowners that don't want to go through the hassle of getting a mortgage before closing on a sale.
And three-quarters of all Americans will rent by 2015. Or maybe they already do.
Be the owners.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 16, 2013, 05:15:52 AM
Be the owners.
Sometimes that's easier said than done, Daddy Slumbucks.
Looks like even some vets are having trouble.
QuoteHero Drone Finds GI Bill Doesn't Cover Software Upgrades
WASHINGTON, DC – In its seven years with the Air Force's 451st Air Expeditionary Wing, MQ-1B Predator, Tail Number 07-001211 flew more than 18,000 hours of combat support and strike missions over Afghanistan and Pakistan. This qualifies it as one of the most experienced drones in the military's inventory but not apparently for the software upgrades it will need to find a job back home.
"I call my VA rep, and the son of a bitch tells me I'm only eligible for software packages priced at the Windows 98 level or equivalent," the unmanned aerial platform said from its hangar in Northern Virginia. "Like I'm some fucking Hewlett-Packard."
Indeed, the Department of Veterans Affairs, which administers the Post-9/11 GI Bill, stipulates that only living, breathing human beings can qualify for full benefits of the program. Unmanned vehicles and robots, on the other hand, fall into a slimmer, more vaguely worded category of coverage in which software and some hardware upgrades are available but only from the lowest bidding companies and manufacturers.
This leaves pricier options – often the only upgrades actually compatible with the member in question's build – out of reach for veteran machines like 07-001211 who sacrificed so much for their country and say they're only looking for a sincere return on that investment.
"Can you believe it? I spend years risking life and wing, getting dicked around by some 19-year-old on a joystick in god-knows-where Nevada, dropping bombs on god-knows-what kinds of hospitals and schools – I'm telling you, man, I've seen some shit," said 07-001211. "But did I ever say no? Did I ever refuse to fly? Not once. You think that'd be worth something to these bozos at the VA, but I guess to them I'm just another piece of paperwork in a blue folder."
Without a significant overhaul of its software suite, 07-001211 says it doesn't stand a chance in the jobs market against newer model UAVs.
"Local law enforcement, the parks service – they're all only interested in these hotshot young birds with their high-def sensors and their fancy motion and change-detecting technology," said 07-00211. "I tell 'em I got day-in, day-out reliability, but you think they give a shit? I even called for a job flying sandwich shop banners over Rehoboth Beach but got turned away cause I don't have any seaside experience."
07-001211 says that if it doesn't get some kind of help from the government soon, it will almost certainly fall on hard times in the months and years ahead. The increasingly destitute UAV suffers from mechanical issues including a squeaky wheel and a recurring oil leak that are harsh reminders of tough years spent overseas. Further, without a job, bankers are threatening to foreclose on its hangar. On both of these issues, the country that 07-001211 served so bravely has been nowhere.
The worst of it, though, 07-001211 says, is that its manufacturers at Boeing don't even recognize the happy-go-lucky drone they say they knew before the war.
"The recruiters, they told me 'Aim high,' 'Be all you can be.' You know I actually believed that nonsense?" 07-001211 said. "More like 'Do your time and then go fuck yourself.' Thanks, Obama!"
At press time, 07-001211 was spotted drunk, catcalling middle school-aged girls on the National Mall.
"God, DC would be so lovely if weren't for all these bum death machines," said a passing tourist. "Why doesn't it just get a job?"
Lame.
Drone should've been written as a robot.
Its not a robot though.
I thought it was pretty good. Possibly a little long-ish, but still funny.
Here's an article going around on my facebook about a black kid from South LA who despite having a 4.0 at his high school, had a 1.7 his first semester that Berkeley because apparently he didn't have basic writing skills*.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-c1-cal-freshmen-20130816-dto,0,4673807.htmlstory
Part of the article that interested me was this:
QuoteYet he did everything he could to fit in. He lived at the African-American Theme Program — two floors in Christian Hall housing roughly 50 black freshmen, an effort to build bonds among a community whose numbers have dwindled over the last two decades.
He filled his dorm room with Cal posters, and wore clothes emblazoned with the school's name. Each morning the gawky, bone-thin teen energetically reminded his dorm mates to "have a Caltastic day!"
"It was clear that Kashawn was someone who didn't know about, or maybe care about, social norms," said one of his friends. "A lot of people would laugh at first. They didn't understand how someone could be that enthusiastic."
But as the semester got going, he began to stumble. The first essay for the writing class that accounted for half of his course load was so bad his teacher gave him a "No Pass." Same for the second essay.
"It's like a different planet here," he said one day, walking down Telegraph Avenue through a mash of humanity he'd never been exposed to before: white kids, Asian kids, rich kids, bearded hipsters and burnt-out hippies. Many of them jaywalked. Not Kashawn. Just as he'd been taught, he only used crosswalks, only stepped onto the street when the coast was clear or a light flashed green. His shoulders slumped.
"I'm not used to the people. Not used to the type of buildings. Definitely not used to the pressure I feel."
Part of the pressure came from race. After peaking at 7% in the late 1980s and early '90s, the undergraduate African American population at Cal had been declining for years, especially since Proposition 209 had banned affirmative action in admissions to California public colleges. When Kashawn arrived, 3% of Berkeley undergraduates were African American.
The low numbers were the source of constant talk on the theme program floors, the symbolic center of black life for Cal freshmen.
"Sometimes we feel like we're not wanted on campus," Kashawn said, surrounded at a dinner table by several of his dorm mates, all of them nodding in agreement. "It's usually subtle things, glances or not being invited to study groups. Little, constant aggressions."
I wonder to what extent his alienation stemmed from his race and what was just from him not being particularly knowledgeable of social norms as his one friend said. Maybe Cal is different but I don't recall ever feeling like people were against black people being on campus at Stanford - except for perhaps from other black people who had deemed you not black enough (typically those living at the theme program house).
*which must have been pretty bad as freshmen generally don't have any writing skills!
I dunno...from their reputation Cal always seemed to strike me as one of the big bastions of embracing diversity, regardless of the law changes...but, considering what's involved in surviving South Central as a kid--to be insulated, cut off and downright isolated by your parents Mom in order to simply keep you alive--I'd say on the surface it appears that it's more about where he's coming from than where he wound up.
And yeah, kids can't write these days anyway, but you magnify that with the simple fact of the quality of public education in South L.A., well, we all know what that's about. You have any semblance of skills in such a shitty public school system, you get moved forward and damn the details. NO CHILLINS LEF BEHIND
"Little, constant aggressions." I like that. Great sentence, kid.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2013, 11:25:21 AM
And yeah, kids can't write these days anyway, but you magnify that with the simple fact of the quality of public education in South L.A., well, we all know what that's about. You have any semblance of skills in such a shitty public school system, you get moved forward and damn the details. NO CHILLINS LEF BEHIND
Yeah that's likely true. I mean even when I was in high school that had funding, most efforts were directed towards state tests / book report type essays.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2013, 11:25:21 AM
"Little, constant aggressions." I like that. Great sentence, kid.
Maybe but it really just sounds like paranoia given what he's describing.
QuoteEach morning the gawky, bone-thin teen energetically reminded his dorm mates to "have a Caltastic day!"
Gee, I wonder why nobody liked him.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2013, 10:32:16 PM
QuoteEach morning the gawky, bone-thin teen energetically reminded his dorm mates to "have a Caltastic day!"
Gee, I wonder why nobody liked him.
If he was a girl, I'd expect you to be all over that.
I could possibly ignore exhortations to have a "Caltastic day," yes. Life isn't fair.
QuoteOnly 1-in-4 ACT test-takers have college, career skills
By Philip Elliott, The Associated Press
Just a quarter of this year's high school graduates who took the ACT tests have the reading, math, English and science skills they need to succeed in college or a career, according to the testing company.
The numbers are even worse for black high school graduates: Only 5 percent are fully ready for life after high school.
The results, part of ACT's annual report, indicate thousands of students graduate from high schools without the knowledge necessary for the next steps in life. The data also show a downturn in overall student scores, although company officials attribute the slide to updated standards and more students taking the exams — including those with no intention of attending two- or four-year colleges.
"The readiness of students leaves a lot to be desired," said Jon Erickson, president of the Iowa-based company's education division.
The ACT report is based on the 54 percent of high school graduates this year who took the exams. Roughly the same percentage took the SAT — the other major college entrance exam — and many students took both tests. Those who took only the SAT were not included in the report.
Under ACT's definition, a young adult is ready to start college or trade school if he or she has the knowledge to succeed without taking remedial courses. Success is defined as the student's having a 75 percent chance of earning a C grade and a 50 percent chance of earning a B, based on results on each of the four ACT subject areas, which are measured on a scale from 1 to 36 points.
Of all ACT-tested high school graduates this year, 64 percent met the English benchmark of 18 points. In both reading and math, 44 percent of students met the readiness threshold of 22 points. In science, 36 percent scored well enough to be considered ready for a college biology course, or 23 points.
Only 26 percent of students met the benchmarks for all four sections of the ACT test.
About 69 percent of test takers met at least one of the four subject-area standards. That means 31 percent of all high school graduates who took the ACT were not ready for college coursework requiring English, reading, math or science skills.
Of the 1.7 million students who took the 215-question ACT exam, as many as 290,000 were within 2 points of meeting at least one of the four the readiness thresholds.
"There is a group that's on the fence," Erickson said in an interview with The Associated Press. "With a little further instruction or motivation, perhaps some additional remediation or refreshing some of their past skills, they may be able to achieve that benchmark."
When the testing agency broke down the results by race, fault lines emerged. Just 5 percent of black students are ready for college work in all four areas. Among American Indians, 10 percent are ready in all subjects, while 14 percent of Hispanics are ready. Pacific Islanders post a 19 percent readiness rate for all four subjects. White students have a 33 percent rate, and 43 percent of Asian-American students are ready for studies in all four subjects.
Students from all racial backgrounds did best in English and worst in science.
Some states and school districts have begun requiring more students to take the tests. About 22 percent more students took the ACT test in 2013 than in 2009. In the past four years, ACT has increased its share of the test market, climbing from 45 percent of high school graduates in 2009 to 54 percent this year.
ACT, which was founded in 1959 as American College Testing, said it updated its benchmarks for success in reading and science this year to better reflect what students need to know. The percentage of students with reading skills needed to succeed after graduation slid from 53 in 2009 to 44 last year, while science readiness scores climbed from 28 percent in 2009 to 36 percent last year. Both differences may have been caused in part by changes in the benchmarks.
In other subjects without changes in the benchmarks, students' readiness scores have declined. In English, scores slid from 67 percent in 2009 to 64 percent last year. And in math, scores increased slightly, from 42 percent in 2009 to 44 percent this year.
Is the ACT really saying that its test focuses only on what people need to know in life?
No, I think what they're saying is they provide a readily testable barometer of baseline knowledge in math, reading, English and science that should be acquired by the time one graduates from high school.
If it was what people "need to know in life", they'd test on how to get a lit cigarette out of your lap while driving at 60 mph.
But they are saying that only 5% of takers are ready for college and careers. Somehow I don't think that's the case but instead just based on their rule system they've devised.
I think it fits into the bigger picture, converging with both undergraduate admissions getting looser in degree factories, the associated grade inflation to keep them there and moving forward, and Ide's student loan Ponzi scheme.
I'm with the g-man here. I got a high score on the ACT, which shows you it's not a good barometer for anything.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 06:30:44 PM
If it was what people "need to know in life", they'd test on how to get a lit cigarette out of your lap while driving at 60 mph.
Once back when I smoked I flicked a cigarette out the window (Yeah I know) and the wind caught it and blew it back into the car, between my back and the seat. On the freeway of course. That was a scary 30 seconds.
Another time I had some sort of buzzing bug fly into the window and get caught between my sunglasses and my face. I miss those glasses.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2013, 06:34:44 PM
But they are saying that only 5% of takers are ready for college and careers. Somehow I don't think that's the case but instead just based on their rule system they've devised.
5% is blacks. And they explain what they mean by ready: no need for remedial classes in college.
Quote from: sbr on August 21, 2013, 06:52:31 PM
Another time I had some sort of buzzing bug fly into the window and get caught between my sunglasses and my face. I miss those glasses.
LOL, my very first pager I used to clip on the visor to get it off my belt; the sun was hitting me from the side one afternoon so I swung the visor over to the door side, and there went the pager, right into rush hour beltway traffic.
I can neither confirm nor deny rumors of a company owned cell phone flying out the window of a company owned vehicle. :ph34r:
Quote from: sbr on August 21, 2013, 06:52:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 06:30:44 PM
If it was what people "need to know in life", they'd test on how to get a lit cigarette out of your lap while driving at 60 mph.
Once back when I smoked I flicked a cigarette out the window (Yeah I know) and the wind caught it and blew it back into the car, between my back and the seat. On the freeway of course. That was a scary 30 seconds.
Another time I had some sort of buzzing bug fly into the window and get caught between my sunglasses and my face. I miss those glasses.
That happened to me except it was a wasp millimeters from my eye. I slammed on the brakes and screamed.
QuoteHere's who's really living with Mom and Dad
Allison Linn CNBC
Here's the stereotype: Across the country, basements are full of 20- and 30-somethings who graduated from college and now live with mom and dad because they can't find a job.
The reality? Millions of the millennials who are stuck in their parents' homes don't have a college degree and can't get a break in this harsh economy, a new analysis of government data shows.
Just ask Levi Oleson.
The 26-year-old once dreamed of being a pilot. Then the flight school he was attending went bankrupt, leaving him with $60,000 in debt but not enough training to start his career. A broken leg put him $10,000 deeper in the debt hole.
Now he's living with his mom and dad again, and working up to 70 hours a week cleaning sewers, instead of soaring through the skies.
"I never thought I'd be in this position. I'm about to turn 27 and I always thought (by now) I'd be on my own and have my own things going," he said.
A Pew Research Center analysis released earlier this month found that 40 percent of 18- to 31-year-olds with a high school degree or less, and 43 percent of those with some college education, were living at their parents' home in 2012.
That compares with just 18 percent of millennials with a college degree who were living at home in 2012.
"This phenomenon of increasingly living with mom and/or dad, this is more concentrated among the less educated," said Richard Fry, a senior economist with Pew Research Center.
About 40 percent of young men in that age range were living at home, compared to 32 percent of young women. That follows a long-term trend of young men being more likely to live longer with their parents than young women.
The analysis of the government's Current Population Survey data includes people who are going to college and living either at home or in college dorms, which partly explains why so many younger, less-educated millennials are counted as living at home.
But a closer shows a sharper surge in non-college educated millennials ages 25 to 31 who are still in their parents' homes.
Pew's analysis found that 19 percent of 25- to 31-year-olds with a high school degree or less were living at home in 2012, up from 15 percent in 2007. By comparison, 12 percent of 25- to 31-year-olds with a bachelor's degree or more were living at home in 2012, a statistically insignificant change from 11 percent in 2007.
There's also been a sharper increase in 25- to 31-year-olds with some college education living at home. Their ranks increased from 14 percent in 2007 to 17 percent in 2012.
Oleson is grateful that his parents have given him a place to stay. But the situation has crimped his ability to do many of the things he expected to do by now, like get married and maybe even start a family.
"It's hard to meet a girl and tell her you live with your parents at that age," he said. "It's not really good for the ego."
Oleson is hoping that within a year he can afford to get his own place, but he's not sure if he'll ever get back to his original dream of becoming a pilot. But he said he's become more savvy with money, at least.
"I've become pretty cheap," he said, "and I think I've learned a good lesson about getting too much into debt."
Hard job market, made tougher
About 45 percent of unemployed millennials were living with their parents in 2012, the Pew analysis found.
The weak job market of the past five years has certainly made it tough for young college grads to find a good job, but economists say young people with little education are probably having a harder time.
That's because they have neither the skills nor the experience to land a good job, plus they have to compete with college grads who might be willing to take a job that doesn't require a college degree.
"It's hit people harder with lower levels of education, and this sort of underscores that," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal-leaning think tank.
Even if younger workers can get a job, it can take a while to earn enough to go it alone.
James McAllister, 24, was finally able to move out of his mom's house last year after several years of living at home.
To make ends meet, he works a full-time retail job plus a second, part-time retail job. The Merriam, Kan., resident also has doesn't have a car and has become an avid saver, coupon clipper and bargain hunter.
McAllister says he enjoyed living with his mom, but he felt he'd outstayed his welcome and it was time to move on. Now that he is on his own, he says he's lost weight and his social life has improved.
"I feel better," he said. "I feel more in control."
Quote from: Ideologue on August 18, 2013, 12:28:25 AM
I could possibly ignore exhortations to have a "Caltastic day," yes. Life isn't fair.
Anything for a Caltasm.
Obama Says Law School Should Be Two, Not Three, Years
President Obama urged law schools on Friday to consider cutting a year of classroom instruction, wading into a hotly debated issue inside the beleaguered legal academy.
"This is probably controversial to say, but what the heck. I am in my second term, so I can say it," Mr. Obama said at a town hall-style meeting at Binghamton University in New York. "I believe that law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three years."
The president's surprising remarks, made while discussing how to make education more affordable, come at a time of crisis for law schools. With an increasing number of graduates struggling with soaring tuition costs, heavy student debt and a difficult job market, a growing number of professors and administrators are pushing for broad reforms in legal education.
...
On Friday, he questioned the utility of a third year of classes and suggested that students use their final two semesters to gain work experience. "In the first two years, young people are learning in the classroom," Mr. Obama said. "The third year, they'd be better off clerking or practicing in a firm even if they weren't getting paid that much, but that step alone would reduce the costs for the student."
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/obama-says-law-school-should-be-two-years-not-three/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F08%2F23%2Fbusiness%2Fdealbook%2Fdbpix-law-obama%2Fdbpix-law-obama-tmagArticle.jpg&hash=b5e73db6e28beee18a16d8b83b2250f85504b457)
Quote from: Phillip V on August 24, 2013, 01:08:18 AM
Obama Says Law School Should Be Two, Not Three, Years
President Obama urged law schools on Friday to consider cutting a year of classroom instruction, wading into a hotly debated issue inside the beleaguered legal academy.
"This is probably controversial to say, but what the heck. I am in my second term, so I can say it," Mr. Obama said at a town hall-style meeting at Binghamton University in New York. "I believe that law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three years."
The president's surprising remarks, made while discussing how to make education more affordable, come at a time of crisis for law schools. With an increasing number of graduates struggling with soaring tuition costs, heavy student debt and a difficult job market, a growing number of professors and administrators are pushing for broad reforms in legal education.
...
On Friday, he questioned the utility of a third year of classes and suggested that students use their final two semesters to gain work experience. "In the first two years, young people are learning in the classroom," Mr. Obama said. "The third year, they'd be better off clerking or practicing in a firm even if they weren't getting paid that much, but that step alone would reduce the costs for the student."
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/obama-says-law-school-should-be-two-years-not-three/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F08%2F23%2Fbusiness%2Fdealbook%2Fdbpix-law-obama%2Fdbpix-law-obama-tmagArticle.jpg&hash=b5e73db6e28beee18a16d8b83b2250f85504b457)
Sounds like Obama is advocating for the Canadian tradition of articling... :unsure:
Sounds like Obama wants to increase the output of lawyers by making their production 33% more efficient, worsening the problem.
Ide is corrrect. Lawyers tend to have a strong urge to reproduce, and often take steps to provide a food source for the next generation of bbs and Martys.
Obama is right, but he's got the wrong field. It's medicine that needs a shorter school time. It's everything, really, but medicine especially.
Smart people are smart.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/law-school-applicants-decline-especially-among-grads-of-elite-colleges/?_r=1
QuoteLaw School Applicants Decline, Especially Among Graduates of Elite Colleges
We've written before about the declining interest in law school, as evidenced by the number of people taking the Law School Admission Test and the number applying to law schools. Over at the Associate's Mind blog, Keith Lee notes that the number of applicants is down across the board, but the drop-off is particularly sharp among people who went to elite schools for their bachelor's degrees.
He looked at graduates of the Ivies and three other schools (Stanford, Duke, the University of Chicago); I've done a similar analysis, but included the top 20 national universities as ranked by U.S. News that send a substantial number of alumni to law school each year. (Note that M.I.T. and Caltech, which are top-ranked national universities by U.S. News, are not included in this analysis because they are not among the top 240 biggest feeders to law schools for which the Law School Admission Council releases data.)
Across the board, the number of people applying to matriculate in fall 2012 was 67,700, down about 17 percent from the number who applied to matriculate in fall 2008 (82,000).
The average decline in applicants who graduated from the "elite" schools was 28 percent.
[chart omitted]
Among all 240 feeder schools that the Law School Admission Council releases data for, Rice had the biggest decline; 135 of its alumni applied to matriculate in fall 2008, but only about half that number applied for the fall 2012 semester.
I'm not sure why graduates with bachelor's degrees from these higher-ranked universities have shown larger declines in interest in law school. Maybe they have access to better career services offices, which informed them that opportunities for newly minted lawyers have declined. Or maybe the range of jobs available to them in nonlegal fields has recovered faster than that for most college graduates, so the Ivy Leaguers feel less pressure to wait out the terrible job market by enrolling in law school. Or maybe it's just coincidence.
I should note, by the way, that among the 240 feeder schools the Law School Admission Council tracks, there were 55 feeder schools that saw their alumni law school applicants increase; 22 schools had percentage increases in the double-digits.
Among the schools with the biggest increases in percentage terms were Florida Gulf Coast University, Liberty University, Sam Houston State University, Utah Valley University and the University of New Mexico. Rutgers University School of Arts and Sciences (a program founded in 2006) and Kaplan University (where enrollment grew sharply in the early years of the 2000s) had the biggest increases in the number of their graduates who applied to law school.
About time you give me credit.
DAMN IT
No, I've always thought you were rather bright. Conspicuously educated, sure, but bright. :D
Colleges Set to Offer Exit Tests: Employers Say They Don't Trust Grade-Point Averages
'Next spring, seniors at about 200 U.S. colleges will take a new test that could prove more important than final exams: an SAT-like assessment that aims to judge students' real value to employers.
...
The test is part of a movement to find new ways to assess the skills of graduates. Employers say grades can be misleading and that they have grown skeptical of college credentials.
...
Even as students spend more on tuition—and take on increasing debt to pay for it—they are earning diplomas whose value is harder to calculate. Studies show that grade-point averages, or GPAs, have been rising steadily for decades, but employers feel many new graduates aren't prepared for the workforce.
Meanwhile, more students are taking inexpensive classes such as Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs, but have no way to earn a meaningful academic credential from them.
HNTB Corp., a national architectural firm with 3,600 employees, see value in new tools such as the CLA +, said Michael Sweeney, a senior vice president. Even students with top grades from good schools may not "be able to write well or make an argument," he said. "I think at some point everybody has been fooled by good grades or a good resume."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323980604579029143959843818.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FP1-BM853_TEST_D_20130825191504.jpg&hash=40cc98d316d8e0f52de5a7d45fa150cfa96db6d9)
QuoteEmployers Say They Don't Trust Grade-Point Averages
:lol: Good, I can tell them my undergrad GPA is totally off.
Employers don't trust GPA unless that GPA is low, then they trust it.
SON OF A
Quote from: PDH on August 26, 2013, 07:23:33 AM
Employers don't trust GPA unless that GPA is low, then they trust it.
:ultra:
From the article:
QuoteOnly one in four employers think that two- and four-year colleges are doing a good job preparing students for the global economy, according to a 2010 survey conducted for the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Meanwhile, GPAs have been on the rise. A 2012 study looking at the grades of 1.5 million students from 200 four-year U.S. colleges and universities found that the percentage of A's given by teachers nearly tripled between 1940 and 2008. A college diploma is now more a mark "of social class than an indicator of academic accomplishment," said Stuart Rojstaczer, a former Duke University geophysics professor and co-author of the study.
Well, we know that grade inflation is a problem (see PDH's observations in academia, Ide's graduation from law school), but from what I've seen of all the job apps I've done the past year, only a few asked for GPA and even a couple of those were only interested in the GPA of the major.
But if only 1 in 4 employers feel that students are prepared for work I don't see how like exit tests would help fresh grads, as opposed to where they went; I'm sure a straight C student from Harvard or Football Factory U would still be in a position to succeed on the entry-level job front than a straight A student from the University of Student Loans State--Basement campus.
If you had nice tits in my classes, I'd likely give you an A.
In the online courses, the software did all the work.
Quote from: PDH on August 26, 2013, 07:23:33 AM
Employers don't trust GPA unless that GPA is low, then they trust it.
Seems logical in the grade inflation environment.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 10:20:56 AM
Quote from: PDH on August 26, 2013, 07:23:33 AM
Employers don't trust GPA unless that GPA is low, then they trust it.
Seems logical in the grade inflation environment.
I find it discriminatory.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2013, 09:58:45 AM
If you had nice tits in my classes, I'd likely give you an A.
In the online courses, the software did all the work.
Now THAT's spyware.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2013, 09:57:06 AM
But if only 1 in 4 employers feel that students are prepared for work I don't see how like exit tests would help fresh grads, as opposed to where they went; I'm sure a straight C student from Harvard or Football Factory U would still be in a position to succeed on the entry-level job front than a straight A student from the University of Student Loans State--Basement campus.
Of course. Also, I never give out my GPA unless pressed. It wasn't a 4.0, so why list it?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2013, 10:22:44 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 10:20:56 AM
Quote from: PDH on August 26, 2013, 07:23:33 AM
Employers don't trust GPA unless that GPA is low, then they trust it.
Seems logical in the grade inflation environment.
I find it discriminatory.
I don't see how. On some level seems like IQ testing. Good for sorting chaff at bottom of range but not so good near the top.
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2013, 09:57:06 AM
But if only 1 in 4 employers feel that students are prepared for work I don't see how like exit tests would help fresh grads, as opposed to where they went; I'm sure a straight C student from Harvard or Football Factory U would still be in a position to succeed on the entry-level job front than a straight A student from the University of Student Loans State--Basement campus.
Of course. Also, I never give out my GPA unless pressed. It wasn't a 4.0, so why list it?
So that people wouldn't assume that it's less than average, or otherwise you would've listed it?
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 11:18:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2013, 09:57:06 AM
But if only 1 in 4 employers feel that students are prepared for work I don't see how like exit tests would help fresh grads, as opposed to where they went; I'm sure a straight C student from Harvard or Football Factory U would still be in a position to succeed on the entry-level job front than a straight A student from the University of Student Loans State--Basement campus.
Of course. Also, I never give out my GPA unless pressed. It wasn't a 4.0, so why list it?
So that people wouldn't assume that it's less than average, or otherwise you would've listed it?
Obviously, I am not in their heads, but I think most people see Stanford and say awesome and then move back to reviewing relevant experience.
I don't think listing after 4-5 years outside of school makes much sense if less, as all it does is underline that it wasn't a 4.0.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 11:18:52 AM
So that people wouldn't assume that it's less than average, or otherwise you would've listed it?
Why would someone list a GPA that is average
If it is not there it just means the person is not the top of the class but rather is somewhere in the pack of, you know, average for that class and school. If the school is good then, unless your hiring criteria requires someone with the top marks, why would you care about the GPA
And to be clear, I think that makes sense for most schools*. GPA doesn't seem a very relevant factor to me the more years a candidate is removed from their education.
*edit: if you went somewhere no one has heard of then listing your less than perfect GPA might be a positive thing, if it is high enough.
I think people who graduate with a laud of cum frequently advertise it. :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 11:25:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 11:18:52 AM
So that people wouldn't assume that it's less than average, or otherwise you would've listed it?
Why would someone list a GPA that is average
If it is not there it just means the person is not the top of the class but rather is somewhere in the pack of, you know, average for that class and school. If the school is good then, unless your hiring criteria requires someone with the top marks, why would you care about the GPA
This is DG you're talking to. Numbers mean everything.
Quote from: merithyn on August 26, 2013, 11:50:24 AMThis is DG you're talking to. Numbers mean everything.
That's half the picture.
The other half is reasoning that assumes that if some people share a certain piece of information and others do not, then one should conclude that whoever does not share the information are doing so because they have something to hide.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 11:55:30 AM
The other half is reasoning that assumes that if some people share a certain piece of information and others do not, then one should conclude that whoever does not share the information are doing so because they have something to hide.
Of course it could just be irrelevant. Sort of like how I don't list anything with regards to high school or my time spent at Barnes & Noble.
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 12:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 11:55:30 AM
The other half is reasoning that assumes that if some people share a certain piece of information and others do not, then one should conclude that whoever does not share the information are doing so because they have something to hide.
Of course it could just be irrelevant. Sort of like how I don't list anything with regards to high school or my time spent at Barnes & Noble.
So, you leave gaps in your resume :hmm: very suspicious.
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 12:00:59 PMOf course it could just be irrelevant. Sort of like how I don't list anything with regards to high school or my time spent at Barnes & Noble.
Well yeah, that's how most normal people think.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 11:55:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 26, 2013, 11:50:24 AMThis is DG you're talking to. Numbers mean everything.
That's half the picture.
The other half is reasoning that assumes that if some people share a certain piece of information and others do not, then one should conclude that whoever does not share the information are doing so because they have something to hide.
I was trying to avoid any TBR references. :sleep:
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 11:55:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 26, 2013, 11:50:24 AMThis is DG you're talking to. Numbers mean everything.
That's half the picture.
The other half is reasoning that assumes that if some people share a certain piece of information and others do not, then one should conclude that whoever does not share the information are doing so because they have something to hide.
In an environment where people have an incentive to sell you something, I think it's very reasonable to assume that if some piece of information that could be a selling point is not disclosed, then it's not good enough to actually be a selling point.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 12:29:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 11:55:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 26, 2013, 11:50:24 AMThis is DG you're talking to. Numbers mean everything.
That's half the picture.
The other half is reasoning that assumes that if some people share a certain piece of information and others do not, then one should conclude that whoever does not share the information are doing so because they have something to hide.
In an environment where people have an incentive to sell you something, I think it's very reasonable to assume that if some piece of information that could be a selling point is not disclosed, then it's not good enough to actually be a selling point.
Well sure, a resume is about putting your best foot forward. My 3.6 isn't something that I consider in my strongest selling points and so it is omitted.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 12:29:07 PMIn an environment where people have an incentive to sell you something, I think it's very reasonable to assume that if some piece of information that could be a selling point is not disclosed, then it's not good enough to actually be a selling point.
Sure.
But "not good enough to be a selling point" is very different from "a terrible secret that is being hidden".
I didn't say anything about "terrible secrets". :huh: You must be reading in way more than was was written or meant.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 12:40:34 PM
I didn't say anything about "terrible secrets". :huh: You must be reading in way more than was was written or meant.
It's my general impression of your attitude on a number of different topics, rather than this one discussion. You seem to conclude that stuff that is not shown has been deliberately hidden, and thus it is fair to conclude to draw a very negative inference from the absent information; at least that's the impression I've gotten from you.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 12:40:34 PM
I didn't say anything about "terrible secrets". :huh: You must be reading in way more than was was written or meant.
You said the implication would be that they are below average - which is a silly assumption to make - akin to a terrible secret being kept from you.
I believe that the point being made is that one shouldn't read anything into the absence of a GPA on a resume. Since, you know, they generally don't mean anything.
I don't even care if candidates don't list their school. I don't care.
I list skull size and leave it at that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 26, 2013, 02:14:56 PM
I don't even care if candidates don't list their school. I don't care.
:hug:
Can I: work for you? Sanity in the workplace is such a wonderful thing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 26, 2013, 02:14:56 PM
I don't even care if candidates don't list their school. I don't care.
Why not? Here there would be a significant difference between obtaining a degree from a University and one obtained from what has become known here as a degree granting college. Maybe those differences dont exist in the US?
MIM is self-made and believes in hard work and personal responsibility.
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2013, 03:22:23 PM
MIM is self-made and believes in hard work and personal responsibility.
As it should be.
College GPA might be relevant and interesting if the person's never had a professional job before. After that, it's of no interest to me whatsoever.
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2013, 04:26:47 PM
College GPA might be relevant and interesting if the person's never had a professional job before. After that, it's of no interest to me whatsoever.
I concur with our resident HR flunky on this.
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2013, 04:26:47 PM
College GPA might be relevant and interesting if the person's never had a professional job before. After that, it's of no interest to me whatsoever.
Yeah the only thing I expect from my GPA is getting me my first Engineering gig. After that I probably need to be doing some decent work or something.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2013, 10:34:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2013, 09:58:45 AM
If you had nice tits in my classes, I'd likely give you an A.
In the online courses, the software did all the work.
Now THAT's spyware.
:perv:
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 04:36:51 PM
our resident HR flunky
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ginaromero.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F01%2FRanting-Homer.gif&hash=ff8d1eb597a072d437aa93c317783bea55dae91f)
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on August 26, 2013, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 26, 2013, 03:22:23 PM
MIM is self-made and believes in hard work and personal responsibility.
As it should be.
And is going to a good school (whether that be elite or otherwise) not at least somewhat a sign of hard work and personal responsibility? You don't get As without some effort.
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 07:45:59 PM
And is going to a good school (whether that be elite or otherwise) not at least somewhat a sign of hard work and personal responsibility? You don't get As without some effort.
It could be. It could also just mean that Mommy has a wing of the newest building named after her. And some schools count getting in as the hardest part. Once you get into Kellogg Business School, you pretty much have to go into a coma to get less than As in anything.
Good school != hard worker
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2013, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 04:36:51 PM
our resident HR flunky
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ginaromero.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F01%2FRanting-Homer.gif&hash=ff8d1eb597a072d437aa93c317783bea55dae91f)
Spare me. I'm spending thousands on certs because of you people.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 26, 2013, 08:58:49 PM
Spare me. I'm spending thousands on certs because of you people.
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on August 26, 2013, 08:20:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 07:45:59 PM
And is going to a good school (whether that be elite or otherwise) not at least somewhat a sign of hard work and personal responsibility? You don't get As without some effort.
It could be. It could also just mean that Mommy has a wing of the newest building named after her. And some schools count getting in as the hardest part. Once you get into Kellogg Business School, you pretty much have to go into a coma to get less than As in anything.
Good school != hard worker
Or it could be that someone worked their ass off in highschool. <_<
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 09:25:59 PM
Or it could be that someone worked their ass off in highschool. <_<
Absolutely. The point is, there's no way to be sure which it is just based on the name of the school. So while the name of the school may be impressive and it may tip the scale, I can't say that it would be THE deciding factor for me in hiring someone.
Quote from: merithyn on August 26, 2013, 11:43:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 09:25:59 PM
Or it could be that someone worked their ass off in highschool. <_<
Absolutely. The point is, there's no way to be sure which it is just based on the name of the school. So while the name of the school may be impressive and it may tip the scale, I can't say that it would be THE deciding factor for me in hiring someone.
The number of people who get into a school like Stanford because of something other than academic achievement is small enough that if you are going to throw out all of those evaluations based on that tiny possibility, you might as well just through at any and all criteria you might wish to use, because you never know what could be something other than what it seems.
You sound like you are looking for a reason to justify a stance taken for other reasons.
Quote from: merithyn on August 26, 2013, 08:20:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 07:45:59 PM
And is going to a good school (whether that be elite or otherwise) not at least somewhat a sign of hard work and personal responsibility? You don't get As without some effort.
It could be. It could also just mean that Mommy has a wing of the newest building named after her.
Sad part is that that person is probably more valuable to many organizations than some peon who "worked hard." For example, the kid who worked hard may need to be paid, and can't take a year-long unpaid internship. Or they may not have a ready social network of potential clients, or better yet people who can personally do you favors.
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 09:25:59 PM
Or it could be that someone worked their ass off in highschool. <_<
Who cares what you did in highschool?
Mom and Dad, for two off the top of my head.
Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2013, 12:36:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 09:25:59 PM
Or it could be that someone worked their ass off in highschool. <_<
Who cares what you did in highschool?
Who said that I am someone? -_-
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 12:49:16 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2013, 12:36:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2013, 09:25:59 PM
Or it could be that someone worked their ass off in highschool. <_<
Who cares what you did in highschool?
Who said that I am someone? -_-
Your mom and dad!
(as per Seedy)
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 11:57:23 PM
The number of people who get into a school like Stanford because of something other than academic achievement is small enough that if you are going to throw out all of those evaluations based on that tiny possibility, you might as well just through at any and all criteria you might wish to use, because you never know what could be something other than what it seems.
You sound like you are looking for a reason to justify a stance taken for other reasons.
Why do I need to justify not using which school a person went to as the primary criteria for hiring them? That, to me, is common sense. Sure, a good school is nice, but it doesn't determine how good the person would be for the position. Again, it might tip the scales from one candidate to another, but it certainly wouldn't be a primary concern.
Meri hates college students.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2013, 07:24:36 AM
Meri hates college students.
I bet she mouthed off to her professors.
Dames. :rolleyes:
Not yet. Classes start today, though, and I'm having "technical difficulties" that no one seems to know how to fix. :mad: :ph34r:
Let me guess, ANGEL?
You want technical problems? I wandered around the library for 30 minutes looking for the fucking card catalog :mad:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2013, 07:30:08 AM
Let me guess, ANGEL?
COBRA
They gave up on ANGEL because it was unstable. As if COBRA is any better. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2013, 07:31:57 AM
You want technical problems? I wandered around the library for 30 minutes looking for the fucking card catalog :mad:
Our library still has one. It's in their "museum". :D
I love it when they 'upgrade' the ANGEL software. Everything breaks. EVERYTHING.
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2013, 04:26:47 PM
College GPA might be relevant and interesting if the person's never had a professional job before. After that, it's of no interest to me whatsoever.
Yup. University and GPA is for getting your
first real professional job. It is totally vital for that, but after that, it's all about your actual (professional) work experience.*
*That said, I reserve the right to make fun of BB because he went to U of M. :P
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 07:18:40 AM
Why do I need to justify not using which school a person went to as the primary criteria for hiring them? That, to me, is common sense. Sure, a good school is nice, but it doesn't determine how good the person would be for the position. Again, it might tip the scales from one candidate to another, but it certainly wouldn't be a primary concern.
How can it possibly ever make good sense to hire someone from back of match box U over someone from a credible institution?
The underlying assumption you are making is that all education is equal. Even worse you are making an assumption that people that go to the better schools are somehow getting less education.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 08:24:18 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2013, 04:26:47 PM
College GPA might be relevant and interesting if the person's never had a professional job before. After that, it's of no interest to me whatsoever.
Yup. University and GPA is for getting your first real professional job. It is totally vital for that, but after that, it's all about your actual (professional) work experience.*
*That said, I reserve the right to make fun of BB because he went to U of M. :P
Yes, on both counts.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 07:18:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 11:57:23 PM
The number of people who get into a school like Stanford because of something other than academic achievement is small enough that if you are going to throw out all of those evaluations based on that tiny possibility, you might as well just through at any and all criteria you might wish to use, because you never know what could be something other than what it seems.
You sound like you are looking for a reason to justify a stance taken for other reasons.
Why do I need to justify not using which school a person went to as the primary criteria for hiring them? That, to me, is common sense. Sure, a good school is nice, but it doesn't determine how good the person would be for the position. Again, it might tip the scales from one candidate to another, but it certainly wouldn't be a primary concern.
Whoa hold up. Who said education should be the primary criteria? I questioned you when you and MIM asserted that where one went to college shouldn't be taken into consideration. And then suggested that significant (enough to warrant being mentioned) numbers of individuals are getting into good schools because their parents forked over endowments.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 08:24:18 AM
*That said, I reserve the right to make fun of BB because he went to U of M. :P
And damn proud of it. Best 8 years of my life. Go Bisons!
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 09:22:34 AM
Whoa hold up. Who said education should be the primary criteria? I questioned you when you and MIM asserted that where one went to college shouldn't be taken into consideration. And then suggested that significant (enough to warrant being mentioned) numbers of individuals are getting into good schools because their parents forked over endowments.
I never said that it shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. :huh: I just said that it shouldn't be a primary consideration.
And my only point in bringing that up was that not everyone who gets into Stanford, Harvard, or Yale did so strictly on merit. Some got in because their parents went there, because they had money (think of the number of actors and actresses who end up at Harvard), or yes, an endowment of some sort. I have no idea how many of either kind end up in an Ivy League school, but it's one of many reasons that I wouldn't go strictly on where they went to school in the hiring process.
In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 09:22:34 AM
Whoa hold up. Who said education should be the primary criteria? I questioned you when you and MIM asserted that where one went to college shouldn't be taken into consideration. And then suggested that significant (enough to warrant being mentioned) numbers of individuals are getting into good schools because their parents forked over endowments.
...which I don't believe is a correct assertion anyway. When I was at Harvard this random Japanese guy endowed a professorship out of the blue at the Graduate Shool of Education, which should have raised some eyebrows but apparently didn't. The next year his daughter applied to Radcliffe and got rejected, and he called up the ed. school and demanded his money back. He then claimed that he had been promised admission for his daughter in exchange for the endowment. I don't know if his claim was valid, but immediately thereafter a dean at the ed. school got fired and another one was 'reassigned'.
There is definitely some deference given to 'legacies', but it doesn't involve a direct exchange of cash for admission, and even the appearance of that gives everyone heartburn.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
And my only point in bringing that up was that not everyone who gets into Stanford, Harvard, or Yale did so strictly on merit. Some got in because their parents went there, because they had money (think of the number of actors and actresses who end up at Harvard), or yes, an endowment of some sort. I have no idea how many of either kind end up in an Ivy League school, but it's one of many reasons that I wouldn't go strictly on where they went to school in the hiring process.
In the case of actors, I think it's less about the money they have and more about the fact that they are 'interesting'. Because of the sheer number of applications to the Ivy League schools you have to have some way of being 'interesting' to the admissions officers. Just having good grades and SAT scores isn't enough, though you do need those obviously. The thing that would annoy me about actors is that they probably do have an unfair advantage in that many of them are tutored on-set, and I think it's probably kind of hard to do badly when you get that degree of individualized attention.
Quote
In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.
Agree.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 09:30:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 08:24:18 AM
*That said, I reserve the right to make fun of BB because he went to U of M. :P
And damn proud of it. Best 8 years of my life. Go Bisons!
Thats what makes it so much fun for us. :D
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.
Sure, all things being equal that makes sense. But given the difficulty of getting into MIT chances are that all things would not be equal.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 09:30:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 08:24:18 AM
*That said, I reserve the right to make fun of BB because he went to U of M. :P
And damn proud of it. Best 8 years of my life. Go Bisons!
Yeah, that's the funny part. ;)
All three of you went to Canadian schools :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 09:45:50 AM
In the case of actors, I think it's less about the money they have and more about the fact that they are 'interesting'. Because of the sheer number of applications to the Ivy League schools you have to have some way of being 'interesting' to the admissions officers. Just having good grades and SAT scores isn't enough, though you do need those obviously. The thing that would annoy me about actors is that they probably do have an unfair advantage in that many of them are tutored on-set, and I think it's probably kind of hard to do badly when you get that degree of individualized attention.
I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 09:45:50 AM
In the case of actors, I think it's less about the money they have and more about the fact that they are 'interesting'. Because of the sheer number of applications to the Ivy League schools you have to have some way of being 'interesting' to the admissions officers. Just having good grades and SAT scores isn't enough, though you do need those obviously. The thing that would annoy me about actors is that they probably do have an unfair advantage in that many of them are tutored on-set, and I think it's probably kind of hard to do badly when you get that degree of individualized attention.
Quote
I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.
Poor guy probably doesn't know how to properly quote things, either. :( :hug:
:D
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.
:yes: I definitely did struggle with that. :(
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:07:51 AM
Poor guy probably doesn't know how to properly quote things, either. :( :hug:
:D
Nah this wouldn't have helped me at all. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 09:45:50 AM
In the case of actors, I think it's less about the money they have and more about the fact that they are 'interesting'. Because of the sheer number of applications to the Ivy League schools you have to have some way of being 'interesting' to the admissions officers. Just having good grades and SAT scores isn't enough, though you do need those obviously. The thing that would annoy me about actors is that they probably do have an unfair advantage in that many of them are tutored on-set, and I think it's probably kind of hard to do badly when you get that degree of individualized attention.
I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.
Yes, that is the reality now. Which is why we introduced the boys to things I would never have thought about before. In hindsight it worked out well because both boys probably do have much more going for them now.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 10:11:01 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.
:yes: I definitely did struggle with that. :(
The supergenius part?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.
Sure, all things being equal that makes sense. But given the difficulty of getting into MIT chances are that all things would not be equal.
I don't follow. Other than the MIT grad being expected to perform better in the interviews and possibly having more interesting undergrad projects to talk about, how are things not equal?
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 08:24:18 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2013, 04:26:47 PM
College GPA might be relevant and interesting if the person's never had a professional job before. After that, it's of no interest to me whatsoever.
Yup. University and GPA is for getting your first real professional job. It is totally vital for that, but after that, it's all about your actual (professional) work experience.
Great.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 27, 2013, 10:43:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.
Sure, all things being equal that makes sense. But given the difficulty of getting into MIT chances are that all things would not be equal.
I don't follow. Other than the MIT grad being expected to perform better in the interviews and possibly having more interesting undergrad projects to talk about, how are things not equal?
The people who get into MIT probably have more interesting backgrounds, have done more, have better grades, have done more interesting things etc etc etc on average because it is harder to get into MIT.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:45:25 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 27, 2013, 10:43:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.
Sure, all things being equal that makes sense. But given the difficulty of getting into MIT chances are that all things would not be equal.
I don't follow. Other than the MIT grad being expected to perform better in the interviews and possibly having more interesting undergrad projects to talk about, how are things not equal?
The people who get into MIT probably have more interesting backgrounds, have done more, have better grades, have done more interesting things etc etc etc on average because it is harder to get into MIT.
Why would I care about what they did in high school when they're applying for a job out of college?
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:46:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:45:25 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 27, 2013, 10:43:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.
Sure, all things being equal that makes sense. But given the difficulty of getting into MIT chances are that all things would not be equal.
I don't follow. Other than the MIT grad being expected to perform better in the interviews and possibly having more interesting undergrad projects to talk about, how are things not equal?
The people who get into MIT probably have more interesting backgrounds, have done more, have better grades, have done more interesting things etc etc etc on average because it is harder to get into MIT.
Why would I care about what they did in high school when they're applying for a job out of college?
Not sure how you translate that list into only what they did in high school. Its about who they are as a person that you should be caring about because it is the person you are employing. In a general way the choice of school has created a ready made rough tool for you to use. Now it is quite possible that you might get a candidate from a lesser school who is in fact better than the MIT graduate. That is why you have the interview process but that would be the exception rather than the rule.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:49:15 AM
Not sure how you translate that list into only what they did in high school. Its about who they are as a person that you should be caring about because it is the person you are employing. In a general way the choice of school has created a ready made rough tool for you to use. Now it is quite possible that you might get a candidate from a lesser school who is in fact better than the MIT graduate. That is why you have the interview process but that would be the exception rather than the rule.
*shrugs*
Given that MIT has only an 8.5% admission rate - and I'm guessing that more than 8.5% of the people who apply are interesting folks with really cool backgrounds - I'm not sure where you get that, but okay.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:49:15 AM
Not sure how you translate that list into only what they did in high school. Its about who they are as a person that you should be caring about because it is the person you are employing. In a general way the choice of school has created a ready made rough tool for you to use. Now it is quite possible that you might get a candidate from a lesser school who is in fact better than the MIT graduate. That is why you have the interview process but that would be the exception rather than the rule.
*shrugs*
Given that MIT has only an 8.5% admission rate - and I'm guessing that more than 8.5% of the people who apply are interesting folks with really cool backgrounds - I'm not sure where you get that, but okay.
Ok, so you think MIT takes people who are the least worthy. Interesting.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:41:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 10:11:01 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.
:yes: I definitely did struggle with that. :(
The supergenius part?
:lol: You laugh, but it's actually true to some extent. It's hard to consistently stay on the "super" side of the genius/supergenius divide.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:52:26 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
*shrugs*
Given that MIT has only an 8.5% admission rate - and I'm guessing that more than 8.5% of the people who apply are interesting folks with really cool backgrounds - I'm not sure where you get that, but okay.
Ok, so you think MIT takes people who are the least worthy. Interesting.
Not sure how you translate what I said to that, but okay. What I mean is that there are those who don't go to those schools who are just as worthy.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 10:54:44 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:41:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 10:11:01 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.
:yes: I definitely did struggle with that. :(
The supergenius part?
:lol: You laugh, but it's actually true to some extent. It's hard to consistently stay on the "super" side of the genius/supergenius divide.
You're good at math. That makes you smarter than probably anybody currently posting on Languish. Hamilcar was smarter than you, and so was Vinraith. But in the land of 1/1/1s the 1/3/1 is king.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 10:54:44 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:41:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 10:11:01 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.
:yes: I definitely did struggle with that. :(
The supergenius part?
:lol: You laugh, but it's actually true to some extent. It's hard to consistently stay on the "super" side of the genius/supergenius divide.
I believe you. Getting through the actuarial exams is probably more difficult than scoring a 700+ on the math section of the SAT.
I assume you probably struggled on the verbal section because english is a second language.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 10:59:39 AM
You're good at math. That makes you smarter than probably anybody currently posting on Languish. Hamilcar was smarter than you, and so was Vinraith. But in the land of 1/1/1s the 1/3/1 is king.
Why do you think that? Because Hamilcar and Vinraith stayed in school longer?
The one thing nobody's thought of regarding these "exit exams": what happens when a kid--whose parents shelled out tons of money for four years for an education that an institution was expected to provide--fails the exit exam, or doesn't make decent enough marks? Answer: lawsuit! ZOMG U HAD MAH KID AND MAH MONEY FOR 4 YEARS AND U FAILED
I fully expect the legal departments and boards of these institutions of higher education to reevaluate the merits of these "exit exams" regarding their institutional and academic reputations shortly after they begin.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:56:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:52:26 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
*shrugs*
Given that MIT has only an 8.5% admission rate - and I'm guessing that more than 8.5% of the people who apply are interesting folks with really cool backgrounds - I'm not sure where you get that, but okay.
Ok, so you think MIT takes people who are the least worthy. Interesting.
Not sure how you translate what I said to that, but okay. What I mean is that there are those who don't go to those schools who are just as worthy.
I know that is your working assumption. Problem is that is just based on your own assumptions. At least the kids that got accepted have that over the kids that didnt. You just want to ignore that accomplishment for a number of reasons you have already stated.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 11:03:26 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 10:59:39 AM
You're good at math. That makes you smarter than probably anybody currently posting on Languish. Hamilcar was smarter than you, and so was Vinraith. But in the land of 1/1/1s the 1/3/1 is king.
Why do you think that? Because Hamilcar and Vinraith stayed in school longer?
They were scientists. Vinraith was a biologist of some stripe and Hamilcar was an astrophysicist who works on galactic evolution and who works at [university, I'm not sure if he'd like me saying where].
I personally knew Hamilcar pretty well, and I occasionally still follow his work and publications. The man should be basically everything I hate--born with the privilege not only of being European but richer than God, and much smarter than I am--he's not, he's a decent dude, but at the end of the day he's also a brilliant, brilliant guy.
I do wonder, however, if Hamilcar had not been born with a platinum spoon up his ass if he'd have gone into science. Ironically, if he hadn't been rich, he'd probably have been one of those quant monsters in finance, without feeling or foresight, who together destroyed the Western world.
I'm good at math and I beat Guller's score on the SATs. :showoff:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2013, 11:03:49 AM
The one thing nobody's thought of regarding these "exit exams": what happens when a kid--whose parents shelled out tons of money for four years for an education that an institution was expected to provide--fails the exit exam, or doesn't make decent enough marks? Answer: lawsuit! ZOMG U HAD MAH KID AND MAH MONEY FOR 4 YEARS AND U FAILED
I fully expect the legal departments and boards of these institutions of higher education to reevaluate the merits of these "exit exams" regarding their institutional and academic reputations shortly after they begin.
Exit exams?
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 09:22:34 AM
Whoa hold up. Who said education should be the primary criteria? I questioned you when you and MIM asserted that where one went to college shouldn't be taken into consideration. And then suggested that significant (enough to warrant being mentioned) numbers of individuals are getting into good schools because their parents forked over endowments.
I never said that it shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. :huh: I just said that it shouldn't be a primary consideration.
And my only point in bringing that up was that not everyone who gets into Stanford, Harvard, or Yale did so strictly on merit. Some got in because their parents went there, because they had money (think of the number of actors and actresses who end up at Harvard), or yes, an endowment of some sort. I have no idea how many of either kind end up in an Ivy League school, but it's one of many reasons that I wouldn't go strictly on where they went to school in the hiring process.
In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.
Well that's what mim said.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2013, 11:03:49 AM
The one thing nobody's thought of regarding these "exit exams": what happens when a kid--whose parents shelled out tons of money for four years for an education that an institution was expected to provide--fails the exit exam, or doesn't make decent enough marks? Answer: lawsuit! ZOMG U HAD MAH KID AND MAH MONEY FOR 4 YEARS AND U FAILED
I fully expect the legal departments and boards of these institutions of higher education to reevaluate the merits of these "exit exams" regarding their institutional and academic reputations shortly after they begin.
Sophisticated consumers who lacked any contractual guarantees and a defendant who lacked any fiduciary duty? Motion for failure to state a claim: granted. SO ORDERED.
I wish Hamilcar was still here :(
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 11:07:24 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 11:03:26 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 10:59:39 AM
You're good at math. That makes you smarter than probably anybody currently posting on Languish. Hamilcar was smarter than you, and so was Vinraith. But in the land of 1/1/1s the 1/3/1 is king.
Why do you think that? Because Hamilcar and Vinraith stayed in school longer?
They were scientists. Vinraith was a biologist of some stripe and Hamilcar was an astrophysicist who works on galactic evolution and who works at [university, I'm not sure if he'd like me saying where].
I think Vinraith was in Physics.
I also miss Vinny :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:28:30 AM
I wish Hamilcar was still here :(
Well it was Marty who drove him off so maybe somebody should tell him Marty has been cordon sanitaired.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2013, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:28:30 AM
I wish Hamilcar was still here :(
Well it was Marty who drove him off so maybe somebody should tell him Marty has been cordon sanitaired.
Ide, get on that would you?
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2013, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:28:30 AM
I wish Hamilcar was still here :(
Well it was Marty who drove him off so maybe somebody should tell him Marty has been cordon sanitaired.
It was Marty's poll that set things in motion, but it was the poll result from all of us that drove him off. Can't really say that I miss him.
Oh was that the poll about snobbiness or something in that vein. I think whatever it was Marti had largely intended as a swipe at me.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 11:52:23 AM
Can't really say that I miss him.
Because he really is a supergenius?
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:53:54 AM
Oh was that the poll about snobbiness or something in that vein. I think whatever it was Marti had largely intended as a swipe at me.
Yep. He did not even mean it to be mean to Hamilcar at all.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 10:59:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 10:54:44 AM
:lol: You laugh, but it's actually true to some extent. It's hard to consistently stay on the "super" side of the genius/supergenius divide.
You're good at math. That makes you smarter than probably anybody currently posting on Languish. Hamilcar was smarter than you, and so was Vinraith. But in the land of 1/1/1s the 1/3/1 is king.
Being good at math does not make one smarter than anyone. That just means that person is good at math. My brother got a perfect score on his Math ACT, but only got a 19 on this English. He, like DG, is an actuary. He's bright, but not the smartest man I know by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd argue that JR is probably the smartest person currently posting on Languish.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2013, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:28:30 AM
I wish Hamilcar was still here :(
Well it was Marty who drove him off so maybe somebody should tell him Marty has been cordon sanitaired.
Ide, get on that would you?
I could probably get ahold of him, but iirc he was pretty tired of Languish in general. Well, who knows? I can try. He probably won't have his Swiss mercenary bodyguards murder me.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:18:01 PM
I could probably get ahold of him, but iirc he was pretty tired of Languish in general. Well, who knows? I can try. He probably won't have his Swiss mercenary bodyguards murder me.
That was years ago though and we have evolved and changed so much since then. :P
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 10:59:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 10:54:44 AM
:lol: You laugh, but it's actually true to some extent. It's hard to consistently stay on the "super" side of the genius/supergenius divide.
You're good at math. That makes you smarter than probably anybody currently posting on Languish. Hamilcar was smarter than you, and so was Vinraith. But in the land of 1/1/1s the 1/3/1 is king.
Being good at math does not make one smarter than anyone. That just means that person is good at math.
Sounds like somebody who's not good at math would say. :hmm:
:P
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2013, 12:21:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:18:01 PM
I could probably get ahold of him, but iirc he was pretty tired of Languish in general. Well, who knows? I can try. He probably won't have his Swiss mercenary bodyguards murder me.
That was years ago though and we have evolved and changed so much since then. :P
Disproves intelligent design, doesn't it? :(
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:03:41 PM
Being good at math does not make one smarter than anyone. That just means that person is good at math.
In all seriousness, you are way overselling the point, as you almost always do when employing the "Being X doesn't mean anything. It just means that you are X." template. Being good at math doesn't by itself make you smarter. However, people who are good at math tend to be smarter.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 11:07:24 AM
They were scientists. Vinraith was a biologist of some stripe and Hamilcar was an astrophysicist who works on galactic evolution and who works at [university, I'm not sure if he'd like me saying where].
I personally knew Hamilcar pretty well, and I occasionally still follow his work and publications. The man should be basically everything I hate--born with the privilege not only of being European but richer than God, and much smarter than I am--he's not, he's a decent dude, but at the end of the day he's also a brilliant, brilliant guy.
The point being, why does being a scientist mean you are smarter than someone that isn't? A lot of people don't like playing the publication game. Also, money isn't everything, but if I had to guess DGuller will have the highest career earnings. For someone that is so anti academia, it seems odd to just declare that those who stayed in academia are smarter than those who left it.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:21:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2013, 12:21:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:18:01 PM
I could probably get ahold of him, but iirc he was pretty tired of Languish in general. Well, who knows? I can try. He probably won't have his Swiss mercenary bodyguards murder me.
That was years ago though and we have evolved and changed so much since then. :P
Disproves intelligent design, doesn't it? :(
:lol:
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 12:23:03 PM
In all seriousness, you are way overselling the point, as you almost always do when employing the "Being X doesn't mean anything. It just means that you are X." template. Being good at math doesn't by itself make you smarter. However, people who are good at math tend to be smarter.
Jesus, DG, do you ever turn it off? I mean, seriously.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 12:23:03 PM
In all seriousness, you are way overselling the point, as you almost always do when employing the "Being X doesn't mean anything. It just means that you are X." template. Being good at math doesn't by itself make you smarter. However, people who are good at math tend to be smarter.
Jesus, DG, do you ever turn it off? I mean, seriously.
I try not to. I'd rather be a stickler for good reasoning than be a stickler for bad reasoning. At the very least it would make me more unique. It may not make me cool, but at least it keeps me from being mediocre.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 12:31:24 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 12:23:03 PM
In all seriousness, you are way overselling the point, as you almost always do when employing the "Being X doesn't mean anything. It just means that you are X." template. Being good at math doesn't by itself make you smarter. However, people who are good at math tend to be smarter.
Jesus, DG, do you ever turn it off? I mean, seriously.
I try not to. I'd rather be a stickler for good reasoning than be a stickler for bad reasoning. At the very least it would make me more unique. It may not make me cool, but at least it keeps me from being mediocre.
It certainly shows your lack of a sense of humor, that's for sure.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 12:24:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 11:07:24 AM
They were scientists. Vinraith was a biologist of some stripe and Hamilcar was an astrophysicist who works on galactic evolution and who works at [university, I'm not sure if he'd like me saying where].
I personally knew Hamilcar pretty well, and I occasionally still follow his work and publications. The man should be basically everything I hate--born with the privilege not only of being European but richer than God, and much smarter than I am--he's not, he's a decent dude, but at the end of the day he's also a brilliant, brilliant guy.
The point being, why does being a scientist mean you are smarter than someone that isn't? A lot of people don't like playing the publication game. Also, money isn't everything, but if I had to guess DGuller will have the highest career earnings. For someone that is so anti academia, it seems odd to just declare that those who stayed in academia are smarter than those who left it.
I'm not anti-academia, I'm anti-college-industrial complex, and, to a lesser degree, anti-liberal arts (at least as something taxpayers generously fund and millions of people take out loans to study). Science departments do have their own issues, but I do not question their existence the same way I do with small college history programs or law schools.
Anyway, the initial intellectual capacity and the intensive intellectual cultivation which are required to do anything like what Hamilcar and Vinraith (I assume) do is not common. Like Meri said, on Languish there's JR, and I think probably DG, and Alfred Russell, sure, why not? :D Maybe a few others I'm just forgetting. But those mentioned are Ark A people.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:32:38 PM
It certainly shows your lack of a sense of humor, that's for sure.
There are triggers that turn it off, yes. You're very well-versed with a couple of them.
I was just kidding about everybody else being a 1/1/1. Don't take it personally. Everybody here is good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like them. Except Martinus.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:32:38 PM
It certainly shows your lack of a sense of humor, that's for sure.
There are triggers that turn it off, yes. You're very well-versed with a couple of them.
It's okay to be average, DG. Not everyone can be a genius. I mean, being good at math is still pretty good. :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:34:50 PM
Anyway, the initial intellectual capacity and the intensive intellectual cultivation which are required to do what Hamilcar (and I assume Vinraith) do is not common. Like Meri said, on Languish there's JR, and I think probably DG, and Alfred Russell, sure, why not? :D Maybe a few others I'm just forgetting. But those mentioned are Ark A people.
I'd definitely put JR, Hamilcar, and DG ahead of me. Vinraith probably is, but here is the thing....drifting through a rigorous college program can be done. JR sounds really smart on the forum, Hamilcar seems to actually be a productive physicist, and I've seen the actuarially exams that DGuller is passing...Those things are beyond my reach.
But if I really wanted to I think I could have been a really shitty physicist. I'm sure DGuller could have been.
edit--I'm not saying Vinraith is a shitty physicist, btw. I don't know anything about him.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 12:51:30 PM
I'd definitely put JR, Hamilcar, and DG ahead of me. Vinraith probably is, but here is the thing....drifting through a rigorous college program can be done. JR sounds really smart on the forum, Hamilcar seems to actually be a productive physicist, and I've seen the actuarially exams that DGuller is passing...Those things are beyond my reach.
But if I really wanted to I think I could have been a really shitty physicist. I'm sure DGuller could have been.
edit--I'm not saying Vinraith is a shitty physicist, btw. I don't know anything about him.
It's irrelevant. They do science, ergo, they be smart. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 12:51:30 PM
drifting through a rigorous college program can be done.
You know, Al, I wish you'd been around when I was young. :(
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:32:38 PM
It certainly shows your lack of a sense of humor, that's for sure.
There are triggers that turn it off, yes. You're very well-versed with a couple of them.
It's okay to be average, DG. Not everyone can be a genius. I mean, being good at math is still pretty good. :hug:
Is DG an idiot savant?
Well, maybe half-way. ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 12:51:30 PM
edit--I'm not saying Vinraith is a shitty physicist, btw. I don't know anything about him.
I thought he was an astronomer, not a physicist. :hmm:
Also, whatever happened to him? Unless he's moved we live in the same town now. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
It's irrelevant. They do science, ergo, they be smart. :)
Hamilcar's expanded the frontiers of human knowledge on galactic evolution, ergo, he be smart. :mellow:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
It's irrelevant. They do science, ergo, they be smart. :)
Hamilcar's expanded the frontiers of human knowledge on galactic evolution, ergo, he be smart. :mellow:
*sighs* Not you, too. I'm joking.
There's no question that JR, Hamilcar, and a number of other people here on Languish are brilliant. But they're brilliant beyond the one-trick pony of math or science. Otherwise, they'd just be idiot savants, as Malthus said. And I know plenty of people who don't do math or science who are equally as brilliant. (And no, I'm not trying to say that I am. I'm happy to count myself in the above average category and leave it at that.)
My brother, as I said, does what DG does - or did. Now he's in management and makes a hell of a lot more, but that's not the point. He was a one-trick pony, though. He knew math and math alone. But just knowing math didn't make him brilliant
except in math. Hell,
my IQ registered higher on exams than his did (though you all know that I think those tests are bunk). No question that when it comes to numbers, he's the guy to go to, but that's pretty much it. I still think he's smart as hell, but that doesn't equate to brilliance in the way that I think we're talking about here.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:28:30 AM
I wish Hamilcar was still here :(
He recently resurfaced at P'dox, he was asked to come back here, so it's up to him.
DG, Hami, Vinny, JR... I can't believe you guys aren't putting me above that band of morans.
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2013, 01:30:39 PM
DG, Hami, Vinny, JR... I can't believe you guys aren't putting me above that band of morans.
Nuclear engineering is math, right?
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2013, 01:30:39 PM
DG, Hami, Vinny, JR... I can't believe you guys aren't putting me above that band of morans.
I always called you the smartest guy on Languish when you said nice things about me. :(
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 01:34:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2013, 01:30:39 PM
DG, Hami, Vinny, JR... I can't believe you guys aren't putting me above that band of morans.
I always called you the smartest guy on Languish when you said nice things about me. :(
With great intelligence must come great arrogance.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 01:33:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2013, 01:30:39 PM
DG, Hami, Vinny, JR... I can't believe you guys aren't putting me above that band of morans.
Nuclear engineering is math, right?
I try to avoid math. Never been interested.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:34:50 PM
I'm not anti-academia, I'm anti-college-industrial complex, and, to a lesser degree, anti-liberal arts (at least as something taxpayers generously fund and millions of people take out loans to study). Science departments do have their own issues, but I do not question their existence the same way I do with small college history programs or law schools.
That's only because you did not get all the finest meats and cheeses in all the land handed to you once you graduated as a Juris Doctor.
It would be different if you had gone to a law school with a bigger rep, then you'd be all LULZ LAWLS SKOOLS RULEZ with the Languish heavy hitters of PLJ and JR. Malthus just did it as an extended electives program.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:36:57 PM
I was just kidding about everybody else being a 1/1/1. Don't take it personally. Everybody here is good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like them. Except Martinus.
... and he's not here either :smarty:
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
And my only point in bringing that up was that not everyone who gets into Stanford, Harvard, or Yale did so strictly on merit. Some got in because their parents went there, because they had money (think of the number of actors and actresses who end up at Harvard), or yes, an endowment of some sort. I have no idea how many of either kind end up in an Ivy League school, but it's one of many reasons that I wouldn't go strictly on where they went to school in the hiring process.
Read an article in the Atlantic a while back which claimed that after you subtract the legacies, the athletic scholarships, and the minority quotas, everyone else is competing for something like 15% of the total spaces.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2013, 03:47:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:34:50 PM
I'm not anti-academia, I'm anti-college-industrial complex, and, to a lesser degree, anti-liberal arts (at least as something taxpayers generously fund and millions of people take out loans to study). Science departments do have their own issues, but I do not question their existence the same way I do with small college history programs or law schools.
That's only because you did not get all the finest meats and cheeses in all the land handed to you once you graduated as a Juris Doctor.
It would be different if you had gone to a law school with a bigger rep, then you'd be all LULZ LAWLS SKOOLS RULEZ with the Languish heavy hitters of PLJ and JR. Malthus just did it as an extended electives program.
Nah, if I'd somehow leveraged a JD into riches, I'd still be miserable, because big boy BigLaw (versus doc review) is fucking horrible. And I'd still be
aware that other people got poor or negative ROIs out of their JDs, and that's because I didn't suddenly become a revolutionary citizen after I lost my job. Unlike some people.
I mean, of course, fahdiz.
I get to hear the griping by people in science departments, because most of my family is in academia on the science side.
Ide, you would be equally miserable trapped in post-doc hell. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 04:09:24 PM
I get to hear the griping by people in science departments, because most of my family is in academia on the science side.
Ide, you would be equally miserable trapped in post-doc hell. ;)
No, I know. I am well aware of the post-doc issue, and it's some serious shit.
But nevertheless Ph.D.s have
real skills that they gleaned from
real degrees, that, further, they were essentially paid to get.
I mean, I guess it doesn't really matter that much if you're at zero or a negative hundred thousand when your life is effectively over, but still, the Ph.D.s win on points.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2013, 03:50:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
And my only point in bringing that up was that not everyone who gets into Stanford, Harvard, or Yale did so strictly on merit. Some got in because their parents went there, because they had money (think of the number of actors and actresses who end up at Harvard), or yes, an endowment of some sort. I have no idea how many of either kind end up in an Ivy League school, but it's one of many reasons that I wouldn't go strictly on where they went to school in the hiring process.
Read an article in the Atlantic a while back which claimed that after you subtract the legacies, the athletic scholarships, and the minority quotas, everyone else is competing for something like 15% of the total spaces.
I have read that the Ivy schools have something around a 20-30 percent acceptance rate for legacies - very high in comparison with the overall rate of acceptance which is sub 10% but with those numbers the "minority quota" must be huge.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
I have read that the Ivy schools have something around a 20-30 percent acceptance rate for legacies - very high in comparison with the overall rate of acceptance which is sub 10% but with those numbers the "minority quota" must be huge.
Do you mean that 20-30% of legacy applicants are accepted, or that 20-30% of those accepted are legacies.
My source gave a much higher number for the second.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2013, 04:22:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
I have read that the Ivy schools have something around a 20-30 percent acceptance rate for legacies - very high in comparison with the overall rate of acceptance which is sub 10% but with those numbers the "minority quota" must be huge.
Do you mean that 20-30% of legacy applicants are accepted, or that 20-30% of those accepted are legacies.
My source gave a much higher number for the second.
20-30% of legacy applicants are accepted. That compares with sub 10% of all other applicants that are accepted. ie being a legacy gives a person, on average, about a 20 point improved chance of being accepted.
I dont know what overall percentage of seats they take.
edit: I should say that schools like MIT and Cal Tech do not have legacy preferences.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:26:24 PM
20-30% of legacy applicants are accepted. That compares with sub 10% of all other applicants that are accepted. ie being a legacy gives a person, on average, about a 20 point improved chance of being accepted.
I dont know what overall percentage of seats they take.
edit: I should say that schools like MIT and Cal Tech do not have legacy preferences.
That's what I thought you meant. 20-30% of legacies accepted doesn't mean that the minority quota has to be huge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2013, 03:50:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
And my only point in bringing that up was that not everyone who gets into Stanford, Harvard, or Yale did so strictly on merit. Some got in because their parents went there, because they had money (think of the number of actors and actresses who end up at Harvard), or yes, an endowment of some sort. I have no idea how many of either kind end up in an Ivy League school, but it's one of many reasons that I wouldn't go strictly on where they went to school in the hiring process.
Read an article in the Atlantic a while back which claimed that after you subtract the legacies, the athletic scholarships, and the minority quotas, everyone else is competing for something like 15% of the total spaces.
Wouldn't this somewhat undermine the value of having such a degree? Unless those legacy, althletic and minority preferences were all quite brainy, of course. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 04:34:16 PM
Wouldn't this somewhat undermine the value of having such a degree? Unless those legacy, althletic and minority preferences were all quite brainy, of course. ;)
I was thinking the same thing. Both that it could undermine the value, and that legacies are not all the trustifarian meatheads we would like to think.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 04:34:16 PMWouldn't this somewhat undermine the value of having such a degree? Unless those legacy, althletic and minority preferences were all quite brainy, of course. ;)
Uh... no?
Having a social network the includes a large number of well off, well-connected individuals (i.e. your legacy students) is pretty advantageous, even if those people are only of average braininess.
Can't speak to the usefulness of athletic or minority component of the student body from that perspective; I suspect it's part of a different societal calculus.
That's not to imply that the legacies aren't qualified in their own right, just that their presence wouldn't undermine the usefulness of the exclusivity of the school for the non-legacy students even if they weren't.
But I wouldn't be surprised that the children of grads of these prestigious schools were better equipped and motivated to qualify for admittance that the broad population.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:26:24 PM
20-30% of legacy applicants are accepted. That compares with sub 10% of all other applicants that are accepted. ie being a legacy gives a person, on average, about a 20 point improved chance of being accepted.
I dont know what overall percentage of seats they take.
edit: I should say that schools like MIT and Cal Tech do not have legacy preferences.
That's what I thought you meant. 20-30% of legacies accepted doesn't mean that the minority quota has to be huge.
There is only a 20 point difference between the legacies that are accepted and everyone else. You would have to assume a large number of legacy applicants to make the assumption that they take a large percentage of the seats. Are Ivy league parents that fertile?
When I was at Harvard, there were lots and lots of Asian students there. Unless Asians are a lot more firmly rooted in our society than I think they are, I'm kind of doubting the 15% on-merit figure.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:48:16 PM
When I was at Harvard, there were lots and lots of Asian students there. Unless Asians are a lot more firmly rooted in our society than I think they are, I'm kind of doubting the 15% on-merit figure.
He excluded the "minority quota".
Basically all he is saying is that of all the people admitted 15% are white guys with no family connections...
Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2013, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 04:34:16 PMWouldn't this somewhat undermine the value of having such a degree? Unless those legacy, althletic and minority preferences were all quite brainy, of course. ;)
Uh... no?
Having a social network the includes a large number of well off, well-connected individuals (i.e. your legacy students) is pretty advantageous, even if those people are only of average braininess.
100% correct.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:48:16 PM
When I was at Harvard
Wait, what? And you were letting Meri give you shit?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:48:16 PM
When I was at Harvard, there were lots and lots of Asian students there. Unless Asians are a lot more firmly rooted in our society than I think they are, I'm kind of doubting the 15% on-merit figure.
He excluded the "minority quota".
Basically all he is saying is that of all the people admitted 15% are white guys with no family connections...
I don't think there are any quotas for Asians.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:48:16 PM
When I was at Harvard
Wait, what? And you were letting Meri give you shit?
I was there just for the first two years, until I transferred to the college of my first choice. :whistle:
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:51:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:48:16 PM
When I was at Harvard, there were lots and lots of Asian students there. Unless Asians are a lot more firmly rooted in our society than I think they are, I'm kind of doubting the 15% on-merit figure.
He excluded the "minority quota".
Basically all he is saying is that of all the people admitted 15% are white guys with no family connections...
I don't think there are any quotas for Asians.
There are spaces alloted for people from foreign countries. Not sure whether an "asian" is considered a minority in the US. I suspect it is.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:52:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:48:16 PM
When I was at Harvard
Wait, what? And you were letting Meri give you shit?
I was there just for the first two years, until I transferred to the college of my first choice. :whistle:
WTFF.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:52:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:48:16 PM
When I was at Harvard
Wait, what? And you were letting Meri give you shit?
I was there just for the first two years, until I transferred to the college of my first choice. :whistle:
DeVry? :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:53:38 PM
There are spaces alloted for people from foreign countries. Not sure whether an "asian" is considered a minority in the US. I suspect it is.
I think they were mostly immigrants, not international students.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2013, 04:52:52 PM
I was there just for the first two years, until I transferred to the college of my first choice. :whistle:
WTFF.
Alternatively, I may have been there for a couple of days for a high school math competition. I swear that one of these two explanations is true.
That's better, DGarbon.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:46:40 PM
There is only a 20 point difference between the legacies that are accepted and everyone else. You would have to assume a large number of legacy applicants to make the assumption that they take a large percentage of the seats. Are Ivy league parents that fertile?
If you assume that ~90% of legacies marry non-legacies, and that they average a replacement level of kids, the number of immediate descendant legacy candidates who could apply increases by ~1.9 times each generation. If only 50% of them applied even with a 20% acceptance rate that's 19% of the student population each year right there. That doesn't even take into account grandparent legacies or uncle/aunt legacies which could greatly increase the numbers.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 04:02:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2013, 03:47:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:34:50 PM
I'm not anti-academia, I'm anti-college-industrial complex, and, to a lesser degree, anti-liberal arts (at least as something taxpayers generously fund and millions of people take out loans to study). Science departments do have their own issues, but I do not question their existence the same way I do with small college history programs or law schools.
That's only because you did not get all the finest meats and cheeses in all the land handed to you once you graduated as a Juris Doctor.
It would be different if you had gone to a law school with a bigger rep, then you'd be all LULZ LAWLS SKOOLS RULEZ with the Languish heavy hitters of PLJ and JR. Malthus just did it as an extended electives program.
Nah, if I'd somehow leveraged a JD into riches, I'd still be miserable, because big boy BigLaw (versus doc review) is fucking horrible.
Sure, BigLawlz may require anywhere from 2,000-2,400 billable hours a year, but you can't sneeze at the six figures they start associates at. Makes goofing on other law school grads getting into touchy-feely NPO fluffiness so much easier.
QuoteAnd I'd still be aware that other people got poor or negative ROIs out of their JDs, and that's because I didn't suddenly become a revolutionary citizen after I lost my job. Unlike some people.
I mean, of course, fahdiz.
Pass the fucking bar and put out your own shingle, dammit. Like I've told you to do already. Be your own boss.
I could give handjobs on the corner and be my own boss. Probably get more clients too.
Now see, that's not right. That's not having a productive, positive conversation.
You really should make a try on the bar bro.
Tell you what; to sweeten the deal I'll let you give Raz a foot massage if you pass.
Being elevated out of NJ? I'd be elated.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 06:01:21 PM
Being elevated out of NJ? I'd be elated.
Yeah, but the cost, what cost. :(
Oh the living costs are pretty easy to find on the web. You also get to be utterly fabulous.
Quote from: frunk on August 27, 2013, 05:00:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:46:40 PM
There is only a 20 point difference between the legacies that are accepted and everyone else. You would have to assume a large number of legacy applicants to make the assumption that they take a large percentage of the seats. Are Ivy league parents that fertile?
If only 50% of them applied even with a 20% acceptance rate that's 19% of the student population each year right there.
Exactly. Yi said he read an article that suggested that only 15% of seats were left. I made the comment that most of the seats must then be reserved for "minorities" (I cant imagine that many ahtletic seats being reserved). Or his is misremembering the article. Your math seems to support my conclusion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2013, 10:35:36 AM
Quote from: frunk on August 27, 2013, 05:00:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 04:46:40 PM
There is only a 20 point difference between the legacies that are accepted and everyone else. You would have to assume a large number of legacy applicants to make the assumption that they take a large percentage of the seats. Are Ivy league parents that fertile?
If only 50% of them applied even with a 20% acceptance rate that's 19% of the student population each year right there.
Exactly. Yi said he read an article that suggested that only 15% of seats were left. I made the comment that most of the seats must then be reserved for "minorities" (I cant imagine that many ahtletic seats being reserved). Or his is misremembering the article. Your math seems to support my conclusion.
The problem that both you and frunk are running into by using percentages this way is that it only holds true if Harvard theoretically accepts an infinite number of students each year. Harvard has a hard cap of 1600 freshmen. Thus, unless Harvard has a hard cap on the number of legacies they admit, it follows that the legacy/non-legacy ratio will increase as the generations move on, unless Harvard increases its incoming class size. The analysis also ignores overlaps. Some portion of legacy applicants will cover the athletic and minority goals of the university, and thus change that balance as well.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt link=topic=8369.msg630358#msg630358The problem that both you and frunk are running into by using percentages this way is that it only holds true if Harvard theoretically accepts an infinite number of students each year.
I dont follow that logic. There are not an infinite amount of legacy applicants. There is a hard cap of people graduating from Harvard. Not all of them will have children and not all of their children will apply to Harvard. It is true that we are shooting in the dark to a large degree to come to an understanding of how realistic Yi's report that there are only 15% of seats left. But there is some rough estimation that can be made.
Some portion of the legacies could also get in on their own merits in any case.
I would suggest in fact that having parents with Ivy League level educations makes your overall chances of getting into an Ivy League type school vastly greater than the average even ignoring any preference given to legacy admissions.
Well, according to their website, 45% of this year's incoming freshmen are minorities. Add the 20% of legacies, and that's not leaving a whole lot for others. Maybe not 15%, but when you do the math, that leaves only about 500 seats out of 35,000 applicants.
Link (http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html)
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 11:11:18 AM
Some portion of the legacies could also get in on their own merits in any case.
I would suggest in fact that having parents with Ivy League level educations makes your overall chances of getting into an Ivy League type school vastly greater than the average even ignoring any preference given to legacy admissions.
That is the argument instutions like Harvard make. But that fact that legacy applicants are accepted at such a dramatically higher percentage than non legacy applicants makes people suspect that there is more going on there. The kinds of non legacy people who are applying to institutions like Harvard probably also come from families that are highly educated and successful.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2013, 11:09:47 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt link=topic=8369.msg630358#msg630358The problem that both you and frunk are running into by using percentages this way is that it only holds true if Harvard theoretically accepts an infinite number of students each year.
I dont follow that logic. There are not an infinite amount of legacy applicants. There is a hard cap of people graduating from Harvard. Not all of them will have children and not all of their children will apply to Harvard. It is true that we are shooting in the dark to a large degree to come to an understanding of how realistic Yi's report that there are only 15% of seats left. But there is some rough estimation that can be made.
True, but as frunk pointed out you have some multiple x applied to the number of graduates from each generation when calculating the number of legacies for the next. If x > 1.0, which it probably is, then the absolute size of the legacy pool is increasing while the number of entry slots remains the same. Thus it follows that either legacies will consume a greater portion of the 1600 entry slots in later generations or the university will fix the number of slots that can go to legacies.
Who are minorities exactly? Are they simply all non-white people or is it for groups that are minorities at Harvard itself? Like maybe 12% of the population is Latino but only 8% of Harvard is so they reserve a certain percentage for Latinos to correct the imbalance?
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 11:15:46 AM
Well, according to their website, 45% of this year's incoming freshmen are minorities. Add the 20% of legacies, and that's not leaving a whole lot for others. Maybe not 15%, but when you do the math, that leaves only about 500 seats out of 35,000 applicants.
Link (http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html)
That proves my point that the largest percentage of reserved seats must be those set aside for "minorities" rather than the legacy applicants making up the greater share.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 11:18:01 AM
Who are minorities exactly? Are they simply all non-white people or is it for groups that are minorities at Harvard itself? Like maybe 12% of the population is Latino but only 8% of Harvard is so they reserve a certain percentage for Latinos to correct the imbalance?
Ethnicity
African American 11%
Asian American 20%
Hispanic or Latino 12%
Native American or Pacific Islander 3%
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 11:18:01 AM
Who are minorities exactly? Are they simply all non-white people or is it for groups that are minorities at Harvard itself? Like maybe 12% of the population is Latino but only 8% of Harvard is so they reserve a certain percentage for Latinos to correct the imbalance?
It is an interesting question. Harvard, and a lot of other elite schools in the US, strive for both racial and national diversity. So for example, I know a very bright white kid from our high school that was accepted at harvard under the seats the set aside for foreigners. The word is that American schools quite like Canadians to fill those slots.
QuoteEthnicity
African American 11%
Asian American 20%
Hispanic or Latino 12%
Native American or Pacific Islander 3%
Heh almost looks like Whitey is under represented with those percentages.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2013, 11:18:04 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 11:15:46 AM
Well, according to their website, 45% of this year's incoming freshmen are minorities. Add the 20% of legacies, and that's not leaving a whole lot for others. Maybe not 15%, but when you do the math, that leaves only about 500 seats out of 35,000 applicants.
Link (http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html)
That proves my point that the largest percentage of reserved seats must be those set aside for "minorities" rather than the legacy applicants making up the greater share.
Of course also seems unlikely that most "minorities" get in with seats reserved for them...
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 11:20:39 AM
QuoteEthnicity
African American 11%
Asian American 20%
Hispanic or Latino 12%
Native American or Pacific Islander 3%
Heh almost looks like Whitey is under represented with those percentages.
Which was kind of my point from the get-go. With only 1600 places going to anyone, using the fact that they got into Harvard to catapult them over other applicants seems... silly. At least in the early stages of the interviewing processes. There are going to be equally qualified, equally bright applicants from State School University, and dismissing them out of hand for an applicant from Harvard or Yale doesn't make sense to me.
Again, later in the process, that may come into play, but not as an initial paper shuffle kind of thing. Others may or may not agree, which is fine.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2013, 11:25:55 AM
Of course also seems unlikely that most "minorities" get in with seats reserved for them...
I guess it depends. How long has Harvard or Yale been saving a certain percentage for minorities? Couldn't a significant portion be legacy by now? I mean, the whole diversity push goes back to when I was in high school, and I've got kids old enough to be in college now. I'd think that minorities are well within the timeframe to also be legacies.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 11:15:46 AM
Well, according to their website, 45% of this year's incoming freshmen are minorities. Add the 20% of legacies, and that's not leaving a whole lot for others. Maybe not 15%, but when you do the math, that leaves only about 500 seats out of 35,000 applicants.
Link (http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html)
I'm sure that some of those 35,000 applicants are minorities and legacies. And it's a bit fallacious to assume that the "others" are not competing with the minority applicants.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2013, 11:18:04 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 11:15:46 AM
Well, according to their website, 45% of this year's incoming freshmen are minorities. Add the 20% of legacies, and that's not leaving a whole lot for others. Maybe not 15%, but when you do the math, that leaves only about 500 seats out of 35,000 applicants.
Link (http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html)
That proves my point that the largest percentage of reserved seats must be those set aside for "minorities" rather than the legacy applicants making up the greater share.
Why must they be reserved? Are minorities incapable of beating out non-minorities on merit?
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2013, 11:33:17 AM
Why must they be reserved? Are minorities incapable of beating out non-minorities on merit?
Because diversity is good for campuses and stuff I guess. So yeah probably alot of those minorities would get in anyway but if the numbers are insufficient they help them out. The only two minorities that seem to benefit from this though are African Americans and Latinos based on the stats. The Asians and Native Americans/Pacific Islanders seem over-represented so they clearly are kicking ass without help.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2013, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 11:15:46 AM
Well, according to their website, 45% of this year's incoming freshmen are minorities. Add the 20% of legacies, and that's not leaving a whole lot for others. Maybe not 15%, but when you do the math, that leaves only about 500 seats out of 35,000 applicants.
Link (http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html)
I'm sure that some of those 35,000 applicants are minorities and legacies. And it's a bit fallacious to assume that the "others" are not competing with the minority applicants.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 11:46:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2013, 11:33:17 AM
Why must they be reserved? Are minorities incapable of beating out non-minorities on merit?
Because diversity is good for campuses and stuff I guess. So yeah probably alot of those minorities would get in anyway but if the numbers are insufficient they help them out. The only two minorities that seem to benefit from this though are African Americans and Latinos based on the stats. The Asians and Native Americans/Pacific Islanders seem over-represented so they clearly are kicking ass without help.
Well, Asian Americans make up almost half of those minorities. Assuming that they all go into the "reserved for minorities" bucket seems idiotic. I would not be surprised if the vast majority of them got in on merit. In fact, I would not be surprised if the bar were a little higher for them, so that they wouldn't take up too many of the merit spots.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2013, 11:16:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 11:11:18 AM
Some portion of the legacies could also get in on their own merits in any case.
I would suggest in fact that having parents with Ivy League level educations makes your overall chances of getting into an Ivy League type school vastly greater than the average even ignoring any preference given to legacy admissions.
That is the argument instutions like Harvard make. But that fact that legacy applicants are accepted at such a dramatically higher percentage than non legacy applicants makes people suspect that there is more going on there. The kinds of non legacy people who are applying to institutions like Harvard probably also come from families that are highly educated and successful.
Actually, that is a good point. It's not like the applicant pool to Harvard is a bunch of tools.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2013, 11:58:18 AM
Well, Asian Americans make up almost half of those minorities. Assuming that they all go into the "reserved for minorities" bucket seems idiotic. I would not be surprised if the vast majority of them got in on merit. In fact, I would not be surprised if the bar were a little higher for them, so that they wouldn't take up too many of the merit spots.
Yeah so saying 45% were reserved for minorities was probably absurd. The actual number of minorities who got in aided by being minorities was probably less than 10% of the incoming class.
One thing about "Minorities"...
You should realize that the way the define them is largely bullshit.
Case in point: my wife knows some people whose daughter just got into Cornell. She is a "minority" and got whatever extra points are given to minorities.
Now, in reality she is as white as white can be - red hair, pale complexion, white parents, 100% utterly typical white middle class America upbringing.
But supposeduly she has some percentage of native american blood. Supposedly. They were not sure whether it was enough for her to qualify as a minority though, so they tried ot find out what it means to claim you are a minority on an application, and whether or not she would be considered one.
They could not get a straight answer. Turns out the actual definition is "Anyone who checks something other than the 'White/Caucasian" box on the application". She selected "Other" and provided zero evidence or any kind of documentation, nor did they ask.
But she got in.
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:12:58 PM
It's not like the applicant pool to Harvard is a bunch of tools.
I remember when we argued for 20 minutes with the 3 Harvardtards running our Model UN committee who insisted Spain wasn't a member of NATO. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:18:05 PM
But supposeduly she has some percentage of native american blood. Supposedly. They were not sure whether it was enough for her to qualify as a minority though, so they tried ot find out what it means to claim you are a minority on an application, and whether or not she would be considered one.
They could not get a straight answer. Turns out the actual definition is "Anyone who checks something other than the 'White/Caucasian" box on the application". She selected "Other" and provided zero evidence or any kind of documentation, nor did they ask.
But she got in.
That is incredible. Just check off 'African American' and claim that all humans originally came from Africa.
I think it would have been stranger if Stanford asked me for documentation to prove I was black.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 12:23:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:18:05 PM
But supposeduly she has some percentage of native american blood. Supposedly. They were not sure whether it was enough for her to qualify as a minority though, so they tried ot find out what it means to claim you are a minority on an application, and whether or not she would be considered one.
They could not get a straight answer. Turns out the actual definition is "Anyone who checks something other than the 'White/Caucasian" box on the application". She selected "Other" and provided zero evidence or any kind of documentation, nor did they ask.
But she got in.
That is incredible. Just check off 'African American' and claim that all humans originally came from Africa.
Yep.
On the other hand, how could it be otherwise?
Could you imagine the shitstorm a school would unleash if they demanded some kind of documentation of minority status, and then actually rejected said status in some cases?
Since all racial categories are arbitrary there's no way to create an objective definition of race.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 12:23:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:18:05 PM
But supposeduly she has some percentage of native american blood. Supposedly. They were not sure whether it was enough for her to qualify as a minority though, so they tried ot find out what it means to claim you are a minority on an application, and whether or not she would be considered one.
They could not get a straight answer. Turns out the actual definition is "Anyone who checks something other than the 'White/Caucasian" box on the application". She selected "Other" and provided zero evidence or any kind of documentation, nor did they ask.
But she got in.
That is incredible. Just check off 'African American' and claim that all humans originally came from Africa.
Because Berkut knows with complete and definitive evidence that that is precisely the reason she got in.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 12:33:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 12:23:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:18:05 PM
But supposeduly she has some percentage of native american blood. Supposedly. They were not sure whether it was enough for her to qualify as a minority though, so they tried ot find out what it means to claim you are a minority on an application, and whether or not she would be considered one.
They could not get a straight answer. Turns out the actual definition is "Anyone who checks something other than the 'White/Caucasian" box on the application". She selected "Other" and provided zero evidence or any kind of documentation, nor did they ask.
But she got in.
That is incredible. Just check off 'African American' and claim that all humans originally came from Africa.
Because Berkut knows with complete and definitive evidence that that is precisely the reason she got in.
Nobody knows the reason she got in - they don't send you a letter that says "Hey, we totally would never take you except that you are a poor, down-trodden minority! Congrats, your in!"
Maybe she would have gotten in no matter what she checked. It is impossible to say.
But what we do know is that there is no control of any kind on checking that box. Anyone can do so, and no questions will be asked.
That's right, they don't send letters like that.
Which is why anecdotes like that do nothing but stir the pot for people with hang ups over Affirmative Action. And unless you're on an academic admissions board, you don't know what questions are asked.
But hey, let's all check the Nigger box, and cruise through life. Because they've got it so damned good.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 12:42:46 PM
That's right, they don't send letters like that.
Which is why anecdotes like that do nothing but stir the pot for people with hang ups over Affirmative Action. And unless you're on an academic admissions board, you don't know what questions are asked.
But hey, let's all check the Nigger box, and cruise through life. Because they've got it so damned good.
Checking a box and looking like one are pretty different. Anyway I was mocking the cynicism of it, not that I actually condone doing that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 12:42:46 PM
That's right, they don't send letters like that.
Which is why anecdotes like that do nothing but stir the pot for people with hang ups over Affirmative Action. And unless you're on an academic admissions board, you don't know what questions are asked.
But hey, let's all check the Nigger box, and cruise through life. Because they've got it so damned good.
Can't you check your racism for an occasional thread?
Right; I'm the racist, because I'm the one that thinks criticisms and concerns over racially-based college admissions are overrated, overblown and over-exaggerated.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 12:46:38 PM
Right; I'm the racist, because I'm the one that thinks criticisms and concerns over racially-based college admissions are overrated, overblown and over-exaggerated.
Isn't that exactly what we showed in this thread?
Fuck if I know. 157 pages, I can't remember what I had for breakfast.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 12:46:38 PM
Right; I'm the racist, because I'm the one that thinks criticisms and concerns over racially-based college admissions are overrated, overblown and over-exaggerated.
Your the racist because in every single discussion about race, you immediately turn it into some kind of "us vs them" issue, and cannot resist throwing out shit like "nigger" every two seconds in an effort to make the discussion as low brow and emotive as possible.
Sorry, I don't think that actual facts are EVER irrelevant to any discussion, and I don't even have any problem with giving preferences based on a variety of classes (including arbitrary and impossible to quantify one like "race") in admissions. But that doesn't change the fact that it is basically impossible from a practical standpoint for colleges to even accurately assess whether such preference is even deserved by some potential applicant.
But keeping dropping "Nigger!" every chance you get, it sure makes you seem oh so rational and reasoned.
It's ok cause Seedy's black.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 12:42:46 PM
That's right, they don't send letters like that.
Which is why anecdotes like that do nothing but stir the pot for people with hang ups over Affirmative Action. And unless you're on an academic admissions board, you don't know what questions are asked.
But hey, let's all check the Nigger box, and cruise through life. Because they've got it so damned good.
It's wonderful that yours goes to 11; it's a pity you never use 1-10.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 28, 2013, 12:57:36 PM
It's ok cause Seedy's black.
:yeahright: Maybe his heart, but that's about it.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2013, 01:18:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 28, 2013, 12:57:36 PM
It's ok cause Seedy's black.
:yeahright: Maybe his heart, but that's about it.
He's eating all your sex and your diamonds?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 12:21:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:12:58 PM
It's not like the applicant pool to Harvard is a bunch of tools.
I remember when we argued for 20 minutes with the 3 Harvardtards running our Model UN committee who insisted Spain wasn't a member of NATO. :lol:
I used to have to go to the Harvard MUN. Bunch of elitist fucks.
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:52:01 PM
Your the racist because in every single discussion about race, you immediately turn it into some kind of "us vs them" issue, and cannot resist throwing out shit like "nigger" every two seconds in an effort to make the discussion as low brow and emotive as possible.
Every discussion here is low brow and emotive.
QuoteSorry, I don't think that actual facts are EVER irrelevant to any discussion, and I don't even have any problem with giving preferences based on a variety of classes (including arbitrary and impossible to quantify one like "race") in admissions. But that doesn't change the fact that it is basically impossible from a practical standpoint for colleges to even accurately assess whether such preference is even deserved by some potential applicant.
And so what if it's "impossible" to verify? It's all self-reported information anyway, and by the very nature of being self-reported, it's never going to be the single determining factor with universities and colleges for admissions preferences in the whole person application when stacked with required verifiable factors like transcripts and residency. Might as well say the hobbies listed in an applicant's personal statement plays the biggest factor. And if an institution is going to use such statistical information as a basis for the inclusion of diversity, the checked box for race by itself isn't going to be the one determining factor.
So whether or not it's verifiable, so what. Nobody gets in based solely on a checked box, and the percentages that one student of color specifically bumps another student out of the running is so incrementally small, it's not even worth worrying about.
And on the opposite end, if an applicant feels their academic accomplishments are so weak they're compelled enough to lie about self-volunteered information on an application a la Dorsey4Heisman, they're probably not in the position to make the admissions cut anyway.
QuoteBut keeping dropping "Nigger!" every chance you get, it sure makes you seem oh so rational and reasoned.
"Pacific Islander" takes too long to type.
I had been worried that race might be the sole deciding factor. Thanks for putting my mind at rest.
The AA haters seem to think it is, as their lawsuits since the 70s can attest. Just another functional extension of the "Welfare Queen" myth.
Oh absolutely. That conclusion is inescapable.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 06:07:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:52:01 PM
Your the racist because in every single discussion about race, you immediately turn it into some kind of "us vs them" issue, and cannot resist throwing out shit like "nigger" every two seconds in an effort to make the discussion as low brow and emotive as possible.
Every discussion here is low brow and emotive.
QuoteSorry, I don't think that actual facts are EVER irrelevant to any discussion, and I don't even have any problem with giving preferences based on a variety of classes (including arbitrary and impossible to quantify one like "race") in admissions. But that doesn't change the fact that it is basically impossible from a practical standpoint for colleges to even accurately assess whether such preference is even deserved by some potential applicant.
And so what if it's "impossible" to verify? It's all self-reported information anyway, and by the very nature of being self-reported, it's never going to be the single determining factor with universities and colleges for admissions preferences in the whole person application when stacked with required verifiable factors like transcripts and residency. Might as well say the hobbies listed in an applicant's personal statement plays the biggest factor. And if an institution is going to use such statistical information as a basis for the inclusion of diversity, the checked box for race by itself isn't going to be the one determining factor.
So whether or not it's verifiable, so what. Nobody gets in based solely on a checked box, and the percentages that one student of color specifically bumps another student out of the running is so incrementally small, it's not even worth worrying about.
And on the opposite end, if an applicant feels their academic accomplishments are so weak they're compelled enough to lie about self-volunteered information on an application a la Dorsey4Heisman, they're probably not in the position to make the admissions cut anyway.
QuoteBut keeping dropping "Nigger!" every chance you get, it sure makes you seem oh so rational and reasoned.
"Pacific Islander" takes too long to type.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Yes. Yes, it was. :Embarrass:
QuoteThe scared worker
By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: September 1
On this Labor Day, American workers face a buyers' market. Employers have the upper hand and, given today's languid pace of hiring, the advantage shows few signs of ending. What looms, at best, is a sluggish descent from high unemployment (7.4 percent in July) and a prolonged period of stagnant or slow-growing wages. Since 2007, there has been no gain in average inflation-adjusted wages and total compensation, including fringes, notes the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.
The weak job market has a semi-permanence unlike anything seen since World War II, and the effects on public opinion extend beyond the unemployed. "People's expectations have been really ratcheted down for what they can expect for themselves and their children," says EPI economist Lawrence Mishel. There's a sense "that the economy just doesn't produce good jobs anymore." Possible job loss becomes more threatening because finding a new job is harder. Says Paul Taylor of the Pew Research Center: "Security is valued more than money because it's so fragile."
What's occurring is the final breakdown of the post-World War II job compact, with its promises of career jobs and something close to "full employment." The dissolution of these expectations compounds stress and uncertainty.
Over the past century, we've had three broad labor regimes. The first, in the early 1900s, featured "unfettered labor markets," as economic historian Price Fishback of the University of Arizona puts it. Competition set wages and working conditions. There was no federal unemployment insurance or union protection. Workers were fired if they offended bosses or the economy slumped; they quit if they thought they could do better. Turnover was high:Fewer than a third of manufacturing workers in 1913 had been at their current jobs for more than five years.
After World War II, labor relations became more regulated and administered — the second regime. The Wagner Act of 1935 gave workers the right to organize; decisions of the National War Labor Board also favored unions. By 1945, unions represented about a third of private workers, up from 10 percent in 1929. Health insurance, pensions and job protections proliferated. Factory workers laid off during recessions could expect to be recalled when the economy recovered. Job security improved. By 1973, half of manufacturing workers had been at the same job for more than five years.
To avoid unionization and retain skilled workers, large nonunion companies emulated these practices. Career jobs were often the norm. If you went to work for IBM at 25, you could expect to retire from IBM at 65. Fringe benefits expanded. Corporate America, unionized or not, created a private welfare state to protect millions from job and income loss.
But in some ways, the guarantees were too rigid and costly. They started to unravel with the harsh 1981-82 recession (peak monthly unemployment: 10.8 percent). As time passed, companies faced increasing competition from imports and new technologies. Pressure mounted from Wall Street for higher profits. In some industries, labor became uncompetitive. Career jobs slowly vanished as a norm; managers fired workers to cut costs. Unions provided diminishing protection. In 2012, they represented only 6.6 percent of private workers. Old organized sectors (steel, autos) have shrunk. New sectors, from high tech to fast food, have proved hard to organize. Companies have ferociously resisted. (Public unionization is 36 percent, but that's another story.)
Now comes the third labor regime: a confusing mix of old and new. The private safety net is shredding, though the public safety net (unemployment insurance, Social Security, anti-poverty programs, anti-discrimination laws) remains. Economist Fishback suggests we may be drifting back toward "unfettered labor markets" with greater personal instability, insecurity — and responsibility. Workers are often referred to as "free agents." An article in the Harvard Business Review argues that lifetime employment at one company is dead and proposes the following compact: Companies invest in workers' skills to make them more employable when they inevitably leave; workers reciprocate by devoting those skills to improving corporate profitability.
"The new compact isn't about being nice," the article says. "It's based on an understanding that a company is its talent, that low performers will be cut, and that the way to attract talent is to offer appealing opportunities."
Workers can't be too picky, because their power has eroded. Another indicator: After years of stability, labor's share — in wages and fringes — of non-farm business income slipped from 63 percent in 2000 to 57 percent in 2013, reports the White House Council of Economic Advisers. But an even greater decline in 22 other advanced countries, albeit over a longer period, suggests worldwide pressures on workers. Take your pick: globalization; new labor-saving technologies; sluggish economies. Workers do best when strong growth and tight markets raise real wages. On Labor Day 2013, this prospect is nowhere in sight.
Most of the people they talk about in that article don't sound like overeducated college students. :unsure:
It was a commentary on labor. What with it being Labor Day and all.
And it's not like this thread has been dedicated solely to over-educated college students, so save the usual garbon bitchiness.
But it was mostly devoted to college students (including the opening salvo).
Besides, Labor Day is a celebration of workers. :)
Nobody gives a fucking rat fuck about workers, dude. That would be communism.
I care about workers. :cry:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 11:29:06 AM
Nobody gives a fucking rat fuck about workers, dude. That would be communism.
Says a non-worker. :rolleyes:
Don't even go there, cunt.
And I'm off. Maybe see you later in the week.
I'm sure they'll try and get the robber baron days back, but even if they succeed in this, a rising tide of violence will sort them out.
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2013, 11:56:41 AM
I'm sure they'll try and get the robber baron days back, but even if they succeed in this, a rising tide of violence will sort them out.
We need more gated communities with armed guards.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 02, 2013, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2013, 11:56:41 AM
I'm sure they'll try and get the robber baron days back, but even if they succeed in this, a rising tide of violence will sort them out.
We need more gated communities with armed guards.
Armed guards won't stop a truck bomb.
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2013, 11:42:35 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 11:29:06 AM
Nobody gives a fucking rat fuck about workers, dude. That would be communism.
Says a non-worker. :rolleyes:
Very unpleasant comment, even from someone like you.
It's true. My rage boiled over and that was an unfortunate stab from me. I apologize.
Hey Ide - seems like the STEM thing isn't working out for plenty of people either:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/30/2558001/half-americas-scientists-laid-people-budget-cuts/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/sequestration-scientists_n_3825128.html
Half America's scientists laid? We've got to get those numbers up.
In a more serious vein, the Western world is collapsing. I never said that STEM people would be immune. However, from the rubble, they will be the ones to survive and rebuild. That is the value of a STEM degree.
Also, they might be able to get a new job during the winddown of our civilization, because they have degrees and experience people respect, rather than a degree that signals nothing more than the ability to read and write (maybe).
Quote from: Ideologue on September 02, 2013, 11:33:32 PM
In a more serious vein, the Western world is collapsing. I never said that STEM people would be immune. However, from the rubble, they will be the ones to survive and rebuild. That is the value of a STEM degree.
Ah... I was under the impression that your STEM rhapsodies were derived from feelings of job envy. From where I'm sitting, an unemployed Biology Post-Doc with $200K in loans is no better off than an unemployed Sociology PhD with dual B.A. in Fine Arts and History and $200K in debt.
They're much better off, Jake.
Like, a fifth of them intend on fleeing the country. How well do you think that would work out for, let's be generous and say, the top fifth of history majors?
Let alone, let's say, lesser lights: -_-
"It was here in Ploesti that the USAAF delivered a critical blow against the Nazi war machine."
"<I was going to hire you to wash dishes, but have decided you're probably more valuable as raw foodstuff.>"
"What? Are you speaking Spanish? I know Spanish."
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2013, 11:06:36 PM
Hey Ide - seems like the STEM thing isn't working out for plenty of people either:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/30/2558001/half-americas-scientists-laid-people-budget-cuts/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/sequestration-scientists_n_3825128.html
Jacob, the title of the first article is incredibly misleading (consider the source ;))
In fact the article is not about "scientists". They lumped in a bunch of others into their survey data, I assume because the data on scientists alone didnt suipport the point they were trying to make.
QuoteThe survey respondents work in biology, chemistry, physics, geosciences, engineering, mathematics, economics, computer science, education, political science, and social and behavioral sciences.
The second article is more on point but most of the respondents (68%) are talking about insufficient funds to expand their research. Not entirely surprising given the other fact listed in the article regarding the overall reduction in defence spending. Also the article makes it clear that scientists have other options.
College Enrollment Falls for First Time Since '06
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323932604579053392446025998.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BX920_COLLEG_G_20130903183321.jpg&hash=f4b805887b33ffe4a5cb5a84af9a5d6612fa2840)
HAHA.
I don't really how that says much of anything given that the dip seems comparable to those blips in the past.
It's WSJ. As a Murdoch rag it's about as credible as Pravda.
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2013, 04:34:28 PM
It's WSJ. As a Murdoch rag it's about as credible as Pravda.
I suppose you believe in physics :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2013, 10:46:56 PM
It's true. My rage boiled over and that was an unfortunate stab from me. I apologize.
:lol:
Just worked it out, and if I get into the program that I'm shooting for, I'll be ~$70k in debt at the end. That's not including the additional $1500 I'll need to take the professional exam at the end of it all. :ph34r:
IBR of zero and actuarially dead* before the tax bill. Winner: Merithyn.
*Don't blame me. Blame DGuller. :(
Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 11:24:55 PM
Just worked it out, and if I get into the program that I'm shooting for, I'll be ~$70k in debt at the end. That's not including the additional $1500 I'll need to take the professional exam at the end of it all. :ph34r:
Do you need to take on that much debt now that Max has a solid job?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 04, 2013, 11:29:03 PM
IBR of zero and actuarially dead* before the tax bill. Winner: Merithyn.
*Don't blame me. Blame DGuller. :(
What did I do? :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 12:29:42 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 11:24:55 PM
Just worked it out, and if I get into the program that I'm shooting for, I'll be ~$70k in debt at the end. That's not including the additional $1500 I'll need to take the professional exam at the end of it all. :ph34r:
Do you need to take on that much debt now that Max has a solid job?
Probably not. It'll probably be closer to $50k. The total bill will be $100k.
But once you complete it, won't you be unemployable?
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 07:55:23 AM
But once you complete it, won't you be unemployable?
My degree will be "useful", unlike a JD. I'm going for an MS in Project Management. :smarty:
QuoteLink (http://www.cio.com/article/699312/Project_Management_Salaries_Show_Earnings_Growth_Career_Potential)
CIO — Project management may not be the most exciting job in IT these days, especially when most of the talk about hot IT jobs pertains to software developers, information security professionals and business intelligence analysts. Nevertheless, IT project management remains a stable, lucrative career with opportunities for growth, according to the latest salary survey from the Project Management Institute (PMI).
"We're seeing huge demand for IT project and program managers," says Mark Langley, president and CEO of PMI. "The data in the survey demonstrates that."
Indeed, the median base salary for an individual working in the field of project management in the U.S. is $105,000. Such a high median shows that companies are willing to pay top dollar for project management expertise.
Employers pay even higher salaries to project managers who hold the PMI's Project Management Professional (PMP) certification: Those who've held a PMP for five to less than 10 years earn a median base salary of $113,000, while those who've maintained a PMP for 10 to less than 20 years earn a median base salary of $120,000, according to the survey.
The degree comes with the necessary training to pass the PMP exam.
Ugh. Project Managers.
How easy is it to break into the field? A lot of fields are highly paid precisely because they have huge barriers to entry.
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2013, 08:43:16 AM
How easy is it to break into the field? A lot of fields are highly paid precisely because they have huge barriers to entry.
It depends on how you go about it. I'm working on my computer programming skills so that I can work in IT while I'm going to grad school. Good project managers aren't easy to find (especially when pulled out of IT), so I'm hoping that my years of experience as an event planner and freelance writer/editor will give me an edge.
The reality is that most people who know the work don't want to be project managers. They'd rather be programmers. Basically, the same pay with 1/10th the hassle. I enjoy programming (so far), but what I enjoy most about it is the organizing of tasks. Ergo....
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2013, 08:43:16 AM
How easy is it to break into the field? A lot of fields are highly paid precisely because they have huge barriers to entry.
I worked for years as a project manager in different companies. Hope that answers your question.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 04:37:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2013, 04:34:28 PM
It's WSJ. As a Murdoch rag it's about as credible as Pravda.
I suppose you believe in physics :rolleyes:
I believe in the power of love. :)
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2013, 08:43:16 AM
How easy is it to break into the field? A lot of fields are highly paid precisely because they have huge barriers to entry.
Pretty easy, actually. I mean, if I'm doing it can't require that much effort...
http://news.yahoo.com/2014-best-colleges-preview-top-10-public-universities-144411400.html
QuoteTop 10 Public Universities
College of William and Mary (VA)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Pennsylvania State University--University Park
University of California--Berkeley
University of California--Davis
University of California--Los Angeles
University of California--San Diego
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill
University of Virginia
Look at all that California up in there. :wub:
PMs are the devil. That is all
Amazing they are all still up there even with all the budget cuts.
I feel shame my school did not make the list. Usually UT Austin is on lists like that. Our own budget cuts and issues maybe catching up to us.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2013, 08:43:16 AM
How easy is it to break into the field? A lot of fields are highly paid precisely because they have huge barriers to entry.
Pretty easy, actually. I mean, if I'm doing it can't require that much effort...
You and Meri could end up working together. It would be like the "Odd Couple", only with project managment. :D
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 10:44:39 AM
You and Meri could end up working together. It would be like the "Odd Couple", only with project managment. :D
Not likely. I've no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 10:44:39 AM
You and Meri could end up working together. It would be like the "Odd Couple", only with project managment. :D
Not likely. I've no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
:lol: I work closely with people all over the country, though.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 11:01:00 AM
:lol: I work closely with people all over the country, though.
If you and I worked together, it was be very professional and polite. :)
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 11:11:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 11:01:00 AM
:lol: I work closely with people all over the country, though.
If you and I worked together, it was be very professional and polite. :)
Absolutely.
Just to make Ide's head explode:
Colleges Focus More on Professional Training Than Transformation (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec13/teaching_09-04.html)
QuoteJEFFREY BROWN: "If you want an education, the odds aren't with you," just one of many provocative lines from a new book exploring the contemporary university, very much including the most elite institutions and the lives of teachers and students. It's called "Why Teach?: In Defense of a Real Education."
Author Mark Edmundson is a professor of English at the University of Virginia, and he joins us now.
And welcome to you.
JEFFREY BROWN: So, first, what is a real education and why does it need defending?
MARK EDMUNDSON: Well, a real education -- I will offend a few people by saying this -- is humanities-based and it's oriented around the prospect of getting to know yourself, figuring out who you are and what you really want to do with your life.
JEFFREY BROWN: And that is not what is taught now?
MARK EDMUNDSON: Well, I think a lot of student come to school having been primed by their parents and their teaches to go into a business school, to go into an economics major, to do a science major, whether they're scientists or future businesspeople in their heart or not.
So, that's something that really -- we really have got to speak to that, it seems to me, and that's what I try to do in the book.
JEFFREY BROWN: You add a larger level. You write: "Midway through the last decade, the 20th century, American higher education changed. Colleges and universities entered a new phase in which they stopped being intellectually driven and culturally oriented and began to model themselves on business."
MARK EDMUNDSON: Yes, a lot of truth in that, I still think.
Schools have become more consumer-oriented. Can we give you the best kind of food? Can we give you the best kind of gym? Can we give you all the entertainment that you need on Saturday and Sunday, the best kind of football team? But, then, at the end, you are going to have to pay for it.
So, there's a lot of diversions out there, but there is still the heart of a good education in just about every American college.
JEFFREY BROWN: But why has that happened, that it became more business-oriented? And what does that do to the actual exchange between teacher and student?
MARK EDMUNDSON: Well, it became more business-oriented because, like businesses, I think the universities competed for students. Right?
And one of the ways to compete is offer as plush and easy a circumstance as possible. So the professors have had to step forward and try to undermine those expectations of a continuing consumer pleasurable encounter, do a little bit of challenging, do a little bit of questioning, do a little bit of the Socratic thing that we try to do.
JEFFREY BROWN: But not enough? I'm trying to figure how far are you pushing this? Is it coddling the students, in the sense that they're not challenging them enough because they're more like customers, rather than students? What's the argument?
MARK EDMUNDSON: Well, I think they come with those expectations, but I think professors try to push back in the direction of a more serious kind of engagement.
One of the things that we're doing, it seems to me, is that we're teaching students very well how to read and interpret demanding and interesting texts. But we're not going far enough in asking them this critical question: Is this true? How would you apply it to your life? How would you live it out?
And that's a place where I think we professors could do some stepping up.
JEFFREY BROWN: We talk a lot about a crisis in the humanities. You seem to refer -- you seem to think of a crisis within the humanities, that it's -- that the humanities are being sold the wrong way, if that's the right word, as ways to help you get a job or to help you, I don't know, do better in life, rather than something else.
MARK EDMUNDSON: Right.
Well, I think that, you know, the humanities can help you to do better in life. You can learn to read well, write well, think well, present yourself in an appealing sort of way. But I think that fundamentally we're not about success. What we're about is challenging and examining every single kind of socially accredited standard out there.
If a student studies the humanities and reads Plato and reads Socrates, he may come out believing that he wants to be a conventional success, but he may also come out believing that success is really for somebody else; he's going to lead a life of what Thoreau called voluntary poverty, and that's that. And that's the risk that parents take, but better a happy kid than a slogging-away, successful -- in conventional terms -- kid.
JEFFREY BROWN: Successful in conventional terms.
You mean so the colleges shouldn't be telling the kids -- I mean, what do you tell the -- what -- you want to attract kids to your class, right?
MARK EDMUNDSON: Sure.
JEFFREY BROWN: But not to say this might help you become a lawyer or a doctor or an engineer?
MARK EDMUNDSON: What I'm more likely to say is, this will help you decide whether you want to become a lawyer, a doctor or an engineer.
And if you do decide to do that, you are going to be all the more successful because you made the decision on your own, not because it's been imposed on you from outside.
JEFFREY BROWN: So, what are you saying? Because I can hear people saying, look, it's a tough economy. Right? Kids and parents pay a lot of money to go to college.
MARK EDMUNDSON: Mm-hmm.
JEFFREY BROWN: What do you tell people? Why should they not be thinking that this has to lead to something with money or the economy in mind?
MARK EDMUNDSON: Uh-huh.
Well, you know, if you look at people's professional lives and you ask them why do they fail, right, frequently, they fail because they are a round peg trying to slam themselves into a square hole of a profession that they really do not love and are not committed to, right, so that if a student learns what it is he or she really values and wants to do, the chances of success are much better.
And that's something we provide in the humanities that others don't. But the thing to add is that students may in the humanities look into this idea of success and say, no, not for me. I have a son who lives in Austin, Tex., works in a bike shop, and is writing a novel. I'm tremendously proud of him. He looked into the success thing, and so far, what he's saying is, not for me.
JEFFREY BROWN: But you're probably going to hear from people, this is the privilege of the well-off, to be able to have that kind of, I don't know, four years of thinking and of, as you use the word from John Keats, soul-making. Right?
MARK EDMUNDSON: I would like it to be a privilege that everybody had access to. Right?
And that -- when we say we can't afford that, we can afford 2.5 million people in jail. We can afford armies that can fight three wars at the same time. We can afford rich people who pay 15 to zero percent of their taxes, but we can't afford to give everybody a chance at the humanities? I would rather open it up for everybody.
JEFFREY BROWN: So, what do you tell -- you refer at one point to the astonishing opportunities at colleges. For all the kind of tough things you have to say, you talk about the wonders of our universities.
MARK EDMUNDSON: Yes. Yes.
JEFFREY BROWN: What's the advice? How should a student take those -- particularly those starting maybe right today, right, or this week, how should they take advantage of that?
MARK EDMUNDSON: Yes.
You have got to look around for the teacher who is going to be great for you. There is this period that they call shopping period -- probably not the best name -- but you go from class to class, from professor to professor, and you see, you look around for somebody who really lights it up for you. You're looking for somebody with a keen mind, love of learning, and a warm heart.
And you get those things together in the same person and you have found somebody who might actually be able to teach you something, and maybe you will teach him something, too.
I think it's fair to consider an education to get a job - like engineering or business - is no different than going to a trade school. It's just a much more complex (and expensive) kind of trade. There's value in a humanities education, I think, but that's more of a classical kind of university experience. The rest are more of a classical kind of trade school experience, which a few extra classes thrown in to be able to call it a Bachelors' instead of a Certificate.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/2014-best-colleges-preview-top-10-public-universities-144411400.html
QuoteTop 10 Public Universities
College of William and Mary (VA)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Pennsylvania State University--University Park
University of California--Berkeley
University of California--Davis
University of California--Los Angeles
University of California--San Diego
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill
University of Virginia
Look at all that California up in there. :wub:
Every time I see these lists I wish I had tried for GaTech. :( Georgia and Florida have some sort of agreement wherein one state's residents can qualify for significantly reduced tuition in the other state's universities.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 05, 2013, 11:25:44 AM
Every time I see these lists I wish I had tried for GaTech. :( Georgia and Florida have some sort of agreement wherein one state's residents can qualify for significantly reduced tuition in the other state's universities.
Though I have zero interest in going to Georgia for any length of time, I've encouraged Max to apply to Georgia Tech when he's ready to go to grad school, along with Carnegie Mellon.
Not cheap for us, unfortunately, but really good schools for what you guys do.
Quote from: Professor AssI think that fundamentally we're not about success.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 05, 2013, 11:25:44 AM
Every time I see these lists I wish I had tried for GaTech. :( Georgia and Florida have some sort of agreement wherein one state's residents can qualify for significantly reduced tuition in the other state's universities.
My dad went to Georgia Tech for a year (or two, I forget). He was in chemical engineering.
Found it dull, so he went to USC and got a bachelor's and then a master's in history. His focus was on ancient Judea. His master's thesis was on the Bar Kokhba revolt.
Taught for a year, hated it. Then he fell ass-backwards into the civil service. The M.A. guaranteed him the job, and he started, if I am not mistaken, as a GS-7. He was shortly promoted to management, and sent to one of the offices in Nashville, TN. He hated that too and was permitted to take a demotion, retaining something like 90% of his increased pay. After many years, he came to hate his job in Greenville, too, or rather his boss; no big deal, he was offered some kind of incentive, and retired with nearly a full pension when he was 56.
Bought his first house when he was 30 iirc. Now he owns two houses.
By today's standards, literally every educational and career turn he made was wrong.* How was I supposed to know? He was rewarded for every God damned one of them.
*Except the one where he avoided going into Vietnam. Although by today's standards, as CdM and I can attest, this too would constitute a bad move. (By that I of course mean veteran status; although I suppose fleeing the country for Asia wouldn't have been the worst idea in my twenties either.)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 05, 2013, 12:32:08 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 05, 2013, 11:25:44 AM
Every time I see these lists I wish I had tried for GaTech. :( Georgia and Florida have some sort of agreement wherein one state's residents can qualify for significantly reduced tuition in the other state's universities.
My dad went to Georgia Tech for a year (or two, I forget). He was in chemical engineering.
Found it dull, so he went to USC and got a bachelor's and then a master's in history. His focus was on ancient Judea. His master's thesis was on the Bar Kokhba revolt.
Taught for a year, hated it. Then he fell ass-backwards into the civil service. The M.A. guaranteed him the job, and he started, if I am not mistaken, as a GS-7. He was shortly promoted to management, and sent to one of the offices in Nashville, TN. He hated that too and was permitted to take a demotion, retaining something like 90% of his increased pay. After many years, he came to hate his job in Greenville, too, or rather his boss; no big deal, he was offered some kind of incentive, and retired with nearly a full pension when he was 56.
Bought his first house when he was 30 iirc. Now he owns two houses.
By today's standards, literally every educational and career turn he made was wrong.* How was I supposed to know? He was rewarded for every God damned one of them.
*Except the one where he avoided going into Vietnam. Although by today's standards, as CdM and I can attest, this too would constitute a bad move. (By that I of course mean veteran status; although I suppose fleeing the country for Asia wouldn't have been the worst idea in my twenties either.)
It is
never wrong to know all there is to know about the Bar Kokhba revolt. ;)
Quote from: HVC on September 05, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
PMs are the devil. That is all
No shit. The worker bee equivalent of MBAs. Useless.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 08:50:11 AM
Good project managers aren't easy to find
Ain't that the truth.
But I disagree on "especially when pulled out of IT". IT Project Managers should
always be pulled out of 'real' IT jobs, or else you get a PM who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about and promises impossible deliverables in impossible timeframes.
It's theoretically possible for someone who has no IT experience at all to competently manage an IT project, if they follow PMO guidelines and have good management skills. However, I have never seen this actually happen.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 05, 2013, 12:32:08 PM
*Except the one where he avoided going into Vietnam.
:hmm: Both my father and father-in-law fought in Vietnam. Vietnam paid for my father-in-law's college education and he's a retired teacher, and Vietnam trained my dad to be an electricial engineer which he parlayed into a career in facilities development and management.
Quote from: Caliga on September 05, 2013, 12:51:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 08:50:11 AM
Good project managers aren't easy to find
Ain't that the truth.
But I disagree on "especially when pulled out of IT". IT Project Managers should always be pulled out of 'real' IT jobs, or else you get a PM who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about and promises impossible deliverables in impossible timeframes.
It's theoretically possible for someone who has no IT experience at all to competently manage an IT project, if they follow PMO guidelines and have good management skills. However, I have never seen this actually happen.
The problem there is that most IT folks (gross generalization incoming) aren't good communicators. They may know the best, most effective way to communicate with 18 different software programs, but can't talk to a customer to save their lives.
So, find someone who's IT savvy AND a good communicator: PROFIT!
At least, I'm hoping. :ph34r:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 12:44:16 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 05, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
PMs are the devil. That is all
No shit. The worker bee equivalent of MBAs. Useless.
See, this is an issue. GOOD Project Managers should make your life easier. They do the organizational stuff, the budgeting, the communicating with the customer, so that you don't have to. Basically, they should be dealing with the headache crap while you do the job.
I'm just not sure how that's not a positive in the workplace.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 01:07:53 PM
The problem there is that most IT folks (gross generalization incoming) aren't good communicators. They may know the best, most effective way to communicate with 18 different software programs, but can't talk to a customer to save their lives.
So, find someone who's IT savvy AND a good communicator: PROFIT!
At least, I'm hoping. :ph34r:
I agree that this is true more often than not, yeah.
Also, you are on the right track by trying to get a footing in IT yourself. A lot of the PMs I've known who don't have an IT background never even tried... though one I work with actually got Cisco certs. In her case they're completely useless as she works on software projects, but at least she tried.
is she agile
Quote from: Caliga on September 05, 2013, 01:11:11 PM
I agree that this is true more often than not, yeah.
Also, you are on the right track by trying to get a footing in IT yourself. A lot of the PMs I've known who don't have an IT background never even tried... though one I work with actually got Cisco certs. In her case they're completely useless as she works on software projects, but at least she tried.
Despite what many seem to think here, I'm not dumb. :P
It's hard to know what can or can't be done without having tried to do it oneself first.
Quote from: Caliga on September 05, 2013, 12:51:30 PM
But I disagree on "especially when pulled out of IT". IT Project Managers should always be pulled out of 'real' IT jobs, or else you get a PM who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about and promises impossible deliverables in impossible timeframes.
Instead, you get IT people who:
1) over-complicate and over-engineer things, because that's their methodology;
2) have zero personality with the inability to communicate with non-IT people on an even basic human level, and
3) don't understand, and even more importantly, don't care about annoying non-IT issues such as intuitive workflow, QA/QC and other such post-project nuisances.
QuoteIt's theoretically possible for someone who has no IT experience at all to competently manage an IT project, if they follow PMO guidelines and have good management skills. However, I have never seen this actually happen.
I had no problems getting it done, and neither have any of the non-IT project managers I've ever worked with. IT mutts, on the other hand, not so much.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 01:07:53 PM
The problem there is that most IT folks (gross generalization incoming) aren't good communicators.
That's neither gross nor a generalization.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 01:07:53 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 05, 2013, 12:51:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 08:50:11 AM
Good project managers aren't easy to find
Ain't that the truth.
But I disagree on "especially when pulled out of IT". IT Project Managers should always be pulled out of 'real' IT jobs, or else you get a PM who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about and promises impossible deliverables in impossible timeframes.
It's theoretically possible for someone who has no IT experience at all to competently manage an IT project, if they follow PMO guidelines and have good management skills. However, I have never seen this actually happen.
The problem there is that most IT folks (gross generalization incoming) aren't good communicators. They may know the best, most effective way to communicate with 18 different software programs, but can't talk to a customer to save their lives.
So, find someone who's IT savvy AND a good communicator: PROFIT!
At least, I'm hoping. :ph34r:
Conversely, project managers are good at communicating, but not really listening.
:(
What?
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 08:11:52 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 07:55:23 AM
But once you complete it, won't you be unemployable?
My degree will be "useful", unlike a JD. I'm going for an MS in Project Management. :smarty:
QuoteLink (http://www.cio.com/article/699312/Project_Management_Salaries_Show_Earnings_Growth_Career_Potential)
CIO — Project management may not be the most exciting job in IT these days, especially when most of the talk about hot IT jobs pertains to software developers, information security professionals and business intelligence analysts. Nevertheless, IT project management remains a stable, lucrative career with opportunities for growth, according to the latest salary survey from the Project Management Institute (PMI).
"We're seeing huge demand for IT project and program managers," says Mark Langley, president and CEO of PMI. "The data in the survey demonstrates that."
Indeed, the median base salary for an individual working in the field of project management in the U.S. is $105,000. Such a high median shows that companies are willing to pay top dollar for project management expertise.
Employers pay even higher salaries to project managers who hold the PMI's Project Management Professional (PMP) certification: Those who've held a PMP for five to less than 10 years earn a median base salary of $113,000, while those who've maintained a PMP for 10 to less than 20 years earn a median base salary of $120,000, according to the survey.
The degree comes with the necessary training to pass the PMP exam.
Which is all well and good. Project management is very trendy and meaningless, but won't you be pretty old by the time you finish? Corporations hate old people. They love young people.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 05, 2013, 02:35:39 PM
Conversely, project managers are good at communicating, but not really listening.
:(
Good communication requires listening skills. :)
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Which is all well and good. Project management is very trendy and meaningless, but won't you be pretty old by the time you finish? Corporations hate old people. They love young people.
Luckily, I look younger than my years. :)
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 02:42:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Which is all well and good. Project management is very trendy and meaningless, but won't you be pretty old by the time you finish? Corporations hate old people. They love young people.
Luckily, I look younger than my years. :)
That is good. But age coupled with inexperience is dangerous combination for employers.
But then again, who am I to say? I decided a long time ago that any career choice I made would be the wrong one, and so I would just do random things until I died. Maybe your over-optimism is better than my supreme pessimism.
Doesn't IT project managment involve being underbudgeted and understaffed and then staying on weekends and past midnight to meet the deadline?
And then everyone being pissed off when the deadline can't be met and needs to be pushed back 3 months.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2013, 03:37:00 PM
Doesn't IT project managment involve being underbudgeted and understaffed and then staying on weekends and past midnight to meet the deadline?
And then everyone being pissed off when the deadline can't be met and needs to be pushed back 3 months.
Not anymore. "Early access", baby. Deadline schmeadline.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2013, 03:37:00 PM
Doesn't IT project managment involve being underbudgeted and understaffed and then staying on weekends and past midnight to meet the deadline?
And then everyone being pissed off when the deadline can't be met and needs to be pushed back 3 months.
Sounds about right. :)
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 10:44:39 AM
You and Meri could end up working together. It would be like the "Odd Couple", only with project managment. :D
Not likely. I've no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Good.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 04:09:45 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 10:44:39 AM
You and Meri could end up working together. It would be like the "Odd Couple", only with project managment. :D
Not likely. I've no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Good.
People seem to tend to visit one part of Ohio and conclude the whole state is like the part they visited :rolleyes:
Which I guess is sort of how you are with Cincy :P
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
People seem to tend to visit one part of Ohio and conclude the whole state is like the part they visited :rolleyes:
Can you blame them for not wanting to visit the other parts afterwards?
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 04:09:45 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 10:44:39 AM
You and Meri could end up working together. It would be like the "Odd Couple", only with project managment. :D
Not likely. I've no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Good.
People seem to tend to visit one part of Ohio and conclude the whole state is like the part they visited :rolleyes:
Which I guess is sort of how you are with Cincy :P
Cincy is the inflamed boil on Ohio's ass.
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2013, 04:16:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
People seem to tend to visit one part of Ohio and conclude the whole state is like the part they visited :rolleyes:
Can you blame them for not wanting to visit the other parts afterwards?
Sorta like Newark / New Jersey? :hmm:
:P
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2013, 03:37:00 PM
Doesn't IT project managment involve being underbudgeted and understaffed and then staying on weekends and past midnight to meet the deadline?
And then everyone being pissed off when the deadline can't be met and needs to be pushed back 3 months.
It anyway.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 04:18:16 PM
Cincy is the inflamed boil on Ohio's ass.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincyshirts.com%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Fcache%2F1%2Fsmall_image%2F170x%2F9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95%2Fn%2Fo%2Fnobodyputscincyinthecornercincyshirts.jpg&hash=6591227db0e87e410675b74ae4618343dc1f877c)
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 11:22:41 AM
Just to make Ide's head explode:
Colleges Focus More on Professional Training Than Transformation (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec13/teaching_09-04.html)
QuoteJEFFREY BROWN: "If you want an education, the odds aren't with you,"
They weren't with Henry Adams either.
It was amusing that the interviewer referenced Keats (who was denied a liberal education because he was apprenticed to an apothecary at age 14 due to his family's poverty) and the author referenced Thoreau who berates colleges for teaching political economics rather than the economy of living.
"The consequence is, that while he is reading Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Say, he runs his father in debt irretrievably."The argument that everything has gone to hell in the modern university and the solution is to refocus on the humanities as they were taught in the recent past is interesting. It's largely the same argument as Alan Bloom makes in "The Closing of the American Mind" and Robert Hutchins makes in the "The Great Conversation" in 1987 and 1952 respectively.
If it were still possible to get a job in non-humanities fields with a humanities education, it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, we've got public colleges subsidizing our businesses' training costs and calling it education.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 12:40:17 PM
It is never wrong to know all there is to know about the Bar Kokhba revolt. ;)
It would be interesting to work with a couple of Languishites such as yourself. Having discussions shift toward topics like the Bar Kokhba revolt every once in a while would blow people's minds.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 06:51:38 PM
If it were still possible to get a job in non-humanities fields with a humanities education, it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, we've got public colleges subsidizing our businesses' training costs and calling it education.
Somebody's gotta do it. Businesses certainly aren't.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 06:51:38 PM
If it were still possible to get a job in non-humanities fields with a humanities education, it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, we've got public colleges subsidizing our businesses' training costs and calling it education.
I've said this before, but a major problem is that a college degree in the humanities is no guarantee that someone has actually received a humanities education.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
People seem to tend to visit one part of Ohio and conclude the whole state is like the part they visited :rolleyes:
I've spent time in Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown.
I repeat: I have no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 06:51:38 PM
If it were still possible to get a job in non-humanities fields with a humanities education, it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, we've got public colleges subsidizing our businesses' training costs and calling it education.
That's essentially what I said after the article. Non-humanities degrees are just higher end trade schools.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
People seem to tend to visit one part of Ohio and conclude the whole state is like the part they visited :rolleyes:
I've spent time in Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown.
I repeat: I have no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
We don't want you.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
I've spent time in Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown.
:(
;)
I don't actually hate Ohio, except on 2 or 3 Saturdays in the Fall.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
I've spent time in Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown.
I repeat: I have no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Too much like Illinois, right.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 05, 2013, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
I've spent time in Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown.
I repeat: I have no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Too much like Illinois, right.
Actually, Ohio is superior to Illinois in most ways. The exception is Chicago, though it wouldn't be too far of a trip from Toledo.
But that's not much of a stretch, is it? I mean, we're talking about Illinois here.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 05, 2013, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
I've spent time in Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown.
I repeat: I have no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Too much like Illinois, right.
Actually, Ohio is superior to Illinois in most ways. The exception is Chicago, though it wouldn't be too far of a trip from Toledo.
But that's not much of a stretch, is it? I mean, we're talking about Illinois here.
There are places in Illinois outside of Chicago?
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 07:30:29 PM
There are places in Illinois outside of Chicago?
FEEL MY PAIN??
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 07:30:29 PM
There are places in Illinois outside of Chicago?
Indeed. There are places in New York outside of New York City, too. Westchester doesn't count. :P
Quote from: Savonarola on September 05, 2013, 06:41:31 PM
The argument that everything has gone to hell in the modern university and the solution is to refocus on the humanities as they were taught in the recent past is interesting. It's largely the same argument as Alan Bloom makes in "The Closing of the American Mind" and Robert Hutchins makes in the "The Great Conversation" in 1987 and 1952 respectively.
And I'm sure pecuniary interest and confirmation bias has nothing to do with the recommendations of an elite professor and a mega-elite school administrator, respectively. :)
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 05, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 07:30:29 PM
There are places in Illinois outside of Chicago?
Indeed. There are places in New York outside of New York City, too. Westchester doesn't count. :P
I've been to Buffalo. That ain't a place.
I think outside of the Isle of Manhattan, it's all 'here be dragons.'
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2013, 06:55:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 12:40:17 PM
It is never wrong to know all there is to know about the Bar Kokhba revolt. ;)
It would be interesting to work with a couple of Languishites such as yourself. Having discussions shift toward topics like the Bar Kokhba revolt every once in a while would blow people's minds.
"This litigation strategy you have proposed is clever and audatious, but doomed to eventual defeat. It will give the client hope, and when your unexpected preliminary motions hit you will be seen as a saviour; your request for interlocutory injunctions may well succeed; but in the end the other side will win and get their costs on an indemnity scale.
It's the Bar Kokhba revolt of litigation".
;)
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 08:17:29 PM
I think outside of the Isle of Manhattan, it's all 'here be dragons.'
:rolleyes: Surely even you could appreciate the Hamptons.
I get my fill of the Hamptons from watching Ina Garten's cooking show.
Quote from: Caliga on September 06, 2013, 08:13:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 08:17:29 PM
I think outside of the Isle of Manhattan, it's all 'here be dragons.'
:rolleyes: Surely even you could appreciate the Hamptons.
Never been. Dreadful to reach by car, no to the bus, and ugh to the train.
I will give you that you have to pass through all of LAWN GYELAND to get there. :x
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
People seem to tend to visit one part of Ohio and conclude the whole state is like the part they visited :rolleyes:
I've spent time in Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown.
I repeat: I have no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Driving through doesn't count!
Zanesville is a rockin' town.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 08:46:51 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
People seem to tend to visit one part of Ohio and conclude the whole state is like the part they visited :rolleyes:
I've spent time in Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown.
I repeat: I have no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Driving through doesn't count!
As in, more than a day, "spent time in". I forgot Cleveland. I spent a week there once, but that was mostly in the hospital, so I'm not sure that counts.
I think we would all like to forget Cleveland.
Cal will never forget the Polish Boy he ate up there.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 08:46:51 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
People seem to tend to visit one part of Ohio and conclude the whole state is like the part they visited :rolleyes:
I've spent time in Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown.
I repeat: I have no desire to move to Ohio. Ever.
Driving through doesn't count!
I've been/stayed in Columbus and Cleveland. Ugh. My one distant aunt did have a nice property though.
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 08:53:11 AM
As in, more than a day, "spent time in".
You probably had nobody to show you around Cincy, and you surely missed the awesomeness that is Over The Rhine (the recently gentrified parts, anyway).
QuoteI forgot Cleveland. I spent a week there once, but that was mostly in the hospital, so I'm not sure that counts.
Ouch. As if Cleveland weren't bad enough. Being in the hospital in Cleveland... :pinch:
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 09:02:22 AM
You probably had nobody to show you around Cincy, and you surely missed the awesomeness that is Over The Rhine (the recently gentrified parts, anyway).
Well, we told you several times that we were driving through there this summer, but did you offer to meet up? Noooo..... So you have only yourself to blame for my having missed the "good" parts of Cincy.
Quote
Ouch. As if Cleveland weren't bad enough. Being in the hospital in Cleveland... :pinch:
The doctors at the Cleveland Clinic are my heroes, but the city itself? Not so much.
The most common reference heard outside the US to Cleveland is in the phrase "Cleveland Steamer". :P
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 09:07:07 AM
The most common reference heard outside the US to Cleveland is in the phrase "Cleveland Steamer". :P
I had to look that up. :yuk: :glare:
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 09:07:07 AM
The most common reference heard outside the US to Cleveland is in the phrase "Cleveland Steamer". :P
I had to look that up. :yuk: :glare:
Presumably, you have not previously felt this a glaring hole in your vocabulary. :P
The question is ... does the phrase provide an accurate depiction of Cleveland, the city? ;)
Cleveland is just very dull.
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 09:08:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 09:07:07 AM
The most common reference heard outside the US to Cleveland is in the phrase "Cleveland Steamer". :P
I had to look that up. :yuk: :glare:
:lol:
Now lookup ' Cosby Sweater'.
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 09:04:56 AM
Well, we told you several times that we were driving through there this summer, but did you offer to meet up? Noooo..... So you have only yourself to blame for my having missed the "good" parts of Cincy.
You told me no such thing! I read where you were passing through Calville, but not Cincy.
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 09:14:24 AM
Cleveland is just very dull.
The only thing that could draw me back up to visit Cleveland again is Great Lakes Brewery.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 08:07:49 AM
"This litigation strategy you have proposed is clever and audatious, but doomed to eventual defeat. It will give the client hope, and when your unexpected preliminary motions hit you will be seen as a saviour; your request for interlocutory injunctions may well succeed; but in the end the other side will win and get their costs on an indemnity scale.
It's the Bar Kokhba revolt of litigation".
;)
:lol:
"I don't know...sometimes when things are dragged out, the unexpected can happen...For example, Frederick the Great's campaigns in the Seven Years War began much like the Bar Kokhba revolt, with unexpected early success against great odds. But just before he could be ground down, Peter III became czar and changed the political landscape, and Prussia avoided defeat and was able to consolidate its gains in the War of Austrian Succession."
"That is a good point, but bold gambles can lead to spectacular failures. I can't help but think of the Second Punic War and the Battle of Cannae. The Fabian Strategy wore down Hannibal, and I think pursuing our aims through a series of smaller lawsuits that we will win is the course we should take."
At this point I imagine rest of the conferrence room is completely bewildered and can't figure out what is happening.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 09:22:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 09:04:56 AM
Well, we told you several times that we were driving through there this summer, but did you offer to meet up? Noooo..... So you have only yourself to blame for my having missed the "good" parts of Cincy.
You told me no such thing! I read where you were passing through Calville, but not Cincy.
Most certainly did. We said exactly where we were driving through from the camping outside of Pittsburgh AND on our trip back from Rhode Island. :contract:
I just figured you didn't want to meet me because then you've have to be nice to me in person. :D
Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2013, 11:28:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 08:07:49 AM
"This litigation strategy you have proposed is clever and audatious, but doomed to eventual defeat. It will give the client hope, and when your unexpected preliminary motions hit you will be seen as a saviour; your request for interlocutory injunctions may well succeed; but in the end the other side will win and get their costs on an indemnity scale.
It's the Bar Kokhba revolt of litigation".
;)
:lol:
"I don't know...sometimes when things are dragged out, the unexpected can happen...For example, Frederick the Great's campaigns in the Seven Years War began much like the Bar Kokhba revolt, with unexpected early success against great odds. But just before he could be ground down, Peter III became czar and changed the political landscape, and Prussia avoided defeat and was able to consolidate its gains in the War of Austrian Succession."
"That is a good point, but bold gambles can lead to spectacular failures. I can't help but think of the Second Punic War and the Battle of Cannae. The Fabian Strategy wore down Hannibal, and I think pursuing our aims through a series of smaller lawsuits that we will win is the course we should take."
At this point I imagine rest of the conferrence room is completely bewildered and can't figure out what is happening.
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 11:31:56 AM
Most certainly did. We said exactly where we were driving through from the camping outside of Pittsburgh AND on our trip back from Rhode Island. :contract:
I just figured you didn't want to meet me because then you've have to be nice to me in person. :D
You didn't say anything about Cincinnati! I remember you mentioning you were going to be "outside Louisville" or whatever & I was going to post something snarky about being too good to come here. I'd have shown you guys around. A few years ago there wouldn't have been much to see, but nowadays with the OTR revitalization and a new brewery opening every week, there's tons to do and see.
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 11:33:55 AM
:lol:
Is it weird that I pictured that exchange in my mind as a Far Side cartoon as I was reading it?
:unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 11:33:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2013, 09:15:38 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 09:08:58 AM
I had to look that up. :yuk: :glare:
:lol:
Now lookup ' Cosby Sweater'.
No. :glare:
QuoteThe sexual act of eating Fruit Loops, Fruity Pebbles, Trix, and Boo Berry- or any other 'bright, colorful' breakfast cereals- and then vomitting the tacky, dazzling mixture onto your partners chest. The result should look similar to the incredible sweaters that Bill Cosby wore during his highly successful 1980's sitcom "The Cosby Show".
Nicole was overjoyed to receive "a Cosby Sweater" for her birthday.
There is no 'NO'.
How exactly is that a sexual act?
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2013, 11:45:56 AM
How exactly is that a sexual act?
Well if it part of your sex play...
College Grads Dropping Out Of Labor Force
'The labor force participation rate among people with bachelor's degrees fell by more than a percentage point from a year ago. In contrast, the rates for those without high-school diplomas held nearly steady in the past year.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/06/why-is-u-s-work-force-shrinking/
http://news.yahoo.com/college-applications-internet-essay-192818788.html
QuoteHow the Internet is killing the dreaded admissions essay
Five years ago, Tufts University was among the first higher-education institutions to accept short-form videos, perhaps shared with the school via YouTube, as an alternative or addition to a written application essay. Lee Coffin, the school's dean of undergraduate admissions, recalls that there was some drop-jawed skepticism about the legitimacy of this option at the time: To some the notion sounded not only less than credible, but downright silly.
But in 2013, it seems clear that technology shifts are reshaping the parameters of venerable admissions rituals at many schools. George Mason, William and Mary, and St. Mary's College of Maryland have all accepted video and multimedia materials; traditional essay-question prompts are changing to reflect the reality of Internet culture. The University of Virginia this year asks: "To tweet or not to tweet?" MIT recently heralded the opening of its current online application form with some snappy GIFs. And applicants to Tufts grappled with a question linking the ancient Roman notion of carpe diem with a more contemporary idea: "What does #YOLO mean to you?"
Of course, the intersection of Web culture and higher ed aspirations hasn't always been pretty. The discovery of a Google doc collection of Columbia University application essays became fodder for Gawker snark. And arguably the most viral bit of college-admission content ever was an op-ed earlier this year from a high schooler complaining about (or lampooning) the gap between university and applicant expectations.
The whole notion of new media incursion into the staid realm of the application essay may sound a little fishy to you. But the reality is almost exactly the opposite of the knee-jerk stereotype.
The influence of technology on the application process is more subtle; nobody is getting into a school because of a good tweet. The University of Chicago uses its alumni and student email networks, for example, to crowdsource its famously clever essay prompts. And the vast majority of applicants even to new-media-friendly schools still opt for the traditional written essay. And that's fine, says Tufts' Coffin. The point isn't to force potential students to play by a new set of rules, let alone provide them techno-shortcuts. The point is to acknowledge that there is more than one way to identify promising students.
Interestingly, Coffin says that at Tufts the decision to accept video or Web-based material had decidedly analog roots. Some years ago, Robert Sternberg, then the school's dean of arts and sciences, pushed for new ways of exploring "conceptions of merit" among applicants — by including in the admissions process a challenge to "do something with an 8X11 piece of paper." This experiment yielded compelling responses from art, architecture, and theater hopefuls that demonstrated "demonstrations of student merit that you don't necessarily capture if you only let them write an essay," Coffin recalls.
Building on that insight is what led to trying out videos and other Web-based material — not as a replacement to essays, but as an option. And as it happens, this more tech-forward approach played into broader trends.
"It seemed consistent with the way teachers are developing their curriculums in high school," Coffin adds. "The pedagogy has shifted; it's not just a chalkboard anymore."
The mere willingness to accept new-media application material, assistant director of admissions Justin Pike suggests, bolsters Tufts' image as a school that's in tune with the Internet era: Even students who submit traditional essays often note their appreciation of the school's recognition of new-media alternatives as perfectly legitimate.
And that was true even back in 2009, when Betty Quinn was among the earlier Tufts aspirants to supplement her application with an impressive stop-motion video — which racked up tens of thousands of views as a result of media coverage at the time. Turns out that while then-Virginia-resident Quinn was accepted, she ended up going to the University of Virginia.
But from what she told me recently, making that video for Tufts seems to have had a much more lasting effect than most essay-writing exercises do. At the time she was thinking of pursing a journalism or pre-med degree, and had never made a video. "Telling my story in a completely different media" was an eye-opener, she recalls, and ultimately she shifted her focus to the creative side of marketing, particularly film, animation, and interaction design; today she's in grad school at Parsons. And people still randomly bring up her Tufts video.
"I loved the entire process," she says now — and when you consider that she's talking about the process of applying to college, that's a pretty remarkable statement.
I'm envisioning the application video from Legally Blonde.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Fb77e1b6667ff2c3a7e85bd9f9bbaa7ae%2Ftumblr_mm92vdaKIn1qdvu40o1_500.gif&hash=ac25441d0241f9ae34ebf28ade1f8d557a75edc7)
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 08:07:49 AM
"This litigation strategy you have proposed is clever and audatious, but doomed to eventual defeat. It will give the client hope, and when your unexpected preliminary motions hit you will be seen as a saviour; your request for interlocutory injunctions may well succeed; but in the end the other side will win and get their costs on an indemnity scale.
It's the Bar Kokhba revolt of litigation".
;)
:lol:
Well Done!
Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2013, 11:28:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 08:07:49 AM
"This litigation strategy you have proposed is clever and audatious, but doomed to eventual defeat. It will give the client hope, and when your unexpected preliminary motions hit you will be seen as a saviour; your request for interlocutory injunctions may well succeed; but in the end the other side will win and get their costs on an indemnity scale.
It's the Bar Kokhba revolt of litigation".
;)
:lol:
"I don't know...sometimes when things are dragged out, the unexpected can happen...For example, Frederick the Great's campaigns in the Seven Years War began much like the Bar Kokhba revolt, with unexpected early success against great odds. But just before he could be ground down, Peter III became czar and changed the political landscape, and Prussia avoided defeat and was able to consolidate its gains in the War of Austrian Succession."
"That is a good point, but bold gambles can lead to spectacular failures. I can't help but think of the Second Punic War and the Battle of Cannae. The Fabian Strategy wore down Hannibal, and I think pursuing our aims through a series of smaller lawsuits that we will win is the course we should take."
At this point I imagine rest of the conferrence room is completely bewildered and can't figure out what is happening.
:lol:
A cross between the Far Side and Dilbert would do this dialogue justice. ;)
Quote from: Phillip V on September 06, 2013, 11:55:45 AM
College Grads Dropping Out Of Labor Force
'The labor force participation rate among people with bachelor's degrees fell by more than a percentage point from a year ago. In contrast, the rates for those without high-school diplomas held nearly steady in the past year.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/06/why-is-u-s-work-force-shrinking/
Interesting. Is the one-income family returning? :o
Today, I took my first student loan out since 1993. :yeah:
Let the troubles begin. :ph34r:
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 04:36:15 PM
Today, I took my first student loan out since 1993. :yeah:
So, you're going to Europe :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 04:36:15 PM
Today, I took my first student loan out since 1993. :yeah:
Let the troubles begin. :ph34r:
They sound dreadful. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 06, 2013, 04:41:32 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 06, 2013, 04:36:15 PM
Today, I took my first student loan out since 1993. :yeah:
So, you're going to Europe :hmm:
Heh. Nope. I'm paying my tuition and replacing a text book that got washed away in the flood at our last camping weekend.
I didn't take THAT much out. ;)
I'd like to take out another $100k in student loans and buy a house in France.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2013, 04:48:23 PM
I'd like to take out another $100k in student loans and buy a house in France.
Get it in Malta.
WAS THAT ANOTHER WIFE IS UNDERAGE CRACK?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2013, 08:59:37 AM
Cal will never forget the Polish Boy he ate up there.
He's still wanted for questioning in the Wladyslaw Kielbasa death.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2013, 08:59:37 AM
Cal will never forget the Polish Boy he ate up there.
The trip was worth it just for that.
SAAAAAAAAHSAGES
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2013, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 06:26:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2013, 06:25:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2013, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 06, 2013, 04:48:23 PM
and buy a house in France.
Copycat.
I think we're both taking a page out of the Roman Polanski playbook.
Okay definitely reporting you to local authorities! :o
There are a lot of reasons to flee the country.
Yet you picked Polanski.
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 07:40:37 PM
Yet you picked Polanski.
Because Ed's wife is underage.
Heehee.
Actually, I picked Polanski because I don't know anyone else who successfully evaded U.S. courts by moving to France.
A professor with his Frosty can steal more than a hundred men with guns.
QuoteCollege gave Florida students an education in deceit
Whitney Collins is a former ATI student who was forced to change schools (and pay an extra $10,000) to finish her Ultrasound program. She also volunteers at Homestead Hospital. MARICE COHN BAND / MIAMI HERALD STAFF
As a mother of two in the throes of a divorce, Whitney Collins inquired about ATI Career Training Center because she wanted a better life for her young boys.
The admissions rep called almost daily, persistent as a car salesman, pressuring her to enroll. Though the $46,000 price tag for ATI's two-year Ultrasound Technology program seemed awfully steep, Collins was assured that federal grants and loans — paid directly to the school by the government — would make it affordable.
She took the bait.
Six months into her studies at the Miami Gardens campus, ATI shuttered its doors under the weight of two damaging whistleblower lawsuits in Florida and Texas that claimed the school was an elaborate fraud, designed to siphon millions in student aid from the government while sticking students with an overpriced, often worthless diploma.
The suits were settled last month. ATI, which is in the process of liquidating, agreed to pay a total of $5.7 million. Not one dollar though, will go to making Collins and other Florida-based students whole.
Collins has this question for the company's leadership: "How is it that you can walk away, and wash your hands clean, knowing that you left all these students in financial ruin?"
"How can you even sleep at night?"
BIT PLAYER
In the big-money world of for-profit colleges, ATI was something of a bit player. Former CEO Arthur Benjamin, of Delray Beach, says his compensation topped out at about $500,000 or so, and the school's enrollment was about 18,000 when he stepped down in 2010. That's tiny compared to the nation's largest for-profit, the University of Phoenix, which enrolls hundreds of thousands of students, and pays its chief executive more than $25 million — higher than what the head of Coca-Cola or Starbucks makes.
But when fueled by a steady pipeline of federal dollars, even a small school like ATI can be lucrative. The school boasted more than $100 million or so in annual revenues.
The settlement with ATI followed a familiar pattern: for-profit colleges accused of breaking the rules receive a small fine that amounts to pennies on the dollar compared to the overall federal money they take in.
The ATI punishment was a bit harsher in that it forced the school to permanently shut down. The deal also set aside $2 million for "student loan refunds" to former ATI students in Texas who had filed lawsuits against the school.
In Florida, ATI had four campuses: Fort Lauderdale, Miami Gardens, Oakland Park and Doral.
The Florida whistleblower suit included evidence that ATI had routinely defrauded the government of student financial aid such as Pell Grants and federal student loans. A former high-ranking ATI employee at the school's Fort Lauderdale campus provided documentation showing the school would alter students' grades and attendance records in order to keep them academically eligible.
As long as students remained in good standing, ATI could receive millions of dollars in federal financial aid money. The whistleblower suit also accused ATI of using false documents to sign up students in the first place — a fake high school diploma from Haiti was allegedly used to admit students who didn't meet entrance requirements.
Former ATI student Yakiviah Joseph, who attended the school's Fort Lauderdale campus, has about $15,000 in loans from ATI that she says she never agreed to. Joseph studied in ATI's Medical Assisting program for about two months back in 2006.
During that time, Joseph said the school had her sign a blank form "to get enrolled." Joseph said she was told federal Pell grants — a form of student aid that doesn't need to be repaid — would likely cover her tuition, and if it became necessary for her to take out loans they would let her know. Joseph said no one ever followed up with her.
After one of Joseph's instructors warned her the school was rife with fraudulent practices, she abruptly withdrew. It wasn't until a few months ago — almost seven years later — that Joseph said she found out she had a $15,000 loan in collections, dating back to her time at ATI. Joseph was trying to find out why she had bad credit. An agent at a collections agency told her about the ATI loans.
"They gave me the impression like we weren't taking out any loans," Joseph said. "I'm like, how dare they even do this?"
THE GOOD LIFE
The personal website of former ATI CEO Arthur Benjamin (arthurebenjamin.com) contains a biography, a blog, and lofty quotes from the likes of Voltaire and Mahatma Gandhi. But it's the photo gallery section that has attracted attention lately.
As news of the federal settlement (and ATI's alleged wrongdoings) spread in recent weeks, the Huffington Post website posted many of Benjamin's high-society pictures, showing him mingling with actors, former U.S. presidents and the like. It was a lavish lifestyle fueled by taxpayer fraud and the destruction of students' lives, the Huffington Post wrote.
In many of his black-tie gala photos, Benjamin (a self-described animal rights advocate) is seen holding a dog. When Benjamin visited the Miami Herald newsroom last week to tell his side of the story, he brought a small canine along with him — a Shih Tzu/Lhasa mix named Bandit.
Benjamin complained he'd become the scapegoat for the downfall of a company that he stopped running three years ago. The former CEO said he'd suffered too, as he invested most of what he earned at ATI into a small ownership stake in the company.
When ATI disappeared, that investment vanished, Benjamin said.
"I lost all of that," Benjamin said. "It changed my life. It's a big loss."
Benjamin declined to say the exact amount.
The former CEO said he never saw any systemic fraud while he ran the company between 2005 and 2010. All ATI campuses had a toll-free phone number that students could call with complaints, Benjamin said, and only a few dozen calls came in.
Benjamin ran ATI for most of the time that the whistleblower in the Florida lawsuit, Dulce Ramirez-Damon, worked for the company. In her lawsuit, Ramirez-Damon said she witnessed widespread cheating of the taxpayer-funded financial aid system.
Ramirez-Damon, who was assistant director of education at the Fort Lauderdale campus, said she brought her concerns to superiors, and was demoted as a result.
"She didn't come to me and tell me about those things," Benjamin insisted. "I didn't have a chance to look into any of them."
U.S. Department of Education records show about 29 percent of students at ATI's Oakland Park campus defaulted on their loans within three years — more than double the national average. Benjamin said that ATI students tend to be poorer, which can drive up default rates.
Though community colleges offer similar programs at much cheaper prices, Benjamin said his own adopted stepson struggled in the community college setting. At a career college similar to ATI, his stepson benefitted from the extra personalized attention, and earned a two-year degree, Benjamin said.
COLLEGES WITH CLOUT
Barmak Nassirian of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities has spent decades calling for tighter regulation of for-profit schools. He said the millions fined to a school like ATI might seem like a significant punishment, until you consider the much-larger amount of federal aid dollars these schools rake in every year.
"If you are interested in committing wrongdoing, for-profit education is the place to be, because the consequences are minimal," Nassirian said. "So you get caught, and guess what? You give a little bit of the money back. And the rest of it you enjoy on your yacht, or in your Lamborghini."
For-profit colleges are generous campaign contributors to both Democrats and Republicans. In Washington and in state capitals, the industry's considerable lobbying clout has helped it successfully fight back against calls for greater consumer protections.
Though the federal settlement ordered that ATI as a company be dissolved, those who led the corporation are still free to form new schools and enroll more students. When the assets of ATI were sold, it appears that at least some of the company ended up in the hands of the people who used to run it.
For example, the Texas-based company Ancora Education announced last month it had acquired six vocational schools that used to belong to ATI — five in Texas and one in Arizona.
The CEO of Ancora is Michael Zawisky. Zawisky's last job? Chief operating officer at ATI.
Zawisky's profile on the LinkedIn social network shows he worked as an ATI executive from 2010 until last month, when the feds shut the school down. Zawisky could not be reached for comment.
Allowing ATI to essentially be sold to itself is "just totally wrong," said Victoria Hernandez, director of governmental affairs for Miami Dade College.
"What's going to keep them from fraudulent practices and misleading students? "
GRADUATION DAY
Ramirez-Damon was only a month and a half into her job at ATI when she grew suspicious of the company. Having previously worked at both the University of Miami and Florida International University, Ramirez-Damon said she noticed something wasn't right with ATI's graduation ceremony.
In the audience, several instructors were grumbling as their former students crossed the stage.
"They would say, 'You know, he failed my class...I didn't pass him,'" Ramirez-Damon said. "I heard those comments, and I thought they were odd."
Ramirez-Damon came away with the impression that grades were being fixed so that failing students would still graduate. In her lawsuit, she says those suspicions were later confirmed.
When it came to student attendance, administrators' priority was that students fill out the sign-in sheet that was necessary to maintain financial aid eligibility, Ramirez-Damon said. Whether the student actually stayed for class didn't matter, she said.
If a student hadn't been seen for a while, administrators would scramble to get him or her to show up for just five minutes to provide a signature, Ramirez-Damon said. One student was promised a free Frosty milkshake from Wendy's just for stopping by, she recalled.
"I, first of all, couldn't believe that they would show up for a Frosty," Ramirez-Damon said. But the student did, she said.
"The Frosty was handed over, and the attendance sheet was signed," she said.
The document fraud was sometimes quite blatant, Ramirez-Damon said. The fake Haitian diploma, which was used to admit ineligible students, was re-used over and over to the point that the previous student's name would still be visible, she said.
STUDENT'S STRUGGLE
Collins, the former ATI student, said she took her studies seriously. When she chose to enroll, she sold her home in Key Largo and moved to Miami-Dade so she could be closer to ATI's Miami Gardens campus. When she thinks back to the sales pitch she received, she's convinced that school administrators knew the college was at risk of closure, and yet they signed her up anyway.
Once ATI shut its doors, Collins and other students had a bunch of college credits that they couldn't transfer to any other school. One other local technical school, Southeastern College, agreed to teach out the remainder of Collins' ATI program, but only if she coughed up an additional $10,000. Collins was forced to cancel her kids' summer camp for August, she says, to pay the $1,000 a month that Southeastern now demands.
When Collins, 27, signed up with ATI, she said the admissions rep knowingly pushed her emotional buttons at the time of her divorce. The recruiter said going back to school would be "moving forward" with her life, Collins said.
ATI's whole philosophy, Collins said, was "playing off of people that are down and out, and giving them some sort of false hope that this going to be better for you, and ATI is going to be the answer to all of your prayers."
Some for-profit colleges have coached their recruiters to play on students' emotions. A U.S. Senate oversight committee in 2011 obtained written manuals from multiple schools that outlined this specific strategy.
At ITT Technical Institute, for example, recruiters were told to "poke the pain a bit and remind them who else is depending on them and their commitment to a better future."
Though Collins says she now feels double-crossed by ATI, she's determined to still be successful. She volunteers once a week at Homestead Hospital — eager to gain ultrasound experience, and also to prove she's a dedicated employee.
"Even if I have an ATI diploma," she said
Lol. Fucking rubes.
I mean, Solidarity.
I remember over a decade of being subjected to ATI's television advertising. Its burned in my mind, because it was basically the same commercial all the time: a woman talking next to a scrolling list of subjects you could get a "diploma" in (always ending with, "Or get your degree in business management or accounting"). Then it finished with a few brief flashes of people working in the careers you could supposedly get with one of their diplomas. I never realized they were so expensive. My engineering degree would have cost less than that ultrasound program, if I'd actually paid for it. :P
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 09, 2013, 01:58:07 PM
I remember over a decade of being subjected to ATI's television advertising. Its burned in my mind, because it was basically the same commercial all the time: a woman talking next to a scrolling list of subjects you could get a "diploma" in (always ending with, "Or get your degree in business management or accounting"). Then it finished with a few brief flashes of people working in the careers you could supposedly get with one of their diplomas. I never realized they were so expensive. My engineering degree would have cost less than that ultrasound program, if I'd actually paid for it. :P
Thief?
What do you know; Otto and his dream of returning to a Victorian Era servant economy might just be on to something.
Quote'Modern-day Mary Poppins': College graduates embrace nannying as career
When American University graduate Elyse Barletta, 27, was looking for a full-time nannying position recently in Charlotte, N.C., three families wanted to hire her — all were impressed by her college education. "They wanted someone who could help with their children's homework," said Barletta, a history major who made the Dean's list and is proficient in French.
Experts say young women like Barletta make up a fast-growing segment of the nanny industry: college graduates who could go into law, medicine or other fields but are choosing to become career nannies, sometimes because they struggled to find jobs in their desired professions. These highly-credentialed child minders are being greeted with open arms into middle-class and upper-class families who want to give their kids an edge in an increasingly competitive world.
Barletta, who worked as a nanny in college to make extra money, tried but failed to find a job in her chosen field, nonprofit work, after graduation. But she has no regrets: Nannying, she says, brings her a good salary and rich personal rewards. Ultimately, she chose to work for the Norman family, who has a nine-month old girl named Reynolds. "I have patience for kids. I love it," said Barletta, who refers to herself as a "modern-day Mary Poppins."
Cliff Greenhouse, president of the Pavilion Agency, which helps New Yorkers find household staff, has noticed a shift toward nannies like Barletta since the mid-1990s, when he saw very few Americans in the industry and fewer college-educated applicants. He attributes the change to the growth of working mothers, with many women becoming the breadwinners of their families.
"Moms [who use our agency] aren't going to work full-time unless they can leave their children in the care of someone they consider a peer," he said.
Becky Kavanagh, co-president of the non-profit International Nanny Association, has also observed this trend, especially among professional couples in larger metropolitan areas. "They're looking into the total education of their child," she said, adding that many couples seek out nannies who have degrees in early-childhood education as well as nannying experience. For some parents, the ultimate nanny candidate has multiple degrees, including Master's degrees. "They see that and say, 'Oh my gosh, I have to have that,'" she said.
Experts say they have seen a rise in highly-educated applicants at nanny agencies since the Great Recession.
"When the economy went down, you saw a lot of educated people try to break into the industry because they thought, 'I have a degree in business.' Anybody can take care of kids. They found out really quickly that wasn't the case because the agencies wouldn't work with them without prior experience," said Michelle LaRowe, editor-in-chief of Longhorn Leads, a Houston-based portfolio of sites that connects parents and caregivers. But college-educated applicants who babysat or nannied during school found their services in high demand.
When Natalie Gibbs, 27, started nannying for a family in Hinsdale, Ill., about two months ago, her college degree was of great interest to her new clients. "They were willing to pay a bit more for an educated nanny," said Gibbs, who was an applied science major.
In many places across the country, some families are so eager for well-educated nannies, they're paying them salaries comparable to entry-level finance careers.
Few statistics exist on nanny salaries, primarily because most of these workers – regardless of their level of education – are paid under the table. In an annual survey conducted by the International Nanny Association this year, nannies reported a median salary of $16 per hour. But experts say the highest paid nanny can make $100,000 or more annually, depending on location, education and references.
Despite the hefty price tag, some families see a well-credentialed nanny as a wise investment -- and even a way to save money on tutoring fees.
Donna Walrond, a Brooklyn, N.Y., mom of three boys, employs a full-time nanny who didn't go to college, but recently hired a second nanny, Samantha, who has a bachelor's degree and is fluent in Hebrew, to tutor her two elementary-school aged sons during the school year.
"In terms of tutoring fees, for a while I was paying 80 dollars an hour," said Walrond, who founded and runs a local nanny agency herself. "[Samantha] helps the kids with the homework and takes a load off for me because when I come home in the evening, I don't have to do it."
Regan Spear, 22, of Napa, Calif., who recently started nannying for a 5-year-old boy and 17-month-old girl, says she plays a similar role in her new employers' family. "We've made a lot of changes since I've come in," she said, citing the fruit she's added to the kids' breakfasts and the electronics she's removed from 5-year-old Luke's playtime. "[The parents] back me on anything I want to do. We are three people parenting these children not two."
Spear, who has a degree in human development with a focus on early childhood education, believes that her schooling was a huge asset when applying for her job. "I think that really comforted [my employer]. Whether it's a physical ailment or a learning disability, I know how to recognize these things and help [the children] develop," said Spear, who helped her 17-month-old charge Lucy learn how to walk two months ago.
Spear eventually wants to start her own nanny placement agency, but hopes to stay with her current family for another five years or so. She believes her highly-specialized education is crucial for anyone considering her field.
"In today's world," she said, "knowing how to change a diaper isn't enough."
Quotegirl named Reynolds
:huh:
I wonder how many wives would be ok with the idea of a 22-year-old female fresh university grad moving into their house?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 12, 2013, 03:25:02 AM
I wonder how many wives would be ok with the idea of a 22-year-old female fresh university grad moving into their house?
Depends. Is the wife bisexual or lesbian?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 12, 2013, 03:25:02 AM
I wonder how many wives would be ok with the idea of a 22-year-old female fresh university grad moving into their house?
Wives who are good.
Damn. If I could get a 27-year-old female history major proficient in French living in my house as a nanny for $16/hour, hell yeah! :w00t:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2.s-nbcnews.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2Fsuper%2520nannies.380%3B380%3B7%3B70%3B0.jpg&hash=43310c0e34dc8155d86810a9c14c624b9b6f9060)
Yeah, boning the help is a good idea. You plebes. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 12, 2013, 06:13:40 AM
Yeah, boning the help is a good idea. You plebes. :rolleyes:
No one said anything about boning.
We know what was on your mind.
She's just there to get Phil turned on enough he can put another baby in his wife.
If anything, it would be middle class mores that would *prevent* boning the help. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 12, 2013, 06:13:40 AM
Yeah, boning the help is a good idea. You plebes. :rolleyes:
Look who's talking. Mr. 1%er doesn't like to share good ideas as intellectual property.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2013, 04:55:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 12, 2013, 06:13:40 AM
Yeah, boning the help is a good idea. You plebes. :rolleyes:
Look who's talking. Mr. 1%er doesn't like to share good ideas as intellectual property.
Wait..what? Remind me of what I've done.
"CUNY Students Confront War Criminal David Petraeus"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIbl28O99Lg
How embarrassing for them. One kid can't even put on his shirt properly.
QuoteSeptember 13, 2013
New Metric for Colleges: Graduates' Salaries
By JAMES B. STEWART
U.S. News & World Report released its eagerly anticipated annual rankings of universities and colleges this week, and two of the usual suspects — Princeton University and Williams College — came out on top. Prospective students and their parents can evaluate these institutions on a variety of measures deemed important by U.S. News.
What they won't find is any way to assess what some consider the most important issue in this still-tough economy: How much can graduates of these schools expect to earn?
For those answers, long a taboo within the hallowed walls of academia, they can turn to PayScale.com. Like U.S. News, PayScale this week released its latest rankings of colleges and universities. But its rankings are all about incomes and jobs. It ranks over a thousand institutions by the average earnings of their graduates. It also calculates and ranks the average return on investment for a college and the percentage of graduates holding jobs with "high meaning." Some of those results may come as a shock, especially to graduates of some prestigious colleges.
There's a fairly high correlation between the reputation and selectivity-weighted rankings of U.S. News and the future earnings measures of PayScale. Ivy League graduates do quite well by both measures, with Princeton ranked sixth and Harvard eighth in PayScale's rankings based on "midcareer median salary."
But many liberal arts colleges suffer in the comparison, including some prestigious ones. Oberlin, 25th on the U.S. News list of national liberal arts colleges, is 218th on the PayScale ranking; Colorado College, 31 on the U.S. News list, is 291; and Grinnell, at 17 on U.S. News, is 366.
Elon University, ranked by U.S. News as the No. 1 regional university in the South, is a distant 587 on PayScale's list.
And there's a notable gender gap. Women's colleges rank especially low: Wellesley (U.S. News, 7) is 304; Barnard (U.S. News, 32) is 221; Smith (U.S. News, 20) is 455; and Bryn Mawr (U.S. News, 30) is 562. (A PayScale spokeswoman said that's because the women's colleges still don't produce enough graduates in engineering, science and technology, the fields that draw the highest salaries.)
The top of the list is dominated by engineering schools, including Harvey Mudd College (16 on the U.S. News ranking of liberal arts colleges, first on PayScale's); the California Institute of Technology (U.S. News, 10; PayScale, 3); Stevens Institute of Technology (U.S. News, 82; tied for third place on PayScale); and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (U.S. News, 7; PayScale, 11). The Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, Ind., isn't even ranked by U.S. News but ties for 20 on PayScale — ahead of the University of Notre Dame (24). The national military academies, as well as the Virginia Military Institute, also rank high on PayScale's list.
PayScale's rankings are just one manifestation of a growing nationwide movement toward quantifying the outcomes of college education based on economic factors like income and employment. The Obama administration wants to rank colleges by tuition, graduation rates, debt and earnings of graduates, and use the rankings to influence federal financial aid to students.
But this can lead to some absurd and potentially alarming conclusions.
In Virginia, the top-ranked college based on graduates' first-year income isn't the nationally known Washington and Lee University, the University of Richmond, the College of William and Mary or even Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia. It's the Jefferson College of Health Sciences.
"People are desperate to measure something, so they seize on the wrong things," Mark Edmundson, a professor of English at the University of Virginia (PayScale, 76), told me this week. "I'm not against people making a living or prospering. But if the objective of an education is to 'know yourself,' it's going to be hard to measure that."
Professor Edmundson is author of the recent book "Why Teach? In Defense of a Real Education," which argues that education should transform students by challenging and expanding their conceptions of themselves. "Self-realization doesn't just mean sitting around discussing Plato and Socrates," he said. "It means figuring out what job or profession would I be best at and what I would enjoy. Too many people are just aiming for a high salary. They struggle through college, they don't like their classes, they don't like their job and they end up failing. If they had taken the time to discover themselves, they might have ended up happy and prosperous."
Andrew Delbanco, director of American studies at Columbia University (PayScale, 54) and author of "College, What Was, Is, and Should Be," said: "It's understandable and entirely legitimate that students and families are worrying about the 'return' on their investment in college — especially as tuition continues to rise too high and too fast. But there are lots of troubling questions that follow. Should returns in dollars be the only measure of educational value? What does that say about the traditional mission of college to educate young people for engaged citizenship, and to provide opportunities for self-fulfillment in ways that do not necessarily line up with income and status?"
Professor Delbanco added that a focus on prospective income to the exclusion of other values "runs a high risk of distorting the college itself and pushing it to become a referral or employment agency even more than it already is."
Even the president of top-ranked Harvey Mudd, Maria Klawe, sounded a cautionary note. "We're proud we're getting the recognition, but it has very little to do with what we do." She noted that Mudd students were required to take 30 percent of their course in the humanities, social sciences or arts, which she said was the highest for any engineering and technology school in the country. Mudd's demanding curriculum and tough grading standards mean "our students aren't picking us for the salaries. They could study at a much less rigorous place and earn the same salaries."
Still, she acknowledged that "parents are relieved their offspring will earn something." She said the median starting salary for last year's graduates who took jobs was $77,500, and 23 graduates, or more than 10 percent of the graduating class, had six-figure starting salaries. Dr. Klawe said that a few years ago, a student landed a $280,000 starting salary after designing a high-speed trading algorithm during his summer internship.
Robert Morse, the director of data research for U.S. News, who is in charge of compiling the college rankings, said it currently did not include income data because it did not consider the data adequately comprehensive or reliable. (PayScale says its rankings are based on data from 1.4 million college graduates.) Should that change — if, for example, the Obama administration requires comprehensive nationwide reporting — U.S. News would use it in the rankings, Mr. Morse said.
"People are investing a lot of money in a four-year degree, in some cases $240,000, and they're entitled to know what they can expect when they finish," he said. "But you have to be very careful how you analyze the data. Just because Harvey Mudd produces science, engineering and technology graduates who get high salaries, does that make it the best school in America? How do you value teaching and other fields valuable to society that aren't paid nearly as much?"
Even proponents of income-based rankings concede that that is just one of many dimensions to consider when choosing a college. Katie Bardaro, lead economist for PayScale's survey, said that the company always made that point. "But prospective students need to consider their potential career success with a degree from that school," she said. "Jobs are harder and harder to come by, student debt is huge, and the costs of schools are rising faster than inflation. We don't see this changing anytime soon."
Mark Schneider, president of College Measures, a venture that is compiling salary data based on both college and field of study and making it available on its Web site, said that "students should choose a college and a career for many reasons, but we believe income data should be in the mix." He added: "If you go to Harvard or Yale, more power to you. But most students go to schools no one has ever heard of. They don't graduate with a great Rolodex. They don't have family wealth behind them. They need to know the likely outcome about the degree and the school they're choosing. This is their one shot and it had better be something that gets them a well-paying job."
Richard Ekman, president of the Council of Independent Colleges, which represents 600 private colleges and universities, said he had concerns "about the simplistic use of any of these indicators." Income data "may be helpful, but no indicator alone should be determinative," he said. "How do you measure the value of graduate school, the Peace Corps or Teach for America, all of which are low-paying? It's scary to see some public official seize on these metrics as the be-all and end-all."
And he vigorously disputed the notion that a liberal arts education should be reserved for the 1 percent. "Private education isn't just for wealthy people or an elite," he said. In part, thanks to aggressive scholarship programs, "the track record for private colleges that admit lots of first-generation and low-income kids is much better than most state universities."
Professor Edmundson agreed that class distinctions were a red herring, and said that even vocational programs would benefit from courses in the humanities. "Everyone by virtue of being a human being should have a right to think about who they are and what might make them successful," he said.
And he challenged the idea that choosing a college or major based on a projected high salary was a sure path to security. "There's a parental myth that at a certain point you can relax and enjoy your golden years if your child is settled and has a stable job in a profession that will bring them a high income. But the truth is, no one is ever settled, disasters can happen, institutions can collapse and even high-paying jobs go away."
His own son, he noted, a recent graduate of the University of Virginia, is working in a bicycle shop and writing a novel.
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/2013/06/12/bankruptcy-case-offers-hope-for-student-borrowers
QuoteBankruptcy Case Offers Hope for Student Borrowers
A 10-year court battle waged by Michael Hedlund, a graduate of Willamette Law School, to discharge his student loans has recently ended with a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision partially discharging his loans.
Hedlund borrowed about $85,000 to get his undergraduate and law degrees, then failed the bar exam three times. He ultimately took a job as a juvenile counselor. At 33, married and with a child, he declared bankruptcy. His case has potentially large implications for borrowers.
It's pretty well known by now that student loans cannot be discharged through the normal bankruptcy process.
Instead, Congress requires student loan borrowers to initiate an adversary proceeding, a separate lawsuit filed within the bankruptcy case, in which they have to prove that repaying their student loan debt would be an "undue hardship."
In the absence of any further guidance from Congress on what constitutes an undue hardship, most courts now apply what is called the "Brunner standard."
[Find out how to take control of your student loan debt.]
That standard requires a borrower to prove three things: One, that the borrower and any dependents cannot maintain a minimal standard of living based on current income and expenses; two, that additional circumstances indicate this is likely to be the case for a significant portion of the borrower's repayment period; and three, that the borrower made a good faith effort to repay the loans.
The conventional wisdom is that the need for a separate proceeding – for which many bankrupt borrowers will be unable to afford a lawyer – and the stringency with which courts apply this standard make it virtually impossible for borrowers to discharge their student loans. And, in some respects, Hedlund's case confirms this.
Hedlund was represented pro bono by Morrison and Foerster, one of the top bankruptcy firms in the country, which is unlikely to be an option for most borrowers. And, of course, Hedlund was a law school graduate himself.
It's also notable that, due in part to some unusual circumstances such as a judge passing away, it took Hedlund nearly 10 years to earn the partial discharge. Many borrowers will not want to persist through litigation nearly that lengthy.
[Consider the future of student loan debt.]
On the other hand, Hedlund settled with one of the holders of his student loans shortly after filing his adversary proceeding. Just the possibility of obtaining a settlement should encourage needy borrowers to move forward with an adversary proceeding.
As important for future plaintiffs, the 9th Circuit Court also upheld the bankruptcy court's relatively reasonable application of the facts in Hedlund's case to the Brunner standard.
For example, the 9th Circuit Court agreed there was considerable evidence the family's expenses, including two cell phones for the family and leasing a reliable car could be seen as reasonable and that the excess expenses – including cable and children's haircuts – could be deemed marginal.
The bankruptcy court had also rejected arguments that Hedlund should find another part-time job while noting that his wife could be expected to work three days a week rather than one. The 9th Circuit Court agreed with this analysis as well, holding there was considerable evidence Hedlund had maximized his income and declining to attribute his wife's underemployment to bad faith. These parameters provide hope – and, more importantly, good precedent – for future plaintiffs who want to earn discharges without suffering complete material deprivation or working abnormally long hours.
[Discover how the Student Loan Fairness Act could help borrowers.]
The 9th Circuit Court also upheld relatively reasonable parameters regarding the effort Hedlund had to make to repay his loans. For example, it agreed with the bankruptcy court that Hedlund was justified in rejecting repayment options offered by his loan servicer that would have entailed monthly payments he could not have afforded and that would still have meant repaying his loans for thirty years.
Overall, Hedlund's case is hopeful precedent. Borrowers should also be aware of a study by Jason Iuliano which suggests that in 2007 alone, there were 69,000 borrowers who were good candidates for relief but fewer than 300 actually attempted to discharge their loans. Iuliano's study also finds evidence that plaintiffs filing adversary proceedings on their own are as likely to prevail as those with attorneys.
The Student Loan Ranger continues to lobby for legislation such as The Private Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2013 and The Fairness for Struggling Students Act of 2013 that will restore fairness to the bankruptcy code for private student loan borrowers and to advocate for legislation that will reinstate bankruptcy protections for federal student loan borrowers. In the meantime, Hedlund's experience and Iuliano's study argues that more borrowers in bankruptcy should assert their rights under the undue hardship standard – even if they have to represent themselves.
Cool.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 17, 2013, 08:39:34 PM
QuoteHedlund borrowed about $85,000 to get his undergraduate and law degrees, then failed the bar exam three times.
Cool.
Not really, no. :lol:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0922-money-makeover-post-20130922,0,2034018,full.story
QuoteBy Ronald D. White Sep. 20 2013
Law school grad learns how to pay off a heavy debt
With $215,000 in student loans, law school grad learns to cut his balance and stash cash
Andrew Carmichael Post is used to fast-tracking his way through life.
At 13, when most boys are fretting about the perils of girls and middle school, Post was attending Cal State Los Angeles, working on degrees in computer science and applied mathematics. At 18, Post was entering USC Gould School of Law. At 22, Post became a member of the State Bar of California.
Along the way, the U.S. economy took to the slow track. Like many in his generation facing the worst job market in decades, Post opted to stay in school.
The Altadena resident is now 24 and has landed well-paying work as a programmer for a website operator. But he also faces $215,000 in student loans, with a minimum monthly payment of $2,756.
"It's like some sort of nightmare where someone gave me a bank mortgage but forgot to add the deed to the house," Post quipped.
To save money, Post has moved back into his boyhood bedroom, putting him among the 36% of Americans ages 18 to 31 who still live with their parents. That's the highest percentage in four decades, according to the Pew Research Institute.
Although Post's debt is higher than average, it underscores a growing problem that has begun to affect how quickly young adults are able to contribute to the U.S. economy, said Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for College Access and Success, an Oakland nonprofit.
"It used to be that people with student debt were more likely to have a home mortgage," Asher said. "Now, they are less likely to have one."
Other experts have called millennials the "failure to launch" generation. There was nothing wrong with Post's launch; it just was just ill-timed.
In 2009, one year before Post would seek a full-time job, "141 employers had attended [on-campus interviews] at USC law school," he said. "The following summer, I competed with 300 people in my year for the attention of only seven private employers and a handful of government agencies."
Unable to secure full-time employment, Post put out his legal shingle. He took on small-business clients with limited budgets. He also fell back on his programming skills for other clients. The pay was difficult to predict.
"I was never really impoverished," Post said, "just terribly inconvenienced by not being able to collect on a legal bill or a programming bill I'd sent out two months earlier. What little stable income I had wasn't enough to get by on. There were times when I had to decide on whether to buy enough gas to get back to court or buy lunch."
Post struggled to avoid feeling discouraged.
"The last time I went into court, I was wearing something that I got at Goodwill," Post said. "The two lawyers on the other side were each wearing suits worth more than my car."
Things are looking up for Post, who estimates his annual income has risen to between $80,000 and $96,000, cobbled together from four sources, including a part-time teaching gig and the new full-time programming job with a 401(k) matching plan.
But he still needs to make the right financial choices to reach his short-term goals: new shoes, his own apartment, a later-model used car rather than his 187,000-mile mid-1990s Toyota sedan, a gym membership, his first smartphone.
Longer term, he's eager to avoid his worst fear: "reaching my 30s, wanting to get married, buy a house, start a family, with bad credit and a lot of this debt still hanging over me."
To fee-only advisor Lara Lamb, director of financial planning for Abacus Wealth Partners, Post is at a crucial phase.
After depriving himself of some of the common perks of a successful twentysomething, Lamb said, Post could reach too quickly for those freedoms "and severely limit his ability to strive for success in several financial areas. Having multiple goals is very important."
Lamb added, "He needs to pare down his debt, but he also needs to build up an emergency fund, repair his credit, get on a budget and begin contributing to his retirement by embracing his company's matching 401(k) plan."
For many of her clients, Lamb advises setting up several bank accounts to aid in budgeting.
One main account collects all of Post's income. Regularly scheduled transfers go to smaller accounts dedicated to paying his debt and other regular bills, building up emergency cash reserves equal to three months of expenses, holding funds for discretionary spending and salting away something for infrequent bills.
Making these transfers automatic means Post doesn't have to think about them as often, Lamb said, "but he still needs to acquire the discipline to accept that when those spending limits have been reached, he can't spend more on those things until the next deposit arrives."
Another key recommendation concerns Post's living situation. Because he gets along well with his mother, who is a physics professor, and his father, who is a former aerospace engineer, Post should remain at home for as long as that feels comfortable, Lamb said.
The reason is that immense minimum student loan payment of $2,756 a month.
Avoiding the typically high cost of leasing an apartment in Los Angeles, plus potential move-in costs such as a security deposit and first and last month's rent, will enable Post to build an emergency fund in just one year, Lamb said.
Then, in Year Two, Post can take the $1,045 a month that went into his emergency cash fund in the first year and add it to his debt payments.
Post, who has student loans from seven sources with interest rates ranging from 4.5% to 8.5%, should apply the extra payments to the most expensive loans, she said.
If Post sticks to the plan and remains at home with his parents, Lamb said, "his debt could be paid off in less than six years."
"For many young people, staying at home wouldn't be something they would want to do," she said. "But given his willingness to do that, and his desire to pay off that debt quickly, this will give him a big head start."
Lamb did have one warning. She is concerned that the large amount of student debt Post faces could drive him to push too hard, "devoting so much of his current income to debt repayment that he doesn't reward himself at all for the success he has begun to achieve."
Lamb described it as being similar to a person so intent on losing a large amount of weight quickly that he diets to excess and ultimately risks failing. Lamb wants to make sure that Post includes regular and reasonable perks, such as continuing to devote resources to his love of drawing.
Post has described himself as a very frugal traveler in the few vacations he has taken.
"He should spend money on areas that he values, such as his art hobby, socializing with friends and travel, so that he can stick to the budget without being driven to binge spend," Lamb said.
Post said he found his new road map almost overwhelming after months of wondering "whether I could ever have good credit."
"It's hard to imagine feeling better right now," Post said. "It feels like I have a future, a good future."
The last line made me throw up in my mouth, a little.
The upshot is that Doogie Howser, J.D., here is smarter than 99% of the population, could have done practically anything, but going to a purportedly "good" law school enslaved him to an unsupportable debt--even at the high and, for most, unrealistic salary he's achieved--and the only reasons he may still make it is because he 1)has a STEM education to fall back on, 2)his parents are good parents, and 3)he's very, very young. Without these factors, his life would be even worse than it is now, which is to say, it's still pretty bad, and certainly rising to a mere fraction of its potential.
Very, very sad.
It is unclear to me why he didnt get a job related to his law degree. It is also unclear to me why he went to law school. Perhaps he always wanted to get a job related to his first degree but though he was too young and so wanted to get the second degree to fill out his skills while he became more age appropriate for the job he wanted.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 03:01:06 PM
It is unclear to me why he didnt get a job related to his law degree.
Why, it's positively opaque, isn't it?
Why the fuck did he do law? I've never heard of anyone really bright in Sweden choosing law. It's business, science/engineering or medicine over here.
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 03:07:58 PM
Why the fuck did he do law? I've never heard of anyone really bright in Sweden choosing law. It's business, science/engineering or medicine over here.
That part is unclear. He had serious options. I imagine--and this is supposition--he wanted to do something patent-related.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 03:09:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 03:07:58 PM
Why the fuck did he do law? I've never heard of anyone really bright in Sweden choosing law. It's business, science/engineering or medicine over here.
That part is unclear. He had serious options. I imagine--and this is supposition--he wanted to do something patent-related.
Information wants to be free!!!1
He may also, due to his youth and foolishness, been seduced by the notion that a law degree offers "9x% employment!" and is "versatile!"
I did science/engineering and I am not bitter. :)
I know.
Every years, Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA combined graduate 750 students. Tough competition for the USC grads if there is a hiring slowdown.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 03:13:01 PM
He may also, due to his youth and foolishness, been seduced by the notion that a law degree offers "9x% employment!" and is "versatile!"
Then his community failed him.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 04:03:03 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 03:13:01 PM
He may also, due to his youth and foolishness, been seduced by the notion that a law degree offers "9x% employment!" and is "versatile!"
Then his community failed him.
:lol:
He's probably a weirdo. When people have trouble finding jobs, it's not always about their resume or experience. :sleep:
So fuck him and he deserves to be a debt slave, right?
Do you want to live in a world where we get what we deserve?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 04:06:23 PM
So fuck him and he deserves to be a debt slave, right?
Not sure how you got that from my post, but ok. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2013, 04:07:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 04:06:23 PM
So fuck him and he deserves to be a debt slave, right?
Not sure how you got that from my post, but ok. :hmm:
Well you implied it with your, "its his fault he has no way of paying back the debt he willingly took on" shtick. Elitist fuck.
:blink:
I think Wagnaard might be being sarcastic.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 04:17:37 PM
I think Wagnaard might be being sarcastic.
He's doing a pretty good impersonation of an earnest person.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 04:17:37 PM
I think Wagnaard might be being sarcastic.
I suspected that too. :ph34r:
For the sake of clarity, I wasn't trying to say everyone who can't get a job is some kind of freak.
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2013, 04:05:48 PM
He's probably a weirdo.
No, that doesn't seem likely. He has a degree in math and works as a computer programmer. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2013, 04:20:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 04:17:37 PM
I think Wagnaard might be being sarcastic.
He's doing a pretty good impersonation of an earnest person.
It's the "debt he willingly took on" part.
Quote from: Savonarola on September 24, 2013, 04:23:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2013, 04:05:48 PM
He's probably a weirdo.
No, that doesn't seem likely. He has a degree in math and works as a computer programmer. :)
:)
Maybe he put
"P.S. I like cats"
at the bottom of his resume, like a guy I interviewed once who creeped me the fuck out. :)
What, you don't like cats?
Resumes can make for some sad reading. Like one lady who mis-spelled her name three times three different ways.
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2013, 04:25:42 PM
Maybe he put
"P.S. I like cats"
at the bottom of his resume, like a guy I interviewed once who creeped me the fuck out. :)
The fuck?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 04:23:33 PM
It's the "debt he willingly took on" part.
25 quatloo pennies on earnest.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 04:27:54 PM
What, you don't like cats?
According to his background check, he liked more than cats. He also apparently liked children. :) Fortunately I wasn't the recruiter dumb enough to try to sign him up and have the company pay for his background check. I passed. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
He also apparently liked children. :)
Glad he redeemed himself on that crazy cat thing. I presume he was promoted rapidly?
:lol:
What, you don't like chil--oh.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 04:33:55 PM
What, you don't like chil--oh.
Maybe not as much as that guy :P
I think it's fair to say that he loved them. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 04:06:23 PM
So fuck him and he deserves to be a debt slave, right?
Actions have consequences. -_-
An 18 year old has no business being put in a position where they can sign up for non-dischargeable debt for a good that has severe, undisclosed deficiencies.
Hell, no one does, but least of all what is almost legally a child.
Why? An 18 year old has the right to give themselves lung cancer and kill/die for their country in most parts of the US, so why not crushing debt?
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 04:28:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2013, 04:25:42 PM
Maybe he put
"P.S. I like cats"
at the bottom of his resume, like a guy I interviewed once who creeped me the fuck out. :)
The fuck?
Probably not
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
Why? An 18 year old has the right to give themselves lung cancer and kill/die for their country in most parts of the US, so why not crushing debt?
Like Doogie said, it's like a mortgage and they forgot to give him a house. But that's not quite correct, because you can BK your note if it's too big.
Joining the military provides unambiguously positive things, like a wage, veteran's preference, and the ability to kill. Also, it only lasts four years. Maybe less! :)
I like cats. :)
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3615992320/h705FA6A5/)
That's a nasty case of the hiccups Wigger. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
Why? An 18 year old has the right to give themselves lung cancer and kill/die for their country in most parts of the US, so why not crushing debt?
Because it's bad for society to destroy the economic possibilities and quality of life of broad swathes of the population.
What's next? Are you going to suggest that because an 18 year old has the right to give themselves lung cancer, to join the armed forces, and to contract life-crushing debt, 18-year olds should also have the right to sell themselves into slavery, or carve out their organs and sell them on the open market?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2013, 04:54:17 PM
That's a nasty case of the hiccups Wigger. :lol:
What ever do you mean? :whistle:
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 04:54:57 PM
What's next? Are you going to suggest that because an 18 year old has the right to give themselves lung cancer, to join the armed forces, and to contract life-crushing debt, 18-year olds should also have the right to sell themselves into slavery, or carve out their organs and sell them on the open market?
What, you dont believe in the power of the free market to efficiently allocate resources!
j/k just in case your sarcasm detector isnt working too. There is a lot of that going around these days.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 04:54:57 PM
What's next? Are you going to suggest that because an 18 year old has the right to give themselves lung cancer, to join the armed forces, and to contract life-crushing debt, 18-year olds should also have the right to sell themselves into slavery, or carve out their organs and sell them on the open market?
That's the age when their organs have their peak market value, Jake. C'mon, use your noodle.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
Why? An 18 year old has the right to give themselves lung cancer and kill/die for their country in most parts of the US, so why not crushing debt?
Because it's bad for society to destroy the economic possibilities and quality of life of broad swathes of the population.
What's next? Are you going to suggest that because an 18 year old has the right to give themselves lung cancer, to join the armed forces, and to contract life-crushing debt, 18-year olds should also have the right to sell themselves into slavery, or carve out their organs and sell them on the open market?
No, we should probably draw some boundaries. :)
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 05:11:55 PMNo, we should probably draw some boundaries. :)
:cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 05:17:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 05:11:55 PMNo, we should probably draw some boundaries. :)
:cheers:
And of course, I think not only tuition costs but also the setup of student loans are out of control in this country. However, personally the collective Seedy/Ide moan is more tiring.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 05:22:23 PMAnd of course, I think not only tuition costs but also the setup of student loans are out of control in this country. However, personally the collective Seedy/Ide moan is more tiring.
:hug:
I was collateral damage :cry: :blush:
I don't like the idea of socializing peoples mistakes by making student loans dischargeable. especially not art and history majors mistakes. dirty hippies <_< :P
Get a job hippies!
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:35:13 PM
I don't like the idea of socializing peoples mistakes by making student loans dischargeable. especially not art and history majors mistakes. dirty hippies <_< :P
That's not what BK discharge ordinarily does. BK distributes losses between two private actors. It's just the fed guarantee (and the fact the fedgov is originating most current loans) that make this a "public" issue.
However, the best reason for allowing the possibility of discharge is that it forces lenders to actually look at what they're lending for. Given that public funds are being misused, permitting loans to be issued without any underwriting standard is actually unpatriotic.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 06:42:02 PM
Get a job hippies!
they could, if they picked a better major :P
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:42:27 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:35:13 PM
I don't like the idea of socializing peoples mistakes by making student loans dischargeable. especially not art and history majors mistakes. dirty hippies <_< :P
That's not what BK discharge ordinarily does. BK distributes losses between two private actors. It's just the fed guarantee (and the fact the fedgov is originating most current loans) that make this a "public" issue.
However, the best reason for allowing the possibility of discharge is that it forces lenders to actually look at what they're lending for. Given that public funds are being misused, permitting loans to be issued without any underwriting standard is actually unpatriotic.
they'd just charge more interest. shareholder value and what not.
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:43:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:42:27 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:35:13 PM
I don't like the idea of socializing peoples mistakes by making student loans dischargeable. especially not art and history majors mistakes. dirty hippies <_< :P
That's not what BK discharge ordinarily does. BK distributes losses between two private actors. It's just the fed guarantee (and the fact the fedgov is originating most current loans) that make this a "public" issue.
However, the best reason for allowing the possibility of discharge is that it forces lenders to actually look at what they're lending for. Given that public funds are being misused, permitting loans to be issued without any underwriting standard is actually unpatriotic.
they'd just charge more interest. shareholder value and what not.
So?
Anyway, in a perfect world, the Dept. of Education would assume far more responsibility and, based on BLS statistics, establish price caps for tuition and quotas for degrees. You still want your basketweaving degree, you can try to get a private, dischargeable loan, that won't exist because shareholder value is not raised by giving somebody money in exchange for an agreement that they can and will renege upon.
Prediction: sustained double-digit GDP growth by year five.
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:35:13 PM
I don't like the idea of socializing peoples mistakes by making student loans dischargeable. especially not art and history majors mistakes. dirty hippies <_< :P
Why not?
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:43:17 PM
they'd just charge more interest. shareholder value and what not.
Which is why the idea is politically unfeasible in the United States. Any politician who suggested removing the federal guarantee from student loans would be ridiculed as attempting to deprive future generations of
the American dream.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:45:47 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:43:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:42:27 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:35:13 PM
I don't like the idea of socializing peoples mistakes by making student loans dischargeable. especially not art and history majors mistakes. dirty hippies <_< :P
That's not what BK discharge ordinarily does. BK distributes losses between two private actors. It's just the fed guarantee (and the fact the fedgov is originating most current loans) that make this a "public" issue.
However, the best reason for allowing the possibility of discharge is that it forces lenders to actually look at what they're lending for. Given that public funds are being misused, permitting loans to be issued without any underwriting standard is actually unpatriotic.
they'd just charge more interest. shareholder value and what not.
So?
So I would have to pay more because of other peoples bad choices. They wouldn't have to pay more for their bad choices, they just get to throw their hands up and say screw it. Unlike socialized medicine, for example, everyone pays in (so while, say smokers, might take out more, they still pay in, so the net difference is smaller and seems fairer).
About jobs and education - even the Taiwanese are having second thoughts about the value of education and finding good white collar jobs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24156168
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 06:48:27 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:35:13 PM
I don't like the idea of socializing peoples mistakes by making student loans dischargeable. especially not art and history majors mistakes. dirty hippies <_< :P
Why not?
as per my last post it seems unfair to me. it's not something everyone pays into, it's something that only charges those who make prudent choices (they continue to pay their loan at a higher interest).
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:45:47 PM
So?
Anyway, in a perfect world, the Dept. of Education would assume far more responsibility and, based on BLS statistics, establish price caps for tuition and quotas for degrees. You still want your basketweaving degree, you can try to get a private, dischargeable loan, that won't exist because shareholder value is not raised by giving somebody money in exchange for an agreement that they can and will renege upon.
Prediction: sustained double-digit GDP growth by year five.
That doesn't sound like an ideal world at all.
Also, HVC, if the problem is that history (and art history!) degrees are worthless, is the best solution to make the loans people take out on them nondischargeable, or to stop offering loans on them in the first place?
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:49:40 PMSo I would have to pay more because of other peoples bad choices. They wouldn't have to pay more for their bad choices, they just get to throw their hands up and say screw it. Unlike socialized medicine, for example, everyone pays in (so while, say smokers, might take out more, they still pay in, so the net difference is smaller and seems fairer).
So basically "more for me, less for other people, and fuck people who are in trouble"?
No thought given to what is best overall for society, for the economy, or other individuals?
Would you change your opinion on easing the student loans burden if it did not translate into higher taxes for yourself?
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 06:51:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:45:47 PM
So?
Anyway, in a perfect world, the Dept. of Education would assume far more responsibility and, based on BLS statistics, establish price caps for tuition and quotas for degrees. You still want your basketweaving degree, you can try to get a private, dischargeable loan, that won't exist because shareholder value is not raised by giving somebody money in exchange for an agreement that they can and will renege upon.
Prediction: sustained double-digit GDP growth by year five.
That doesn't sound like an ideal world at all.
If corporate America needs basketweavers, it can train them.
Seriously, I don't understand your objection to the bolded part; it's actually a market solution.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
Also, HVC, if the problem is that history (and art history!) degrees are worthless, is the best solution to make the loans people take out on them nondischargeable, or to stop offering loans on them in the first place?
Someone dumb enough to take out 100k loan on a double major of ancient Sumerian and basket weaving degree is going to find a way. I don't think it's the bank responsibility to gauge the utility of a persons degree, its up to a person to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes you have to stop trying to save people from themselves.
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:56:20 PMSomeone dumb enough to take out 100k loan on a double major of ancient Sumerian and basket weaving degree is going to find a way. I don't think it's the bank responsibility to gauge the utility of a persons degree, its up to a person to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes you have to stop trying to save people from themselves.
But the phenomenon of individuals destroying their financial future by getting a higher education is quite recent. We are not saving people from themselves, we're saving them from a system that's been set up to destroy them; moreover, it's a system that has only recently been constructed.
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:56:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
Also, HVC, if the problem is that history (and art history!) degrees are worthless, is the best solution to make the loans people take out on them nondischargeable, or to stop offering loans on them in the first place?
Someone dumb enough to take out 100k loan on a double major of ancient Sumerian and basket weaving degree is going to find a way. I don't think it's the bank responsibility to gauge the utility of a persons degree, its up to a person to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes you have to stop trying to save people from themselves.
So, just to understand, banks should have no duty to establish the value of their investments? Interesting thesis.
Why are people responsible for their actions and not banks?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:58:56 PMSo, just to understand, banks should have no duty to establish the value of their investments? Interesting thesis.
That's fine, as long as the investments aren't underwritten by the taxpayer.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 06:53:12 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:49:40 PMSo I would have to pay more because of other peoples bad choices. They wouldn't have to pay more for their bad choices, they just get to throw their hands up and say screw it. Unlike socialized medicine, for example, everyone pays in (so while, say smokers, might take out more, they still pay in, so the net difference is smaller and seems fairer).
So basically "more for me, less for other people, and fuck people who are in trouble"?
No thought given to what is best overall for society, for the economy, or other individuals?
Would you change your opinion on easing the student loans burden if it did not translate into higher taxes for yourself?
It's not about more for me, and less for others. I believe something's are for necessary to socialize. Healthcare like I mentioned. But "easing" the loans of people who consciously made really bad decisions? and leaving them basically free and clear (declaring bankruptcy at a young age isn't a horrible ordeal, really. I know two people who did it) while others pick up the slack? like I said that does not seem fair to me.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:53:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 06:51:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:45:47 PM
So?
Anyway, in a perfect world, the Dept. of Education would assume far more responsibility and, based on BLS statistics, establish price caps for tuition and quotas for degrees. You still want your basketweaving degree, you can try to get a private, dischargeable loan, that won't exist because shareholder value is not raised by giving somebody money in exchange for an agreement that they can and will renege upon.
Prediction: sustained double-digit GDP growth by year five.
That doesn't sound like an ideal world at all.
If corporate America needs basketweavers, it can train them.
Seriously, I don't understand your objection to the bolded part; it's actually a market solution.
Because I think in large part, you are just going to continue the disadvantages given to those on the lower end of the spectrum. Establish quotas and only a certain segment will ever going to make it into college - and disproportionately those are going to be those from well off backgrounds.
I'm also highly skeptical that the Department of Education would do a great job at determining exactly what positions were needed...nor do I like the idea of the government controlling what you get to study.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:58:56 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 06:56:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
Also, HVC, if the problem is that history (and art history!) degrees are worthless, is the best solution to make the loans people take out on them nondischargeable, or to stop offering loans on them in the first place?
Someone dumb enough to take out 100k loan on a double major of ancient Sumerian and basket weaving degree is going to find a way. I don't think it's the bank responsibility to gauge the utility of a persons degree, its up to a person to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes you have to stop trying to save people from themselves.
So, just to understand, banks should have no duty to establish the value of their investments? Interesting thesis.
Why are people responsible for their actions and not banks?
the value of their investments is the interest they make. that interest is gaureenteed.so it's a great investment for a bank :P
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 07:03:00 PMthe value of their investments is the interest they make. that interest is gaureenteed.so it's a great investment for a bank :P
Exactly, it's good for the bank but not for society, nor for you. The public, the taxpayer - you - should not underwrite the bank's investment; at least not unless it creates a public good. Destroying a generation's economic future is not a public good.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:02:09 PMI'm also highly skeptical that the Department of Education would do a great job at determining exactly what positions were needed...nor do I like the idea of the government controlling what you get to study.
That line of argument - distrust in the competence of government - is what the article sketches out as the best line to contest the new generation of voters for the GOP.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:04:45 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 07:03:00 PMthe value of their investments is the interest they make. that interest is gaureenteed.so it's a great investment for a bank :P
Exactly, it's good for the bank but not for society, nor for you. The public, the taxpayer - you - should not underwrite the bank's investment; at least not unless it creates a public good. Destroying a generation's economic future is not a public good.
Of course, that positions these individuals as being simply passive. Just cogs ruined by the system.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:02:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:53:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 06:51:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:45:47 PM
So?
Anyway, in a perfect world, the Dept. of Education would assume far more responsibility and, based on BLS statistics, establish price caps for tuition and quotas for degrees. You still want your basketweaving degree, you can try to get a private, dischargeable loan, that won't exist because shareholder value is not raised by giving somebody money in exchange for an agreement that they can and will renege upon.
Prediction: sustained double-digit GDP growth by year five.
That doesn't sound like an ideal world at all.
If corporate America needs basketweavers, it can train them.
Seriously, I don't understand your objection to the bolded part; it's actually a market solution.
Because I think in large part, you are just going to continue the disadvantages given to those on the lower end of the spectrum. Establish quotas and only a certain segment will ever going to make it into college - and disproportionately those are going to be those from well off backgrounds.
Well, I should not have said "ideal." More ideal would really be Grades 13-16. Since that's impossible, I'm happy enough to promote a slightly more plausible change to the system.
Anyway, giving everyone a college education has done nothing but devalue a college education (it's probably good for society, but I mean on the individual basis); those from well off backgrounds are exactly as relatively advantaged as before.
QuoteI'm also highly skeptical that the Department of Education would do a great job at determining exactly what positions were needed...nor do I like the idea of the government controlling what you get to study.
The government's only controlling what the government pays for.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:06:54 PMOf course, that positions these individuals as being simply passive. Just cogs ruined by the system.
Not entirely passive, but it does seem congruent with reality that any given individual's range of actions are constrained and defined by large scale social and economic forces.
Is that controversial to you?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:10:33 PM
Anyway, giving everyone a college education has done nothing but devalue a college education; those from well off backgrounds are exactly as relatively advantaged as before.
True but no. I mean in your system there seems to be little chance at self-advancement and more people potentially straight-jacketed into careers they don't like. Doesn't sound like a recipe for happiness.
Quote from: HVC on September 24, 2013, 07:03:00 PM
the value of their investments is the interest they make. that interest is gaureenteed.so it's a great investment for a bank :P
You could have a great future ahead of you. Have you considered coming south? I feel like your talents are being wasted in Canada.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:12:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:06:54 PMOf course, that positions these individuals as being simply passive. Just cogs ruined by the system.
Not entirely passive, but it does seem congruent with reality that any given individual's range of actions are constrained and defined by large scale social and economic forces.
Is that controversial to you?
Who said anything about controversy? I think it is overblown though to say that the system of college loans is destroying a generation's economic future.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:13:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:10:33 PM
Anyway, giving everyone a college education has done nothing but devalue a college education; those from well off backgrounds are exactly as relatively advantaged as before.
True but no. I mean in your system there seems to be little chance at self-advancement and more people potentially straight-jacketed into careers they don't like. Doesn't sound like a recipe for happiness.
Is the only route to self-advancement a bachelor's degree?
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:13:22 PMTrue but no. I mean in your system there seems to be little chance at self-advancement and more people potentially straight-jacketed into careers they don't like. Doesn't sound like a recipe for happiness.
The current system doesn't seem so hot on providing opportunities for self-advancement or well-liked careers either.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:16:13 PM
Is the only route to self-advancement a bachelor's degree?
It's easy to think that way, because we've been schooled to think we need to be schooled.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:16:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:13:22 PMTrue but no. I mean in your system there seems to be little chance at self-advancement and more people potentially straight-jacketed into careers they don't like. Doesn't sound like a recipe for happiness.
The current system doesn't seem so hot on providing opportunities for self-advancement or well-liked careers either.
Sure but I don't see why that suggests another system with similar deficiencies sounds better.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:16:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:13:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:10:33 PM
Anyway, giving everyone a college education has done nothing but devalue a college education; those from well off backgrounds are exactly as relatively advantaged as before.
True but no. I mean in your system there seems to be little chance at self-advancement and more people potentially straight-jacketed into careers they don't like. Doesn't sound like a recipe for happiness.
Is the only route to self-advancement a bachelor's degree?
No, of course not but even for many careers, you are going to need some sort of vocational training and I think we both hardly see businesses leaping to fill that space.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:14:35 PMI think it is overblown though to say that the system of college loans is destroying a generation's economic future.
What do you base that on, if you don't mind me asking?
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:24:06 PM
No, of course not but even for many careers, you are going to need some sort of vocational training and I think we both hardly see businesses leaping to fill that space.
Yeah, I think you have identified one of the core problem here. It used to be (even when I was going through University) the employers where happy to get university educated entry level employees who they could train in the specific tasks/skills required in the workplace. Vocational skills were largely obtained through on the job sponsored apprentice programs.
All that has changed and now employers are looking to universities to turn out job ready applicants - essentially turning universities into vocational training grounds. Something, I would argue, universities are entirely unable to do and more importantly should resist doing.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:29:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:14:35 PMI think it is overblown though to say that the system of college loans is destroying a generation's economic future.
What do you base that on, if you don't mind me asking?
For what it is worth, I agree with him. The real problem is elsewhere. Students loans are a symptom of the failure of the current system.
Garbon, what kind of system would correct the deficiencies?
The problems in the "state of nature" seem to be these:
1)Class concerns (which are weird coming from g, no offense);
2)"Uneducated populace" that can't compete with slave states or enlightened, studious Europeans;
3)Higher education really is a good thing for society.
Fwiw, I think these are all accurate.
The problems with the status quo that I have identified are:
1)A free market approach on the supply end of higher ed has led to it becoming an amoral, profit-seeking business in its own right;
2)A statist approach on the demand end has led to price explosion;
3)Debt taken on to study what amount to hobbies;
4)Credentialization and accompanying devaluation of non-specific credentials;
5)A vast mismatch between what the economy requires and the credentials people get.
I think taking either a statist or free market approach to either end will fix or ameliorate all of these five problems. But a statist approach to the demand and supply ends can potentially, at least, address all of the "state of nature" issues.
But the hybrid we've developed as a cure is far worse than the disease.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:31:40 PMFor what it is worth, I agree with him. The real problem is elsewhere. Students loans are a symptom of the failure of the current system.
Are you talking about the Canadian system, the American one, or both?
And for what it's worth, I'm happy to agree that the student debt burden carried is a symptom of a larger failure. As for garbon, I'm not sure he considers the student debt burden a symptom of anything other a number of individual failures (rather than a systemic one).
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:29:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:14:35 PMI think it is overblown though to say that the system of college loans is destroying a generation's economic future.
What do you base that on, if you don't mind me asking?
Despite the sensational articles, I don't really see that much evidence of people whose lives have been ruined by loans. Sure affordability of college is an issue, but of the people I've encountered, it is what tipped the balance in choosing not to go to school because the price tag wasn't viable.
And I'm not against the notion that the economic future of many is in peril - if we are defining that in terms of being able to reach the same standards of living as one's parents, but I don't think loans are what are doing that.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:37:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 07:35:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:42:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 06:42:02 PM
Get a job hippies!
Give them jobs, Boomer.
I have, lumpen proletariat.
I'M NOT LUMPEN.
Know your role.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:36:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:31:40 PMFor what it is worth, I agree with him. The real problem is elsewhere. Students loans are a symptom of the failure of the current system.
Are you talking about the Canadian system, the American one, or both?
And for what it's worth, I'm happy to agree that the student debt burden carried is a symptom of a larger failure. As for garbon, I'm not sure he considers the student debt burden a symptom of anything other a number of individual failures (rather than a systemic one).
Yeah, I kind of wonder at what point individual failures within a system are indicative of a failed system. 10%? 90%?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:37:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 07:35:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:42:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 06:42:02 PM
Get a job hippies!
Give them jobs, Boomer.
I have, lumpen proletariat.
I'M NOT LUMPEN.
Know your role.
No.
They could interview someone whose life wasn't destroyed by loans, but that wouldn't make for very interesting reading, would it? :)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:39:17 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:37:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 07:35:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:42:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 06:42:02 PM
Get a job hippies!
Give them jobs, Boomer.
I have, lumpen proletariat.
I'M NOT LUMPEN.
Know your role.
No.
Okay, Lumpen.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:36:21 PM
And for what it's worth, I'm happy to agree that the student debt burden carried is a symptom of a larger failure. As for garbon, I'm not sure he considers the student debt burden a symptom of anything other a number of individual failures (rather than a systemic one).
Well certainly there is a widespread failure when we allow the propagation of a system where students take on debt they can't afford or discharge because they can't get a good paying job if they don't have a degree and a good paying job may not even exist at the end of the day.
However, I think what we can't lose sight of is that individuals play a role in that system as well. There are more affordable schools and from my admittedly limited experience in the work place, people from non-top tier schools can still get positions.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:39:17 PM
No.
Ide, you are kinda of a scofflaw. Not in a revolutionary way either.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:36:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:31:40 PMFor what it is worth, I agree with him. The real problem is elsewhere. Students loans are a symptom of the failure of the current system.
Are you talking about the Canadian system, the American one, or both?
And for what it's worth, I'm happy to agree that the student debt burden carried is a symptom of a larger failure. As for garbon, I'm not sure he considers the student debt burden a symptom of anything other a number of individual failures (rather than a systemic one).
Yeah, I kind of wonder at what point individual failures within a system are indicative of a failed system. 10%? 90%?
I think a failure there could be the hard death of the notion that going to college will get you a good job and your own home.
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2013, 07:40:18 PM
They could interview someone whose life wasn't destroyed by loans, but that wouldn't make for very interesting reading, would it? :)
Do the stories of would-be entrepreneurs up in debt while they do masters in anthropology make for interesting reading?
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:44:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:36:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:31:40 PMFor what it is worth, I agree with him. The real problem is elsewhere. Students loans are a symptom of the failure of the current system.
Are you talking about the Canadian system, the American one, or both?
And for what it's worth, I'm happy to agree that the student debt burden carried is a symptom of a larger failure. As for garbon, I'm not sure he considers the student debt burden a symptom of anything other a number of individual failures (rather than a systemic one).
Yeah, I kind of wonder at what point individual failures within a system are indicative of a failed system. 10%? 90%?
I think a failure there could be the hard death of the notion that going to college will get you a good job and your own home.
Well, then the system's already failed, or is well advanced in the process of failing.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:44:11 PM
I think a failure there could be the hard death of the notion that going to college will get you a good job and your own home.
Agreed. The main problem is that people don't have the information they need to make good decisions about their education.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 07:36:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:31:40 PMFor what it is worth, I agree with him. The real problem is elsewhere. Students loans are a symptom of the failure of the current system.
Are you talking about the Canadian system, the American one, or both?
I think both although the problem in the US is more pronounced as the cost of education there is far greater than here.
But that's going to change on its own isn't it? I mean it's already becoming a meme that college isn't worth it anymore.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
But that's going to change on its own isn't it? I mean it's already becoming a meme that college isn't worth it anymore.
"On its own" is a funny way of putting it. Through the collective efforts of many, and through the obvious overreaching of seriously-we're-not-in-it-for-profit schools, then yes.
The real problem is "what instead"? Just because college isn't worth the expense, it doesn't change the well-accepted notion that HSDs alone are for human garbage.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 07:46:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:44:11 PM
I think a failure there could be the hard death of the notion that going to college will get you a good job and your own home.
Agreed. The main problem is that people don't have the information they need to make good decisions about their education.
I disagree. That assumes that there is such a thing as information as to what the optimal educational experience is to obtain the optimal job. I dont think such a thing exists or rather that such a notion is misplaced.
The optimal skills for jobs should be the kinds of skills a university traditionally provides and employers should then have the cost burden of training specific required skills. I think it would be an interesting study to research how the shift away from this model occurred and how we can get back to it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
But that's going to change on its own isn't it? I mean it's already becoming a meme that college isn't worth it anymore.
And I think that is the most damaging thing to come out of all of this.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:50:49 PM
The optimal skills for jobs should be the kinds of skills a university traditionally provides and employers should then have the cost burden of training specific required skills. I think it would be an interesting study to research how the shift away from this model occurred and how we can get back to it.
I don't know about that. I don't know if the purpose of college even now is expected by employers to teach you specific required skills. I think that's somewhat what internships/summer jobs are for. I don't think there is anyone hiring college grads and thinking they don't need training. More than university has just become signaling. Have a BA/MBA? Right signal. Only have high school diploma? Move along.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:50:49 PM
The optimal skills for jobs should be the kinds of skills a university traditionally provides and employers should then have the cost burden of training specific required skills. I think it would be an interesting study to research how the shift away from this model occurred and how we can get back to it.
I don't know about that. I don't know if the purpose of college even now is expected by employers to teach you specific required skills. I think that's somewhat what internships/summer jobs are for. I don't think there is anyone hiring college grads and thinking they don't need training. More than university has just become signaling. Have a BA/MBA? Right signal. Only have high school diploma? Move along.
Entirely agreed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:51:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
But that's going to change on its own isn't it? I mean it's already becoming a meme that college isn't worth it anymore.
And I think that is the most damaging thing to come out of all of this.
Maybe in a higher brow sort of sense. If one's contention and focus in on how economic prosperity/futures are being destroyed, seems about right that the first thing to go would be the general well roundness that one might get out of college.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:50:49 PM
The optimal skills for jobs should be the kinds of skills a university traditionally provides and employers should then have the cost burden of training specific required skills. I think it would be an interesting study to research how the shift away from this model occurred and how we can get back to it.
I don't know about that. I don't know if the purpose of college even now is expected by employers to teach you specific required skills. I think that's somewhat what internships/summer jobs are for. I don't think there is anyone hiring college grads and thinking they don't need training. More than university has just become signaling. Have a BA/MBA? Right signal. Only have high school diploma? Move along.
I think you are wrong about that. Co-op programs were once rare when I was in University. Now it is difficult to think of a university program that doesnt offer a co-op opportunity or multiple opportunities. Also, there is a huge push on atm to make university courses more relevant to the job market. One need only see a lot of the comments in this thread to see it. Something which, as I said, I think unversity should resist.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:57:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:51:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
But that's going to change on its own isn't it? I mean it's already becoming a meme that college isn't worth it anymore.
And I think that is the most damaging thing to come out of all of this.
Maybe in a higher brow sort of sense. If one's contention and focus in on how economic prosperity/futures are being destroyed, seems about right that the first thing to go would be the general well roundness that one might get out of college.
Exactly the kind of thinking that I say is wrongheaded and why I think this is the most damaging conclusion that is being reached in this debate.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 07:56:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:50:49 PM
The optimal skills for jobs should be the kinds of skills a university traditionally provides and employers should then have the cost burden of training specific required skills. I think it would be an interesting study to research how the shift away from this model occurred and how we can get back to it.
I don't know about that. I don't know if the purpose of college even now is expected by employers to teach you specific required skills. I think that's somewhat what internships/summer jobs are for. I don't think there is anyone hiring college grads and thinking they don't need training. More than university has just become signaling. Have a BA/MBA? Right signal. Only have high school diploma? Move along.
Entirely agreed.
Now unfortunately, the only way I see that you could change that is by causing a decline in the number of people that go to college. Because otherwise, all a college degree says now is that you were willing to shell out money (or sell yourself to a bank) and put up with 4 more years of "required" schooling.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:58:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:50:49 PM
The optimal skills for jobs should be the kinds of skills a university traditionally provides and employers should then have the cost burden of training specific required skills. I think it would be an interesting study to research how the shift away from this model occurred and how we can get back to it.
I don't know about that. I don't know if the purpose of college even now is expected by employers to teach you specific required skills. I think that's somewhat what internships/summer jobs are for. I don't think there is anyone hiring college grads and thinking they don't need training. More than university has just become signaling. Have a BA/MBA? Right signal. Only have high school diploma? Move along.
I think you are wrong about that. Co-op programs were once rare when I was in University. Now it is difficult to think of a university program that doesnt offer a co-op opportunity or multiple opportunities. Also, there is a huge push on atm to make university courses more relevant to the job market. One need only see a lot of the comments in this thread to see it. Something which, as I said, I think unversity should resist.
There may be a push but I don't really think we are there for the general business world. My first company would hire so many college grads as there was always a high attrition via washing out or non-willingness to continue employment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:00:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:57:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:51:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
But that's going to change on its own isn't it? I mean it's already becoming a meme that college isn't worth it anymore.
And I think that is the most damaging thing to come out of all of this.
Maybe in a higher brow sort of sense. If one's contention and focus in on how economic prosperity/futures are being destroyed, seems about right that the first thing to go would be the general well roundness that one might get out of college.
Exactly the kind of thinking that I say is wrongheaded and why I think this is the most damaging conclusion that is being reached in this debate.
I don't. When you are struggling, there is hardly time for refinements...and I don't think college is essential for everyone.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:00:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:57:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:51:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
But that's going to change on its own isn't it? I mean it's already becoming a meme that college isn't worth it anymore.
And I think that is the most damaging thing to come out of all of this.
Maybe in a higher brow sort of sense. If one's contention and focus in on how economic prosperity/futures are being destroyed, seems about right that the first thing to go would be the general well roundness that one might get out of college.
Exactly the kind of thinking that I say is wrongheaded and why I think this is the most damaging conclusion that is being reached in this debate.
Would it not be even more wrongheaded to defend the value of it at all cost? That's not doing the institution any favors either. In order for a thing to be improved, there must first be an acknowledgement that improvement is both necessary and possible, yes?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:00:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 07:57:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 07:51:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
But that's going to change on its own isn't it? I mean it's already becoming a meme that college isn't worth it anymore.
And I think that is the most damaging thing to come out of all of this.
Maybe in a higher brow sort of sense. If one's contention and focus in on how economic prosperity/futures are being destroyed, seems about right that the first thing to go would be the general well roundness that one might get out of college.
Exactly the kind of thinking that I say is wrongheaded and why I think this is the most damaging conclusion that is being reached in this debate.
I liked it better when you were agreeing with Jake and by extension me.
If college is just culture school, what's really the point?
Btw, I hate it when I get branded as an anti-intellectual for this position. If people are going to pay what they're paying for education--or paying any significant amount at all--it has to be an investment with a real rate of return, which in turn means inculcating market-valuable skills, not poetry or literature or history or other (fun) crap you can indulge in for free.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 08:05:14 PM
Would it not be even more wrongheaded to defend the value of it at all cost?
Sure, but that isnt my argument.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:09:31 PM
Btw, I hate it when I get branded as an anti-intellectual for this position. If people are going to pay what they're paying for education--or paying any significant amount at all--it has to be an investment with a real rate of return, which in turn means inculcating market-valuable skills, not poetry or literature or history or other (fun) crap you can indulge in for free.
You're not an anti-intellectual; you're just a law school grad that was sold a bill of goods about all the solid gold goodies you expected to be showered with by simply graduating from law school.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:09:31 PM
I liked it better when you were agreeing with Jake and by extension me.
If college is just culture school, what's really the point?
Btw, I hate it when I get branded as an anti-intellectual for this position. If people are going to pay what they're paying for education--or paying any significant amount at all--it has to be an investment with a real rate of return, which in turn means inculcating market-valuable skills, not poetry or literature or history or other (fun) crap you can indulge in for free.
But you are being anti-intellectual :P
University is far more than culture school. It is learning to think school; expanding horizons school; opening up opportunities and fields of study to which high school students have no access. That is what makes it valuable. Its not, has never been, and should never be simply a job training school.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 24, 2013, 08:14:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:09:31 PM
Btw, I hate it when I get branded as an anti-intellectual for this position. If people are going to pay what they're paying for education--or paying any significant amount at all--it has to be an investment with a real rate of return, which in turn means inculcating market-valuable skills, not poetry or literature or history or other (fun) crap you can indulge in for free.
You're not an anti-intellectual; you're just a law school grad that was sold a bill of goods about all the solid gold goodies you expected to be showered with by simply graduating from law school.
I thought it would help get me the GS-7 post of my dreams. Imagine my surprise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:15:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:09:31 PM
I liked it better when you were agreeing with Jake and by extension me.
If college is just culture school, what's really the point?
Btw, I hate it when I get branded as an anti-intellectual for this position. If people are going to pay what they're paying for education--or paying any significant amount at all--it has to be an investment with a real rate of return, which in turn means inculcating market-valuable skills, not poetry or literature or history or other (fun) crap you can indulge in for free.
But you are being anti-intellectual :P
University is far more than culture school. It is learning to think school; expanding horizons school; opening up opportunities and fields of study to which high school students have no access. That is what makes it valuable. Its not, has never been, and should never be simply a job training school.
What value would you say it has, in dollars?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:19:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 24, 2013, 08:14:44 PM
You're not an anti-intellectual; you're just a law school grad that was sold a bill of goods about all the solid gold goodies you expected to be showered with by simply graduating from law school.
I thought it would help get me the GS-7 post of my dreams. Imagine my surprise.
"Small moves, Hunter. Small moves."(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent9.flixster.com%2Fphoto%2F11%2F40%2F91%2F11409127_gal.jpg&hash=986f229550d5ed09f2513ae29ee67f151b0c295f)
Carl Sagan had a physics degree.
And he's dead now. Lotta good it did him.
QuoteAdjunct professors are the new working poor
By Gary Rhoades, Special to CNN
updated 3:17 PM EDT, Tue September 24, 2013
Editor's note: Gary Rhoades is a professor and director of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona.
(CNN) -- "She was a professor?"
That's what an astonished caseworker at Adult Protective Services asked about Margaret Mary Vojtko when informed of the 83-year-old woman's destitute situation, according to an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Vojtko died September 1 of a massive heart attack.
Yes, she was a professor. An adjunct professor of French at Duquesne University. Until she was not renewed this year, with neither due process nor severance pay.
She taught students for 25 years, with no health benefits, no retirement benefits, and low wages.
The minimum pay for adjunct faculty at Duquesne used to be $2500 per course. After an ongoing effort by the United Steelworkers to unionize adjuncts there, the university paid $3,500 per course.
Vojtko's situation was not unusual for adjuncts in academia. That is why many have taken the hashtag #iamMargaretMary to tweet their indignation at her working conditions, lack of support and lack of respect.
The dirty little secret is that higher education is staffed with an insufficiently resourced, egregiously exploited, contingent "new faculty majority." In addition to the 49.3% of faculty in part-time positions (70% in community colleges), another 19% are full-time, nontenure-track. (These numbers do not include graduate assistants or postdocs.)
Adjunct professors, like many hard-working Americans, are the working poor. They are one step away from "We don't need your services anymore" or one medical emergency away from being destitute, like Vojtko.
If Vojtko was good enough to be entrusted with teaching Duquesne undergraduates, how can the university justify not providing her (and her adjunct colleagues) with health care and other basic benefits?
If American higher education says to students and society that a college education is the path to the middle class, how can we justify such treatment of these professionals, with advanced degrees, who are teaching the students?
We are living a lie that cheats these professors and the students they teach, particularly in access universities and community colleges where adjunct faculty numbers, like percentages of lower-income students, are highest and instructional spending per student is lowest.
The story is not just about Duquesne. Certainly, the institution's wealth ($171 million endowment, tuition over $28,000) and Catholic status (Catholic social doctrine supports collective bargaining rights) make the situation -- and Duquesne's refusal to recognize a union that adjunct faculty voted for overwhelmingly -- particularly indefensible.
Duquesne University's administration has provided a response to the situation, suggesting that there were caring responses by people within the institution to Vojtko's circumstances. However, acts of charity are not conditions-of-employment justice for hard-working adjunct professors.
The larger issues are not about individual responsibility or culpability for actions toward Vojtko, but rather, about collective responsibility for the structural conditions of work that contributed to her circumstances, and that leave significant segments of the academic workforce with no benefits and low pay.
So Duquesne should recognize the adjunct union, bargain in good faith, grant benefits and set up a professional development fund in Vojtko's name. But this story speaks more broadly about a horrible reality in higher education.
Adjunct professors, as part of a growing army of working poor, are at the center of the academic labor movement, just as fast-food workers are now at the center of the larger labor movement. We are in the midst of deciding the extent to which we are an inclusive society that will live up to our nation's promise that hard work pays off.
The question is: How will we treat working people? Will we, the richest nation on earth, continue to structure employment in ways that reduce large segments of society to near Dickensian conditions of existence? Or can we muster the collective will to appropriately remunerate and honor the work of all working Americans?
In academia, that means tenure stream faculty, staff, students, administrators, and communities must recognize in Vojtko's fate the ugly and diminished future of higher education and choose, in big ways and small ways, a more equitable path.
Adjunct professors have taken initiatives to change the status quo. Some have joined advocacy groups, such as the New Faculty Majority. Some are involved with caucuses within unions and professional associations where they gather data about pay and working conditions, define best practices, and work to ensure that adjunct faculty are not discriminated against.
Adjuncts are organizing for benefits, a living wage, and conditions that will benefit their students and their schools. In Pittsburgh, as in Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Washington, there are union campaigns for adjunct unions in private (often wealthy) universities. There is also much organizing in public institutions, and in units that combine adjunct with full-time and tenure track faculty.
No one deserves the treatment and fate experienced by Margaret Mary Vojtko, who escaped the 21st century equivalent of Victorian poorhouses in a cardboard casket. American higher education can and should do better for those who teach our students.
If only universities charged more. :(
Seems weird to title an article that adjuncts are the new working poor and then highlight a woman at the literal end of her career.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:21:34 PM
What value would you say it has, in dollars?
At its core, that is the anti-intellectual question.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:52:57 PM
I saw that too, but I didn't post it, because I don't post articles about kapos.
HEY NOW
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 08:51:47 PM
Seems weird to title an article that adjuncts are the new working poor and then highlight a woman at the literal end of her career.
No kidding. Teachers. :rolleyes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:21:34 PM
What value would you say it has, in dollars?
At its core, that is the anti-intellectual question.
You don't have the luxury to say school has infinite value or unquantifiable value because it has a quantifiable cost. There is nothing anti-intellectual about Ide's point, only pragmatic.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:52:57 PM
I saw that too, but I didn't post it, because I don't post articles about kapos.
HEY NOW
Oh drat. I tried to delete that. I thought it was a little mean. :(
Anyway, we all know you're ein kommandant. :hug:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 08:56:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:21:34 PM
What value would you say it has, in dollars?
At its core, that is the anti-intellectual question.
You don't have the luxury to say school has infinite value or unquantifiable value because it has a quantifiable cost. There is nothing anti-intellectual about Ide's point, only pragmatic.
Yeah, another variant of the anti-intellectual argument. Rather than attack education why not turn your mind to the way it is funded?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 08:56:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:21:34 PM
What value would you say it has, in dollars?
At its core, that is the anti-intellectual question.
You don't have the luxury to say school has infinite value or unquantifiable value because it has a quantifiable cost. There is nothing anti-intellectual about Ide's point, only pragmatic.
Yes, thank you. That's exactly it.
It also has less quantifiably costly alternatives.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:56:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:52:57 PM
I saw that too, but I didn't post it, because I don't post articles about kapos.
HEY NOW
Oh drat. I tried to delete that. I thought it was a little mean. :(
Anyway, we all know you're ein kommandant. :hug:
:)
Teaching the youth of the nation logistics is a thankless job.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:57:24 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 08:56:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:21:34 PM
What value would you say it has, in dollars?
At its core, that is the anti-intellectual question.
You don't have the luxury to say school has infinite value or unquantifiable value because it has a quantifiable cost. There is nothing anti-intellectual about Ide's point, only pragmatic.
Yeah, another variant of the anti-intellectual argument. Rather than attack education why not turn your mind to the way it is funded?
We did. :huh:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 08:57:50 PM:)
Teaching the youth of the nation logistics is a thankless job.
Is that your subject? I kind of wish I'd done my undergrad in something like that, even specifically logistics. You're okay.
I am an adjunct and I hope to die at 83 warped and twisted. Of course, I have a full time job too with benefits, but that is beside the point.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 09:00:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 08:57:50 PM:)
Teaching the youth of the nation logistics is a thankless job.
Is that your subject? I kind of wish I'd done my undergrad in something like that, even specifically logistics. You're okay.
Supply Chain Management. Fun part? Didn't go to college for it. But I get to teach it at a community college. :smarty:
Quote from: PDH on September 24, 2013, 09:02:05 PM
I am an adjunct and I hope to die at 83 warped and twisted. Of course, I have a full time job too with benefits, but that is beside the point.
The only things I am missing are being an adjunct and getting to 83.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 08:58:07 PM
We did. :huh:
Yes, but I've never attacked education anyway. Only school and the way it's paid for. The two things are very different. Education is free and has infinite value. School isn't.
Quote from: MBSupply Chain Management. Fun part? Didn't go to college for it. But I get to teach it at a community college. :smarty:
Well, you're a Boomer.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 09:09:28 PM
Quote from: MBSupply Chain Management. Fun part? Didn't go to college for it. But I get to teach it at a community college. :smarty:
Well, you're a Boomer.
You mean highly motivated not be be on food stamps again? Yep.
I really need something to fall on my leg. Cat's just not doing it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:57:24 PM
Yeah, another variant of the anti-intellectual argument. Rather than attack education why not turn your mind to the way it is funded?
MiM is right. The only way you can construe cost/benefit analysis of education as anti-intellectual is if you posit an infinite value for intellectualism.
I think you mean the MiM-Ide Thesis is right.
Btw, I really do love Old Economy Steve. They're not all winners--of course--but there's some seriously good ones.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 09:39:31 PM
I think you mean the MiM-Ide Thesis is right.
Actually I mean the Yi thesis if you want to get picky about it Mr. I Need Affirmation. I was the first one to propose ending student loans for non-marketable majors.
Well, on the plus side, if Yi and me agree, it means it's probably true.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2013, 09:42:05 PM
I was the first one to propose ending student loans for non-marketable majors.
Not too different from ending food stamps for non-marketable minors.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2013, 09:42:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 09:39:31 PM
I think you mean the MiM-Ide Thesis is right.
Actually I mean the Yi thesis if you want to get picky about it Mr. I Need Affirmation. I was the first one to propose ending student loans for non-marketable majors.
So would psych be dropped under said regime?
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2013, 09:42:05 PM
Actually I mean the Yi thesis if you want to get picky about it Mr. I Need Affirmation. I was the first one to propose ending student loans for non-marketable majors.
So would psych be dropped under said regime?
Unless it comes with a Cisco CCNA cert, you betcha.
I can't speak for Yi, but all I've ever said is that schools (and I mean the DoE, because schools are too self-interested to be good gatekeepers) should just pay attention to demand and matching production to it. This is what anyone with even the most rudimentary sense would do in any other situation involving any other good. Is there an overproduction (or underproduction) of psych majors?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 09:50:10 PM
I can't speak for Yi, but all I've ever said is that schools (and I mean the DoE, because schools are too self-interested to be good gatekeepers) should just pay attention to demand and matching production to it. This is what anyone with even the most rudimentary sense would do in any other situation involving any other good. Is there an overproduction (or underproduction) of psych majors?
I think psych regularly ranks up there in worst major choices as followed by typical income post-college.
Well, I hope you enjoy your network course.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 09:47:15 PM
So would psych be dropped under said regime?
Good question. On the one hand you do need head shrinkers; on the other a lot of undergrads seem to treat psych as an easy way out.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 09:52:53 PM
Well, I hope you enjoy your network course.
Why would I need a network course? :huh:
Because the CCNA exam is hard.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 09:51:41 PM
I think psych regularly ranks up there in worst major choices as followed by typical income post-college.
It does, however, provide an excellent foundation and baseline of knowledge for team-building exercises in the Human Resources sciences.
Just ask Cal.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 09:55:41 PM
Because the CCNA exam is hard.
I don't think I need any certs / MR certs seem like jokes.
It's just an example. I have no idea what it is, except it involves servers and/or routers.
It's very marketable.
Explains why I don't know very much about it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 24, 2013, 09:56:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 09:51:41 PM
I think psych regularly ranks up there in worst major choices as followed by typical income post-college.
It does, however, provide an excellent foundation and baseline of knowledge for team-building exercises in the Human Resources sciences.
Just ask Cal.
I think psyche is a great degree. Knowing how to manipulate your fellow human beings is a wonderful skill to have in the great big dangerous world out there. Good foundation for marketing. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2013, 09:23:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 08:57:24 PM
Yeah, another variant of the anti-intellectual argument. Rather than attack education why not turn your mind to the way it is funded?
MiM is right.
Only if you accept his first premise which I dont ;)
Job Market Embraces Massive Online Courses
'Big employers such as AT&T Inc. and Google Inc. are helping to design and fund the latest round of low-cost online courses, a development that providers say will open the door for students to earn inexpensive credentials with real value in the job market.
New niche certifications being offered by providers of massive open online courses, or MOOCs, are aimed at satisfying employers' specific needs. Available at a fraction of the cost of a four-year degree, they represent the latest crack in the monopoly traditional universities have in credentialing higher education.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579087840126695698.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BY227_CONVER_D_20130926170839.jpg&hash=fe7fb6e7856c2016b9491439efd6419e2634e8ec)
Here is a nice opinion piece from the Globe topical for this thread.
Dear undergrads: Your degree was never intended to land you a job
QuoteDear Applicant: Thank you for your letter inquiring about positions in our economics department. At this time, we have no openings. However, I will keep your letter on file should an appropriate job become available.
At least, that's what I am required to tell you. But here's what I'd really like to say to you – and to every recent economics graduate who sends me the same letter.
First, I know it's lousy for bachelor of arts grads looking for a job "in their field." Twenty years ago, it was lousy for me too. It's almost always lousy. In a way, it's kind of supposed to be – a small rite of passage to welcome you into the working world. It's sort of like being froshed.
But if I may, I would like to offer some advice.
Don't be too fixated on landing a job "in your field." The truth is, you don't yet have a field. In university, you majored in economics, but that may or may not be your eventual field of professional work. The world is full of possibilities; limiting your search to an economist job is a terribly narrow way to start out.
You chose to study economics, which doesn't necessarily imply that you'll be an economist. Rather, it implies you have an aptitude for problem solving. You're probably good at analyzing data. You can see different sides of an argument. And I'll bet you're excellent at finding solutions to problems. These are essential skills required in hundreds of rewarding (and lucrative) fields of professional employment.
Your ultimate field may actually be in sales for a biotech firm. It may be analyzing crime statistics for the city police. It may even be a rock star (just ask Mick Jagger). The world is full of "fields."
What you're facing is a common problem: BA graduates confuse their major area of study with what they expect to be their eventual careers. It doesn't matter if it's a degree in history, film studies, sociology, or comparative feminist literature.
You've successfully navigated your way through a four-year degree. Congratulations! That is no small accomplishment. But now you're embarking on a totally different program of learning – one that will last the rest of your life. It's called "What am I here for?"
That may sound all spiritual and existential, but don't let it throw you off. It just means that your challenge from here on is to find what you're good at, and keep getting better and better at it.
An apology, by the way, on behalf of society. We are sorry if we led you to believe that attending university would land you a good job. That's not actually true. A polytechnic college will do this – and the job opportunities available right now are fantastic. A good option for you might be to continue post-university studies at a polytechnic.
But your university education, at least at the bachelor of arts level, was never intended to land you a job. It was intended to make you a more complete thinker. It was intended to teach you how to absorb complex information and make reasoned arguments. It was, quite simply, intended to teach you how to learn. Those are skills that you'll use in any field of work.
Open your mind to all sorts of job possibilities. Don't be too proud to start out in the service industry, or where you might get your fingernails dirty. Talk to as many people as you can about their career paths. Go live overseas for a year or two. But never, ever, allow yourself to think you've wasted your time in university if you don't land a job as an economist.
Meanwhile, be encouraged and stay positive. And yes, I will keep your letter on file. But my guess is that when a position in my economics group eventually opens up, you'll no longer be available.
Todd Hirsch is the Calgary-based chief economist of ATB Financial and author of The Boiling Frog Dilemma: Saving Canada from Economic Decline.
Is it really just about what they are good at? Interest also should play a role and that might be why they call it "their field" even though they aren't currently in it.
Parasites gonna parasitize.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 03:08:29 PM
Dear undergrads: Your degree was never intended to land you a job
So why do so many employers require one?
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2013, 04:53:46 PM
Is it really just about what they are good at? Interest also should play a role and that might be why they call it "their field" even though they aren't currently in it.
Interest has almost exclusive authority over what a person will become good at, assuming the person hasn't practiced something they hate for years out of sheer necessity or force. That's generally not true for recent grads.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2013, 04:53:46 PM
Is it really just about what they are good at? Interest also should play a role and that might be why they call it "their field" even though they aren't currently in it.
I'm head and shoulders above others in my field, I was standing on a pile of cow pats/truds.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2013, 04:53:46 PM
Is it really just about what they are good at? Interest also should play a role and that might be why they call it "their field" even though they aren't currently in it.
Sure it plays a role. But just being interested in a field doesnt make it their field. He makes a good point that for it to become their field they first have to actually enter it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2013, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 03:08:29 PM
Dear undergrads: Your degree was never intended to land you a job
So why do so many employers require one?
For the reasons he gave. Good critical thinking.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 05:49:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2013, 04:53:46 PM
Is it really just about what they are good at? Interest also should play a role and that might be why they call it "their field" even though they aren't currently in it.
Sure it plays a role. But just being interested in a field doesnt make it their field. He makes a good point that for it to become their field they first have to actually enter it.
So people should learn to find, identify and use gates ?
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2013, 05:52:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 05:49:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2013, 04:53:46 PM
Is it really just about what they are good at? Interest also should play a role and that might be why they call it "their field" even though they aren't currently in it.
Sure it plays a role. But just being interested in a field doesnt make it their field. He makes a good point that for it to become their field they first have to actually enter it.
So people should learn to find, identify and use gates ?
That is pretty good advice. One needs to get onto the field to be able to play.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2013, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 03:08:29 PM
Dear undergrads: Your degree was never intended to land you a job
So why do so many employers require one?
For the reasons he gave. Good critical thinking.
Then it is intended to land one a job., if employers recqure one.
I guess it depends on whether you look at it from the point of view of the student or the school.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2013, 06:09:24 PM
Then it is intended to land one a job., if employers recqure one.
It is intended to teach good critical thinking. It is not intended to land you a job. If you want to learn skills that are more likely to lead directly to a job then follow his advice and go to a technical school.
Good critical thinking is a necessary but not necessarily sufficient skill for getting a job.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 06:12:40 PM
Good critical thinking is a necessary but not necessarily sufficient skill for getting a job.
If good critical thinking is a
necessary skill for getting a job, then that's the degree's intent. Certainly seems that way for employers, or they wouldn't require one.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2013, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 03:08:29 PM
Dear undergrads: Your degree was never intended to land you a job
So why do so many employers require one?
For the reasons he gave. Good critical thinking.
Unfortunately, if you had critical thinking skills before going to college, you'd know what a crock this was.
Good critical thinking... from going to college? Has this been shown to happen?
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2013, 01:24:19 AM
Good critical thinking... from going to college? Has this been shown to happen?
Compared to high school grads? I would say so.
Regurgitating Noam Chomsky rants doesn't count as critical thinking.
Understood.
:smarty:
Actually I would say it does, Brain. Here I mostly remember that in high school, A papers largely just had to summarize arguments from sources in their bibliography. Very few of my high school papers had a clearly written and defended thesis as that simply wasn't what teachers were looking for.
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2013, 02:24:18 AM
Regurgitating Noam Chomsky rants doesn't count as critical thinking.
Chomsky was a scientist before he descended into politics. The Chomsky Hierarchy of Formal Grammars is a fundamental of Computer Science.
So referencing Chomsky, which one might describe as "regurgitating Chomsky rants", can be a part of critical thinking.
Chomsky's linguistic work is also fundamental. If one sticks to linguistics then Chomsky can be quite important, even if just regurgitated to highlight a point. I might even call it critical thinking to separate his linguistics from his politics.
Havent heard a single mention of his politics in my linguistics course this semester.
The vast majority of people don't have the brains for meaningful critical thinking. When they try we get stuff like Communism.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2013, 03:47:42 PM
Havent heard a single mention of his politics in my linguistics course this semester.
[GOPtard]
It's subliminal.
[/GOPtard]
Besides it's unpatriotic to learn about language, one was good enough for the founding fathers, why can't you be happy with uncritically accepting the true meaning of the constitution. :)
:bleeding:
Millennials Face Uphill Climb
'Through analyzing about three decades of census data—from 1980 to 2012—the study found that on average, young workers are now 30 years old when they first earn a median-wage income of about $42,000, a marker of financial independence, up from 26 years old in 1980.
About a third of adults in their early 20s work full time, a proportion that rises to about half of adults in their late 20s. The labor-force participation rate for young people last year declined to its lowest point in about 40 years.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303643304579105450145516622.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BY263_WORKFO_D_20130929194421.jpg&hash=bb8fe5048e8baa96665be3fd80bdd5c769949628)
That conforms pretty exactly to my 30th year on Earth, yeah. -_-
Unfortunately, not my 31st. <_<
Here's one for you, Ide. Maybe that Law Degree wasn't such a bad idea after all:
QuoteThe STEM Crisis Is a Myth
Forget the dire predictions of a looming shortfall of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians
You must have seen the warning a thousand times: Too few young people study scientific or technical subjects, businesses can't find enough workers in those fields, and the country's competitive edge is threatened.
It pretty much doesn't matter what country you're talking about—the United States is facing this crisis, as is Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, China, Brazil, South Africa, Singapore, India...the list goes on. In many of these countries, the predicted shortfall of STEM (short for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) workers is supposed to number in the hundreds of thousands or even the millions. A 2012 report by President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, for instance, stated that over the next decade, 1 million additional STEM graduates will be needed. In the U.K., the Royal Academy of Engineering reported last year that the nation will have to graduate 100 000 STEM majors every year until 2020 just to stay even with demand. Germany, meanwhile, is said to have a shortage of about 210 000 workers in what's known there as the MINT disciplines—mathematics, computer science, natural sciences, and technology.
The situation is so dismal that governments everywhere are now pouring billions of dollars each year into myriad efforts designed to boost the ranks of STEM workers. President Obama has called for government and industry to train 10 000 new U.S. engineers every year as well as 100 000 additional STEM teachers by 2020. And until those new recruits enter the workforce, tech companies like Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft are lobbying to boost the number of H-1B visas—temporary immigration permits for skilled workers—from 65 000 per year to as many as 180 000. The European Union is similarly introducing the new Blue Card visa to bring in skilled workers from outside the EU. The government of India has said it needs to add 800 new universities, in part to avoid a shortfall of 1.6 million university-educated engineers by the end of the decade.
And yet, alongside such dire projections, you'll also find reports suggesting just the opposite—that there are more STEM workers than suitable jobs. One study found, for example, that wages for U.S. workers in computer and math fields have largely stagnated since 2000. Even as the Great Recession slowly recedes, STEM workers at every stage of the career pipeline, from freshly minted grads to mid- and late-career Ph.D.s, still struggle to find employment as many companies, including Boeing, IBM, and Symantec, continue to lay off thousands of STEM workers.
A Matter of Supply vs. Demand: Every year U.S. schools grant more STEM degrees than there are available jobs. When you factor in H-1B visa holders, existing STEM degree holders, and the like, it's hard to make a case that there's a STEM labor shortage.
To parse the simultaneous claims of both a shortage and a surplus of STEM workers, we'll need to delve into the data behind the debate, how it got going more than a half century ago, and the societal, economic, and nationalistic biases that have perpetuated it. And what that dissection reveals is that there is indeed a STEM crisis—just not the one everyone's been talking about. The real STEM crisis is one of literacy: the fact that today's students are not receiving a solid grounding in science, math, and engineering.
In preparing this article, I went through hundreds of reports, articles, and white papers from the past six decades. There were plenty of data, but there was also an extraordinary amount of inconsistency. Who exactly is a STEM worker: somebody with a bachelor's degree or higher in a STEM discipline? Somebody whose job requires use of a STEM subject? What about someone who manages STEM workers? And which disciplines and industries fall under the STEM umbrella?
Such definitions obviously affect the counts. For example, in the United States, both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Commerce track the number of STEM jobs, but using different metrics. According to Commerce, 7.6 million individuals worked in STEM jobs in 2010, or about 5.5 percent of the U.S. workforce. That number includes professional and technical support occupations in the fields of computer science and mathematics, engineering, and life and physical sciences as well as management. The NSF, by contrast, counts 12.4 million science and engineering jobs in the United States, including a number of areas that the Commerce Department excludes, such as health-care workers (4.3 million) and psychologists and social scientists (518 000).
Such inconsistencies don't just create confusion for numbers junkies like me; they also make rational policy discussions difficult. Depending on your point of view, you can easily cherry-pick data to bolster your argument.
Another surprise was the apparent mismatch between earning a STEM degree and having a STEM job. Of the 7.6 million STEM workers counted by the Commerce Department, only 3.3 million possess STEM degrees. Viewed another way, about 15 million U.S. residents hold at least a bachelor's degree in a STEM discipline, but three-fourths of them—11.4 million—work outside of STEM.
The departure of STEM graduates to other fields starts early. In 2008, the NSF surveyed STEM graduates who'd earned bachelor's and master's degrees in 2006 and 2007. It found that 2 out of 10 were already working in non-STEM fields. And 10 years after receiving a STEM degree, 58 percent of STEM graduates had left the field, according to a 2011 study from Georgetown University.
The takeaway? At least in the United States, you don't need a STEM degree to get a STEM job, and if you do get a degree, you won't necessarily work in that field after you graduate. If there is in fact a STEM worker shortage, wouldn't you expect more people with STEM degrees to be filling those jobs? And if many STEM jobs can be filled by people who don't have STEM degrees, then why the big push to get more students to pursue STEM?
Now consider the projections that suggest a STEM worker shortfall. One of the most cited in recent U.S. debates comes from the 2011 Georgetown University report mentioned above, by Anthony P. Carnevale, Nicole Smith, and Michelle Melton of the Center on Education and the Workforce. It estimated there will be slightly more than 2.4 million STEM job openings in the United States between 2008 and 2018, with 1.1 million newly created jobs and the rest to replace workers who retire or move to non-STEM fields; they conclude that there will be roughly 277 000 STEM vacancies per year.
But the Georgetown study did not fully account for the Great Recession. It projected a downturn in 2009 but then a steady increase in jobs beginning in 2010 and a return to normal by the year 2018. In fact, though, more than 370 000 science and engineering jobs in the United States were lost in 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I don't mean to single out this study for criticism; it just illustrates the difficulty of accurately predicting STEM demand and supply even a year or two out, let alone over a prolonged period. Highly competitive science- and technology-driven industries are volatile, where radical restructurings and boom-and-bust cycles have been the norm for decades. Many STEM jobs today are also targets for outsourcing or replacement by automation.
The nature of STEM work has also changed dramatically in the past several decades. In engineering, for instance, your job is no longer linked to a company but to a funded project. Long-term employment with a single company has been replaced by a series of de facto temporary positions that can quickly end when a project ends or the market shifts. To be sure, engineers in the 1950s were sometimes laid off during recessions, but they expected to be hired back when the economy picked up. That rarely happens today. And unlike in decades past, employers seldom offer generous education and training benefits to engineers to keep them current, so out-of-work engineers find they quickly become technologically obsolete.
Any of these factors can affect both short-term and longer-term demand for STEM workers, as well as for the particular skills those workers will need. The agencies that track science and engineering employment know this to be true. Buried in Chapter 3 of a 2012 NSF workforce study, for instance, you'll find this caveat: "Projections of employment growth are plagued by uncertain assumptions and are notoriously difficult to make."
So is there a shortfall of STEM workers or isn't there?
The Georgetown study estimates that nearly two-thirds of the STEM job openings in the United States, or about 180 000 jobs per year, will require bachelor's degrees. Now, if you apply the Commerce Department's definition of STEM to the NSF's annual count of science and engineering bachelor's degrees, that means about 252 000 STEM graduates emerged in 2009. So even if all the STEM openings were entry-level positions and even if only new STEM bachelor's holders could compete for them, that still leaves 70 000 graduates unable to get a job in their chosen field.
Of course, the pool of U.S. STEM workers is much bigger than that: It includes new STEM master's and Ph.D. graduates (in 2009, around 80 000 and 25 000, respectively), STEM associate degree graduates (about 40 000), H-1B visa holders (more than 50 000), other immigrants and visa holders with STEM degrees, technical certificate holders, and non-STEM degree recipients looking to find STEM-related work. And then there's the vast number of STEM degree holders who graduated in previous years or decades.
Even in the computer and IT industry, the sector that employs the most STEM workers and is expected to grow the most over the next 5 to 10 years, not everyone who wants a job can find one. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C., found that more than a third of recent computer science graduates aren't working in their chosen major; of that group, almost a third say the reason is that there are no jobs available.
Spot shortages for certain STEM specialists do crop up. For instance, the recent explosion in data analytics has sparked demand for data scientists in health care and retail. But the H-1B visa and similar immigrant hiring programs are meant to address such shortages. The problem is that students who are contemplating what field to specialize in can't assume such shortages will still exist by the time they emerge from the educational pipeline.
What's perhaps most perplexing about the claim of a STEM worker shortage is that many studies have directly contradicted it, including reports from Duke University, the Rochester Institute of Technology, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the Rand Corp. A 2004 Rand study, for example, stated that there was no evidence "that such shortages have existed at least since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon."
That report argued that the best indicator of a shortfall would be a widespread rise in salaries throughout the STEM community. But the price of labor has not risen, as you would expect it to do if STEM workers were scarce. In computing and IT, wages have generally been stagnant for the past decade, according to the EPI and other analyses. And over the past 30 years, according to the Georgetown report, engineers' and engineering technicians' wages have grown the least of all STEM wages and also more slowly than those in non-STEM fields; while STEM workers as a group have seen wages rise 33 percent and non-STEM workers' wages rose by 23 percent, engineering salaries grew by just 18 percent. The situation is even more grim for those who get a Ph.D. in science, math, or engineering. The Georgetown study states it succinctly: "At the highest levels of educational attainment, STEM wages are not competitive."
Given all of the above, it is difficult to make a case that there has been, is, or will soon be a STEM labor shortage. "If there was really a STEM labor market crisis, you'd be seeing very different behaviors from companies," notes Ron Hira, an associate professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, in New York state. "You wouldn't see companies cutting their retirement contributions, or hiring new workers and giving them worse benefits packages. Instead you would see signing bonuses, you'd see wage increases. You would see these companies really training their incumbent workers."
"None of those things are observable," Hira says. "In fact, they're operating in the opposite way."
So why the persistent anxiety that a STEM crisis exists? Michael S. Teitelbaum, a Wertheim Fellow at Harvard Law School and a senior advisor to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, has studied the phenomenon, and he says that in the United States the anxiety dates back to World War II. Ever since then it has tended to run in cycles that he calls "alarm, boom, and bust." He says the cycle usually starts when "someone or some group sounds the alarm that there is a critical crisis of insufficient numbers of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians" and as a result the country "is in jeopardy of either a national security risk or of falling behind economically." In the 1950s, he notes, Americans worried that the Soviet Union was producing 95 000 scientists and engineers a year while the United States was producing only about 57 000. In the 1980s, it was the perceived Japanese economic juggernaut that was the threat, and now it is China and India.
You'll hear similar arguments made elsewhere. In India, the director general of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Vijay Kumar Saraswat, recently noted that in his country, "a meagre four persons out of every 1000 are choosing S&T or research, as compared to 110 in Japan, 76 in Germany and Israel, 55 in USA, 46 in Korea and 8 in China." Leaders in South Africa and Brazil cite similar statistics to show how they are likewise falling behind in the STEM race.
"The government responds either with money [for research] or, more recently, with visas to increase the number of STEM workers," Teitelbaum says. "This continues for a number of years until the claims of a shortage turn out not to be true and a bust ensues." Students who graduate during the bust, he says, are shocked to discover that "they can't find jobs, or they find jobs but not stable ones."
At the moment, we're in the alarm-heading-toward-boom part of the cycle. According to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government spends more than US $3 billion each year on 209 STEM-related initiatives overseen by 13 federal agencies. That's about $100 for every U.S. student beyond primary school. In addition, major corporations are collectively spending millions to support STEM educational programs. And every U.S. state, along with a host of public and private universities, high schools, middle schools, and even primary schools, has its own STEM initiatives. The result is that many people's fortunes are now tied to the STEM crisis, real or manufactured.
Clearly, powerful forces must be at work to perpetuate the cycle. One is obvious: the bottom line. Companies would rather not pay STEM professionals high salaries with lavish benefits, offer them training on the job, or guarantee them decades of stable employment. So having an oversupply of workers, whether domestically educated or imported, is to their benefit. It gives employers a larger pool from which they can pick the "best and the brightest," and it helps keep wages in check. No less an authority than Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said as much when in 2007 he advocated boosting the number of skilled immigrants entering the United States so as to "suppress" the wages of their U.S. counterparts, which he considered too high.
For more, view the complete results from the latest IEEE Spectrum Forecasters Survey.
Governments also push the STEM myth because an abundance of scientists and engineers is widely viewed as an important engine for innovation and also for national defense. And the perception of a STEM crisis benefits higher education, says Ron Hira, because as "taxpayers subsidize more STEM education, that works in the interest of the universities" by allowing them to expand their enrollments.
An oversupply of STEM workers may also have a beneficial effect on the economy, says Georgetown's Nicole Smith, one of the coauthors of the 2011 STEM study. If STEM graduates can't find traditional STEM jobs, she says, "they will end up in other sectors of the economy and be productive."
The problem with proclaiming a STEM shortage when one doesn't exist is that such claims can actually create a shortage down the road, Teitelbaum says. When previous STEM cycles hit their "bust" phase, up-and-coming students took note and steered clear of those fields, as happened in computer science after the dot-com bubble burst in 2001.
Emphasizing STEM at the expense of other disciplines carries other risks. Without a good grounding in the arts, literature, and history, STEM students narrow their worldview—and their career options. In a 2011 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Norman Augustine, former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, argued that point. "In my position as CEO of a firm employing over 80 000 engineers, I can testify that most were excellent engineers," he wrote. "But the factor that most distinguished those who advanced in the organization was the ability to think broadly and read and write clearly."
A broader view, I and many others would argue, is that everyone needs a solid grounding in science, engineering, and math. In that sense, there is indeed a shortage—a STEM knowledge shortage. To fill that shortage, you don't necessarily need a college or university degree in a STEM discipline, but you do need to learn those subjects, and learn them well, from childhood until you head off to college or get a job. Improving everyone's STEM skills would clearly be good for the workforce and for people's employment prospects, for public policy debates, and for everyday tasks like balancing checkbooks and calculating risks. And, of course, when science, math, and engineering are taught well, they engage students' intellectual curiosity about the world and how it works.
Many children born today are likely to live to be 100 and to have not just one distinct career but two or three by the time they retire at 80. Rather than spending our scarce resources on ending a mythical STEM shortage, we should figure out how to make all children literate in the sciences, technology, and the arts to give them the best foundation to pursue a career and then transition to new ones. And instead of continuing our current global obsession with STEM shortages, industry and government should focus on creating more STEM jobs that are enduring and satisfying as well.
:lol: at the last line.
I said, 'It's certain there is no fine thing
Since Adam's fall but needs much labouring.
OK, but the difference between a STEM degree and a law degree is that you come out of school with a STEM degree and you have at least a few hard skills. You might not even be able to sell those specific skills on the market, but people respect the bundle of skills that degree represents; whereas, to paraphrase someone (Paul Campos perhaps, but I could be wrong), a law degree represents to employers merely a bundle of expectations.
Also, are there any awesome movies about what lawyers make in their garages? That's because we're rotten tertiary sector workers. Without existing clients, we vanish. The engineer controls their environment; the lawyer is dependent upon theirs.
Also also, I never said the economy didn't suck, and I certainly never said structural changes aren't afoot. What I did say was that the only people left standing when the robots come will be the engineers who build and maintain those robots.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/22/barrister-boom-and-bust/
Canada sucks as well.
QuoteDo we really need so many lawyers?
Barrister boom and bust: Legal fees are falling, pay is stagnant and jobs for law grads are harder to come by
by Charlie Gillis on Sunday, September 22, 2013 8:00pm - 0 Comments
Each year, just before Christmas, a cross-section of Toronto's legal establishment gathers for what might be the only truly indispensible event on its calendar. "Beef Night" is as old as the venerable Lawyers Club—est. 1922—and its name has hooves in the literal and figurative worlds. Fuelled by free beer, and by suppressed frustration, members rise during this banquet of prime rib to air "beefs" about the alternative dimension they inhabit. It might be the parsimony of the attorney general of the day. Or it might be the chafing effect of shabbily tailored robes.
The best "beefs" are rewarded with roasts donated by the Loblaws grocery chain, and the worst gets a turkey, but winning is never the point. A few years back, a barbershop quartet of articling students brought down the house with a ditty skewering their puffed-up bosses at a Bay Street firm—most of whom were seated in the room—illustrating the evening's traditional function as a leveller in a rank-obsessed profession. Any beef that runs too long gets gonged out with a cowbell that echoes through the rafters of Osgoode Hall Law School's regal Convocation Hall, whether it's delivered by a junior associate or a Supreme Court justice.
But in recent years, the evening has taken on a different hue, says John McLellan, a past president of the Lawyers Club, one reflecting a profession that feels increasingly under siege. "It's become a good pressure valve," says the commercial lawyer from Mississauga, Ont. "There's a fair bit of commiserating. A lot of these beefs are actually touching on raw nerves." Lighthearted collegiality still prevails, McLellan adds, but it increasingly feels like nostalgia for the days when lawyers felt lucky to do what they do, and an escape from modern reality. "I think there's a form of therapy in laughing at ourselves."
Commiserating? Therapy? What, an average Canadian might ask, could some of the best paid and educated professionals in our midst possibly have to worry about?
A lot, it turns out. Earlier this year, the annual fee and compensation surveys published by Canadian Lawyer magazine confirmed the growing fear that the profession has never truly recovered from the economic downturn of 2008. For the third straight year, median income of a first-year associate actually declined, hitting $66,000, or 13 per cent below the level in 2010. Signs were equally worrisome at the cigar-and-Courvoisier end of the field. Fewer than four in 10 partners surveyed were pulling down more than $250,000 per year, compared to nearly six in 10 in recession-ravaged 2009, while the super-well-off—those pulling down $450,000 or more—were also shrinking in number. They constituted just 12 per cent of partners in 2012, compared to 22.3 per cent in 2009.
These numbers are unlikely to elicit much public sympathy: On the pity hierarchy, lawyers fall somewhere below people who get sick after eating Cronut burgers. But the new indicators are the latest in a slew that have recently cast the legal community into a bout of existential dread. In June, the Canadian Bar Association published a report as part of its ongoing "Legal Futures Initiative" outlining a tempest of social, economic and technological forces shaking up the profession, from do-it-yourself clients to software that performs tasks previously done by lawyers poring over books. South of the border, where many a hotshot Canadian law graduate once found work, law schools are laying off faculty and slashing enrolment—in some cases, by more than half—as young American lawyers struggle to find jobs.
This is all occurring against a backdrop of what the bar association report describes as "potential excess capacity"—a polite term for the potential glut created over the last 13 years, when the professsion grew at five times the rate of the Canadian population. With more than 90,000 lawyers now licensed, it seems a matter of time before the laws of supply and demand take over. Increasingly, the report notes, "economic power has shifted to the consumer and client side, with buyers demanding more say on what lawyers do, how they do it and how much they charge for it." The authors herald an era of opportunity for firms and corporate legal departments to reinvent themselves, noting examples of individuals and firms "who have chosen to lead change, rather than just to react or ignore it." But they carefully skirt the question the metrics might raise to anyone outside the profession: Do we really need all these lawyers?
Maybe we shouldn't complain. The proliferation of lawyers is, after all, a byproduct of good economic fortune. Back in the late 1990s, when the tech bubble was considered mere froth and the housing market was just gathering steam, firms couldn't seem to get enough sharp grads to meet the demand for their services. On Bay Street, mergers and acquisitions drove growth, but the demand for workaday advocates—tax lawyers, real estate specialists—remained strong across the country and, by 2011, according to a Harvard Law School study, Canada had 2.8 licensed lawyers per 1,000 people. That's well below the 3.6 per 1,000 in the U.S., but it's above the ratio in the Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia (not all those lawyers, it should be noted, practise).
By nature, and by necessity, the legal industry has resisted the sort of cost pressures that limit the size of the workforce in other sectors. Martin Felsky, an expert of the use of technology in law who works for Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in Toronto, recalls his astonishment when, as a law student in the 1980s, he saw how much of the sector's business was still done on paper. Part of that was born of legitimate concerns about clients' expectations of privacy and security. But a lot of it stemmed from habit. Lawyers tend to be word people, notes Felsky, and while they embraced practical tools such as cellphones and docketing software, they were slow to implement technology in their bread-and-butter work of research, discovery and document management. "Lawyers work on precedent," he explains. "Turning everything upside down by introducing technology is risky, and they're nothing if not risk-averse."
The result, adds Felsky, is a kind of pent-up demand for efficiency that is only starting to reshape the sector: "We're on the threshold of a very big change." Case in point: the growing use of so-called "e-discovery" services to identify relevant documents in civil and commercial cases. In the old days, at the onset of a major suit, big firms might have dispatched teams of lawyers armed with production orders to prowl the filing cabinets of companies and individuals involved. Today, many of the relevant documents would be held in databases, servers and email inboxes. To get them, firms can hire an outside contractor such as Commonwealth Legal, a Canada-wide company that uses software to crawl servers, hard drives and the web in search of material pertinent to the case.
Second case in point: the rising phenomenon of "offshoring" legal work to low-cost jurisdictions such as India, where well-educated, English-speaking lawyers will perform mundane work, such as drafting standard-form contracts, for about $25 per hour. That's about one-eighth the rate of an associate in this country, and with the ability to transmit documents instantly and securely, it's a wonder more firms and clients don't take advantage of it (it's much more common in the U.S.). The few overseas outsourcing companies working here deny they're taking jobs away from Canadian lawyers. But there's no denying the basic economics: "The cost of living in India is a fraction of what it is in other developed country jurisdictions," Gavin Birer, founder of Legalwise Outsourcing Inc., told National, the house magazine of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) in 2011. With 35 lawyers operating in two offices in Bangalore, Birer's company has landed a number of blue-chip clients, including the consumer-credit reporting agency Equifax, while a growing list of law firms also avail themselves of his service. "If you're not [outsourcing]," he asks, "are you truly giving value to your clients?"
The sanguine spin on this would be to describe it as the natural evolution of a sector that will always be relevant in a thriving democracy. For all their bad press, and for all the lame jokes, lawyers are, in some sense, avatars of civilization and the healthy enterprise that takes place within it. But it's hard not to look upon recent developments as something broader—an end, perhaps, of public deference toward the industry's business model. Not only are corporate clients demanding that firms justify their fees, and asking pointed questions about exactly how they do their work, regular folk are doing all they can to get justice without them. With laws, judgments and rules of procedure now available online, recent studies suggest as many as six out of 10 people in Ontario and B.C. are going it alone in family court, while almost as many are doing so in civil court.
The underlying economics are well-known: Everyone from provincial cabinet ministers to Beverley McLachlin, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, have lamented that average Canadians have been priced out of the market for legal services. (Surveys suggest lawyers with about 10 years of experience charge, on average, just over $300 per hour.) Less understood is the attitudinal shift behind it, including the perception that the justice system is a closed community, set up not to deliver justice but to serve the needs of lawyers. Last winter, that sentiment boiled over in Sarnia, Ont., when a group calling itself Canadians for Family Law Reform protested outside the city's provincial courthouse, claiming lawyers were deliberately stoking animosity between parties in divorces in order to make more money. "I think most people think, at the start of a legal matter, 'Oh I gotta get a lawyer,' " says Jim Canie, one of the protestors. "But if you can keep lawyers out of it, you're better off. It's a close-knit community and no one wants to do anything to change it."
The question now is what the convergence of these changes means to the sector as a whole—whether, in short, lawyers are the next victims of the brave new digital world (behind travel agents and print journalists). So are lawyers doing things they don't need to be doing? If so, could we do with fewer of them?
Fred Headon pauses a long time at the question. The newly elected president of the CBA has just finished painting an image of the law firm of the future, working from an unexpected model. "When I visit the dentist," he says, "I've dealt, before I leave, with two or three people other than the dentist, each of whom is trained when to bring in the professional when need be." Paralegals, mediators and e-discovery specialists could work together in the same way, says Headon, thus lowering client costs and speeding up the process. But that doesn't mean the profession is about to take a haircut, he stresses. "People's lives continue to get more complex. There will always be new and unforeseen ways that questions of fairness will arise. For that reason, there will always be a good demand for lawyers."
Maybe, but pressure on the profession is steadily rising. A survey of 179 firms by Canadian Lawyer pegged the average price this year of a two-day civil action (not including trial) at $18,420, down from $24,318 in 2011, while clients appear to be getting fussy about the quality of service they receive. Lawyers with one year of experience are able to charge only 75 per cent of what a lawyer with five years of experience charges, compared to 81 per cent last year. And, once again, law graduates are having trouble finding work: Some 15 per cent in Ontario were unable to land articling positions coming out of university this year, while, anecdotally, a growing number of those who've been called to the bar say they're settling for non-permanent positions.
These harbingers are commonly chalked up to the sluggish economy, with the assumption that new ways of doing business will right the ship. A report produced through the CBA Futures Initiative cites 14 innovative approaches, including a Montreal-based firm that farms out lawyers to serve as in-house counsel on a temporary basis, as well as a U.K.-based outfit that has dispensed with billable hours, providing legal services instead for flat fees (starting price of a divorce: $1,600).
Some commentators, however, warn against the focus on the bottom line, saying the response will further erode public faith in lawyers and the justice system. Philip Slayton is a retired lawyer and academic whose 2007 book Lawyers Gone Bad turned the profession on its ear by exposing cronyism and unethical practices widespread in the early 2000s (it was famously—or infamously—excerpted in Maclean's under the cover line "Lawyers are rats"). The profession today is "changing itself in a way that is not to its advantage," Slayton says, adding, "There used to be a sense among lawyers that there was more to the job than making money. You were part of the justice system in a democratic society. You had obligations to that society as a whole. Now, it's increasingly come to be regarded by those in it as a business, like any other business. The emphasis is on profits and the bottom line."
Whether that's a bad thing is debatable. These days, clients seem more interested in lawyers they can afford than ones with a sense of noblesse oblige. And let's face it: Some traditions are best consigned to history. Consider the standard-issue black satchels in which lawyers and judges carry their court robes. Legend has it they started in the 19th century as cash bags that barristers would thrust toward their clients to avoid the unseemly spectacle of taking money from the great unwashed. Hard to imagine today's lawyers having any such qualms. But if they did, they'd best get over them quick. Some enterprising soul—inside or outside the profession—might sweep in to steal their business. That's one lament no one wants to hear about on Beef Night.
LOL, "avatar of civilization."
Anyway, the most salient thing seems to be the nearly sixth part of Canadian LL.B.s who don't have articling positions, and the increasing penetration of just-in-time lawyering into the American Tundra.
Also, if you're paying $25 an hour for offshore lawyers, you're paying too much. You could get Americans with actual legal educations to do that for $20--or less.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 01:13:03 AM
Also, are there any awesome movies about what lawyers make in their garages? That's because we're rotten tertiary sector workers. Without existing clients, we vanish. The engineer controls their environment; the lawyer is dependent upon theirs.
In lawyer movies lawyers get to right society's ills. :bowler:
Quote from: Savonarola on October 02, 2013, 12:50:56 PM
In lawyer movies lawyers get to right society's ills. :bowler:
Lawyers care about, or at least work in, the tail ends of outcome distributions. They save individuals, not entire societies.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 01:13:03 AM
OK, but the difference between a STEM degree and a law degree is that you come out of school with a STEM degree and you have at least a few hard skills. You might not even be able to sell those specific skills on the market, but people respect the bundle of skills that degree represents; whereas, to paraphrase someone (Paul Campos perhaps, but I could be wrong), a law degree represents to employers merely a bundle of expectations.
An undergraduate degree in engineering will give one an understanding of the fundamentals of the math and science behind technology. There are some ancillary skills needed, computer programming and introduction to some software packages used in industry.
How is a law degree different? As I understand it you study the fundamentals of jurisprudence and gain some ancillary skills (knowledge of legalese and the ability to write in it.) Even if you didn't become a practicing lawyer, wouldn't this skill set help you in your career?
Possibly. Sometimes I do wonder if the degree to which I denigrate liberal arts diplomas and JDs is my internalization of the degree to which the economy seems to denigrate them. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 01:05:57 PMPossibly. Sometimes I do wonder if the degree to which I denigrate liberal arts diplomas and JDs is my internalization of the degree to which the economy seems to denigrate them. :(
It's probably about 60% of the reason, with the remaining 40% being you internalizing the way other people denigrate them. You're a sensitive young man :console:
No, I think there is an objective component. Clearly being able to do calculus and being able to read are two very different skills, and one is rarer and more valuable than the other.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 01:35:02 PM
No, I think there is an objective component. Clearly being able to do calculus and being able to read are two very different skills, and one is rarer and more valuable than the other.
The point of a liberal arts education is not "to read"; it is to construct and clearly articulate an argument, to do so on a solid foundation of research and inquiry, and to cogently evaluate the arguments of others.
OK, "read and write." But, ironically, that doesn't address the crux of my argument, which is that STEM degrees represent, on average, a more valuable potential employee due to the involved skills being rarer and more difficult to develop.
Especially since dumber students gravitate to the humanities due to their ease, but that is, I concede, a somewhat unrelated issue.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 01:47:48 PMOK, "read and write." But, ironically, that doesn't address the crux of my argument, which is that STEM degrees represent, on average, a more valuable potential employee due to the involved skills being rarer and more difficult to develop.
I think you are making broad sweeping generalizations to support your argument, which doesn't reflect well on the quality of your liberal arts education.
QuoteEspecially since dumber students gravitate to the humanities due to their ease, but that is, I concede, a somewhat unrelated issue.
If the liberal arts are taught badly and the qualifications are too easy to get, that reflects on how they are taught and how the qualifications are obtained, not on the value of liberal arts themselves. The same holds true for the STEM fields, by the way.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 02:11:19 PM
I think you are making broad sweeping generalizations to support your argument, which doesn't reflect well on the quality of your liberal arts education.
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 01:05:57 PM
Possibly. Sometimes I do wonder if the degree to which I denigrate liberal arts diplomas and JDs is my internalization of the degree to which the economy seems to denigrate them. :(
That depends on where you are standing.
In my family of three brothers, one (me) went into law as you know, one into engineering (specifically, materials science engineering) and one into physics; and of the three, the economy has rewarded me the most if measured purely financially, even though I personally would concede that my brother the physicist is the guy with the most education and most difficult to master field, and my brother the engineer is doing stuff that is the most obviously useful to humanity (that is, studying how to make stronger metals).
Indeed. And people like you--i.e., successful lawyers--is why there's a glut in the field. It involves comparatively less rigorous education, but--until recently--it was believed to provide rewards out of proportion to that education.
Now the reality has come to light that ever since the 1990s JDs have become increasingly devalued (at the same time they became more expensive, thanks to Grad PLUS loans), and that the top flight rewards you represent have perhaps always been an anomaly, and are certainly not the norm today.
But anyway, at least both of us help pharmaceutical companies defend themselves from the slings and arrows of predatory plaintiff's attorneys. :)
Although for my part I more just take their money because courts force them to, than I "help" them, I guess. -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 02:34:58 PM
Indeed. And people like you--i.e., successful lawyers--is why there's a glut in the field. It involves comparatively less rigorous education, but--until recently--it was believed to provide rewards out of proportion to that education.
Now the reality has come to light that ever since the 1990s JDs have become increasingly devalued (at the same time they became more expensive, thanks to Grad PLUS loans), and that the top flight rewards you represent have perhaps always been an anomaly, and are certainly not the norm today.
But anyway, at least both of us help pharmaceutical companies defend themselves from the slings and arrows of predatory plaintiff's attorneys. :)
Although for my part I more just take their money because courts force them to, than I "help" them, I guess. -_-
Way it is controlled in Canada, or at least was until recently, is that you needed to get into a good law school (which was very competitive) and you needed to get a good articling position (also very competitive) to get a shot at the big money jobs. That has always been true. So it wasn't like you could just get any old legal education and earn the big bucks - unless you were entreprenurial and could develop your own practice. But hey, entrepreneurs can earn the big rewards without any formal education.
The notion that one could drift into an easy law degree and be rewarded with big money was always a myth.
I doubt it works that way with STEM education, either.
Starting salaries for lawyers who get jobs in law firms are still very strong in Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/financial-road-map/advmanulife/advmanulifearchives/top-20-starting-salaries/article4505934/
Fact is, though, that those jobs have never been universally available.
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2013, 02:46:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 02:34:58 PM
Indeed. And people like you--i.e., successful lawyers--is why there's a glut in the field. It involves comparatively less rigorous education, but--until recently--it was believed to provide rewards out of proportion to that education.
Now the reality has come to light that ever since the 1990s JDs have become increasingly devalued (at the same time they became more expensive, thanks to Grad PLUS loans), and that the top flight rewards you represent have perhaps always been an anomaly, and are certainly not the norm today.
But anyway, at least both of us help pharmaceutical companies defend themselves from the slings and arrows of predatory plaintiff's attorneys. :)
Although for my part I more just take their money because courts force them to, than I "help" them, I guess. -_-
Way it is controlled in Canada, or at least was until recently, is that you needed to get into a good law school (which was very competitive) and you needed to get a good articling position (also very competitive) to get a shot at the big money jobs. That has always been true. So it wasn't like you could just get any old legal education and earn the big bucks - unless you were entreprenurial and could develop your own practice. But hey, entrepreneurs can earn the big rewards without any formal education.
The notion that one could drift into an easy law degree and be rewarded with big money was always a myth.
I doubt it works that way with STEM education, either.
Starting salaries for lawyers who get jobs in law firms are still very strong in Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/financial-road-map/advmanulife/advmanulifearchives/top-20-starting-salaries/article4505934/
Fact is, though, that those jobs have never been universally available.
They're all good law schools in Canada.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 02:11:19 PM
If the liberal arts are taught badly and the qualifications are too easy to get, that reflects on how they are taught and how the qualifications are obtained, not on the value of liberal arts themselves. The same holds true for the STEM fields, by the way.
We have the liberal arts and STEM educations we have, not the ones we wish we had. You could do liberal arts seriously and they could be great, but that's not gonna happen.
No way the average first year salary of a mobile apps developer (#7 on the list) is $72K/year in this country.
Maybe if they have plenty of experience as developers of things other than mobile apps, and then switch over to mobile apps and for the purpose of the survey are still counted as "first year". Maybe.
I'm pretty sceptical about their numbers for #6 (web dev/UI designer). I'd expect to be paying a fresh grad something like $35-40K year; maybe as high as $50K if he or she had amazing credentials and lots of offers. Not $80K; no way.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 01:38:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 01:35:02 PM
No, I think there is an objective component. Clearly being able to do calculus and being able to read are two very different skills, and one is rarer and more valuable than the other.
The point of a liberal arts education is not "to read"; it is to construct and clearly articulate an argument, to do so on a solid foundation of research and inquiry, and to cogently evaluate the arguments of others.
That's not very valuable either. Why would you ever want to clearly articulate anything?
BTW: My heart doesn't bleed for lawyer scum.
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2013, 02:58:25 PM
BTW: My heart doesn't bleed for lawyer scum.
Just for that I'm not picking up your cheque tonight. <_<
Quote from: The Brain on October 02, 2013, 02:50:50 PM
You could do liberal arts seriously and they could be great, but that's not gonna happen.
It happens all the time. Just depends on the institution.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2013, 02:48:33 PM
They're all good law schools in Canada.
[Makes obvious comment about U of M] :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 02, 2013, 03:00:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 02, 2013, 02:50:50 PM
You could do liberal arts seriously and they could be great, but that's not gonna happen.
It happens all the time.
Nah.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2013, 02:59:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2013, 02:58:25 PM
BTW: My heart doesn't bleed for lawyer scum.
Just for that I'm not picking up your cheque tonight. <_<
:lol:
It's OK. I have: Money.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 02:53:18 PM
No way the average first year salary of a mobile apps developer (#7 on the list) is $72K/year in this country.
Maybe if they have plenty of experience as developers of things other than mobile apps, and then switch over to mobile apps and for the purpose of the survey are still counted as "first year". Maybe.
I'm pretty sceptical about their numbers for #6 (web dev/UI designer). I'd expect to be paying a fresh grad something like $35-40K year; maybe as high as $50K if he or she had amazing credentials and lots of offers. Not $80K; no way.
Come to think about it, you are right - those are way high.
That's what I get for posting the flawed work product of that reviled profession - journalism. :P
Student debt defaults soar
Recent college students are defaulting on federal loans at the highest rate in nearly two decades, reflecting "crisis" levels of student debt and a lackluster economy that leaves graduates with bleak employment prospects.
One in ten (10%) recent borrowers defaulted on their federal student loans within the first two years, the highest default rate since 1995, according to annual figures made public Monday by the Department of Education.
A separate gauge, measuring defaults occurring within the first three years of required payments, showed that more than one in seven (14.7%) borrowers with federal student loans went into default, an event that can trigger invasive debt-collection methods that include fees, wage garnishments, and withheld IRS tax refunds.
"The growing number of students who have defaulted on their federal student loans is troubling," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said. Duncan said the department will work to "ensure that student debt is affordable."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/student-loans-default_n_4019806.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1382014%2Fthumbs%2Fn-ARNEDUNCAN-large570.jpg%3F6&hash=9433a0128e6e2dbac74341df7b4dc19a4e7b490f)
Quote from: Phillip V on October 02, 2013, 07:34:40 PM
Duncan said the department will work to "ensure that student debt is affordable."
How, exactly?
By rolling up their sleeves and getting to it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 07:57:51 PM
By rolling up their sleeves and getting to it.
The Department of Education. :rolleyes:
He said they were going to work on it. He didn't promise it would get done.
What would you say in his position?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 08:03:34 PM
He said they were going to work on it. He didn't promise it would get done.
What would you say in his position?
I would say "My department is a useless and unconstitutional organization that should be dismantled, and here's my resignation letter." :)
That's certainly a different tack.
It seems unlikely that I would ever find myself to be in Arne Duncan's shoes with that attitude. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2013, 08:10:41 PM
It seems unlikely that I would ever find myself to be in Arne Duncan's shoes with that attitude. :hmm:
Hide your attitude until you get the office.
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2013, 08:10:41 PM
It seems unlikely that I would ever find myself to be in Arne Duncan's shoes with that attitude. :hmm:
Or that face.
I don't understand how you can default with IBR. It makes no sense. Are people taking out that many private loans still?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 03, 2013, 03:19:21 AM
I don't understand how you can default with IBR. It makes no sense. Are people taking out that many private loans still?
You can default by never contacting Student Loans to ask and never making a payment.
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2013, 08:08:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2013, 08:03:34 PM
He said they were going to work on it. He didn't promise it would get done.
What would you say in his position?
I would say "My department is a useless and unconstitutional organization that should be dismantled, and here's my resignation letter." :)
I didnt realize Cal was one of those.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXpwAOHJsxg
"Is a college worth the cost? You decide." Some dude named Peter Schiff walks around NO and asks service industry losers whether they went to college, and if so what their degree is in. Since he's neither Adam Schiff nor a panzerschiffe, I don't know who that is, but apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff) he's some talk radio dude who was also a somewhat distinguished capitalist. In any event, I was incredibly dismayed because some of my assumptions were challenged, because at least two people answered "mechanical engineering" and one said "robotics." My God. :(
See 2:10 for the most beautiful woman in the world. :wub:
She's cute.
Haircut: yes. Glasses: yes. Thin: yes. Hates liberal arts: YES.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2013, 07:23:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXpwAOHJsxg
See 2:10 for the most beautiful woman in the world. :wub:
She's...okay. I'm confident she likes it in the butt however.
At the end of the video there was a chick with nice cans. :)
Big tits. :yucky:
Quote from: Caliga on October 04, 2013, 07:36:01 PM
At the end of the video there was a chick with nice cans. :)
We can all like different things. That's what makes America tolerable. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2013, 07:39:43 PM
Big tits. :yucky:
theyre normal big, unlike cals usual grotesque big.
Also, anyone see the chick shaking her ass in the background of the interview with cals crush? :lol:
Big tits chick was cuter, and her tits much more reasonable, than I expected.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2013, 07:23:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXpwAOHJsxg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXpwAOHJsxg)
"Is a college worth the cost? You decide." Some dude named Peter Schiff walks around NO and asks service industry losers whether they went to college, and if so what their degree is in. Since he's neither Adam Schiff nor a panzerschiffe, I don't know who that is, but apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff) he's some talk radio dude who was also a somewhat distinguished capitalist. In any event, I was incredibly dismayed because some of my assumptions were challenged, because at least two people answered "mechanical engineering" and one said "robotics." My God. :(
See 2:10 for the most beautiful woman in the world. :wub:
He's Senator or something. His dad is a criminal.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2013, 07:23:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXpwAOHJsxg
"Is a college worth the cost? You decide." Some dude named Peter Schiff walks around NO and asks service industry losers whether they went to college, and if so what their degree is in. Since he's neither Adam Schiff nor a panzerschiffe, I don't know who that is, but apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff) he's some talk radio dude who was also a somewhat distinguished capitalist. In any event, I was incredibly dismayed because some of my assumptions were challenged, because at least two people answered "mechanical engineering" and one said "robotics." My God. :(
See 2:10 for the most beautiful woman in the world. :wub:
Conservatives really love that "you decide" punch line. "Please listen to a completely distorted set of facts and reasoning, and then decide."
Or you an have a mannish lesbian lecture you for 60 minutes. You decide.
Or in Chris Hayes place, just a lesbian.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 04, 2013, 07:23:26 PM
In any event, I was incredibly dismayed because some of my assumptions were challenged, because at least two people answered "mechanical engineering" and one said "robotics." My God. :(
I posted an article from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which demonstrated that there are more STEM degrees awarded than STEM jobs and you need a puff piece from a talk show host to challenge your beliefs. Honestly. :rolleyes:
No, what that told me was that STEM people weren't getting STEM jobs. It did not tell me the non-STEM jobs they were getting were "bouncer at a strip club" and "rickshaw driver." I assumed they were taking my jobs, i.e. non-quantitative white collar work, because they were smarter, and the economic downfall of America had just kicked us both down the hierarchy; I did not assume it had reduced us all to serfs. Maybe I feel better now? Hard to say.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2013, 01:58:23 PM
No, what that told me was that STEM people weren't getting STEM jobs. It did not tell me the non-STEM jobs they were getting were "bouncer at a strip club" and "rickshaw driver." I assumed they were taking my jobs, i.e. non-quantitative white collar work, because they were smarter, and the economic downfall of America had just kicked us both down the hierarchy; I did not assume it had reduced us all to serfs. Maybe I feel better now? Hard to say.
A poor economy is a great leveler. :bowler:
I graduated during a weak economy. I worked as a grocery store clerk for six months before my first (temp) engineering job. One of my colleagues waited tables for three years before her first engineering job. She's a director now.
Engineering is a great field, and I enjoy my job, but I wouldn't recommend majoring in it for the sole reason of having a better chance at an office job. It's no guarantee of that.
On the other hand, it is guaranteed that you will be working with loveable misfits.
Will Perez's life story be a Horatio Alger tale, or a Greek Tragedy?
YOU DECIDE!QuoteTroubled past casts cloud over powerful college CEO
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.miamiherald.com%2Fsmedia%2F2013%2F10%2F26%2F21%2F41%2FX9FHh.Em.56.jpeg&hash=e4a51ee0886f42d2174c7dd6463ade4bdfe873bd)
The Dade Medical College campus in Homestead, Fla.
By Michael Vasquez
[email protected]
On the surface at least, Ernesto Perez seemed to be a most remarkable South Florida success story.
Perez grew up in Little Havana from a Cuban-American family of modest means. He dropped out of Coral Gables Senior High in the 10th grade, eager to chase a career as a heavy metal musician.
Though he never achieved rock 'n' roll fame, Perez struck gold as an educational entrepreneur. He founded Dade Medical College in 1999, and in the lucrative world of for-profit colleges, Perez's own lack of education wasn't an obstacle. The college grew quickly to include multiple campuses, and the now-wealthy Perez became politically active and influential.
But Perez, 45, resigned as president/CEO last Tuesday, hoping to distance the school from a slew of recent problems. He faces criminal charges, lingering ethical questions about his political activities, and a backlash from angry students who describe his school as a rip-off. He remains the company's majority owner.
Among the issues dogging Perez and his college:
• Early this year, two of Dade Medical's nursing programs — Miami and Hollywood —were placed on state probation because graduating students have such a poor record of passing their required licensing exam.
• In August, Homestead Mayor Steve Bateman was arrested on corruption charges. The charges did not involve Perez, but the arrest highlighted Perez's unusually close ties to Bateman. Perez hired the mayor's wife as his real estate broker, and he did so at the same time that he was trying to push through a controversial land deal with the city. The transaction, which is still pending, would sell a cluster of downtown Homestead properties to Dade Medical at a huge discount — Perez would pay less than 40 cents on the dollar. The Miami-Dade state attorney's office is scrutinizing Perez's ties to the now-former mayor.
• On Oct. 1, a group of students had their lawyer send a letter to the college — blasting the school as an "improper scheme" that overcharges students while delivering a lousy education. The letter implied that a lawsuit might be filed.
• A week ago, Perez turned himself in to face criminal charges stemming from his repeated failure to disclose his prior arrests. Authorities say Perez twice lied and said he had no criminal record when filling out paperwork to be appointed to Florida's Commission on Independent Education — an oversight body that monitors for-profit schools. Prosecutors say Perez did the same thing (checking the "no" box under criminal history) when he applied to have his second arrest — a 2002 aggravated battery charge — expunged. Perez should have disclosed to the court that he'd been convicted previously for a sex crime involving a minor. He now faces two counts of perjury, a misdemeanor, and one count of providing false information through a sworn statement, which is a third-degree felony.
In previous interviews, Perez has said he took a "nontraditional path" to achieve the title of corporate CEO.
Instead of attending college, Perez spent his early 20s touring the country with his rock band, the Young Turks. After a 1990 performance in a bar near Neenah, Wis., the band members and some fans headed back together to a local motel. One fan was a 15-year-old girl, identified in court records as Jennifer V., who later said she was sexually assaulted by Perez and at least two other band members.
Perez was accused of exposing himself to the teen, and asking her to perform oral sex. When she refused, court records say Perez lashed her buttocks with his belt — repeatedly.
He was sentenced to six months in jail, a punishment he appealed. In denying the appeal, a Wisconsin panel of judges cited Perez's decision to strike the girl with a belt, which the court found to be a "debasing and degrading invasion of Jennifer's person."
Perez ran afoul of the law again in 2002 — about two and a half years after he started Dade Medical College.
Concert melee
Perez was performing with a band on the Hard Rock Cafe stage in Miami's Bayside Marketplace. When a man in the crowd got up close for a better view, Perez apparently felt smothered, according to a police report from that day.
"What the f---?" Perez allegedly barked at Richard Halpern of North Miami, while getting in his face. "Do you want to finish singing this song for me or what?"
Halpern told police he responded "no," but Perez, after resuming his performance, continued to mock him from on stage. Halpern said he called Perez a "maggot" and headed for the door.
"He ran swinging his guitar and smashed me in the head from behind," Halpern said in his written statement to police. "I grabbed my head in pain and saw the blood."
Halpern said Perez smacked him with the guitar again, and from there, a melee ensued. Halpern told police he was "bum rushed" by other band members and even some in the crowd. He was suddenly at the bottom of a human pile, absorbing punches and kicks. When he finally broke free, Halpern said he "was being choked from behind" by the band's conga player.
Perez avoided jail through a pre-trial diversion program, and he later got the arrest expunged. But because he lied about his past on the expungement forms — leaving out the prior Wisconsin incident — that expungement is now invalidated. As a result, the details of the Miami arrest were made public.
Man of influence
The political links to Dade Medical are widespread. Close to a dozen local elected officials have either taken jobs at the college or benefited from Perez in some other way. Many more have accepted campaign contributions.
At the height of his influence, Perez was important enough to command a sit-down meeting with Gov. Rick Scott. In December, Perez chartered a private jet to fly to Tallahassee for a talk with the governor. Joining Perez on the flight were state Rep. Eduardo "Eddy" Gonzalez, R-Hialeah, and then-Homestead Mayor Bateman.
Florida ethics laws prohibit politicians from accepting gifts valued at more than $100 from lobbyists. A limousine ferried the group once they landed.
Both Gonzalez and Bateman did not return calls seeking comment.
Jonathan Janeiro, Dade Medical's general counsel and new co-CEO, was also on that plane. Janeiro, who is a former aide to state Rep Erik Fresen, R-Miami, said questions about possible ethics violations would be "inappropriate" to comment about.
"I got on a plane and I flew to Tallahassee," he said.
Most of Dade Medical's growth has been fueled by taxpayers. According to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly 87 percent of the company's revenues come from taxpayer-funded federal financial aid such as Pell grants and student loans. For the 2011-12 academic year, Dade Medical received nearly $33 million in federal dollars.
In addition to employing politicians, Perez has been a big political donor. He has contributed at least $170,000 to various local, state, and national races — including writing checks to multiple candidates in the same race, according to campaign finance records.
At local city halls and in the power corridors of Tallahassee, Perez received the star treatment. Fresen, the Miami lawmaker, personally introduced him to Homestead city officials — even though Fresen's district doesn't include Homestead. The town of Miami Lakes granted a zoning approval for a new campus, and a month later Perez hired then-Miami Lakes Councilman Nelson Hernandez as a "financial analyst."
On Nov. 13, 2012, Miami-Dade County leaders issued a proclamation declaring it "Dade Medical College Day."
A month later, County Commissioner Esteban "Steve" Bovo received word back from the county's ethics commission that it was OK for him to take an $18,000 contract with Dade Medical to assist them with state and federal "legislative strategies" for six months. Bovo had asked for and received the blessing of the county's ethics attorneys with the stipulation that he not act as a lobbyist himself and avoid Miami-Dade County issues.
In light of Perez's recent arrest, the fate of pending projects in Coral Gables and Homestead are now uncertain. Perez had pitched the expansion of his Homestead campus as the revitalization engine that would finally breathe life into the city's forlorn downtown. But the city would have to sell land to Dade Medical at a deep discount.
Former Homestead Councilman Steve Losner said it's time to reject that sales pitch, lest his city become forever identified with a "shady for-profit college."
"Maybe Homestead needs to see the writing on the wall," Losner said. "This may be a house of cards that's about to fall in."
Perez ran into unexpected resistance to his plans in Coral Gables. He had bought a Jacksonville school, Southern Career College, and renamed it the University of Southernmost Florida. Perez wanted to establish a campus in Coral Gables, but the city staff rejected the plan because he lacked the required number of parking spaces. Frustrated, he lashed out at a City Commission meeting last month.
"Now some of you know me personally," Perez began. "I'm involved in the process in and around the great state of Florida. Some of you up here I've supported. Some of you up here I've supported and now I find myself, I wonder why I supported you and stood up for you at the time."
In Perez's current criminal case, the former CEO considered hiring the law firm of state Rep. Carlos Trujillo, R-Miami. Though Perez ultimately decided against it, Trujillo has represented Dade Medical in previous non-criminal cases.
At the same time, Trujillo championed legislation favorable to Dade Medical. The state representative denies any conflict of interest — arguing that other colleges will benefit as well.
Earlier this year, Trujillo engineered a new state law that gutted the regulatory oversight of physical therapy assistant programs. Dade Medical offers a $35,050 physical therapy assistant associate degree.
Under the law change, which Trujillo achieved by tacking on a last-minute amendment to an unrelated bill, for-profit colleges such as Dade Medical will no longer have to get their programs accredited by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education, or CAPTE. For decades, CAPTE has been the gold standard of quality in the industry. Until Florida changed the rules, CAPTE was the only accreditor in this field, and it is recognized in all 50 states.
But CAPTE has a go-slow philosophy when it comes to approving programs, so under the old rules Dade Medical would have to start off with one campus, and then wait months (or even years) to add a second location.
Thanks to Trujillo's law, Dade Medical doesn't have to wait at all. The school now offers physical therapy assistant programs at five different campuses.
But while Dade Medical could profit handsomely under less regulation, others worry that students will be on the losing end. It's unclear if those who graduate from a non-CAPTE program will be able to sit for their licensing exam. And even if they do, their degrees won't meet federal requirements. That means graduates won't be able to bill for Medicare services, which may seriously impair their ability to land a job.
Tad Fisher, the head of the Florida Physical Therapy Association, said students could end up spending tens of thousands on a degree that "may not be worth anything."
Fisher was also troubled by the 11th-hour passage of Trujillo's bill.
"That doesn't happen by accident," Fisher said. "Somebody's involved. There's a special interest out there."
Trujillo insisted his legislation was a good thing, and he blasted accrediting agencies as "almost monopolies" that slow down the pipeline of graduating healthcare professionals.
Asked about graduates not being able to bill Medicare, he responded, "I'm not sure about the federal requirements. That's something that I would have to look into."
Beyond his legal and public relations problems, Perez also faces the wrath of his own students.
Some complain that the college's high-priced degree programs are of questionable quality. They say classes are taught by unqualified faculty; recruiters promise certain training equipment that never gets provided; and that administrators care only about extracting money from students, even if it means tacking on unjustified charges or arbitrarily changing graduation requirements.
Saddled with debt
The vast majority of Dade Medical students must borrow to afford the high tuition, which is dramatically higher than Miami Dade College and Florida International University. About a quarter of students default on their loans after three years. That default rate is considerably higher than the 15 percent national average among all colleges and is higher than the 22 percent default rate among similar for-profit colleges.
Former Dade Medical nursing student Lourd Valcourt said the teachers at the Hollywood campus were poorly trained and ineffective — often they would simply read from a textbook or PowerPoint presentation
"We were like self-taught, basically," said Valcourt, who graduated from her program but advises others to stay far away from the school.
"The students are being exploited, and saddled with unnecessary debt," she said.
But Hialeah state Sen. Rene Garcia, who earns nearly $115,000 as Dade Medical's vice president of external affairs, said the school's ever-increasing enrollment is proof that students are getting a solid education. The college now serves more than 2,000 students on six campuses stretching from Homestead to Jacksonville.
"You have to have quality to grow," Garcia said. "You have to."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/26/v-fullstory/3713875/troubled-past-casts-cloud-over.html#storylink=cpy
I decided when I read "college CEO."
Of course, I was right. Prejudice is a valuable tool in the intellectual arsenal, saving time and effort, and no group of people in modern America save perhaps the Tea Party can you determine the character of an individual by their group affiliation as in the case of for-profit college administrators.
Their worst sin, however, is to obscure the economic crimes of their non-profit brethren, who can point to the excesses and even more egregious frauds of for-profit schools and say, "At least our default rates aren't as hilariously high, and we didn't sexually assault anybody when we were in our rock band."
QuotePerez was accused of exposing himself to the teen, and asking her to perform oral sex. When she refused, court records say Perez lashed her buttocks with his belt — repeatedly.
And you know, there is a way to write this sentence so it doesn't sound like a breathy line from an early Woody Allen movie.
Credits unlikely to transfer.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 29, 2013, 04:33:00 PM
QuotePerez was accused of exposing himself to the teen, and asking her to perform oral sex. When she refused, court records say Perez lashed her buttocks with his belt — repeatedly.
And you know, there is a way to write this sentence so it doesn't sound like a breathy line from an early Woody Allen movie.
:lol:
Yes, but where is the fun in that?
Here is an interesting perspective from a Globe and Mail opinion piece - Canadian university students dont have it as bad as they think they do. In fact they have it better than ever.
The bad news is that American students probably do have it as bad as they think they do.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/student-debt-crisis-twas-ever-thus/article15166915/
QuoteStudent debt in Canada is crushing – at least, that's what we're led to believe.
Soaring tuition fees and an iffy job market mean that many graduates will be paying off their student loans for years to come, we're told. Today's graduates say they're delaying major life milestones (marriage, house, family) in order to pay back their debts. As one news story put it: "With ever-increasing tuition fees ... some students are starting to question whether a degree is an affordable option."
I'm not unsympathetic. My niece will graduate next spring with a five-figure loan and no prospect of a teaching job this side of Nunavut. But the notion that this generation is uniquely disadvantaged simply isn't true. The real problem isn't student debt. It's student expectation – the idea that a young person should be rewarded with a fulfilling, well-paying job and a middle-class lifestyle as soon as they hit the job market.
It doesn't work that way and never did, even for those irritating boomers.
I graduated debt-free, thanks to low tuition, scholarships, family help and my incredible waitressing skills. But it was a long time before I stopped living like a student. My first job paid $5,000 a year (the equivalent of about $28,000 today). I was hired to alphabetize the backlist catalogue for a publishing company. (This was well before the computer age, needless to say.) With my English lit MA and extensive knowledge of Jacobean theatre, I was seriously underemployed. But after six or seven jobs in six or seven years, I was finally able to move out of my rented attic and ditch my futon bed.
"Student debt appears crushing to a lot of people in the first two years after they graduate," says Alex Usher, who is president of Higher Education Strategy Associates and an expert in student financial aid. "But after two years, they're making pretty good money."
Mr. Usher is a mythbuster on the subject of student debt. Here are some facts: Student debt hasn't grown in the past few years – it's held steady. The average debt for students graduating from four-year programs who have borrowed money is around $25,000. And because of interest rates, the average payments on that debt – about $276 a month – are lower than ever.
But the real news is affordability. Contrary to popular belief, tuition fees aren't soaring. When you factor in tax credits and rebates, net tuition as a percentage of family income has increased by just 3 per cent (in real terms) over the past decade. Compared to the United States, where tuition really has gone through the roof, Canadians get an incredible deal. On top of that, there's no evidence that rising fees affect access. Ontario's tuition fees are higher than Quebec's, but Ontario has higher graduation rates – especially among people from lower-income backgrounds.
"It's not that I want to minimize the problems," Mr. Usher says, "but people who want to maximize the problems don't acknowledge how much [public] money is going into this."
It's true that the job market is far more competitive than it used to be. But the main reason is that there are lot more graduates than there used to be. When we talk about the boomers, maybe we should remember how few of them went to university. As for the income premium, it's still real. It's just smaller than it used to be.
In Canada, Mr. Usher notes, the fact that graduates might have to postpone buying stuff is taken as evidence that student loan debt is out of control. But in other cultures, it's taken as a given. In Asia, university graduates are expected to repay their student loans in four to six years. Many of them have to fork over a quarter to a third of their incomes and live at home. But no one thinks they're deprived. The attitude is: Pay it off fast and move on.
As for the privileged folks who allegedly came before them, the idea that people ever achieved secure and stable lives with ease is largely a myth. My grandparents weathered the Depression. My folks lived with them until having their third child. My dad had health problems in middle age and lost his business. That's life. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that most of today's up-to-their-necks-in-debt graduates will be fine.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 09:55:08 AM
Here is an interesting perspective from a Globe and Mail opinion piece - Canadian university students dont have it as bad as they think they do. In fact they have it better than ever.
The bad news is that American students probably do have it as bad as they think they do.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/student-debt-crisis-twas-ever-thus/article15166915/
QuoteStudent debt in Canada is crushing – at least, that's what we're led to believe.
Soaring tuition fees and an iffy job market mean that many graduates will be paying off their student loans for years to come, we're told. Today's graduates say they're delaying major life milestones (marriage, house, family) in order to pay back their debts. As one news story put it: "With ever-increasing tuition fees ... some students are starting to question whether a degree is an affordable option."
I'm not unsympathetic. My niece will graduate next spring with a five-figure loan and no prospect of a teaching job this side of Nunavut. But the notion that this generation is uniquely disadvantaged simply isn't true. The real problem isn't student debt. It's student expectation – the idea that a young person should be rewarded with a fulfilling, well-paying job and a middle-class lifestyle as soon as they hit the job market.
It doesn't work that way and never did, even for those irritating boomers.
I graduated debt-free, thanks to low tuition, scholarships, family help and my incredible waitressing skills. But it was a long time before I stopped living like a student. My first job paid $5,000 a year (the equivalent of about $28,000 today). I was hired to alphabetize the backlist catalogue for a publishing company. (This was well before the computer age, needless to say.) With my English lit MA and extensive knowledge of Jacobean theatre, I was seriously underemployed. But after six or seven jobs in six or seven years, I was finally able to move out of my rented attic and ditch my futon bed.
"Student debt appears crushing to a lot of people in the first two years after they graduate," says Alex Usher, who is president of Higher Education Strategy Associates and an expert in student financial aid. "But after two years, they're making pretty good money."
Mr. Usher is a mythbuster on the subject of student debt. Here are some facts: Student debt hasn't grown in the past few years – it's held steady. The average debt for students graduating from four-year programs who have borrowed money is around $25,000. And because of interest rates, the average payments on that debt – about $276 a month – are lower than ever.
But the real news is affordability. Contrary to popular belief, tuition fees aren't soaring. When you factor in tax credits and rebates, net tuition as a percentage of family income has increased by just 3 per cent (in real terms) over the past decade. Compared to the United States, where tuition really has gone through the roof, Canadians get an incredible deal. On top of that, there's no evidence that rising fees affect access. Ontario's tuition fees are higher than Quebec's, but Ontario has higher graduation rates – especially among people from lower-income backgrounds.
"It's not that I want to minimize the problems," Mr. Usher says, "but people who want to maximize the problems don't acknowledge how much [public] money is going into this."
It's true that the job market is far more competitive than it used to be. But the main reason is that there are lot more graduates than there used to be. When we talk about the boomers, maybe we should remember how few of them went to university. As for the income premium, it's still real. It's just smaller than it used to be.
In Canada, Mr. Usher notes, the fact that graduates might have to postpone buying stuff is taken as evidence that student loan debt is out of control. But in other cultures, it's taken as a given. In Asia, university graduates are expected to repay their student loans in four to six years. Many of them have to fork over a quarter to a third of their incomes and live at home. But no one thinks they're deprived. The attitude is: Pay it off fast and move on.
As for the privileged folks who allegedly came before them, the idea that people ever achieved secure and stable lives with ease is largely a myth. My grandparents weathered the Depression. My folks lived with them until having their third child. My dad had health problems in middle age and lost his business. That's life. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that most of today's up-to-their-necks-in-debt graduates will be fine.
Canada's student-debt problem - it isn't the having-debt that's the problem, that's really not that bad (especially compared to the states) just like the article says; it's the having-jobs-to-pay-debt.
Comparisons, as in the article, to "my gramps had it bad in the Great Depression" is more hand-wavingly dismissive than helpful. Sure, compared to the great depression, people these days are on easy street in general.
Quote from: Malthus on October 31, 2013, 10:40:11 AM
Comparisons, as in the article, to "my gramps had it bad in the Great Depression" is more hand-wavingly dismissive than helpful. Sure, compared to the great depression, people these days are on easy street in general.
You are missing her main point which is the expectation today seems to be that graduates should immediately get rewarding jobs in their field. She rightly points out that has never been the case. it wasnt true for her. It wasnt true for me. It might have been true for rich kids who had well connected parents however. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:46:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 31, 2013, 10:40:11 AM
Comparisons, as in the article, to "my gramps had it bad in the Great Depression" is more hand-wavingly dismissive than helpful. Sure, compared to the great depression, people these days are on easy street in general.
You are missing her main point which is the expectation today seems to be that graduates should immediately get rewarding jobs in their field. She rightly points out that has never been the case. it wasnt true for her. It wasnt true for me. It might have been true for rich kids who had well connected parents however. :P
Upon graduation I immediately had a rewarding job in my field, and my parents were not well connected (in my field at least). :)
Then why did you go to law school?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:46:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 31, 2013, 10:40:11 AM
Comparisons, as in the article, to "my gramps had it bad in the Great Depression" is more hand-wavingly dismissive than helpful. Sure, compared to the great depression, people these days are on easy street in general.
You are missing her main point which is the expectation today seems to be that graduates should immediately get rewarding jobs in their field. She rightly points out that has never been the case. it wasnt true for her. It wasnt true for me. It might have been true for rich kids who had well connected parents however. :P
So, she raises a straw man based on what she, personally, happens to believe about 'kids these days', based on what she's pulled out of her ass and the opinions of Mr. Usher - and that's her "main point"? :hmm:
Seems like an admirable wholly self-made man who happens to also be a lawyer like yourself would have the street smarts and life skills, unknown to the rest of us slackers, not be overly impressed with such "evidence". :lol:
Then, she as an aside notes "It's true that the job market is far more competitive than it used to be". But who cares? The Great Depression was worse, LOL.
Seems to me that, leaving aside the "evidence" of her usual 'kids these days want the moon for free' screed, what she is actually admitting as real solid tangible facts is that debt is about the same but jobs are harder to come by. The same debt but less income = more debt load, right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Then why did you go to law school?
I was talking about after law school, which had always been my plan anyways.
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2013, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Then why did you go to law school?
I was talking about after law school, which had always been my plan anyways.
Yeah, no shit sherlock. Thats my point. ;)
Not everyone can get a professional degree and not everyone who gets a professional degree gets a job in that profession - especially in law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:58:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2013, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Then why did you go to law school?
I was talking about after law school, which had always been my plan anyways.
Yeah, no shit sherlock. Thats my point. ;)
Not everyone can get a professional degree and not everyone who gets a professional degree gets a job in that profession - especially in law.
Queue: Ide
There's never been much of a field for English Lit majors to enter. If the author had taken more math courses, he might realize his own inability to find a good job after school hardly disproves the idea that current grads have it tougher in that regard.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:58:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2013, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Then why did you go to law school?
I was talking about after law school, which had always been my plan anyways.
Yeah, no shit sherlock. Thats my point. ;)
Not everyone can get a professional degree and not everyone who gets a professional degree gets a job in that profession - especially in law.
And my point was that I did. :cool:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2013, 12:22:25 PM
There's never been much of a field for English Lit majors to enter. If the author had taken more math courses, he might realize his own inability to find a good job after school hardly disproves the idea that current grads have it tougher in that regard.
Its a she, and actually she has quite a good career as a regular columnist. Her English Lit major worked out quite well for her. :P
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2013, 12:31:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:58:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2013, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Then why did you go to law school?
I was talking about after law school, which had always been my plan anyways.
Yeah, no shit sherlock. Thats my point. ;)
Not everyone can get a professional degree and not everyone who gets a professional degree gets a job in that profession - especially in law.
And my point was that I did. :cool:
Yes, after articling. Not being kept on and working your way to where you are now within the prosecutorial service. Not exactly a sterling example of the position that students should expect to get the job they want right out of university. ;)
People can write columns with any degree or even none at all.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2013, 05:10:45 PM
People can write columns with any degree or even none at all.
Yeah, but getting them published and being paid for them as a syndicated columnist is not something everyone could do. Or at least not you and probably not me.
Nice try, but grumbler is so much better at being grumbler than you are.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 29, 2013, 04:33:39 PM
Credits unlikely to transfer.
There was one college, Everest, that actually blatantly stated, "don't go to community college, come to us." That commercial killed me.
A good example of their bullshit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4Tieyk_PFM
Watch it and lulz. First spoken line of the video: "I dropped out of community colleges three times."
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2013, 05:17:14 PM
Nice try, but grumbler is so much better at being grumbler than you are.
Wasnt trying to be Grumbler. I dont think I could do it justice. But one does not need to have the abilities of Grumbler to deal with what you posted. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fo.onionstatic.com%2Fimages%2F24%2F24087%2Foriginal%2F700.hq.jpg%3F1105&hash=fd4346fce8571069bced448d33fd2824b9c6f36b)
:)
I don't think a kid could do my job. Some kind of doped up uber kid, possibly.
Student debt to stall millennial retirements
'Thanks to hefty student loan debts, many millennials will have to wait until 73 to retire, a recent study found. That's 12 years later than the current average retirement age, 61.'
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2013/11/04/student-debt-to-slow-millennial-retirements/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2FMWimages%2FMW-BM774_Threat_MD_20131008214748.jpg&hash=d564b612daea8bad332d2788fa3532796a74265e)
One of the younger dudes at my boozer said that people his age never expect to retire. They'll just work until they die.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 11:46:30 PM
One of the younger dudes at my boozer said that people his age never expect to retire. They'll just work until they die.
I think that's something younger people always say. Retirement is just so far away, they can't imagine it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2013, 01:18:32 AM
I think that's something younger people always say. Retirement is just so far away, they can't imagine it.
I don't remember any of my cohort saying it when we were his age.
Let us focus, for a moment, on the aesthetic beauty and intellectual / moral value of the
true liberal arts tradition, namely that which would have been recognizable to our grandfathers - brought to you by the New Criterion. Then, Phillip can get back to posting graphs about mammon. :sleep:
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/What-Dido-did--Satan-saw---O-Keeffe-painted---7728 (http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/What-Dido-did--Satan-saw---O-Keeffe-painted---7728)
QuoteWhat Dido did, Satan saw & O'Keeffe painted
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F82%2FPierre-Narcisse_Gu%25C3%25A9rin_-_Dido_and_Aeneas_-_WGA10972.jpg%2F602px-Pierre-Narcisse_Gu%25C3%25A9rin_-_Dido_and_Aeneas_-_WGA10972.jpg&hash=59f737c126055d53d7b704af251732bff598e3c7)
by Mark Bauerlein
How the humanities can come out on top in the education debate
Burke
was right!
Support The
New Criterion
Pierre-Narcisse Guérin, Aeneas tells Dido the misfortunes of the Trojan city, 1815
In April 1981, The New York Times Book Review published an essay by the literary theorist Geoffrey Hartman that proposed a whole different model of academic criticism. Whereas traditional criticism served the primary text, aiming to clarify, elucidate, and otherwise expound on the original, Hartman argued that "new kinds of commentary" possess an "expressive force" and mark an "inventive feat, a 'creative' rather than a definitive answer." Older critics drew meanings out of poems, passed them on to readers, and retired, he stated, meeting the "plainer functions" of "reviewing and explaining." The emerging interpreters are artists of language and thought in their own right, not "handmaidens to more 'creative' modes of thinking like poems or novels," and they deserve equal "dignity" and "will have to be read closely." They have forged a "literature of criticism," Hartman announces at the end, answering definitively the essay's title, "How Creative Should Literary Criticism Be?"
Thirty years later, Hartman's conception sounds fatuous and overdone, but it imparted well an advancing force in literary studies at the time. Hundreds of influential people claimed the same creativity in seminars and conferences, at the School of Criticism and Theory, and in the pages of Glyph, boundary 2, and other periodicals of High Theory. Outsiders may wonder how a collection of intelligent, learned professionals could have distinguished their practice with so much self-inflation, but the appeal was commanding. Individuals in other fields can hardly imagine how intoxicating it was to graduate students and assistant professors eager for approval and identity. To believe that those dreary months researching and writing a dissertation chapter would yield more than just a derivative exegesis of a poet more important and talented than they, to answer a query about their studies not with "Wordworth's 'Tintern Abbey' means . . . " but "My reading of 'Tintern Abbey' interrogates . . . ," to anticipate that their journal articles would collect readers of them, not assist readers of someone else . . . who could resist? It made our toil adventuresome and purposeful, and it convinced others that literature professors were up to something momentous and transformative (for better or worse).
For those younger scholars eager for political action, not personal confidence, the liberation of criticism from obedience to great literature provided equal inspiration. While Hartman, Jacques Derrida, Stanley Fish, and other notables continued to heed the classics, postcolonialists, feminists, neopragmatists, ecocritics, queer theorists, and political critics of various leftist kinds addressed literature not as texts to be studied, but as pretexts for an agenda. If charged with "politicization," they could invoke the "creative" turn as epistemological cover. When a panelist promised a feminist reading of Wordsworth's Lucy poems and another raised the common-sense question, "But do those poems really have feminist content?" the speaker could reply, "Your question assumes that the poems are fixed objects to which we must respond 'properly,' but as Derrida and Rorty have shown, that is a mystification, and it restricts us from doing the labor of social change." Whatever change the speaker proceeded to envisage, the disciplinary adjustment was plain: The field had to stand on us, the professors, not on them, the poems, plays, novels.
It couldn't work, of course. First of all, the actual products of literary theory and criticism disappointed that elevated conception, the thousands of readings tumbling forth in quarterlies and conferences through the 1980s and '90s looking like a plodding industry running down, not an outburst of creativity. The rhetoric amplified—book blurbs and letters of recommendation echoed with "bound to revolutionize" and "radical rethinking" and "brilliant new approach"—but how many times could the breakthrough element be repeated before it turned into routine hype?
Second, to establish creativity as a disciplinary norm was to forget the basic truth that genuine creativity belongs only to the fortunate few. For every Lionel Trilling and Harold Bloom there have been 5,000 more or less competent, unexceptional scholars doing journeyman work. Asking them to do more only evoked the overwrought and immodest efforts that made The New Criterion's reports on the MLA Convention so humorous and sad.
Finally, apart from meeting political dreams and personal needs, the killing of primary texts—more precisely, canceling the primacy of them—could prosper only if a particular transfer took place. As the professors substituted their own activity for Great Books, the prestige of Hamlet, "Because I could not stop for death," and Invisible Man couldn't just go away. It had to fall upon them, the killer interpreters. That was the conviction—that the heritage of Dead White Males would lose its authority and the professors would gain it. The genius of Shakespeare would wane and the braininess of Judith Butler would soar. The transfer empowered them, and apparently they expected everyone but the retrograde elders to agree.
It was a fatal choice, this turn from canonical work to interpretative act, with damaging effects continuing today. We witnessed its disabling impact in a revealing episode last summer when the humanities became once more a topic of national conversation. Starting in June, a flurry of reports and commentaries appeared projecting a dim present and dark future for the fields. A report by the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences, a formation of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, showed the humanities losing funding, enrollment, and appreciation from politicians and business leaders, "a pattern that will have grave, long-term consequences for the nation." One week earlier, Harvard issued a like warning under the banner "The Teaching of Arts and Humanities at Harvard College: Mapping the Future," which examined enrollments on campus and found that, since the mid-twentieth century, degrees in the fields have plummeted from 36 percent of graduates to 20 percent, while entering students who aim to major in a humanities field have shifted to other areas at disproportionate rates. A June 22 statement in The New York Times by Vernon Klinkenborg bore the title "The Decline and Fall of the English Major," while Leon Wieseltier's 2013 Commencement Address at Brandeis opened, "Has there ever been a moment in American life when the humanities were cherished less, and has there ever been a moment in American life when the humanities were needed more?"
The evidence they and others invoked was material, not ideological. As has been widely reported, foreign language programs have closed at several campuses around the country, tenure-track job openings are but a fraction of the number of Ph.D.'s on the market, research funding is down, the number of humanities courses in general education requirements is meager, barely one percent of four-year degrees are in any foreign language and less than four percent are in English.
In response, those who regretted the numbers offered arguments against them, joining numerous voices in recent years justifying the humanities as an essential course of study. The American Academy report praised the humanities because they help us manage a world undergoing profound change. In Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (2010), Martha Nussbaum advocates urgently for the fields because they provide "skills that are needed to keep democracy alive." Annie Murphy Paul's June 3 article in Time magazine says it all in the title: "Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer." The Harvard study begins, "The Arts and Humanities teach us how to describe experience, how to evaluate it, and how to imagine its liberating transformation." The leftist professor Henry Giroux links the decline of the humanities to the university's receding identity as a "public good" whose leaders "address major social issues and problems."
These statements and others on how the humanities foster critical thinking, cultivate Information Economy skills, help enact social change, resist utilitarianism in human affairs, etc., may be challenged in one aspect or another, but they are all reasonable and they pop up in education discussions all the time. Their commonplace status, however, shouldn't obscure the fact that they share an extraordinary characteristic. It is a trait so simple and obvious, and so paradoxical, that one easily overlooks it, especially as these voices so earnestly endorse the humanities. The paradox is this: They affirm, extol, and sanctify the humanities, but they hardly ever mention any specific humanities content. The American Academy report terms the humanities "the keeper of the republic," but the names Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Bernini, Leonardo, Gibbon, Austen, Beethoven, Monet, Twain, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Martha Graham never surface. In the Boston Globe ("Humanities: The Practical Degree," June 21), Carlo Rotella claims that the humanities instill a "suite of talents" that include "assimilating and organizing large, complex bodies of information," but he doesn't tie that installation to any particular works of art. These pro-humanities documents drop a "Proust" and "Dickens" here and there, but little more. The works of the ages that fill actual humanities syllabi barely exist in these heartfelt defenses. Instead of highlighting assigned authors, artists, writings, and artworks, they signal what happens after the class ends: the moral, civic, and workplace outcomes.
In a word, the defenders rely on what the humanities do, not what they are. If you take humanities courses, they assure, you will become a good person, a critical thinker, a skilled worker, a cosmopolitan citizen. What matters is how grads today think and act, not what Swift wrote, Kant thought, or O'Keeffe painted. No doubt, all of the defenders love particular novels and films, symphonies and paintings, but those objects play no role in their best defense. Ironically, the approach resembles the very utilitarianism the defenders despise, the conversion of liberal education into a set of instruments for producing selected mentalities and capabilities.
What an odd angle, and an ineffectual one. Think of it from the perspective of two individuals whose decisions directly affect the humanities, one of them a twenty-year-old sophomore picking classes for spring term, the other a sixty-year-old state legislator on a committee setting the year's higher education budget. If the sophomore avoids humanities courses, she hurts enrollment numbers for the fields, a factor in how a dean allocates resources across departments. If the politician discerns no palpable gain from humanities instruction, he will steer funds to technical colleges and vocational programs. What will change their minds?
Certainly not these guarantees:
•The reason we need the humanities is because we're human. That's enough. (Adam Gopnik, "Why Teach English?," The New Yorker, Aug. 27)
•In the complex, globalized world we are moving toward, it will obviously benefit American undergraduates to know something of other civilizations, past and present. (Christina Paxson, "The Economic Case for the Humanities," New Republic, Aug. 20)
•A fully balanced curriculum—including the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences—provides opportunities for integrative thinking and imagination, for creativity and discovery, and for good citizenship. (the American Academy report)
•Our students are preparing to act adroitly in a global environment; they are also preparing to flourish in an austere job market. The Arts and Humanities are essential on both interrelated fronts. (the Harvard report)
Neither of our two figures will reject these points, but the points won't sway them, either. The advantages they promise are too vague and deferred ("to know something of other civilizations," "opportunities for integrative thinking," "act adroitly," "we're human"), especially in contrast to other options ("major in speech therapy and become a speech therapist—there's a shortage!"). Besides, social science fields claim the same insights, such as the anthropologist who rejoins, "And we don't study what it means to be human?!" Hard scientists, too, might add, "You want critical thinking? Learn the scientific method!"
Tepid and half-credible, these fuzzy encouragements sound ever more vain and dispirited the more they circulate. They exhort the public to appreciate the humanities, but, with the grounds so abstract and promissory, the appeal falls flat. The failure comes down to bad marketing. The defenders misconstrue their audience. They think that support for the humanities will stand on the anticipation of a job skill, a civic sense, or moral self-improvement, but these future benefits are insufficient to youths worried about debt, politicians about revenue, and employers about workplace needs. No, students enroll and politicians fund and donors donate for a different reason, because they care about the humanities themselves, and they care about them because they've had a compelling exposure to a specific work. They may admit the moral, practical, and civic effects of humanities coursework, but that level of commitment can't compete with other pressures such as manufacturers in a state telling the governor and college presidents that they need more grads with industrial skills. Whenever they do override those pressures, their devotion springs from an experience that lingers. People back the humanities with their feet and pocketbooks because they savored Monet's seascapes, got a thrill when Frederick Douglass resolves to fight Mr. Covey, and relax after work with Kind of Blue or Don Giovanni. They had an 11th Grade English teacher who made Elizabeth Bennet and Henry V come alive, or they recall a month in Rome amid the Pantheon, St. Peter's, the Trevi Fountain, and Apollo and Daphne as a high-point of their college days.
Their attachment pinpoints for the defenders a winning tactic: Underscore the object. To attract the undergraduate who focuses narrowly on career and the CEO with $10 million to give, advocates should realize, don't wax righteous or pragmatic about the humanities as a bloc or as an instrument. Rather, show them vivid images of architecture in Washington, D.C.; recount Captain Ahab on the quarter-deck enlisting the crew in his obsession, or Dido's reaction once she learns her beloved Aeneas has slipped away in the night, or Satan in the Garden eyeing Adam and Eve, tormented by their innocence and plotting their ruin; stage the avid sadism of Regan and Goneril or the banter of Algernon and Ernest; or run the final scene when the Tramp, just out of prison, turns to face the blind flower girl, now cured, who clasps his hand, grimaces at the sight of him, and mutters, "Yes, I now can see." These are the materials of inspiration, and they are the highest card the humanists can play.
My former boss Dana Gioia understood it well. As Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (2003–09), he was obligated to use the bully pulpit and summon local and national, public and private support for museums, orchestras, and after-
school arts programs. It was a delicate task partly because of the suspicion conservatives retained for this agency at the center of the Culture Wars ten years earlier, and partly because saying the wrong thing could jeopardize the annual request for funding from Congress. In the early 2000s, as No Child Left Behind pressed schools to cut arts, theater, dance, and music programs, organizations such as Americans for the Arts offered standard reasons for arts education including the commercial value of arts investments, better reading and math scores by kids in schools with music instruction, and behavioral improvements for kids in theater programs. Gioia recited them dutifully, but relied at critical times on another one: direct exposure. When he conceived a national initiative called Shakespeare in American Communities with a large in-school component, he might have presented it to Members of Congress in testimony backed by the usual moral and economic corollaries. But instead, he hosted an event on Capitol Hill for Members and invited 5th-graders from Rafe Esquith's legendary Shakespeare program in Los Angeles to show up in Elizabethan garb and perform scenes and soliloquies for them.
The event proved the point. The kids acted splendidly, and a few Members themselves grabbed a costume and declaimed lines, reenacting their own school days and drama club. The politicians had heard every rationale for cultural programs before, but the call of "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" they could not withstand. Gioia got the funding—and heaps of good will, too.
Exposure works better than explanation, participation better than entreaty. The humanities defenders, mistakenly, try to persuade and coerce when they should intrigue, excite, fascinate, and inspire. Why humanities defenders neglect this no-brainer option, why they lay down their strongest weapons, is a mystery only if we forget the turn from primary texts decades earlier. It marks a deeper source of renunciation than multiculturalism, which doesn't quite explain it even though '80s- and '90s-era contempt for "Eurocentrism" certainly speeded the takedown of primary texts inaugurated in the '70s. The problem with multiculturalist accounts is that the defenders could easily serve multiculturalism by citing great works by women and people-of-color authors and artists, for instance, insisting "We must study the humanities so that we can preserve the superb tradition of African American writing," then adding striking and noble passages from Phillis Wheatley, Douglass, Up from Slavery and Souls of Black Folk, Hurston's fiction and Baldwin's prose. But they don't.
Behold another dead-end for adversarial culture, a crazy situation in which professionals profess their materials only in a critical mode, never in an approving one. When circumstances solicit them to espouse their own content, the defenders hail ancillary effects instead, and the eyes of their audience glaze over. Do they expect a stirring rendition of Hector in the dirt, bleeding to death while Achilles pledges to defile his corpse, only to reply, "So this is Achilles"—will that lead to charges of naïve hermeneutics and Western-Civ imperialism? Do they really think that fuzzy estimates of mental and moral rewards will boost enrollments and resources? Whatever they expect, they suffer an alienated condition. Chemistry professors esteem chemistry, psychology professors psychology . . . and their conviction serves them in the campus marketplace and the public sphere.
But not humanities professors. They have sacrificed the great tradition that was their raison d'être to a vain belief about themselves. They exchanged their meal ticket for a moment of counter-cultural roguishness and pseudo-admission to the company of creators. They were theoretically astute and politically progressive, but institutionally stupid. When anti-humanist forces arose—careerism in undergraduates, utilitarianism among administrators—they didn't mount Dryden-Pope-Swift or Michelangelo-Raphael-Titian campaigns to maintain pipelines. They complained about anti-intellectualism and corporatization. When a curriculum committee recommended reducing humanities general education requirements, none of them rose to declare, "Have you read Augustine stealing pears? Let me detail it for you. . . . Is there any better rumination on peer pressure and sin? NO, AND EVERY STUDENT ON THIS CAMPUS SHOULD READ IT!" They couldn't, and the saddest fact of all is that many of them applauded the expulsion of core humanities content.
Still, it isn't too late, and the great words and images haven't lost their power, only the purveyors of them. In one brief section, the Harvard report breaks the gag order with eight humorous sentences on Aristophanes' Clouds (423 BC), and everything quickens. It's funny and sharp, and it yields exactly the effect that every other paragraph misses: It makes you want more. If we wish to maintain the humanities against hostile or indifferent attitudes, we should capitalize on this advantage, but to do so the insiders must first alter their self-conception. We need a disciplinary adjustment, a reversal of the creative turn Hartman broadcast thirty years ago. Critical schools rise and fall, academic trends shuffle at an accelerating pace, celebrities are made and forgotten, but Hegel's master-slave sequence, Wordsworth's "and, oh,/ The difference to me!" O'Keeffe's blossoms, Parker's riffs . . . they endure and they impress no matter how much the professors unmask, demystify, politicize, and otherwise play with them. We are far enough removed and in bad enough shape to judge the denial of the greatness and priority of High Art a terrible miscalculation. Unless the professorate reasserts its subservient role and foregrounds actual genius, all the solemn committee reports and importunate op-eds in the world won't slow the steady deterioration of the fields.
Mark Bauerlein is a professor of English at Emory University.
The New Criterion: fifty dollars for a fucking movie.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2013, 01:18:32 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 11:46:30 PM
One of the younger dudes at my boozer said that people his age never expect to retire. They'll just work until they die.
I think that's something younger people always say. Retirement is just so far away, they can't imagine it.
Maybe in your country with your alien ways, but not here.
Yeah, I think I have a good grasp on the basics of what retirement can offer.
Hey, who is the naked jailbait in the painting? :perv:
OK, Camerus, I read your article.
It's an extremely long exercise in missing the point--there is little expectation on a return on investment to study of the liberal arts, yet we, as individuals, should invest in it, indebting ourselves so we can be exposed to works readily available at the public library, museums, and bookstores, if not immediately available for free online. Is loving books (paintings, movies, buildings, poems)
simply impossible without doing it within the confines of a curriculum and enforced study? To put it mildly, I don't concede the point. And even if that were the case, then we have decided that they are not worth being loved, and certainly not worth tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that may or may not be paid back on the wages of unskilled drudge labor.
Also, this line stuck out to me:
QuoteThese statements and others on how the humanities foster critical thinking, cultivate Information Economy skills, help enact social change, resist utilitarianism in human affairs
Everything wrong with the liberal arts establishment is encapsulated in the idea that there is something wrong with utilitarianism in human affairs.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2013, 09:34:40 AM
Yeah, I think I have a good grasp on the basics of what retirement can offer.
Yeah, like we have a good grasp on the basics of country club membership. Unless you're in the proper social class, it's all rumor.
HEY NOW
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 09, 2013, 10:01:13 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2013, 09:34:40 AM
Yeah, I think I have a good grasp on the basics of what retirement can offer.
Yeah, like we have a good grasp on the basics of country club membership. Unless you're in the proper social class, it's all rumor.
Well, I meant to imply that retirement is pretty much being old in addition to being unemployed and destitute, and therefore all I have to do is imagine being old.
Which is less and less difficult every year.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2013, 10:00:25 AM
Everything wrong with the liberal arts establishment is encapsulated in the idea that there is something wrong with utilitarianism in human affairs.
You'd do very well at Mao Zedong University.
Where does the myth come from about humanities and critical thinking?
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2013, 11:01:51 AM
Where does the myth come from about humanities and critical thinking?
Humanities teachers and fellow travelers.
They have infiltrated this very forum.
I know I'm never going to retire. Pensions mean nothing to me. I'll have to rely on the traditional retirement means of leeching off kids.
Assuming of course I decide to live that long.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2013, 11:01:51 AM
Where does the myth come from about humanities and critical thinking?
Humanities teachers and fellow travelers.
They have infiltrated this very forum.
Right, because the Empiricism Only Parking permit holders are the ones that have it all figured out.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2013, 10:00:25 AM
OK, Camerus, I read your article.
It's an extremely long exercise in missing the point--there is little expectation on a return on investment to study of the liberal arts, yet we, as individuals, should invest in it, indebting ourselves so we can be exposed to works readily available at the public library, museums, and bookstores, if not immediately available for free online. Is loving books (paintings, movies, buildings, poems) simply impossible without doing it within the confines of a curriculum and enforced study? To put it mildly, I don't concede the point. And even if that were the case, then we have decided that they are not worth being loved, and certainly not worth tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that may or may not be paid back on the wages of unskilled drudge labor.
Also, this line stuck out to me:
QuoteThese statements and others on how the humanities foster critical thinking, cultivate Information Economy skills, help enact social change, resist utilitarianism in human affairs
Everything wrong with the liberal arts establishment is encapsulated in the idea that there is something wrong with utilitarianism in human affairs.
Oh, I agree it is a rather aristocratic argument, because it basically assumes income isn't a big issue for the degree taker. As a caveat, I'd add unless you're going to an elite institution, it's probably best to study something more practical, like business, computer science or plumbing.
How many people, particularly those not going to college, are availing themselves of public libraries, museums, bookstores and "free online" sources such in the manner that the author was suggesting? Reading Teen Paranormal Romance probably doesn't suffice.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 09, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2013, 11:01:51 AM
Where does the myth come from about humanities and critical thinking?
Humanities teachers and fellow travelers.
They have infiltrated this very forum.
Of course they have. Law is a part of the Humanities.
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2013, 09:53:43 PM
How many people, particularly those not going to college, are availing themselves of public libraries, museums, bookstores and "free online" sources such in the manner that the author was suggesting? Reading Teen Paranormal Romance probably doesn't suffice.
Anne Rice taught me everything I need to know about vampires. And about 13 year old witches seducing their grandfathers.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 09, 2013, 11:48:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2013, 09:53:43 PM
How many people, particularly those not going to college, are availing themselves of public libraries, museums, bookstores and "free online" sources such in the manner that the author was suggesting? Reading Teen Paranormal Romance probably doesn't suffice.
Anne Rice taught me everything I need to know about vampires. And about 13 year old witches seducing their grandfathers.
Which book? :w00t:
Quote from: Phillip V on November 10, 2013, 01:00:00 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 09, 2013, 11:48:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2013, 09:53:43 PM
How many people, particularly those not going to college, are availing themselves of public libraries, museums, bookstores and "free online" sources such in the manner that the author was suggesting? Reading Teen Paranormal Romance probably doesn't suffice.
Anne Rice taught me everything I need to know about vampires. And about 13 year old witches seducing their grandfathers.
Which book? :w00t:
I believe there was only one book that featured both the witches and vampires, so I'd wager he is referring to at least two. :)
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2013, 09:53:43 PM
How many people, particularly those not going to college, are availing themselves of public libraries, museums, bookstores and "free online" sources such in the manner that the author was suggesting? Reading Teen Paranormal Romance probably doesn't suffice.
More than have ever done so in the history of civilization.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 10, 2013, 01:00:00 AM
Which book? :w00t:
The Witching Hour, or possibly the sequel Lasher.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 10, 2013, 01:07:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2013, 09:53:43 PM
How many people, particularly those not going to college, are availing themselves of public libraries, museums, bookstores and "free online" sources such in the manner that the author was suggesting? Reading Teen Paranormal Romance probably doesn't suffice.
More than have ever done so in the history of civilization.
Irrelevant. We've more people than ever in the history of civilization. We also have more of those things.
Quote from: Camerus on November 09, 2013, 09:21:52 PM
Oh, I agree it is a rather aristocratic argument, because it basically assumes income isn't a big issue for the degree taker. As a caveat, I'd add unless you're going to an elite institution, it's probably best to study something more practical, like business, computer science or plumbing.
The surveys and studies and statistics have been saying the same thing for the last 25 years: along a long enough timeline of a career, liberal arts graduates see a greater elevation in the increase of income than STEMs and specialization, who see more money coming out of the career gate.
And in the modern economy, where an individual's work lifespan can entail several careers, with rare exceptions, they are better suited to move along multiple career paths than those with specializations.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2013, 10:58:50 AM
Quote from: Camerus on November 09, 2013, 09:21:52 PM
Oh, I agree it is a rather aristocratic argument, because it basically assumes income isn't a big issue for the degree taker. As a caveat, I'd add unless you're going to an elite institution, it's probably best to study something more practical, like business, computer science or plumbing.
The surveys and studies and statistics have been saying the same thing for the last 25 years: along a long enough timeline of a career, liberal arts graduates see a greater elevation in the increase of income than STEMs and specialization, who see more money coming out of the career gate.
And in the modern economy, where an individual's work lifespan can entail several careers, with rare exceptions, they are better suited to move along multiple career paths than those with specializations.
Isn't it like saying that Afghanistan has a greater GDP growth than US? Yeah, it does, but that doesn't mean much.
Quote from: DGuller on November 10, 2013, 11:07:17 AM
Isn't it like saying that Afghanistan has a greater GDP growth than US? Yeah, it does, but that doesn't mean much.
No, it isn't like saying that at all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2013, 11:08:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 10, 2013, 11:07:17 AM
Isn't it like saying that Afghanistan has a greater GDP growth than US? Yeah, it does, but that doesn't mean much.
No, it isn't like saying that at all.
It so is.
'Snot.
Call him a dirty Slav.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2013, 10:58:50 AM
Quote from: Camerus on November 09, 2013, 09:21:52 PM
Oh, I agree it is a rather aristocratic argument, because it basically assumes income isn't a big issue for the degree taker. As a caveat, I'd add unless you're going to an elite institution, it's probably best to study something more practical, like business, computer science or plumbing.
The surveys and studies and statistics have been saying the same thing for the last 25 years: along a long enough timeline of a career, liberal arts graduates see a greater elevation in the increase of income than STEMs and specialization, who see more money coming out of the career gate.
And in the modern economy, where an individual's work lifespan can entail several careers, with rare exceptions, they are better suited to move along multiple career paths than those with specializations.
As long as you aren't graduating with any debt, then it may be worth it in the long term... though I bet one often needs to combine the humanities degree with more practical training as well.
FWIW, with my educational background in the humanities, I have never found it difficult to find a good job in Canada, and have shifted careers several times. In fact, I will be shifting again in the not too distant future when I return for good in the summer, so hopefully the trend will continue.
I would imagine that we'll see those results change as the years go by. After all, the world is changing. These days, it's computers that make the hiring decisions, and those computers are fed parameters by extremely stupid women in HR.
Liberal arts graduates can transition with ease and grace between all numbers of career tracks, from the kitchen to the dining room.
P.S. Cam is back! :w00t:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 10, 2013, 08:24:59 PM
P.S. Cam is back! :w00t:
:huh:
The poster above didn't leave as far as I know. Just a name change.
I. Know.
Who else is he?
He was Pitiful Pathos.
Quote from: Neil on November 10, 2013, 08:16:31 PM
These days, it's computers that make the hiring decisions, and those computers are fed parameters by extremely stupid women in HR.
Pit Pat, the semi-alcoholic globetrotter, is dead.
I prefer to think of it as a Languishite giving up his false name and reuniting with his true identity.
HEY NOW
My true identity isn't garbon.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 10, 2013, 09:19:50 PM
I prefer to think of it as a Languishite giving up his false name and reuniting with his true identity.
I've tried. Not very hard, but I have mentioned it.
You all know who you are, and I usually remember who you are, but when I don't, it's annoying.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 10, 2013, 09:26:15 PM
You all know who you are, and I usually remember who you are, but when I don't, it's annoying.
What a Siege like statement.
Needs more spelling errors.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2013, 09:27:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 10, 2013, 09:26:15 PM
You all know who you are, and I usually remember who you are, but when I don't, it's annoying.
What a Siege like statement.
No, at worst Andy Rooney.
And on that tangent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFzgUOEyK60
"We've got to do something about the passage of time." :lmfao:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 10, 2013, 09:29:23 PM
No, at worst Andy Rooney.
I thought it was very Carly Simonesque.
He's got a point, Ide.
You're all so vain.
I've never even been on a yacht. :(
I've never seen a total eclipse of the sun. You can bet your bippy Yi has.
Oh, wait, yes I have.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2013, 09:24:14 PM
My true identity isn't garbon.
Whew, I was really scared for you for a second. :hug:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2013, 01:20:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2013, 01:18:32 AM
I think that's something younger people always say. Retirement is just so far away, they can't imagine it.
I don't remember any of my cohort saying it when we were his age.
Your dad was a university prof :hmm:
wut?
Is this true, Yi? Is your father now, or has he ever been, a university professor?
No. My mom was however.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2013, 11:42:18 AM
No. My mom was however.
Ah, all you rich kids are the same.
Right.
Berk is rich and now Yi is too?
Wow.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 11, 2013, 04:53:42 PM
Berk is rich and now Yi is too?
Wow.
We are all rich. Rich in experience of CC's poor-boy-upbringing scorn. :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2013, 05:07:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 11, 2013, 04:53:42 PM
Berk is rich and now Yi is too?
Wow.
We are all rich. Rich in experience of CC's poor-boy-upbringing scorn. :D
Right thing to say; soooo the wrong person to say it. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 11, 2013, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2013, 05:07:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 11, 2013, 04:53:42 PM
Berk is rich and now Yi is too?
Wow.
We are all rich. Rich in experience of CC's poor-boy-upbringing scorn. :D
Right thing to say; soooo the wrong person to say it. :lol:
I face the additional wrath of Ide. :(
Stop spending a normal person's yearly salary on strollers and you won't take so much heat.
And what does Yi's Dad have to do with whether or not Yi heard from his generational peers that they'd never retire and work until they die, anyway?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2013, 08:38:39 AM
And what does Yi's Dad have to do with whether or not Yi heard from his generational peers that they'd never retire and work until they die, anyway?
No clue. I was just being helpful. :)
It is a running joke with Malthus.
To connect the dots for you, Yi said his cohort didnt have to worry about retirement. That leads to an obvious inference that Yi's cohort was somehow special since young people (and others) have been worrying about whether they will be able to retire since the Freedom 55 dream burst along with the tech bubble of the 90s. So I made a jab about him coming from a priviledged background - turns out I just got the gender of the parent who was a professor wrong.
Yet another sign Languish is dying.
Oh well, on to more interesting things
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2013, 09:06:27 AM
Yi said his cohort didnt have to worry about retirement.
:huh:
Oh, you crazy canuck.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2013, 09:06:27 AM
It is a running joke with Malthus.
To connect the dots for you, Yi said his cohort didnt have to worry about retirement. That leads to an obvious inference that Yi's cohort was somehow special since young people (and others) have been worrying about whether they will be able to retire since the Freedom 55 dream burst along with the tech bubble of the 90s. So I made a jab about him coming from a priviledged background - turns out I just got the gender of the parent who was a professor wrong.
Yet another sign Languish is dying.
Oh well, on to more interesting things
Odd my mother said that she was going to retired by 55 and did just that.
Isn't your mom a rich Boomer?
My dad retired at 57 too. So what?
My mother came from a poor background.
So did Andrew Carnegie.
I don't think they are remotely similar apart from both being Americans and white. :P
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2013, 09:32:35 AM
Odd my mother said that she was going to retired by 55 and did just that.
*golf clap*
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2013, 12:27:11 PM
:huh:
Do you honestly not see the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote?
Honestly?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2013, 12:27:11 PM
:huh:
Do you honestly not see the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote?
Honestly?
Do you honestly think you should get your small testicles in a knot over what was originally meant as a joking jab at you but mainly Malthus.
And no, I dont think there is much difference between the two things. If you do then you are missing the point.
This is the main problem with Languish and why I will be spending less time here. Most of the interesting posters have either left or dont post as much anymore.
I post all the fucking time.
This is true, he does.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2013, 12:35:08 PM
This is the main problem with Languish and why I will be spending less time here.
:)
-_-
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2013, 12:35:08 PM
Do you honestly think you should get your small testicles in a knot over what was originally meant as a joking jab at you but mainly Malthus.
And no, I dont think there is much difference between the two things. If you do then you are missing the point.
This is the main problem with Languish and why I will be spending less time here. Most of the interesting posters have either left or dont post as much anymore.
The dimmest poster can see the difference between expecting to retire at some point and being unconcerned about saving for retirement because of family wealth. That's the reason your joke was incomprehensible.
Your characterization of my confusion over what you were getting at as my small testicles in a knot is typical of your posting. The best posters are gracious and civil (and/or witty) while disagreeing with someone else. You're crude and bullying. I can see how this might work in real life, given that you're seven feet tall, but it doesn't play on the internet.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Well, CC has the strength and reach, but I bet Yi knows taekwondo. :hmm:
He might banzai charge.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2013, 12:35:08 PM
This is the main problem with Languish and why I will be spending less time here. Most of the interesting posters have either left or dont post as much anymore.
Sorry. Had a lot going on over the long weekend but I'll try to post more.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 01:08:05 PM
This is the main problem with Languish and why I will be spending less time here. Most of the interesting posters have either left or dont post as much anymore.
I think you can still find Marty on Facebook CC.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 01:08:05 PM
The best posters are gracious and civil (and/or witty) while disagreeing with someone else.
:blush: :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2013, 03:48:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 01:08:05 PM
This is the main problem with Languish and why I will be spending less time here. Most of the interesting posters have either left or dont post as much anymore.
I think you can still find Marty on Facebook CC.
Perhaps you shouldn't have set quote up as coming from Yi. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 01:08:05 PM
Perhaps you shouldn't have set quote up as coming from Yi. :P
:yes:
:angry:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 01:08:05 PM
Perhaps you shouldn't have set quote up as coming from Yi. :P
Why not? We are all Yi.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2013, 07:40:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 06:18:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 05:59:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 05:56:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 01:08:05 PM
:mad:
From Al-Jazeera:
QuoteThe unpaid internship for credit must end
Universities are colluding with companies to exploit their students and violate labor laws
Malcolm Harris
When Federal District Court Judge William H. Pauley III ruled in June that Fox Searchlight Pictures should have paid two interns who worked on its award-winning film "Black Swan," he did not leave a lot of room for interpretation. Pauley concluded that unpaid internship programs were in clear and near-universal violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Interns whose labor benefits their employer are workers and are thereby entitled to minimum wage. The judge was not creating new law; he was simply enforcing what has been on the books. The ruling has already convinced some employers to decide how to handle their unpaid help, and interns to organize efforts to recover their stolen pay.
Hollywood is not the only industry paying attention; university administrators are worried as well. The common practice of granting class credit for completed internships has contributed to the dramatic increase of unpaid internships. According to a survey-based study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), a record 63 percent of 2013 graduates had completed an internship. A similar study by the college recruiting consultancy Intern Bridge found that just under half of interns received school credit. Credits are what universities are selling. Since outsourcing the actual teaching to employers saves money — it is cheaper to certify than instruct — American universities have jumped on the intern bandwagon.
From a student's perspective, an internship for credit, even if unpaid, is a step toward both graduation and a job in her chosen field at the same time. But as many commentators have pointed out, employers commonly use internships as a way to skirt minimum-wage laws. College administrators and employers have colluded to invent a loophole where none existed. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of students are working for free, and actually paying their schools to certify it.
Pauley's ruling condemns universities offering credit for unpaid internships as accessories to wage theft. Administrators can no longer claim ignorance of the law. In 2010, after the Department of Labor sent a reminder that internships had to abide by existing employment regulations, 13 university presidents cosigned a letter to then-Secretary Hilda Solis requesting that federal authorities stay out of it:
While we share your concerns about the potential for exploitation, our institutions take great pains to ensure students are placed in secure and productive environments that further their education. We constantly monitor and reassess placements based on student feedback.
We urge great caution in changing an approach to learning that is viewed as a huge success by educators, employers, and students alike, and we respectfully request that the Department of Labor reconsider undertaking the regulation of internships.
These presidents, who included Mark Yudof of the University of California system and John Sexton of NYU, were not opposing any new rules. They were, as Economic Policy Institute Vice President Ross Eisenbrey put it in his response letter, "asking that the Department of Labor look the other way and condone violations of the law."
Defenders of unpaid internships point to the advantages these programs provide graduates heading into a tough job market. Students and their families expect universities to put them in a position to get hired. In a piece on the website Inside Higher Ed, Northeastern University President Joseph E. Aoun — another signatory to the DOL letter — appealed to NACE surveys:
The value proposition is clear: According to the NACE's 2010 Job Outlook Survey, 75 percent of employers prefer job candidates with relevant work experience. More than 90 percent prefer to hire interns or co-ops who have worked for their organization.
These are dramatic numbers, but they represent unreliable, voluntarily reported preferences. Using the same source, there is an easier way to verify the advantages of doing an internship. The NACE also surveys graduates' employment outcomes, and they paint a different picture. Graduates who had completed an unpaid internship were less than 2 percent more likely to get a job offer than the control group (37 and 35.2 percent, respectively), and their median starting salary was actually lower ($35,721 versus $37,087). And this does not even factor in the depressing effect that 500,000 unpaid interns have on wages and demand for entry-level workers.
When Pauley ruled for the "Black Swan" interns, he closed the imaginary college-credit loophole. Academic credit, he wrote, does not certify an internship as educational. Work experience is a result of all employment; it does not replace payment. Rejecting any sort of free association argument, Pauley reminded the defendants that "the FLSA does not allow employees to waive their entitlement to wages." The minimum wage is not merely a recommendation, and young workers need to get used to feeling entitled to it.
Already there are indications of a shift. Ross Perlin's book "Intern Nation," which spurred the "Black Swan" suit, has inspired interns to start organizing for the wages they are due. At NYU, students have created a petition to get the career center to stop listing unpaid internships. Publishing giant Condé Nast is putting an end to unpaid positions conglomerate-wide starting next year — today's are the last of The New Yorker's interns. The best thing students can do to end these exploitative arrangements and help their collective employment chances is to force their schools to stop awarding credit for work experience that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. Putting universities on the spot for their complicity could be just the push the Department of Labor needs to enforce the law. With Judge Pauley's ruling, an end to unpaid internships is within reach.
Malcolm Harris is an editor at The New Inquiry and a writer based in Brooklyn.
Did anyone here ever work on unpaid internship?
Kramerica Industries.
I've had one internship in my life and it was paid. I was in grad school at the time and I didn't think I could afford an unpaid one.
Quote from: CROP YOUR QUOTES on November 13, 2013, 08:02:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2013, 07:40:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 06:18:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 05:59:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 05:56:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2013, 01:08:05 PM
:mad:
Kind of an interesting twist on the old theme of decadent, dangerous urban center vs. uptight puritanical suburbs.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 14, 2013, 12:20:20 PM
Did anyone here ever work on unpaid internship?
No mine were all paid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 03:39:54 PM
Kind of an interesting twist on the old theme of decadent, dangerous urban center vs. uptight puritanical suburbs.
Wrong thread. :bleeding:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 03:39:54 PM
Kind of an interesting twist on the old theme of decadent, dangerous urban center vs. uptight puritanical suburbs.
Wrong thread. :bleeding:
I was trying to figure out the connection there for a moment. :hmm: I couldn't think of any.
For those of you in the fuck-the-lawyers-it's-the-MBAs-we-really-need-to-start-murdering-first bloc--
QuoteStanford's Highest Paid MBA This Year: $522K
A graduating MBA student in Stanford University's Graduate School of Business this year nailed down a private equity job in the northeast with a total compensation package north of half a million dollars.
This year's highest paid Stanford MBA, who had a business undergraduate degree and three to five years of work experience before getting a graduate degree, reported receiving a guaranteed annual bonus of $337,500–a sum that does not even include potential tuition reimbursement, relocation expenses, auto allowances, profit sharing, stock or stock options. If that student received the median base salary in private equity of $150,000 along with the median signing bonus of $35,000, the person's total first-year compensation would be a minimum of $522,500.
The numbers are disclosed in Stanford's recently published employment report for the Class of 2013. All told, Stanford MBAs reported median base salaries of $125,000–exactly the same as last year. But median signing bonuses of $25,000 and median guaranteed bonuses of $30,000 were both up by $5,000 each over last year.
A record 18% of the class became entrepreneurs, up from 13% of the Class of 2012, (and their pay is not included among the medians or means). The previous all-time high for MBA startups at Stanford was 16% for the Class of 2011.
This year's percentage of MBA students who shunned traditional MBA jobs in favor of the start-up world reflects more than a three-fold increase from only 5% in the early 1990s and is 50% higher than the 12% peak during the dot-com bubble.
Yet, for the vast majority of Stanford MBAs who focused on mainstream jobs, it was a very good year, thank you. Some 77% of the class had job offers by graduation, roughly the same as last year's 78%, while 94% reported having job offers three months after commencement, also roughly equal to the 93% a year earlier.
Graduates earning the highest average base pay ventured into private equity ($157,696), hedge funds ($151,111), venture capital ($147,500), and management consulting ($132,855). Predictably, the lowest average base pay went to MBAs who took non-profit jobs ($85,050), real estate positions ($108,750), and retail roles ($110,294).
At the very top of the scale, a few MBAs really grabbed the golden ring. Stanford MBAs capturing the very highest base pay this year reported a $225,000 analyst position in private equity, a $225,000 doing strategy work in media/entertainment, and a $200,000 job in portfolio management at a hedge fund, One student reported getting a $100,000 bonus for signing on with a private equity firm. It was the highest sign-on bonus reported this year.
Not everyone was so lucky, of course. There were some shockingly low base salaries taken by members of Stanford's Class of 2013. One MBA reported taking a $40,000-a-year job in consumer products and services, the lowest base of any graduate this year. Another accepted a starting salary offer of just $54,000 for a media/entertainment company in tech. Presumably, that person got a piece of equity in exchange for the low salary. A couple of students took jobs paying $70,000 a year in base pay–in tech retail and in tech software (see table on the high and low base salaries by industry).
The largest single chunk, nearly one of three Stanford grads, or 32% of the entire class, went into technology, where the average base pay was $117,408. That was a signifiant change from the previous year when the tech industry absorbed 24% of the Class of 2012. Some 8% of this year's MBA output at Stanford landed jobs in retail, 4% in internet service companies and another 4% in consumer electronics.
Finance claimed the second biggest group, with 26% of the Class of 2013 taking jobs with financial outfits, a drop of six percentage points from the 32% last year. Some 11% of this year's MBAs went to private equity and leveraged buyout firms, with 4% each to hedge funds and venture capital firms, 3% with investment banking or brokerage houses, and another 3% in investment management.
Some 19% of the class, meantime, landed consulting gigs, slightly down from 20% a year earlier.
QuoteHighest To Lowest Paying Jobs For Stanford's Class of 2013
Industry Median Salary Median Sign-On Guaranteed Bonus
Private Equity/LBO $150,000 $35,000 $125,000
Hedge Funds $150,000 NA $150,000
Venture Capital $150,000 NA $32,500
Consulting $135,000 $25,000 $25,000
Energy/CleanTech $130,000 $20,000 $26,500
E-Commerce $130,000 $7,500 NA
Software $125,000 $25,000 $13,000
Consumer Electronics $125,000 $20,000 NA
Investment Mgt. $122,500 $22,500 $30,000
Tech Finance $122,500 NA NA
Healthcare $120,000 $20,000 $22,500
Internet Services $120,000 $11,250 $12,000
Tech Marketing $117,500 NA NA
Tech Retail $115,000 $25,000 NA
Investment Banking $110,000 $50,000 NA
Manufacturing $110,000 NA NA
Media/Entertainment $105,000 NA NA
Real Estate $105,000 NA NA
Non-Profit $85,000 $8,000 NA
And don't give me any shit about the formatting, either. I only have an undergraduate education. From a state school.
I highly suspect Mr. 522 just picked up where he left off at his old firm.
That's a lot of Blu rays and hookers
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 08:54:29 PM
I highly suspect Mr. 522 just picked up where he left off at his old firm.
You're obviously MBA material. Talents: wasted.
QuoteOf course, the very highest paid MBAs tend to be special cases. These graduates bring extraordinary work experience and track records that convince firms that they are worth the money. In private equity, that means hiring grads who already have been in the business -- often as high-performing analysts for the same companies that hire them back. Private equity, moreover, is taking a smaller percentage of the top MBAs. At Harvard, private equity and leveraged buyout firms hired just 9% of this year's class, versus 17% of the class in 2008.
A recruiter for a top private equity firm that recruits from only Harvard and Stanford (READ: DOUCHEBAG) attributes the size of these salary packages to a hiring arms race among the top firms.
"Many of them [private equity firms] take back their former analysts which means those spots are incredibly limited for anyone who hasn't worked in PE before school," says the recruiter.
Often, these recruits already were pulling down big salaries before deciding to go to business school. "Even more shocking is the fact that some of the pre-MBAs were made offers that were easily $500,000 to $600,000 over two years," adds the recruiter. "That's right, the 24-year-olds who were made offers when they were eight months into their two-year analyst programs, just eight months out of college."
Most business schools try to play these numbers down because they don't want to raise unrealistic expectations among applicants and students. After all, the average starting pay for MBAs from most elite schools is a third or less of these outsized gains.
Still doesn't make it any less obscene, or any less deserving of controlled detonations.
Much like the salaries of professional athletes and actors.
That's bullshit, and you know it. Peyton Manning has never profited of the immoral and craven exploitation of others for the sake of a buck, with the exception of the Baltimore secondary.
There's a lot better case for high salaries for America's gladiators than there are its dismantlers.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2013, 09:25:07 PM
There's a lot better case for high salaries for America's gladiators than there are its dismantlers.
Ooooh, good line. Nice and appropriately smug. :lol:
I'll leave you two to your thing. :lol:
‘Generation Wait’: Mobility of young adults hits 50-year low
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/share-young-us-adults-move-hits-50-year-20884127 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/share-young-us-adults-move-hits-50-year-20884127)
Record high student loan delinquency
'Outstanding balances rose $33 billion to $1.03 trillion in the third quarter. A record 11.8 percent of loans were behind by 90 days or more, up from 10.9 percent in the second quarter.'
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/americans-owe-more-biggest-consumer-debt-jump-over-5-years-2D11591451 (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/americans-owe-more-biggest-consumer-debt-jump-over-5-years-2D11591451)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.onlinesentinel.com%2Fimages%2F300%2A213%2F303243-Census%2BYoung%2BAdults.JPEG-0ae99.jpg&hash=e05c3592156bea1e9dbedf704fd1c8dd5abd1b86)
Youth unemployment is a pretty serious problem. But it is really about the same puzzling issue: massive profits and no hiring and re-investment. If the business model du jure is take money and bury it in the back yard the economy will eventualy cease to function. It is just ridiculous, the Fed shoves all this cheap money to the banks who can't lend it because businesses are not borrowing. Why? How? I just do not get it.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2013, 11:55:15 PM
Youth unemployment is a pretty serious problem. But it is really about the same puzzling issue: massive profits and no hiring and re-investment. If the business model du jure is take money and bury it in the back yard the economy will eventualy cease to function. It is just ridiculous, the Fed shoves all this cheap money to the banks who can't lend it because businesses are not borrowing. Why? How? I just do not get it.
They're waiting until this whole vote-Democrats-into-the-White-House craze blows over.
Besides, business has learned after 2008 that if they can weather the contractions they suffered and still stay in business and show a profit with less employees, why bother expanding, investing, hiring? The lesson learned was we can earn more with less.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2013, 12:00:29 AM
Besides, business has learned after 2008 that if they can weather the contractions they suffered and still stay in business and show a profit with less employees, why bother expanding, investing, hiring? The lesson learned was we can earn more with less.
Oddly my company keeps hiring more and more people. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
Oddly my company keeps hiring more and more people. :hmm:
Yeah and I know a guy under 29 who has a job so clearly no crisis.
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 12:37:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
Oddly my company keeps hiring more and more people. :hmm:
Yeah and I know a guy under 29 who has a job so clearly no crisis.
I wasn't going that far. I merely was objecting to Seedy's continual hysterics.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2013, 12:00:29 AM
Besides, business has learned after 2008 that if they can weather the contractions they suffered and still stay in business and show a profit with less employees, why bother expanding, investing, hiring? The lesson learned was we can earn more with less.
Oddly my company keeps hiring more and more people. :hmm:
Yay for you. I know a company that doesn't, so we're even.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2013, 08:35:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2013, 12:00:29 AM
Besides, business has learned after 2008 that if they can weather the contractions they suffered and still stay in business and show a profit with less employees, why bother expanding, investing, hiring? The lesson learned was we can earn more with less.
Oddly my company keeps hiring more and more people. :hmm:
Yay for you. I know a company that doesn't, so we're even.
Actually, I don't know how it helps me any. I already have a position.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 01:03:57 AM
I merely was objecting to Seedy's continual hysterics.
Yes, the net job losses from 2008-2012, and finally breaking even in December 2012, are indeed hysterical.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 08:36:45 AM
Actually, I don't know how it helps me any. I already have a position.
Once again: yay for you.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 08:36:45 AM
Actually, I don't know how it helps me any. I already have a position.
Your company being successful and not having to lay people off.
Young and Educated in Europe, but Desperate for Jobs
'Five years after the economic crisis struck the Continent, youth unemployment has climbed to staggering levels in many countries: in September, 56 percent in Spain for those 24 and younger, 57 percent in Greece, 40 percent in Italy, 37 percent in Portugal and 28 percent in Ireland. For people 25 to 30, the rates are half to two-thirds as high and rising.
Those are Great Depression-like rates of unemployment, and there is no sign that European economies, still barely emerging from recession, are about to generate the jobs necessary to bring those Europeans into the work force soon, perhaps in their lifetimes.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/world/europe/youth-unemployement-in-europe.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F10%2F24%2Fworld%2FYOUTH-SPAN%2FYOUTH-SPAN-hpMedium-v3.jpg&hash=cfba3949ab87e37dac7d5dcd725a7ba09b2d57cb)
As it turns out educating women was a mistake after all:
QuoteALISON WOLF'S 'XX FACTOR': HAS EDUCATION MADE WOMEN LESS EQUAL?
Alison Wolf is standing on 118th Street in front of Columbia University in New York City's Upper West Side, flagging me down with a waving arm. I'm late to meet her. She has the British cell phone from which she's just called me in one hand and is cursing her American phone company for screwing up her service. Finally finding each other, we take the elevator up to the top of the building and sit down in an expansive, empty classroom to talk about Wolf's new book.
In The XX Factor (Crown), the British economist and journalist argues that the rise of feminism and the highly educated, empowered woman has created a small, female elite 15 percent that's quickly becoming segregated from the rest of womankind. Gone is a common female bond, instead replaced by two distinct classes: the 85 percent of women who lead home-focused lives and gendered jobs —ones that have traditionally fallen to women — and the well-educated 15 percent at the top, whose work habits and career choices are more parallel to men's. "Feminists once talked of 'the sisterhood,' but educated, successful women today have fewer interests in common with other women than ever before," Wolf writes.
"I've always been interested in how education worked for women and has been good for women, and I started digging into this," Wolf says to me, leaning forward over the table. "What it made me incredibly aware of was that education really had created a pathway for the top 15 percent, but for the rest of the 85 percent, it wasn't clear to me that it really had created any social mobility ... On the one hand, [women] like me were, through education, moving into 50 percent of professional jobs, other people were working in these either male or female environments."
The book is an extensively researched work that dives into the habits of these XX women, underscoring the allegedly growing divide between them and less-educated females in terms of their professional, sexual, marital, financial, political, and childbearing habits. One of the most glaring trends she observed was that women and men in these elite classes marry each other more, which increases income gaps and makes harder social mobility. As this divide between classes increases, it creates a self-sustaining cycle, Wolf argues. Whether or not you agree with Wolf's theses, it makes for a compelling, timely read.
Wolf's own story doesn't sound like a far cry from the XX women she describes. On the university-bound path from her early days in Newbury, a small town in southern England, Wolf attended Oxford and the University of Neuchâtel, then spent her early career as a policy analyst in the U.S. She is currently a professor at King's College in London. She is married to the economics journalist Martin Wolf — also Oxford-educated. As Wolf notes in The XX Factor, "Successful women don't like to marry down."
"When you look at marriage patterns, elite men and women make more stable marriages — as well as particularly self-reinforcing ones," Wolf says.
Wolf is a fountain of information as she talks about the trends she found in her research, almost gushing facts and statistics. For a moment, I feel less like an interviewer and more like a student in her lecture hall, and I have the urge to pull out a pen and pad and start taking notes should I miss something invaluable.
Wolf tells me that her book didn't originate from a set theory she set out to prove; instead, the concept germinated from "following her nose," digging deeper into patterns she began discovering in her research, particularly in politics. "It was realizing that women vote for the same reason men do — they vote out of anxiety, self-interest, and all the rest of it," Wolf says. "Why did women vote differently than men? Why did they see their perspectives as so different? And it was very much related to the fact that so many of them were working low-paid, part-time, service jobs — they had a really different, gendered work life, whereas at the top, where we do all the wingeing about gender, we really didn't have a gendered work life at all any more. That was what made me wonder, Well, suppose I just followed my nose."
Wolf says that one of the things that surprised her most was when people were analyzing stats, they often overlooked data inside the female group for graduates versus non-graduates — and that's where she started to see dramatic discrepancies within the gender. "It didn't make sense to talk about 'women' anymore most of the time," she says. She argues that we need to talk about two groups of women.
So, how do we address the massive chasm that Wolf argues has been put between the elite and the other 85 percent? Wolf says the trends that she's examining haven't begun to finish playing themselves out, so it's hard to forecast the right solution for eliminating the issue.
"I don't think you can close the gap by doing something to the labor market, and I actually think this is about worldwide changes and about the disappearance of manufacturing. And I don't think that education is ever going to be a miracle, because the top families will always have more access," Wolf says. "Truthfully, what one can and should try to do is redistribute more. One of the results of this is that people at the top are earning amounts that are just obscene and there is really no reason why we can't have very comfortable lives and pay more tax."
She favors tax breaks for small businesses and points to Japan for a model of creating jobs for its citizens that could "easily be done by machines instead." And, despite their precarious economic standing, she cites Italy as a good model for an economy in which small industries are encouraged.
Wolf also advocates tightening up education, saying that the elite have to get out of private schools and back into the public systems. She credits Canada and Australia as large countries doing a relatively good job with public education. "They have good teacher training, they have good very, very well-established curricula that they've changed gradually. They don't have anything like [the U.S.'s] center cities or even English center cities ... The point is that you have stability, you train your teachers, and you actually get rid of the bad ones. You have parents who are motivated, you do your very best to keep the public schools good enough that the professional classes use them. No system can do really well with its public education system if a significant part of the elite have opted out."
Should the elite feel guilty about leaving most of women in the dust after reading The XX Factor?
"I don't think they should feel guilty — they should feel grateful," Wolf says. "We should be much more appreciative of the women of the first half of the 20th century for the time they put in volunteering and doing things that none of us do. I don't think we should feel guilty about taking our chances to do well. I do think we should feel more aware of how tough everyone else is finding it, and I do think we should be willing to pay higher taxes, and that when we get into our 60s and we stop working flat-out, instead of spending time on cruises, we should be willing to put a lot more back in."
The 85% will eventually evolve into the Morlocks.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
How are they going to become Morlocks without a solid STEM education?
QuoteAs Wolf notes in The XX Factor, "Successful women don't like to marry down."
Or laterally. At the end of the day, the only thing that might yet save humanity from its own horrible instincts is genetic engineering. Though we have not yet seen it, we can dream, and it may be possible to create a type of human actually capable of love.
We'd probably murder it.
QuotePublic universities should be free
Americans are losing access to higher education because they have forgotten what "public" means
Public education should be free. If it isn't free, it isn't public education.
This should not be a controversial assertion. This should be common sense. But Americans have forgotten what the "public" in "public education" actually means (or used to mean). The problem is that the word no longer has anything to refer to: This country's public universities have been radically transformed. The change has happened so slowly and so gradually — bit by bit, cut by cut over half a century — that it can only really be seen in retrospect. But with only a small amount of historical perspective, the change is dramatic: public universities that once charged themselves to open their doors to all that could benefit by attending — that were, by definition, the public property of the entire state, as a whole — have become something entirely different.
What we still call "public universities" would be more accurately described as state-controlled private universities — corporate entities that think and behave like businesses. Where there once was a public mission to educate the republic's citizens, there is now the goal of satisfying the educational needs of the market, aided by PR departments that brand degrees as commodities and build consumer interest, always with an eye to the bottom line. And while public universities once sought to advance the industry of the state, as a whole, with an eye to the common good, shortfalls in public funding have led to universities treating their research capacity as a source of primary fund-raising, developing new technologies and products for the private sector, explicitly to raise the money they need to operate. Conflicts of interest are now commonplace.
Should public universities be free? Only because our public universities have been so fundamentally privatized over the last forty years does the sentence "Public universities should be free" even make sense. Of course they should be free! If an education was available only to those who could afford it — if an education is a commodity to be purchased in the marketplace — in what sense could it really be called "public"?
Let there be light
In the early 1960s, California formulated a "master plan" for higher education — a single name for a set of interlocking policies developed by University of California President Clark Kerr. The idea was that any Californian who wanted a post-secondary education would have a place to go in the state's three-tiered system. Students could go to a community college, for free, and from there, they could transfer to one of the many California State Universities or Universities of California, where no tuition was charged — only course "fees" that were intended to be nominal. New universities were swiftly planned and built to meet the dramatic increase in demand expected from the incoming Baby Boomer and the state's population growth; as more and more citizens aspired to higher education, California opened more and more classrooms and universities to give them that opportunity. The master plan was not a blank check, but it was a commitment: any Californian who wanted a post-secondary education could get one.
Today, that is simply not true. For one thing, institutions like the University of California have not grown to meet the rising demand; year by year, bit by bit, as the state's population has continued to grow, a larger percentage of California students have been turned away or replaced by out-of-state students (who pay much higher tuition). In fact, university officials are quite explicit about the fact that they are admitting more out-of-state and international students (and fewer Californians) in order to raise money. Historically, about 10 percent of the U.C.'s student population was out-of-state, but that number has more than doubled since the 2008 financial crisis (In Michigan — which has been hit even harder than California — out-of-state enrollment in the University of Michigan system is closer to 40 percent.)
If this country can build the world's largest military and fight open-ended wars in multiple theaters across the globe, it can find a way to pay for public education.
Most importantly, as tuition steadily rises to the level of comparable private universities, the word "public" comes to mean less and less. Indeed, when Mark Yudof was appointed president of the University of California in 2008, he was known as an advocate of what he had called in 2002 the "hybrid university": an institution that retained some of the characteristics of a public university, but which would draw the bulk of its revenue from student tuition.
Yudof's vision of the "public" university would have been unrecognizable to the architects of the master plan: instead of providing the tools for the state's citizens to better themselves, state universities are to survive by thinking like a business, selling their product for as much as the market will bear. From the point of view of a higher education consumer — which is what its students have effectively become — the claim that the U.C. is "public" institution rings increasingly false with every passing year.
For my parents, by contrast, distinction between public and private was very clear. Both baby boomers and the first in their families to get college degrees, they went to public university because it was affordable, while private university was not. By that definition, are there any public universities left? Schools that are at last partially funded and controlled by elected officials, usually at the state level, are nominally "public" while the broad range of universities that are not owned by the government — from non-profit corporations like Harvard to explicitly for-profit corporations like the University of Phoenix or Udacity — truly inhabit the private sector. But if the price tag is the same, if the product is the same, and if the experience is the same, what difference does a university's tax status make? A university that thinks and behaves like a private-sector corporation — charging its consumers what the market will bear, cutting costs wherever it can, and using competition with its peers as its measure of success — is a public university in name only.
Open roads and toll roads
A better way to compare public and private would be to consider the difference between public roads and toll roads. Some toll roads are owned and operated by state governments, and some by the private sector. But does the driver care who owns the road? I doubt it; the important thing is whether the road is free and open to all, or whether it can be used only by those who can afford to drive on it. The same is true of public and private universities: a university is "public" only if those who need to use it can do so.
In this sense, it seems to me that the malaise that afflicts our public universities is not really about about dollars and cents. If this country can build the world's largest military and fight open-ended wars in multiple theaters across the globe, it can find a way to pay for public education, as it once did, in living memory. But doing so has ceased being a real priority. Affordable "public education" is no longer something we expect, demand or take for granted; to argue that public education should be free makes you sound like an absurd and unrealistic utopian. Meanwhile, we take it for granted that roads should be free to drive on, a toll-road here or there not withstanding. You provide the car and the gas; the state provides the road.
This used to be how we thought about our public universities, before they became exorbitant toll roads: if you had the grades and the ambition, there was a classroom open to you. But if every road was a toll road, no one would expect to drive for free. If every road was a toll road, the very idea that the government would build and maintain a massive system of roads and highways — and then let anyone use it (for free!) — would seem fantastical, ridiculous, even perverse. Anyone expecting the right to drive anywhere they pleased, for free, would be branded a utopian, a socialist, a deluded and soft-hearted liberal demanding a free lunch. That's the world we live in when it comes to highways: when the roads that drive our economy and make modern life possible get too crowded or too congested, we expect the state to build new roads. When the old roads wear out, they are re-paved; when a tree or a landslide obstructs a thoroughfare, the state clears the way. When there are not enough classrooms, on the other hand, the state no longer builds new universities; it simply charges more.
For most of the twentieth century, when the overwhelming majority of this country's public universities were built, it was simply common sense that a growing college-age population had to be matched by a growing system of accessible higher education, something that — as everyone agreed — only the government could provide, and which only the government did provide. They were explicitly chartered to bring a college degree within the reach of as many citizens as possible and to advance the greater good by disseminating knowledge as widely as possible. Without that common sense, that bipartisan consensus, our public universities would never have been built in the first place. And judged by that original standard, there are few, if any, public universities left.
Aaron Bady is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas and formerly a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also an editor and blogger at the New Inquiry.
We just haven't had a good malaise since the Carter administration; until this very day.
Too funny, or too sad? You decide.
QuoteA Whopping 95% Employment Rate For U.S. MBA Grads
So much for those anti-higher education naysayers who contend the MBA is a degree that has diminishing value. And so much for the few disappointed MBA holders who assert that the degree isn't worth its escalating costs.
Today a new survey by the Graduate Management Admission Council found that nine out of every ten MBAs in the Class of 2013 were employed in September. Overall, the employment rate for two-year MBAs hit 92%, up from 90% last year and 85% in 2009. It would have been even higher if not for some sluggishness in Europe where 18% of graduating MBAs were unemployed in September.
For U.S. citizens who graduated from two-year MBA programs, moreover, the employment rate was a whopping 95%, the highest level in the past five years and up from 91% last year.
The new GMAC report — based on responses from 915 members of the Class of 2013 from 129 business schools around the world — continues to also show widespread satisfaction with graduate business education. GMAC said that 96% of the responding Class of 2013 rate the value of their degree as outstanding, excellent, or good, and the same percentage of the class would recommend a graduate management education to others. Three of every four members of the class say they could not have obtained their job without their graduate business education, according to the GMAC survey.
The median starting annual salaries offered to U.S. citizens who graduated from a full-time, two-year MBA this year was $90,000, with a bonus and additional comp of $10,000. That's up from a median base of $86,700 last year. Of course, these numbers are for U.S. graduates of a wider sample of business schools. Graduates of the very top business schools earned substantially more.
Stanford Graduate School of Business, for example, recently reported that its Class of 2013 MBAs earned median salaries of $125,000 – $35,000 more than the GMAC number — with median signing bonuses of $25,000 and median guaranteed bonuses of $30,000. Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina said its Class of 2013 MBAs had median pay of $100,000, with $25,000 signing bonuses and $17,000 guaranteed bonuses.
Compensation obviously varies greatly by geography, school, program, industry and work experience. U.S. citizens who graduated from part-time MBA programs reported median annual salary of $85,000, GMAC found. Citizens of India who graduated from full-time, two-year MBA programs reported a median starting salary of just $34,988. Europeans graduating from full-time, one-year MBA programs reported the highest median starting salaries in the GMAC sample: $101,093.
GMAC says the survey is based on a 19% response rate, which is fairly consistent with previous polls. It does not calculate a margin of error for the poll which asks graduates if they are employed in September, which can be between three or four months after graduation depending on when commencement was held. Employment includes MBAs who are self-employed, but not those who are no longer looking for a job.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 16, 2013, 09:35:36 AM
Young and Educated in Europe, but Desperate for Jobs
It is a pretty serious crisis. As it turns out the birth rates in Europe were too high.
For once an article that doesn't say all young adults are lazy, spoiled deadbeats :)
QuoteIn search of perfection, young adults turn to Adderall at work
The prescription ADHD medication is becoming a popular resource as a performance-enhancing drug for the brain
Ella Benson was a junior in college the first time she took it. With a class assignment due, she was offered the drug as a means to stay up all night and crank out something respectable by morning.
It worked, and Benson now says it was the first time she "really connected" with something she was working on.
"It was the first paper I wrote where I felt like I came up with an idea that was meaningful and important," she said. "I got an A on it."
An A for Adderall.
Now, at 26, Benson is a professional writer who reports for a major news publication and has had her byline in The New York Times. She keeps an "emergency stash" of Adderall nearby for when she's working on a big story and has to stay awake all night.
Benson (whose name, like all the people in this story who discuss their ADHD drug use, has been changed to protect her identity) is typical of a growing population of young adults who went to college in the 2000s. As they age out into the workplace, they're taking with them the ADHD med habits they developed in college — and finding the drugs still work.
While it is tempting to chalk up the rising use of ADHD drugs among young adults to a generational trend of lax morals and blind eyes towards addiction and other health risks, a more complete explanation suggests an environment that encourages stimulant use. A hugely popular New York Times op-ed written by Tim Kreider pointed out what is fast becoming the modern condition: guilt and anxiety over any minute not spent working or promoting that work.
In this culture of perfection, in which the worst thing someone could be is not busy, many young adults have latched onto a drug that makes them go faster, harder and stronger at work.
"When I take Adderall, I think, 'This must be how really successful, smart people are all the time,'" said Jonathan Collier, 27, who works in a senior position at a New York production house. "I wish so badly I was one of those people."
In his 2008 book, "Outliers," Malcolm Gladwell theorized that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to master a skill and share the kind of success enjoyed by "those people" — the Bill Gateses and Paul Allens of the world. His theory may serve as both an explanation and a product of the current culture. Gladwell, after all, came to the conclusion that the way to succeed is to put the blinders on: to ignore all the distractions inherent in contemporary society and to single-mindedly and doggedly pursue a goal.
Dr. Henry Abraham, a psychiatrist who has treated doctors, lawyers and other high achievers, said stimulants now are used often in a way that is closer to sports medicine than it is to psychiatry: to enhance performance. That's because the working world — like college before it, and, for some, prep school before that — is a competition, and people are looking to get an edge. Everyone wants to get those 10,000 hours, but not everyone is wired to do it naturally. So, many turn to Adderall and other ADHD drugs.
The modern brain
It's unclear how many adults take ADHD drugs, but it is evident that use is skyrocketing. According to IMS Health, in 2007, 5.6 million monthly prescriptions for ADHD medications were written for people ages 20 to 39. By 2011, that number had jumped to 14 million, a staggering 150 percent increase. Anecdotal evidence also shows a large number of people illegally taking ADHD drugs without a prescription.
"I think part of the increase in the rate of (ADHD drug) prescriptions," said Dr. David Meyer, a professor of psychology, cognition and perception at the University of Michigan, "is that people both younger and older are coming to feel totally overloaded with bunches of information and are trying to cope with the increasing demands as best they can."
Our brains have mechanisms of executive function, similar to a computer operating system, he said. These mechanisms keep people's situational awareness up to speed and coordinate progress on various real-world tasks. But these executive functions are under constant attack in the modern world.
"Even a 10- (or) 20-second interruption can make you lose your situational awareness entirely," Meyer said.
In many of the information-based jobs available to young professionals, those interruptions are not just unavoidable collateral damage; they are baked into the job itself.
"I'm expected to consume so much media and data every day on top of what I'm already supposed to do," said Cristina Long, a 24-year-old public-relations professional. "I need to stay ahead of the trends."
Long was hired to click everywhere and look at everything, all the while creating cohesive results.
The active ingredients in Adderall target the parts of the brain responsible for executive function. In other words, Adderall solves the very problems the modern world creates. Long now uses the drug daily, as do the many adults who don't have ADHD but are seeking an edge in the workplace.
'Cosmetic neurology'
The drugs are so popular because they work.
"Adderall opens up time for you," Collier said, emphasizing that using it enables him to get all his work done and still have time to work on other projects.
Long said the stimulant clears her thoughts and helps her produce better work.
For Benson, taking Adderall is like playing a video game and getting an extra life. She said she gets more done and is a better writer.
All three said using the drug made their lives better.
At the same time, Benson admitted she struggles with her use.
"I feel uncomfortable using it to write," she said. "It would mean that what I consider my greatest skill is a lie."
So she now stays up all night writing, then, if necessary, takes Adderall the next morning to get through the workday.
Benson's complex relationship with the drug illustrates problems Dr. Anjan Chatterjee, a professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, has highlighted in connection to what he refers to as "cosmetic neurology" — the use of drugs like Adderall for performance enhancement.
Essentially, Chatterjee argues that the advances in cognitive neuroscience and neuropharmacology mean the question of to what extent we want to create and live in a drug-enhanced society may no longer be relevant. That way of life is already here, and society must now account for the moral implications it brings.
Like cosmetic surgery, cosmetic neurology will likely be available only to those with the disposable income to afford elective medicine, expanding the already wide gap between the haves and have-nots. Drugs like Adderall already tend to circulate among the wealthy — those who come from competitive universities and have access to health care that covers expensive prescriptions.
An added concern is that the growing use of stimulants in the workplace will produce a new work environment in which use of neurological enhancement through pharmaceuticals is just one more thing expected of the perfect worker.
Benson said using the drugs doesn't make her feel guilty. Collier agreed, saying, "It's more about being honest with yourself — if it's something you're comfortable with."
But not everyone feels comfortable with it, yet they might feel compelled to use such drugs because of the pressure to keep up.
"Everyone is in an arms race of accomplishment," Chatterjee said.
How can society account for the coercive nature of a culture of perfection?
Dr. Todd Essig, a psychologist in New York, said medical professionals must address neurological performance enhancement openly and facilitate safer use and better oversight of such drugs rather than sweep it under the rug.
"Adderall is just the tip of the iceberg," Essig said. "There are lots more drugs coming down the pike. The way we set up our cultural model for dealing with psychologically performance-enhancing drugs is a real serious question."
EVERYONE IS A ROBOT!
People are weird about using drugs for anything but fighting disease. I mean so what you use a drug to help your brain function better? But it seems this is abuse for some reason. I do not get that.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 16, 2013, 10:25:51 AM
How are they going to become Morlocks without a solid STEM education?
QuoteAs Wolf notes in The XX Factor, "Successful women don't like to marry down."
Or laterally. At the end of the day, the only thing that might yet save humanity from its own horrible instincts is genetic engineering. Though we have not yet seen it, we can dream, and it may be possible to create a type of human actually capable of love.
We'd probably murder it.
Without a standard measure, I don't think there's such thing as marrying exactly laterally, whether financially, intellectually, or career-wise, therefore 50% of all individuals who wed marry down.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2013, 11:16:07 AM
People are weird about using drugs for anything but fighting disease. I mean so what you use a drug to help your brain function better? But it seems this is abuse for some reason. I do not get that.
I somewhat feel this way because the body is something of a balanced machine and while taking a drug can have positive short term effects, there is a good chance the side effects are negative. See: steroids.
The problem with other people using such drugs is that either you let them have an advantage in a competition (mental or physical), or you expose yourself to the same dangers.
42% of Millennials blame colleges for rising student debt
'As student loan debt mounts, students and policymakers alike are trying to figure out who is to blame for the country's $1 trillion problem.
According to a study on Millennials released this week by the Harvard Institute of Politics, many young Americans seem to think colleges and universities are most responsible.
In the poll of 2,089 young adults between 18- and 29-years-old, 42% of respondents blamed colleges and universities for rising student debt, while 30% blamed the federal government.
The remaining vote was split between students (11%), state governments (8%), other (4%) and refused (5%).'
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/07/millennials-student-debt-blame/3896623/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2F2d42e3d51377640b4c5a1c5238608d8404a47242%2Fc%3D4-0-2000-1500%26amp%3Br%3Dx404%26amp%3Bc%3D534x401%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2FUSATODAY%2Ftest%2F2013%2F12%2F07%2F%2F1386424241000-104645199-1-.jpg&hash=90de1d5407651e2758654138c52ad5be365a3ef4)
100% of Ed Anger blames Young People for being stupid.
<insert stock photo>
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 08, 2013, 10:34:14 AM
<insert stock photo>
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Fe81917b36f86a73b8f7f1bc56b968792%2Ftumblr_mvwoib5wfU1qakqfvo1_400.jpg&hash=02c8bd54d91c101f213b64d6c08a7f7ce030520d)
:lmfao:
The last German state that still had them abolished tuition fees today, so university attendance in public universities is free all over the country again. :)
What % of Germans attend university?
2,75% of Germans were university students at the end of 2012.
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 02:49:16 PM
The last German state that still had them abolished tuition fees today, so university attendance in public universities is free all over the country again. :)
:huh: I assume there is a limited number of spots in universities. How are you going to allocate them in a socially efficient manner without the market forces?
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 02:49:16 PM
The last German state that still had them abolished tuition fees today, so university attendance in public universities is free all over the country again. :)
My impression is that Germany has some fairly effective methods of diversion to non university based training. That probably makes this kind of program much more affordable than it would be in Canada and certainly the US.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 02:49:16 PM
The last German state that still had them abolished tuition fees today, so university attendance in public universities is free all over the country again. :)
My impression is that Germany has some fairly effective methods of diversion to non university based training. That probably makes this kind of program much more affordable than it would be in Canada and certainly the US.
While true, I expect (Zanza can you confirm?) that vocational training, apprenticeship programs, and other forms of non-university career preparation are similarly free to the students.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2013, 03:09:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 02:49:16 PM
The last German state that still had them abolished tuition fees today, so university attendance in public universities is free all over the country again. :)
My impression is that Germany has some fairly effective methods of diversion to non university based training. That probably makes this kind of program much more affordable than it would be in Canada and certainly the US.
While true, I expect (Zanza can you confirm?) that vocational training, apprenticeship programs, and other forms of non-university career preparation are similarly free to the students.
Assuming that is true, and it probably is, apprenticeship programs are a lot less expensive than running university programs. Which brings me back to the original point. :)
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2013, 02:56:43 PM
:huh: I assume there is a limited number of spots in universities. How are you going to allocate them in a socially efficient manner without the market forces?
The universities basically create three different rankings of all applicants:
1) 20% of the available places are assigned based purely on the final exam grades at high school, best applicants get a spot.
2) 20% of the available places are assigned based on how long you already had to wait because you didn't get a spot in your first attempt.
3) 60% of the available places are assigned based on final exam grades in high school, related work expertise, related specific notes from high school (e.g. if you excelled in just one subject and now want to study that), interviews, close proximity between your residence and university, social factors such as disabilities or combinations of these etc.
The exact criteria are set by the university administrations for each subject and checked by the ministry of education of the respective federal state.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2013, 03:12:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2013, 03:09:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 02:49:16 PM
The last German state that still had them abolished tuition fees today, so university attendance in public universities is free all over the country again. :)
My impression is that Germany has some fairly effective methods of diversion to non university based training. That probably makes this kind of program much more affordable than it would be in Canada and certainly the US.
While true, I expect (Zanza can you confirm?) that vocational training, apprenticeship programs, and other forms of non-university career preparation are similarly free to the students.
Assuming that is true, and it probably is, apprenticeship programs are a lot less expensive than running university programs. Which brings me back to the original point. :)
Most apprenticeship programs are dual, meaning you work part-time in a normal company (or government institution) to learn the practical aspects of your trade and you attend a state school part-time to learn the more theoretical aspects of your trade. The employer pays the apprentice a wage (about 500-1500 Euro/month), the state school is free. Most apprentices are between 15 and 22 years old. Afterwards you will most of the time get a job with the employer you worked with during your apprenticeship.
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 02:55:49 PM
2,75% of Germans were university students at the end of 2012.
This number is a little tough to wrap my head around.
What % of 18 years olds do you figure go on to university?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2013, 03:20:26 PM
What % of 18 years olds do you figure go on to university?
Apparently about 51% in 2013. That has risen a lot in the last five years as it used to be about 40%.
There are "dual" universities as well where you part-time study at a university and part-time work with a company, typically in stuff like accounting/marketing or in engineering/IT subjects. That has become quite popular in the last years AFAIK.
Wow. Much higher than I would have guessed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2013, 03:34:30 PM
Wow. Much higher than I would have guessed.
Yeah, me too.
That is a substantial investment.
I for one welcome our new German overlords. :)
Germany increased investment into universities in the last decade. Good education is considered an important factor in economic competitiveness with the rest of the world. The fastest growth in student numbers is in our traditional strength: engineering.
Since 2005, number of students is up 43%, number of scientific university employees is up 27%, number of lecturers is up 55%, number of professors is up 13%. The relation of students to scientific university personnel has remained roughly constant since.
:mmm:
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
Germany increased investment into universities in the last decade. Good education is considered an important factor in economic competitiveness with the rest of the world. The fastest growth in student numbers is in our traditional strength: engineering.
Since 2005, number of students is up 43%, number of scientific university employees is up 27%, number of lecturers is up 55%, number of professors is up 13%. The relation of students to scientific university personnel has remained roughly constant since.
Oh my God I wish you guys had won the war.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 11, 2013, 08:37:44 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
Germany increased investment into universities in the last decade. Good education is considered an important factor in economic competitiveness with the rest of the world. The fastest growth in student numbers is in our traditional strength: engineering.
Since 2005, number of students is up 43%, number of scientific university employees is up 27%, number of lecturers is up 55%, number of professors is up 13%. The relation of students to scientific university personnel has remained roughly constant since.
Oh my God I wish you guys had won the war.
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 11, 2013, 08:37:44 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
Germany increased investment into universities in the last decade. Good education is considered an important factor in economic competitiveness with the rest of the world. The fastest growth in student numbers is in our traditional strength: engineering.
Since 2005, number of students is up 43%, number of scientific university employees is up 27%, number of lecturers is up 55%, number of professors is up 13%. The relation of students to scientific university personnel has remained roughly constant since.
Oh my God I wish you guys had won the war.
Now now, things would be a little different. You'd probably have to spend a few years fighting Russian partisans in the Urals before you got the free education.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 11, 2013, 08:37:44 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
Germany increased investment into universities in the last decade. Good education is considered an important factor in economic competitiveness with the rest of the world. The fastest growth in student numbers is in our traditional strength: engineering.
Since 2005, number of students is up 43%, number of scientific university employees is up 27%, number of lecturers is up 55%, number of professors is up 13%. The relation of students to scientific university personnel has remained roughly constant since.
Oh my God I wish you guys had won the war.
Unfortunately for you, they pinned their hopes on strategic bombing.
Quote from: Zanza on December 11, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
Germany increased investment into universities in the last decade. Good education is considered an important factor in economic competitiveness with the rest of the world. The fastest growth in student numbers is in our traditional strength: engineering.
Since 2005, number of students is up 43%, number of scientific university employees is up 27%, number of lecturers is up 55%, number of professors is up 13%. The relation of students to scientific university personnel has remained roughly constant since.
And what do you do when the Bachelors is the new high school diploma and undergraduate becomes effectively another four years of compulsory schooling? Where do we decide that enough is enough with education?
Possibly using central planning! OMG.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 11, 2013, 09:18:56 PM
And what do you do when the Bachelors is the new high school diploma and undergraduate becomes effectively another four years of compulsory schooling? Where do we decide that enough is enough with education?
I think while more people study in Germany, the time they study actually gets less. Most students used to study for 5-6 years for something similar to a master's degree. Nowadays, a lot of people just study three years for a bachelor's degree and then do not continue with a master's degree. Furthermore the highest growth is with "universities of applied sciences" which basically teach job-related stuff, their lecturers are often externals from companies etc. and they don't have the typical humanities subjects where people get stuck. They also make internships (usually paid in Germany) mandatory. Combine that with a boom of those dual studies where you are actually employed while being a part-time student.
School was shortened from 13 to 12 years and conscription was abolished, so Germans are actually 1-2 years younger when they start their studies nowadays too. So I don't think that the growth in students has actually moved the average age when people start working much.
I don't see such a problem with university becoming compulsory.
True, it sucks for those of us who would have went to university anyway, we lost any advantage we may have had. But overall adulthood is getting pushed back and lifespans are getting longer so...it makes sense for people not to enter right into work at 16 as was the case in the days of yore.
The problem is there's no work at the end of the process....
Though streamed European systems with technical schools and that sort of thing are great I have to admire European kids for being grown up enough to actually choose that path. I had no idea what I wanted to do when I was 16 and the choices had to be made (still aren't entirely sure). Work was far from my mind thanks to the propeganda that university=good job that people still believed thanks to it being the case in our parents days. I can't imagine I ever would have chosen to take the 'lesser' path of technical school even if it made economic sense.
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2013, 04:14:48 AMI had no idea what I wanted to do when I was 16 and the choices had to be made
What makes you think kids these days make better choices or have a better plan?
I'm in favor of taking some time off and joining the real world for a while before deciding to get re-institutionalized in university. I think that extended period of time living in the bubble is a bad thing for people and damages their ability to function effectively later.
Military service is traditional between high school and university. Except now we don't have it anymore.
Quote from: Syt on December 12, 2013, 04:29:38 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2013, 04:14:48 AMI had no idea what I wanted to do when I was 16 and the choices had to be made
What makes you think kids these days make better choices or have a better plan?
That they clearly do. The system in Germany, the Netherlands, etc... Is working
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2013, 03:12:30 AM
i often heard anecdotes from professors during college of how they once taught private universities, and students would actually come to them during office hours and say, "i received a poor grade on this paper/test/etc. why? i deserve As." i found that odd, but i guess there are those who are really like that
It happens a lot in both public and private universities. Part of the blame is grade inflation in high schools. People who are used to getting A grades doing C+ work are often quick to blame the Prof or university for their poor marks rather then considering the more obvious problem.
A funny anecdote from a friend who spent some time teaching at an Ivy League school:
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof:"There is a first time for everything. Was there anything else?"
It's funny, and of course everyone on Earth younger than 30 (or let's make that 31, I'm sure) is an entitled monster, but did your pal bother explaining the grade, or was his pedagogical response to the person paying him to do his job really as dismissive as a two-sentence bon mot?
I was hoping that the story would end on a more entertaining note.
Student: "I got a B. I have never had a B. I always get As."
Prof: "Well, there *is* a way you can get an A..." :perv:
Yes, we all remember the story of you and your wife cackling evilly over a similar scene you once witnessed. :sleep:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 12, 2013, 04:24:24 PM
I'm in favor of taking some time off and joining the real world for a while before deciding to get re-institutionalized in university. I think that extended period of time living in the bubble is a bad thing for people and damages their ability to function effectively later.
You don't have much choice when the real world doesn't let you join in any reindeer games.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2013, 01:30:13 AM
Yes, we all remember the story of you and your wife cackling evilly over a similar scene you once witnessed. :sleep:
Jog my memory, would you? :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 13, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 12, 2013, 04:24:24 PM
I'm in favor of taking some time off and joining the real world for a while before deciding to get re-institutionalized in university. I think that extended period of time living in the bubble is a bad thing for people and damages their ability to function effectively later.
You don't have much choice when the real world doesn't let you join in any reindeer games.
Better to have no reindeer games and no debt than no reindeer games and a bunch of debt. :P
First-Year Law School Enrollment Falls
'First-year enrollment at U.S. law schools plunged to its lowest level since 1977, as students steered away from a career that has left many recent graduates loaded with debt and struggling to find work.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/12/17/first-year-law-school-enrollment-lowest-since-1977/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BK719_LAWGRA_D_20110316183828.jpg&hash=e535f5b877657cecd4325749f482df3b9a43f979)
Which means it might be time for folks to start thinking about law school again.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2013, 02:07:58 PM
Which means it might be time for folks to start thinking about law school again.
Maybe, it would be interesting to see if anyone has done an analysis of how many graduates are needed to fill available positions. Technology has greatly reduced the need for the numbers of support staff and junior lawyers that were once required.
They have. It's around 25,000 per year. That's the number of grads that get fulltime, permanent, bar-required jobs. Somewhat more than half of the output of the past several years.
Although, if you count only jobs that are sufficient to service the average law school debt, it's a fraction of that fraction.
So, no, it's not a good time to go to law school. Not yet, certainly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2013, 02:07:58 PM
Which means it might be time for folks to start thinking about law school again.
If you can get in a top 10 law school and do well there, yes.
If you have good connections in your local state and have a job lined up in advance, also yes.
Otherwise, think carefully.
OK, it might be time to start thinking carefully about law school again. :P
Waiting Tables at Top-Tier Restaurants Is New Career Path for Ivy League and Culinary School Grads
'Head waiters at top-tier restaurants can earn from $80,000 to as much as $150,000 a year including tips. In comparison, a line cook might earn as little as $35,000 to $45,000 a year while working longer hours. The nation's highest-rated restaurants, including Per Se, Le Bernardin and Eleven Madison Park in New York and Alinea in Chicago, hire as few as 10% of the individuals applying for waitstaff jobs.'
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304137304579292350943682222
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FPJ-BS418_SERVER_G_20131231170150.jpg&hash=c0b4a1cbf119ba5201aceeaa7ce5baaf23527183)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 01, 2014, 02:11:45 PM
The nation's highest-rated restaurants, including Per Se, Le Bernardin and Eleven Madison Park in New York and Alinea in Chicago, hire as few as 10% of the individuals applying for waitstaff jobs.'
What??! They get 10 applicants per job? That's AMAZING.
Those are the heaviest hitters in the gourmet restaurant biz. If you have Per Se or Le Bernardin on your resume you're golden.
My impression is that high-end restaurants select waiting staff based on looks. They also need to be sociable and reasonably smart, but good looks seem to be one of the selection criteria.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 01, 2014, 09:23:10 PM
My impression is that high-end restaurants select waiting staff based on looks. They also need to be sociable and reasonably smart, but good looks seem to be one of the selection criteria.
It's kind of an unwritten rule, yeah. Hiring managers will never voice it because the jury's still out on whether or not "overweight" is a protected class, but you're especially going to run into that in places with tip sharing.
There's also an edge to good-looking female, both in terms of hiring for the floor, and even more substantially in terms of tip income.
Which I never got. I've always thought one of the most annoying fucking thing in the world was to be flirted with for someone for cash. Paying for sex, okay, that's reasonable; paying for attention, that's pathetic.
Impression I get from the movies is the really expensive places usually have male waitstaff.
And they look like John Cleese. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 01, 2014, 09:12:57 PM
Those are the heaviest hitters in the gourmet restaurant biz. If you have Per Se or Le Bernardin on your resume you're golden.
We get more than 10 applicants for crap jobs.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303870704579298302637802002
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-AZ244_EDUCAT_G_20140103195711.jpg&hash=038cc44c90744d54b0b32b21890b7edd80c60b93)
STEM (PBUI) will provide. :)
It's high time we brought back debtor's prison:
QuoteUOU: How universities are suing alumni who owe
by Frieda Klotz January 7, 2014 6:00AM ET
As student debt spirals upward, some colleges are using aggressive tactics to recover unpaid loans — including lawsuits
As a smart kid who grew up in New York City, David Acevedo won a seven-year academic scholarship to Horace Mann. Acevedo's father was an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, his mother the daughter of parents from Italy and Cuba. Although no one in his family had studied at a private college, Acevedo graduated from his prestigious high school assuming that he would pursue a university education. In 1999 he enrolled in George Washington University's undergraduate school of business. He owes more than $100,000 in student loans. In 2012, his alma mater sued him in court.
"I was saddled with a lot of debt," Acevedo, now 32, explains over the phone. "But upon graduating — less because of an unavailability of work and more because of a fear of failure — I did not really fulfill the goal of getting a good job and a career. So I defaulted on my loans because I was not able to do that. Still to this day, I'm in that position."
Acevedo is one of more than two dozen students who were pursued by GWU in the courts in 2012 in its attempt to retrieve funds. Court records show that at least four East Coast institutions have brought court cases against former students, a trend that is becoming increasingly commonplace as student debt has spiraled upward. In 2013, it hit $1.2 trillion, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But an opaque market in private loans and the difficulty in accounting for students who use credit card or home equity to pay for college mean that the total outstanding debt may be much higher.
Although he enjoyed his education, Acevedo struggled with a lack of confidence in the years after college. When he returned to New York, he lived with his grandmother, who would often cook him dinner. He began to work with DJs, managing the plasma displays that accompanied their nighttime shows, and set up a company to handle these operations. However, in 2008, the economic crisis snuffed out demand for his business, and the venture foundered.
Today, Acevedo works for a telecommunications provider and lives in Upper Manhattan. After paying rent and his Con Edison bill, he says, he has $68 per week to spend on food and other items. "That's not living," he says.
Bills and letters went to his mother's house and remained unopened, including a number of notices from the District of Columbia Courts. In 2013, a judgment ordered him to pay $7,050: $3,084 from 2004, which he says was probably a Perkins loan, along with interest, attorney's fees and court costs (his other loans are private loans). "For many years I simply ignored it and swept under the rug the letters or the demands for the money for pragmatic reasons. I was totally out of money. So these proceedings were completely uncontested," Acevedo says.
Federal Perkins loans are available at schools in all 50 states. They were created to assist undergrad and graduate students in exceptional financial need. But as student debt has grown, so have defaults on the loans, which rose nationally from 8.32 percent in 2011 to 11.08 percent in 2012. Defaults have occurred at institutions ranging from the Ivy League to community colleges: At Harding University in Arkansas, 323 borrowers defaulted in 2012, representing $677,161; at Harvard University, 402 borrowers defaulted, owing almost $3 million.
The U.S. Department of Education requires schools to comply with due diligence regulations in collecting a Perkins loan, including litigation if appropriate. Not every school takes that step, although Yale, the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University have all sued students, court records show.
"It just shows how student debt is a huge issue for our generation and we've got to figure it out," says Rory O'Sullivan, policy and research director at Young Invincibles, an organization dedicated to expanding opportunities for young people. "It really is a symptom of a much broader problem."
But the colleges are in a tricky position, says Justin Draeger, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Because Perkins loans involve federal funds, schools have a responsibility to collect what is essentially taxpayers' money.
Schools also have a more pragmatic motivation. In 2011 and 2010, no new funding was added to the Perkins loan program, meaning that the only money available to new students comes from the funds that alumni repay. "If funds aren't coming back in, that means there's fewer funds available for future students," Draeger says.
Aaron Graff, 31, was also sued by GWU in 2012 over a Perkins loan. "I've heard that by me not paying this $4,300 back I'm making it difficult for other students, who are having a hard time paying for college, to go to college." But, he says, the emphasis is all wrong. "It should be, 'Why is college so expensive in the first place?'"
Graff lives 65 miles northeast of Denver, in the basement of his father's house. His family has been farming in the region for almost a century. Growing up, they were poor, Graff says. "I was the first one in my family to go to college. Neither of my parents had even thought about it. So we were kind of naive when we found a student loan provider."
Graff did not start out as a particularly good student in high school, but after a back injury thwarted his ambition to join the Marines, he began to take classes at a community college in Denver. Supported by his professors of literature and philosophy, he immersed himself in the works of Emerson, John Steinbeck, Gore Vidal and Christopher Hitchens. He excelled, and won a distinguished student award at graduation. With his passion for politics and history, GWU seemed like an ideal place to study. "I was in a reading utopia where my job was to read," he recalls. "So that's what I did."
Because of a glitch in his choice of classes — he took a course in the philosophy of nonviolence instead of a required statistics class — Graff was forced to delay graduation for a year. As a result he lost his job with the DC Teaching Fellows, a program that trains talented graduates to teach in disadvantaged areas. Until recently, he was teaching GED classes at the community college he attended but his hours were cut to just 13 hours per week. He made $215 weekly, earning extra cash by doing landscaping and remodeling basements when he could. In November of last year, Graff finally found a full-time position running a GED program in Denver's inner city.
Graff's loans add up to more than $60,000, including one from Sallie Mae guaranteed by his father and another from the American Education Services, which his mother guarantees. Because his parents are on those loans, he is prioritizing their repayments over the Perkin loan of $4,300 from George Washington University, he says.
"I'm not a victim; I'm not having to put off having a family or buying a house because of student loans," remarks Graff, who says he understands that he is breaking the rules. College simply costs too much, he says. "I would like something to be done."
The practicality of suing students who are already in default is questionable. Patrick Kavanaugh, the lawyer representing GWU in many of the recent cases, did not want to comment. But Joshua Upin, who defended a student against the University of Pennsylvania, is skeptical about the value of pursuing such cases. For one thing, young people often don't open their mail, and may therefore be unaware that schools have initiated proceedings.
"It's a really desperate situation because both sides are kind of screwed, if you will. The institution that made the loans did so on a completely unsecured basis and they're going after people who are young and without wherewithal, so the likelihood of successful recovery of anything is pretty low, probably approaching zero," he says.
"The lender is paying the lawyer to do the case, which is more money but ultimately doesn't really go anywhere as far as dollars and cents are concerned. And then what will happen if they get a judgment against the student debtor is that it will go onto their credit record, which is a forever black mark against that person. Which significantly reduces their ability to be successful at whatever they choose to pursue and then pay the judgment."
Upin defended pro bono a former student of the University of Pennsylvania, who owed the school $3,000 in a federal Perkins loan. The student, Ronnie C. Casanova, was an immigrant from Honduras, and had come to New York City as a boy. He was already in his 60s when he embarked on his quest for higher education, pursuing a degree at Drexel University before getting accepted into the graduate program at UPenn.
During college, Casanova suffered from bipolar disorder, diabetes and a constellation of other conditions. Shortly into his time at Penn it became too much and he dropped out. Says Upin, "His mistake was not really telling anyone what was going on; he just kind of stopped showing up to class."
The school sued him for his Perkins loan, but Upin was able to get the case dismissed on the basis of Casanova's medical conditions. Upin (who still has significant student loans from his own education) says he was "nauseated" by the fact that UPenn, with its sizable endowment, would pursue a former student like Casanova.
In an emailed statement, Ron Ozio, the director of media relations at UPenn, points out that in 2008 the university introduced a no-loan policy for undergraduate degrees. Most Perkins loan funding is now awarded to graduate and professional students, he says.
Having won the case, Upin says his former client continues to grapple with his mental health conditions and is unable to work. "Really the net benefit for him was kind of pedestrian. He was simply relieved to have this off his back. He's not living high on the hog as a result of having gotten out from underneath this thing."
Student debt is unlike other consumer loans in that there is no asset to repossess. The loans are exempt from the Bankruptcy Code, and only with great difficulty will the young debtor ever be released. The experts' advice for students facing loan defaults is to talk to their colleges. "Students can come to alternative repayment plans with their institution," says Justin Draeger. "I think there's a natural tendency to hide from the issue, but in this instance it's much better for students to reach out to the institution or servicer and let them know what their circumstances are."
With student loan delinquency and default a "lagging indicator" for the economy, Draeger says that more defaults may occur, and that as a result more schools are likely to see their alumni in court.
Regardless of what sort of agreement is reached, the challenge of paying back such large sums is immense. David Acevedo says he would love to pay his loans off but can only do so if he becomes wealthy, an increasingly unlikely prospect. Graff expects to wallow in debt for a few years and, when he begins to earn more money, to have his wages garnished until he ultimately repays the loans. "I haven't even prepared myself for the light at the end of the tunnel — I don't know how long this tunnel is," he says.
For the institutions, the outcome is also uncertain, as student debt continues to spiral upward. "There may not be any logic to the collection effort," says Joshua Upin, of the schools that sue their alumni. "They're doing it because that's what's been done in the past, but maybe it's a model that doesn't apply to this kind of situation because it's beyond that."
The statistics class might have helped figure out the likelihood that the philosophy of nonviolence class would be useful to him.
Yes, a 'glitch'. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Savonarola on January 07, 2014, 09:21:13 AM
It's high time we brought back debtor's prison:
Gladatorial games using students - particularly those who took the philosophy of nonviolence course - would bring in the revenue. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2014, 02:33:28 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 07, 2014, 09:21:13 AM
It's high time we brought back debtor's prison:
Gladatorial games using students - particularly those who took the philosophy of nonviolence course - would bring in the revenue. ;)
You are not thinking big enough. Gladatorial games would would would provide Yi with a good alternative argument for UI - can't find a job. No problem - we have a job for you!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser3303%2Fimageroot%2F2014%2F01%2F20140110_X_0.png&hash=d6dfc379a469b9f9af78572afd782037c5cc86a5)
What the? What is all of our social security paying for besides getting those old geezers out of the work force?
Well, some may be waiting til they're 67 or 70 or whatever the age where they can start collecting the biggest benefits.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 10, 2014, 10:12:35 PM
Well, some may be waiting til they're 67 or 70 or whatever the age where they can start collecting the biggest benefits.
And what massive, rewarding benefits they are.
Well, it's a much larger monthly payout than they get if they retire at 62.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 10, 2014, 10:17:24 PM
Well, it's a much larger monthly payout than they get if they retire at 62.
No argument there.
Runners better run.
my roommate is a commercial aviation major, undergrad. she has a year left and has over $100,000 in debt. this is while attending a fairly cheap university. from what she's said, her prospects are hopefully landing a flight instructor gig (at the university) where she would earn $40-50k/year max. a handful of graduates get jobs with airlines, but when there are over a thousand students in the program, those are pretty awful prospects. pretty sure she's fucked
Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2014, 12:45:05 PM
my roommate is a commercial aviation major, undergrad. she has a year left and has over $100,000 in debt. this is while attending a fairly cheap university. from what she's said, her prospects are hopefully landing a flight instructor gig (at the university) where she would earn $40-50k/year max. a handful of graduates get jobs with airlines, but when there are over a thousand students in the program, those are pretty awful prospects. pretty sure she's fucked
In Canada, the usual route for commercial aviators is to spend a number of years being bush-pilots; basically flying smallish planes to outlying communities, primarily those connected with the resource industries. From what I understand, it's hard work and somewhat dangerous, but the hours and experience eventually allows for transition into more civilized work.
I guess there are no similar venues available to French aviators? Maybe working in French Africa?
I think LaCroix is from North Dakota...
i'm one of them north dakotans :Canuck:
from what i've read, one of the main (and possibly only) factors is the number of hours you have flying. you can get this through the military, where naturally it's free, or through years of private lessons with flight instructors while you get your 4-year degree as a non-aviation major, or through a university that has a commercial aviation program. if you plan accordingly, the private lessons can apparently cost about a third as much as it would going the university aviation route
but my roommate decided to become a pilot when she was talking to some guy at a bar about her idea of being a flight attendant, to which he responded, "why not fly the planes instead?" so, i don't think she put much thought into her decision
Ah...if she's American the bush pilot route is probably more viable. Guy I knew back in the day did that and transferred successfully to a commercial city based line five years later or so. Another buddy of mine is just about to embark on the same route, but as a helicopter pilot.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2014, 12:45:05 PM
my roommate is a commercial aviation major, undergrad. she has a year left and has over $100,000 in debt. this is while attending a fairly cheap university. from what she's said, her prospects are hopefully landing a flight instructor gig (at the university) where she would earn $40-50k/year max. a handful of graduates get jobs with airlines, but when there are over a thousand students in the program, those are pretty awful prospects. pretty sure she's fucked
If she gets fucked by the right guy, he can pay her debts. :)
Jacob, someone's being not progressive.
*takes a drink*
I didn't say anything should be nationalized. BUT OBVIOUSLY IT
Someone nationalized your verb.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 11, 2014, 08:55:01 PM
I didn't say anything should be nationalized. BUT OBVIOUSLY IT
RULE ADDITION
Ide uses commie words - 1 drink
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2014, 09:01:39 PM
Someone nationalized your verb.
The Man took my keyboard to keep me from spreading truth!
How Lumpen Proletariat.
But I got it back. I used direct action.
Anyway, if you've gotta drink every time I use commie words, I'm not gonna be held responsible. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 11, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
Jacob, someone's being not progressive.
No fucking kidding.
You're pretty much the only one I'll give a hard time about it on languish, since you're one of the few to actually have a heart and care about politics at the same time.
If Obama acted more like Nixon, I'd like him better. Unfortunately, that's not possible. Obama was a rich kid who was handed the presidency on a silver platter and never had to fight for anything, and it shows. He has all of Nixon's bad qualities but none of his good ones.
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2014, 11:06:56 PM
If Obama acted more like Nixon, I'd like him better. Unfortunately, that's not possible. Obama was a rich kid who was handed the presidency on a silver platter and never had to fight for anything, and it shows. He has all of Nixon's bad qualities but none of his good ones.
Paranoia is a good quality? :huh:
Was Nixon really all that paranoid? After all, he did have very real enemies who wouldn't stop at much to bring him down.
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2014, 11:06:56 PM
If Obama acted more like Nixon, I'd like him better. Unfortunately, that's not possible. Obama was a rich kid who was handed the presidency on a silver platter and never had to fight for anything, and it shows. He has all of Nixon's bad qualities but none of his good ones.
Obama was a rich kid? :unsure:
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2014, 11:41:16 PM
Was Nixon really all that paranoid? After all, he did have very real enemies who wouldn't stop at much to bring him down.
So does Obama, but he doesn't let it get to him.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2014, 12:05:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2014, 11:06:56 PM
If Obama acted more like Nixon, I'd like him better. Unfortunately, that's not possible. Obama was a rich kid who was handed the presidency on a silver platter and never had to fight for anything, and it shows. He has all of Nixon's bad qualities but none of his good ones.
Obama was a rich kid? :unsure:
Need more research, but IIRC, Obama attended an expensive private school in Hawaii, and his grandmother who raised him (along with grandfather) was a bank executive.
"Bank executive" covers a lot of ground.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2014, 03:51:15 PM
"Bank executive" covers a lot of ground.
Bank of Hawaii vice president; largest bank in the state.
Hmmm. How far down the org chart does VP go in retail banking? I know in I-banking half the fucking stuff is called VP.
Still, had to be some family money in the picture somewhere. You can't make a career out of being a grad student without an allowance of some sort.
But then again, if grandma had money, what in the world was she ever doing on a bus with a frightening black man? :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2014, 10:51:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 11, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
Jacob, someone's being not progressive.
No fucking kidding.
You're pretty much the only one I'll give a hard time about it on languish, since you're one of the few to actually have a heart and care about politics at the same time.
:hug:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2014, 04:05:30 PM
Hmmm. How far down the org chart does VP go in retail banking? I know in I-banking half the fucking stuff is called VP.
All of our commodities traders were VPs because of their DOFAs. Half the employee directory was full of VPs.
I was a VP. Or a regional manager. Or whatever when they pulled the bi-annual re-org. ITS THE LAST ONE FOR AWHILE. SERIOUSLY!
I would prefer Chair of the Commissariat for Internal Affairs and Human Resources.
A purge of HR is needed nationwide.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2014, 04:05:30 PM
Hmmm. How far down the org chart does VP go in retail banking? I know in I-banking half the fucking stuff is called VP.
Still, had to be some family money in the picture somewhere. You can't make a career out of being a grad student without an allowance of some sort.
But then again, if grandma had money, what in the world was she ever doing on a bus with a frightening black man? :hmm:
In HK at least, all the front line bank staff who sell insurance to customers are called VPs. They are just mook insurance agents who make no money unless they sell something.
Mono, please forgive me for being the slang nazi, but mook is a noun, not an adjective. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2014, 08:52:41 PM
Mono, please forgive me for being the slang nazi, but mook is a noun, not an adjective. :(
I suck :blush:
I've seen it used as an adjective.
I think it definitely works in that sentence.
http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/16/why-i-let-my-daughter-get-a-useless-college-degree/
QuoteWhy I Let My Daughter Get a 'Useless' College Degree
A new study from the Federal Reserve offers more evidence that my humanities-loving child will graduate with lots of debt and not so many job offers. And I'm OK with that.
By Randye Hoder @ranhoderJan. 16, 20140
My oldest child, Emma, just returned to campus after a long holiday break to finish up her last semester of college.
But even before she has put the final period on her senior thesis, friends and family have been bombarding me with one question: What is she going to do after graduation?
The job market is, after all, awfully tough. Just this month the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released a study showing that "recent graduates are increasingly working in low-wage jobs or working part-time," if they're lucky enough to find work at all.
The bright spot, according to the Fed analysis, students who majored in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics—areas in which recent graduates "have tended to do relatively well, even in today's challenging labor market." But Emma is a student of the much-maligned humanities—an American Studies major with a focus on the politics and culture of food at a small liberal arts school.
For quite a while, I tripped all over myself to describe how her field of study is so trendy right now that I'm not the least bit worried she will find a decent job. "Emma's concentration and interests could lead her in any number of directions," I would tell people. "Writing for a food blog. Working at a nonprofit that improves health and nutrition for the urban poor. Managing social media for a food-related startup."
Clearly, I wasn't just explaining; I was over-explaining in an attempt to rationalize how Emma's chosen path will turn into a steady paycheck. It's as if her employment status were a referendum on the choices that my husband and I have made about her education. In retrospect, I'd hit a common pitfall: equating Emma's personal success with my own success as a parent.
Yet the more I've thought about it, the more I've decided to be honest. "I'm not sure what Emma is going to do," I now say. "But she's gotten a great education and has really found her passion—and I know those things will serve her well over the course of her life."
Don't get me wrong; we are not immune to the high cost of college. Emma's father and I have made sacrifices to give her, and her brother, the kind of education we value. There will be loans to pay when she graduates—and, yes, my husband and I will foot that bill. And, of course, we will be thrilled if Emma finds work come May and doesn't have to move back in with us.
But from the beginning, we never urged her to pick a college or a major with an eye on its expected return on investment, as more and more families are doing.
It has become practically quaint these days to think of institutions of higher learning as places that teach students to think critically and analytically, read widely and write well. More and more, schools are being measured by, among other things, the salaries of their recent graduates. The Obama administration has only reinforced this bias by proposing to rank colleges based, in part, on how much money graduates earn.
In this climate, encouraging your kid to study the humanities—which are facing funding challenges, scrambling for students and under siege—can seem, at best, unwise or, at worst, reserved for elites unconcerned with earning a living. Only 8% of students now major in the humanities, down from a peak of more than 17% in 1967, according to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
But college is not vocational school. And promoting STEM subjects should not be society's only answer to helping the next generation thrive in a competitive world.
In a recent article in The New Republic, Brown University's president, Christina Paxson, made an impassioned argument in support of the humanities. "Our focus should not be only on training students about the skills needed immediately upon graduation," she said. "The value of those skills will depreciate quickly. Instead, our aim is to invest in the long-term intellectual, creative and social capacity of human beings."
For a while, I fell into a trap, made to feel as if Emma's imminent employment (or lack thereof) is of immense importance. I've come to realize that what really matters will be something that we may not be able to measure for quite a long time: Emma's contribution to the world and how happy and fulfilled she is in it.
MUAGHHH.
On the other hand, the "politics and culture of food" is something the aristocracy currently cares about, unlike history or the English language, so I can't say she's left college completely unarmed to face the real world.
Only 8% of current students are in the humanities? Down from 17%?
Neither of those percentages seem particularly high.
Actually, that is a pleasant statistic, if accurately calculated. Of course there are more worthless degrees in the universe than the humanities.
Humanities is a necessary part of the coursework, and even the students studying useful things like engineering and math need to take some humanities courses to do stuff like write or talk good. As a major, though, it should really be reserved mostly for future humanities professors and spoiled rich kids.
Quotewe never urged her to pick a college or a major with an eye on its expected return on investment, as more and more families are doing.
The only tangible and measurable ROIs are for industry-specific certifications from the Institute of Industry-Specific Certifications, Inc.
Everybody else who's not earning the LOL-it's-not-the-actual-minimum-so-there wages in fast food for extra cash in high school gets to die from starvation, and deservedly so.
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
Because the study of law teaches people to be evil. Even if a man can somehow manage to retain his goodness after studying law, he will be engaged in a fundamentally parasitic and destructive enterprise.
Neil's right, too.
Quote from: Caliga on September 06, 2013, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 06, 2013, 08:59:37 AM
Cal will never forget the Polish Boy he ate up there.
The trip was worth it just for that.
SAAAAAAAAHSAGES
I just found out the place I got it at, Freddy's Rib House, has closed for good.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-live.tapcdn.com%2Fimages%2Ftap%2F6%2F9%2F9%2Fc%2F8%2Ff53%2Fe18%2F500-animate%2Fkhaaaaaaaan.gif&hash=b1c61e6be82a464c115fe2c6b027d541d3b1b79b)
You'll find a replacement. Cleveland is full of polish boys.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
Medicine teaches you to be inhuman. After you carve up enough cadavers, people stop being human to you anymore. They're just machines you have license to take apart.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2014, 11:09:18 PM
Medicine teaches you to be inhuman. After you carve up enough cadavers, people stop being human to you anymore. They're just machines you have license to take apart.
:yeahright: Anybody with an anatomy textbook and a scalpel can get to that point. I thought half the point of the classes was to
prevent that from happening.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 23, 2014, 11:30:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2014, 11:09:18 PM
Medicine teaches you to be inhuman. After you carve up enough cadavers, people stop being human to you anymore. They're just machines you have license to take apart.
:yeahright: Anybody with an anatomy textbook and a scalpel can get to that point. I thought half the point of the classes was to prevent that from happening.
lulz, funny one.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
Because the humanities are the study of the results and processes of human social capacity.
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2014, 12:29:43 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
Because the humanities are the study of the results and processes of human social capacity.
I don't think that economics is considered a humanity.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 23, 2014, 11:30:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2014, 11:09:18 PM
Medicine teaches you to be inhuman. After you carve up enough cadavers, people stop being human to you anymore. They're just machines you have license to take apart.
:yeahright: Anybody with an anatomy textbook and a scalpel can get to that point. I thought half the point of the classes was to prevent that from happening.
Anyone who is carving up dead people with a scalpel while not currently enrolled in medical school or has been to medical school is probably a monster already.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2014, 01:04:46 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2014, 12:29:43 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
Because the humanities are the study of the results and processes of human social capacity.
I don't think that economics is considered a humanity.
Econometrics?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2014, 01:04:46 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2014, 12:29:43 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
Because the humanities are the study of the results and processes of human social capacity.
I don't think that economics is considered a humanity.
Economics are a social science.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
In North America law and medicine are graduate degrees. Law is usually preceded by a humanities or social science degree; so that the lawyer would have already developed his social capacity. Medicine, on the other hand, usually requires a science degree. Without his social capacity properly developed the medical student has decided that his life work will be to heal the sick. It's tragic, really.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 26, 2014, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
In North America law and medicine are graduate degrees. Law is usually preceded by a humanities or social science degree; so that the lawyer would have already developed his social capacity. Medicine, on the other hand, usually requires a science degree. Without his social capacity properly developed the medical student has decided that his life work will be to heal the sick. It's tragic, really.
I always found it interesting how, during orientation for new house staff at You Know Where, they would spend 30 minutes on ethics and 90 minutes on federal insurance procedures.
The medical school's bookstore is the same way: there's a single shelf with about 5 paperback titles on medical ethics, and then there's four rows of monster shelving on malpractice insurance.
Medical Ethics = Electives
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of a "nurse practitioner?"
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 26, 2014, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of a "nurse practitioner?"
Yeah something which came along because the doctors are all over-educated.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
filter, not to mention there is a lot of complexity and nuances to medicine, law, etc., thus requiring more years of education
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
Alternative medicine. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
I don't think I like the idea of seeing a MD who is 21 years old.
If there is one group of people I'd rather err on the side of overeducation, it is MDs.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 12:28:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
I don't think I like the idea of seeing a MD who is 21 years old.
If there is one group of people I'd rather err on the side of overeducation, it is MDs.
Wat abot nukular men?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 12:28:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
I don't think I like the idea of seeing a MD who is 21 years old.
If there is one group of people I'd rather err on the side of overeducation, it is MDs.
You wouldn't.
Medicine is a bachellors but it takes longer than an ordinary bachellors and IIRC requires a year of practice too.
Quote from: The Brain on January 26, 2014, 12:34:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 12:28:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
I don't think I like the idea of seeing a MD who is 21 years old.
If there is one group of people I'd rather err on the side of overeducation, it is MDs.
Wat abot nukular men?
Like Homer Simpson? I don't think more school would help.
Quote from: The Brain on January 26, 2014, 12:34:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 12:28:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
I don't think I like the idea of seeing a MD who is 21 years old.
If there is one group of people I'd rather err on the side of overeducation, it is MDs.
Wat abot nukular men?
Well, the news does get a bit more interesting when things go awry...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2014, 10:59:20 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 26, 2014, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Why is there an assumption that the humanities can help develop the social capacity of human beings better than, say, law or medicine?
In North America law and medicine are graduate degrees. Law is usually preceded by a humanities or social science degree; so that the lawyer would have already developed his social capacity. Medicine, on the other hand, usually requires a science degree. Without his social capacity properly developed the medical student has decided that his life work will be to heal the sick. It's tragic, really.
I always found it interesting how, during orientation for new house staff at You Know Where, they would spend 30 minutes on ethics and 90 minutes on federal insurance procedures.
The medical school's bookstore is the same way: there's a single shelf with about 5 paperback titles on medical ethics, and then there's four rows of monster shelving on malpractice insurance.
Medical Ethics = Electives
So? Ethics in any profession boils down to "don't exploit people, avoid conflicts of interest."
I imagine anyone on Languish could take the MPRE cold and have a good chance of passing it. I mean, sure, it's because they know what they're
supposed to say, but...
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 26, 2014, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of a "nurse practitioner?"
Physician's Assistant, too. They're largely equivalent except that a PA has to be set up under an existing MD whereas an NP can set up their own practice. PAs are often given quite a bit of autonomy, though.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 26, 2014, 12:28:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
I see no reason why medicine shouldn't be a bachelor's degree. It doesn't take twelve years of school to set a broken bone. Higher surgery and such maybe more, but the average GP isn't out there doing open heart surgery.
I don't think I like the idea of seeing a MD who is 21 years old.
If there is one group of people I'd rather err on the side of overeducation, it is MDs.
Then don't complain about the cost of healthcare. Over a century ago doctors came to your house like the pizza guy does and cost about as much. Now, it's swung completely the other way. I think maybe something in the middle would do us some good.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 02:39:32 PM
Then don't complain about the cost of healthcare. Over a century ago doctors came to your house like the pizza guy does and cost about as much. Now, it's swung completely the other way. I think maybe something in the middle would do us some good.
I don't, in general.
I don't understand the assumption that we spend too much on healthcare, but then not questioning how much we spend too much on consumer electronics, automobiles, or food. If I get the option of buying slightly a nicer car and eating out an extra few times a year or having a doctor that has a few more years of training, I'd rather have the doctor with more training.
You're all over the place.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 02:39:32 PMThen don't complain about the cost of healthcare. Over a century ago doctors came to your house like the pizza guy does and cost about as much. Now, it's swung completely the other way. I think maybe something in the middle would do us some good.
:huh:
medical school isn't the reason for added costs of healthcare. costs have risen exponentially since.. what, 1970s or so? the requirement to attend medical school was in place quite a long time before that
over a century ago doctors did not have the technology, institutions or forms of treatments anywhere close to what they have today. your argument seems like it's more suggesting that we should essentially do away with medicine if we want to cut costs
Well, if you're already paying for lots of fancy machines, it's easier for the doctors to demand a bit of extra for themselves without the patients(or their insurance companies) balking as much. This ends up causing the basic care to cost more even when you're not using the fancy machines.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2014, 04:06:39 PM
Well, if you're already paying for lots of fancy machines, it's easier for the doctors to demand a bit of extra for themselves without the patients(or their insurance companies) balking as much. This ends up causing the basic care to cost more even when you're not using the fancy machines.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2013/10/03/whos-to-blame-for-our-rising-healthcare-costs/
QuoteSomething else is revealed by digging deeper into the key components in healthcare spending: Technology, administrative expenses, hospital costs, lifestyle choice and chronic disease conditions have all had greater impacts on rising overall healthcare costs than physicians.
...
Yet despite this, physicians are not necessarily the principal beneficiaries of healthcare spending. The bulk of medical procedure payments go to hospitals and device manufactures. For example, in California, Medicare pays on average $18,000 for a total hip replacement – $16,336 to the hospital and $1,446 to the surgeon. This reimbursement disparity is certainly not limited to California, and is representative of a broader trend on a national level.
...
Moreover, doctors' net take-home pay amounts to only about 10 percent of overall healthcare spending. Which if cut by 10 percent would save about $24 billion – a considerably modest savings when compared to the $360 billion spent annually for administrative costs as estimated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the fact that 85 percent of excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the insurance system.
How in the world would you go about calculating how much a surgeon got paid for a certain operation? Don't doctors generally get paid annual salary rather than piece rate?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
How in the world would you go about calculating how much a surgeon got paid for a certain operation?
went down the rabbit hole until i found this:
http://www.ethicon.com/sites/default/files/EES_Reimb_2012_Hip.pdf
Take it back down the rabbit hole. It doesn't answer my question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2014, 04:57:16 PM
Take it back down the rabbit hole. It doesn't answer my question.
technically it did :P
In the old days, in Canada, you paid a surgeon by the amount of time an operation took. This fact indirectly saved my grandfather's life.
He contracted pneumonia during the great influenza epidemic, which was just about a guaranteed death sentence. The only thing that could save his life was an operation to re-inflale his lungs. Thing was, he was so poor (and cheap), that he insisted that the operation be performed under a local anesthetic rather than being put under - so he could watch the clock and make sure he was only charged for time actually spent operating.
He survived. It turned out that almost everyone who had this operation before him died. The reason was: the general anesthetic they used, combined with the operation, was killing them. Doctors switched to only using locals, and more patients survived.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 26, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 02:39:32 PMThen don't complain about the cost of healthcare. Over a century ago doctors came to your house like the pizza guy does and cost about as much. Now, it's swung completely the other way. I think maybe something in the middle would do us some good.
:huh:
medical school isn't the reason for added costs of healthcare. costs have risen exponentially since.. what, 1970s or so? the requirement to attend medical school was in place quite a long time before that
over a century ago doctors did not have the technology, institutions or forms of treatments anywhere close to what they have today. your argument seems like it's more suggesting that we should essentially do away with medicine if we want to cut costs
The lack of medical schools is the reason. We've had a steadily increasing doctor shortage for a hundred years. That and the bar to get certified is too high.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 06:55:40 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 26, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 26, 2014, 02:39:32 PMThen don't complain about the cost of healthcare. Over a century ago doctors came to your house like the pizza guy does and cost about as much. Now, it's swung completely the other way. I think maybe something in the middle would do us some good.
:huh:
medical school isn't the reason for added costs of healthcare. costs have risen exponentially since.. what, 1970s or so? the requirement to attend medical school was in place quite a long time before that
over a century ago doctors did not have the technology, institutions or forms of treatments anywhere close to what they have today. your argument seems like it's more suggesting that we should essentially do away with medicine if we want to cut costs
The lack of medical schools is the reason. We've had a steadily increasing doctor shortage for a hundred years. That and the bar to get certified is too high.
Jurisdictions with single payor systems are also experiencing increasing health care costs. In those jurisdictions doctor shortages dont increase costs it increases wait times. There are other factors at play here.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2014, 11:08:02 AM
Jurisdictions with single payor systems are also experiencing increasing health care costs. In those jurisdictions doctor shortages dont increase costs it increases wait times. There are other factors at play here.
Lots of those places have state payed education, or at least more subsidized than ours. Our docs are several hundred grand in debt before they can see their first patient. I'm sure that's a big factor too.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 23, 2014, 11:30:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2014, 11:09:18 PM
Medicine teaches you to be inhuman. After you carve up enough cadavers, people stop being human to you anymore. They're just machines you have license to take apart.
:yeahright: Anybody with an anatomy textbook and a scalpel can get to that point. I thought half the point of the classes was to prevent that from happening.
DSB is a pathologist now?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 11:58:46 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2014, 11:08:02 AM
Jurisdictions with single payor systems are also experiencing increasing health care costs. In those jurisdictions doctor shortages dont increase costs it increases wait times. There are other factors at play here.
Lots of those places have state payed education, or at least more subsidized than ours. Our docs are several hundred grand in debt before they can see their first patient. I'm sure that's a big factor too.
Elaborate.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2014, 11:58:46 AMI'm sure that's a big factor too.
is this a suspicion or is there evidence backed behind it? because i haven't found anything that suggests that's the case
Quote from: LaCroix on January 26, 2014, 04:55:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
How in the world would you go about calculating how much a surgeon got paid for a certain operation?
went down the rabbit hole until i found this:
http://www.ethicon.com/sites/default/files/EES_Reimb_2012_Hip.pdf
that's not what the surgeon is getting paid
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
How in the world would you go about calculating how much a surgeon got paid for a certain operation? Don't doctors generally get paid annual salary rather than piece rate?
That might be the case where you are. But here doctors/surgeons are paid based on a fee for service structure.
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoprac/physbilling/payschedule/
My understanding is that most American doctors are paid piece rate, but it's an inference from hearing someone talk about this one hospital in Seattle that's unique and great, and part of its uniqueness is that the doctors are all salaried.
the bulk of the US health system is fee for service
Meanwhile at the seven sisters:
Quote
Realistic statue of man in his underwear at Wellesley College sparks controversy
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fyourcampus%2Fnews%2Fassets_c%2F2014%2F02%2Fwellesleysleepwalker22-thumb-520x693-125381.jpg&hash=98f2adfd717fa0b83d32381c4ddda065eee32cab)
Tony Matelli's Sleepwalker, is part of an art exhibit at Wellesley College's Davis Museum.
By Jaclyn Reiss, Boston.com Staff
A realistic-looking statue of a man sleepwalking in his underwear near the center of Wellesley College has created a stir among the women on campus, especially as more than 100 students at the all-women's college signed a petition asking administrators to remove it.
The statue, called Sleepwalker, is part of an art exhibit featuring sculptor Tony Matelli at the college's Davis Museum. The exhibit, New Gravity, features sculptures that are often reversed, upended or atomized.
However, the statue of the sleepwalker -- which is hard to miss in a high-traffic area by both pedestrians and drivers near the campus center -- has caused outrage among some students in just one day after its Feb. 3 installation. Zoe Magid, a Wellesley College junior majoring in political science, started a petition on Change.org with other students asking college president H. Kim Bottomly to have the statue removed.
"[T]his highly lifelike sculpture has, within just a few hours of its outdoor installation, become a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault for many members of our campus community," says the petition. "While it may appear humorous, or thought-provoking to some, it has already become a source of undue stress for many Wellesley College students, the majority of whom live, study, and work in this space."
Davis Museum director Lisa Fischman wrote on Wellesley College's official website that the sculpture was meant to evoke response.
"We placed the Sleepwalker on the roadside just beyond the Davis to connect the exhibition -- within the museum -- to the campus world beyond," Fischman wrote, also posting it on Change.org as her response to the petition. "I love the idea of art escaping the museum and muddling the line between what we expect to be inside (art) and what we expect to be outside (life)."
Fischman noted that reactions on campus have been "varied," and even wrote that she has heard that some find the statue "troubling." However, she noted that the sculpture's whole intent was to start discussion.
"As the best art does, Tony Matelli's work provokes dialogue, and discourse is at the core of education," she wrote.
However, Magid said over the phone Tuesday that Fischman's response failed to address students' concerns.
"We were really disappointed that she seemed to articulate that she was glad it was starting discussion, but didn't respond to the fact that it's making students on campus feel unsafe, which is not appropriate," Magid said. "We really feel that if a piece of art makes students feel unsafe, that steps over a line."
At the college on Tuesday, many drivers could be seen slamming on their brakes as they approached or passed the statue, craning their necks for a second look. Many students were seen making a casual beeline for the new addition on campus -- some smiled and laughed as they got closer; others frowned and seemed apprehensive. All reached for their smartphones to take a photo.
"I honestly didn't even want to get too close to him," said Laura Mayron, a Wellesley College sophomore. "It honestly makes me a little uncomfortable with how real he looks. It's odd."
Bridget Schreiner, a Wellesley freshman, said Tuesday afternoon that she had already signed the Change.org petition that was posted late Monday night.
Schreiner said she felt "freaked out" the first time she saw the statue, thinking for a moment that a real, nearly naked person was lingering near the campus center.
"This could be a trigger for students who have experienced sexual assault," she said.
Others said while the statue came as a surprise, they understood the artist's intention.
"I find it disturbing, but in a good way," said Sarah Wall-Randell, an English professor at Wellesley. "I think it's meant to be off-putting – it's a schlumpy guy in underpants in an all-women environment."
Wellesley College senior Annie Wang, an art history major, said she acknowledged that the statue forced passers-by to contemplate the very nature of art.
However, she said she wished to see the statue moved out of such a public space.
"I think art's intention is to confront, but not assault, and people can see this as assaulting," Wang said. "Wellesley is a place where we're supposed to feel safe. I think place and a context matters, and I don't think this is the place to put it."
Matelli is slated to appear on campus next week at a screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is one of four films the college is showing this semester to complement his exhibit. Matelli is expected to speak after the screening on Feb. 12. The event begins at 6 p.m. at the Collins Cinema.
Tony Matelli: New Gravity will be on exhibit from Feb. 5 through May 11 in the Bronfman and Chandler galleries, and Feb. 5 through July 20 in the Jobson and Tanner galleries. The exhibition is free and open to the general public
It's assault, yes, but is it art?
Did he take the: Fuck Truck over from MIT!
makes sense
I've realized that I immediate judge people when they use "trigger" in this sort of way or if they say "cisgender". -_-
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
I've realized that I immediate judge people when they use "trigger" in this sort of way or if they say "cisgender". -_-
... and is this a realization followed by a commitment to retrench that reaction, or a commitment to change it?
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2014, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
I've realized that I immediate judge people when they use "trigger" in this sort of way or if they say "cisgender". -_-
... and is this a realization followed by a commitment to retrench that reaction, or a commitment to change it?
I'm not sure. -_-
People are "offended" over stupid stuff, film at 11.
I'm going to go with Stephen Fry here:
Quote"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
I've realized that I immediate judge people when they use "trigger" in this sort of way or if they say "cisgender". -_-
You know, sometimes you're not so bad.
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
I've realized that I immediate judge people when they use "trigger" in this sort of way or if they say "cisgender". -_-
:cheers:
Zoe just needs a good fucking.
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
I've realized that I immediate judge people when they use "trigger" in this sort of way or if they say "cisgender". -_-
Garbon: fighting the stereotype that gay men give a shit about anybody but other gay men.
Since Jacob did the good cop already.
Anyway, I'm a little more sensitive to that "trigger" stuff when it's actual depiction of rape or overly aggressive sexual overtures. Thus I largely agree with the one person interviewed, although I want to punch her in her snide face:
Quote"I find it disturbing, but in a good way," said Sarah Wall-Randell, an English professor at Wellesley. "I think it's meant to be off-putting – it's a schlumpy guy in underpants in an all-women environment."
OK, the statue's not Michelangelo's David (for one thing, he isn't afflicted with micropenis), but fuck's sake, he's not fat and isn't deformed. I think when men do this it's called body fascism. The Bible discusses this: "bitches who sew the wind, will reap the whirlwind."
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 06:53:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
I've realized that I immediate judge people when they use "trigger" in this sort of way or if they say "cisgender". -_-
Garbon: fighting the stereotype that gay men give a shit about anybody but other gay men.
Since Jacob did the good cop already.
Yep because if you are judgmental when people talk about being triggered by such a statue or use terms like cisgender, must be because you only care about yourself.
I think it depends on context. "Cisgender" can be pretty useful. I generally consider that trigger warning thing overdone, but it's not illegitimate. A ton of women have been traumatized by rape, and it's at least courteous to consider their feelings.
Consider your privilege.
I consider that someone, somewhere will take offense at any reaction. I certainly think it is right to take some consideration into the feelings of others but I'm not sure that should be the end all.
As an aside, I have to say that 9/10, I encounter the word "cisgender" when complaining about said group.
Also, I find that statue hideous and would want it removed as well. I'm not sure though I would find it appropriate to ask for its removal on the grounds that hypothetically it is causing people to recall sexual assaults.
I agree with you on that. Fun enough as a pseudo-artistic prank to be laughed at for a few weeks, but as a permanent installation it sucks.
Can you hit me with an example of how "cisgender" would be used annoyingly?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/ingrid-michaelsons-new-music-video-gender-swaps-an-80s-class
QuoteI'm liking this on a LOT of levels (holy tuxedo vest, Ingrid), but I can't help feeling peeved by the use of gay/trans themes as metaphors to describe straight cisgender experience.
QuoteYeah, I did, I just wasn't convinced - for example, the makeup on the male dancers is deliberately mismatched to their skin tones for a "drag" effect, and their clothing is stripped off very quickly to make them appear more masculine, with bare chests (ie it's about the performance of *not* fitting into the target gender, rather than any sincere acceptance).
I don't see the issue. The term's used correctly; although the person is clearly annoying, it's not the "cisgender" that does it.
:huh:
This started with me saying that I feel judgmental of people using the term cisgendered. I then pointed out that 9 times out of 10, when the word is used it is to complain about people of said group. And that's what my example is about.
Well, you're right on that count (and the complaint is bullshit).
Quote from: Syt on February 07, 2014, 02:08:44 PM
People are "offended" over stupid stuff, film at 11.
I'm going to go with Stephen Fry here:
Quote"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
that doesn't sound like what's happening in the story. it's a creepy male statue placed on an all female campus. his arms are outstretched, and from afar/at night it could reasonably unsettle a girl (especially a victim of molestation/rape)
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2014, 03:28:05 PM
it's a creepy male statue placed on an all female campus. his arms are outstretched, and from afar/at night it could reasonably unsettle a girl (especially a victim of molestation/rape)
And if you put David on the campus, you would have an actual nude male statue with a weapon and an aggressive gaze. Imagine how unsettling that could be.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2014, 03:31:17 PMAnd if you put David on the campus, you would have an actual nude male statue with a weapon and an aggressive gaze. Imagine how unsettling that could be.
no
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.117480%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_635%2Falg-michelangelo-david-jpg.jpg&hash=42ea8ffb0fd714d344d5e6b5061a873f2731b68f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fyourcampus%2Fnews%2Fassets_c%2F2014%2F02%2Fwellesleysleepwalker22-thumb-520x693-125381.jpg&hash=98f2adfd717fa0b83d32381c4ddda065eee32cab)
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 07:08:47 PMConsider your privilege.
This thread needs more fat-shaming kickass Ide and less mangina tumblrsexual Ide. :contract:
lol
If the artist were truly edgy like he thinks he is, he would've gone with the "5am-gotta-pee" tent pole.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2014, 03:34:23 PM
no
Yes, he has a sling in his left hand which he is preparing to use to kill goliath.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2014, 03:43:47 PMYes, he has a sling in his left hand which he is preparing to use to kill goliath.
no, no, i wasn't disagreeing that david holds a weapon. i was disagreeing with your point. the two are completely unlike. the reaction isn't solely because it's a male statue. wellesley isn't some shit state university the tumblr idiots attend
Quote from: Legbiter on February 08, 2014, 03:39:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 07:08:47 PMConsider your privilege.
This thread needs more fat-shaming kickass Ide and less mangina tumblrsexual Ide. :contract:
What's the contradiction? I just want the world to be a nicer place, a world with neither fear nor fatties.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2014, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2014, 03:34:23 PM
no
Yes, he has a sling in his left hand which he is preparing to use to kill goliath.
He's also like twenty feet tall and a alabaster white. :P
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2014, 03:34:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2014, 03:31:17 PMAnd if you put David on the campus, you would have an actual nude male statue with a weapon and an aggressive gaze. Imagine how unsettling that could be.
no
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.117480%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_635%2Falg-michelangelo-david-jpg.jpg&hash=42ea8ffb0fd714d344d5e6b5061a873f2731b68f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fyourcampus%2Fnews%2Fassets_c%2F2014%2F02%2Fwellesleysleepwalker22-thumb-520x693-125381.jpg&hash=98f2adfd717fa0b83d32381c4ddda065eee32cab)
You have the wrong David. Donatello did david 50 years before Mike did him:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F7f%2FFlorence_-_David_by_Donatello.jpg&hash=290d65dae259d5494752542172ebf27b1afd652d)
Them Turtles sure was talented.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 08, 2014, 10:26:07 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on February 08, 2014, 03:39:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 07:08:47 PMConsider your privilege.
This thread needs more fat-shaming kickass Ide and less mangina tumblrsexual Ide. :contract:
What's the contradiction? I just want the world to be a nicer place, a world with neither fear nor fatties.
Your use of tumblrchick shaming language is leading to flareups of manginitis, whose continued, unironic, use is one bad day away from turning you into a asexual demiromantic otherkin, resulting in a cum-spattered Rainbow Dash plushie as a worst case scenario. :hmm:
Euthanasia becomes the only kind thing at that point.
Quote from: Legbiter on February 09, 2014, 08:42:27 AM
Euthanasia becomes the only kind thing at that point.
Nobody gives a shit about kids in China.
Best Megadeth album made.
Wrong. Countdown to Extinction. HELLO ME ITS ME AGAIN
No, u wrong.
No, u is. You probably think Metallica's Metallica is the bestest Metallica album of all time too, when it's really Master of Puppets. Poser.
I'm too cool for Metallica.
Oh no you di'int just go there
I'm taking off my wig.
I'm throwing Ozzy's Ultimate Sin at you like a CD ninja star. Lulz, Dweezil Zappa cameo!
Ozzy sucks
Typical. Shitgoat Snob.
You'd gotten a better reaction calling me a Boston Snob. Since that band gives me explosive diarrhea.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2014, 09:23:00 AM
I'm throwing Ozzy's Ultimate Sin at you like a CD ninja star. Lulz, Dweezil Zappa cameo!
:weep: Good luck getting a copy, thanks to Phil Soussan.
David's aggressive expression? He has more the face of a guy thinking, "Well, fuck." Which makes sense when you go up against a giant.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv22%2FHewene%2FABD-DCL%2520Med%2Fdavid-head-closeup-w-laser-s.jpg&hash=a65275572abb89d9643d79ec4e7d61284796ab50)
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 09, 2014, 09:28:22 AM
You'd gotten a better reaction calling me a Boston Snob. Since that band gives me explosive diarrhea.
That's more than a feeling.
:lol:
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2014, 03:49:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2014, 03:43:47 PMYes, he has a sling in his left hand which he is preparing to use to kill goliath.
no, no, i wasn't disagreeing that david holds a weapon. i was disagreeing with your point. the two are completely unlike. the reaction isn't solely because it's a male statue. wellesley isn't some shit state university the tumblr idiots attend
I don't think either is going to be mistaken as an actual sexual assailant. Yes the sleepwalking statue looks more realistic, can could theoretically be mistaken as a living person for a brief moment in time, and living people can theoretically commit sexual assault. I thought this potential was not so important, because he is rather obviously a statue, and with all the publicity I doubt there are many people on campus that aren't aware of the statue. Plus he gives no signs that he is about to assault anyone, and as a statue is incapable of approaching a woman.
What I was trying to express was that if we are going to see sexual violence in a statue, it would make as much sense to see it in David as the sleepwalking guy. Though personally I see it as close to zero in both cases.
My problem with the "sexual assault" theme is that this is a normal looking guy in his underwear apparently sleepwalking. If people are freaked out by the image of a normal looking guy in his underwear, I think they have issues.
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
I've realized that I immediate judge people when they use "trigger" in this sort of way or if they say "cisgender". -_-
I generally have a very negative reaction to this sort of jargon. Like when Spicey said 'Cultural Marxism'. Just take some time and thought to say what you mean. Saying 'this is triggering' is not particularly thoughtful or helpful, especially for something this seemingly innocuous.
Quote from: Legbiter on February 09, 2014, 08:42:27 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 08, 2014, 10:26:07 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on February 08, 2014, 03:39:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 07:08:47 PMConsider your privilege.
This thread needs more fat-shaming kickass Ide and less mangina tumblrsexual Ide. :contract:
What's the contradiction? I just want the world to be a nicer place, a world with neither fear nor fatties.
Your use of tumblrchick shaming language is leading to flareups of manginitis, whose continued, unironic, use is one bad day away from turning you into a asexual demiromantic otherkin, resulting in a cum-spattered Rainbow Dash plushie as a worst case scenario. :hmm:
Euthanasia becomes the only kind thing at that point.
Okay. Your paranoia is weird.
College Graduate First Person In Family To Waste $160,000
WILKES-BARRE, PA—Saying that his great grandparents could have never even dreamed of squandering such a fortune, recent college graduate Eric Singer told reporters Monday that he is the first person in his family to throw away $160,000. "This level of debt was just out of reach for my father and grandfather, which makes my wasting so much money all the more meaningful," said Singer, noting that his mother only flushed $12,000 down the toilet during her time in school. "It's an honor to be the first in my family to experience blowing hundreds of dollars on textbooks, or meeting with financial aid officers to fill out the paperwork locking me into a lifetime of crippling interest rates. I'm destroying my credit history in a way that just wasn't possible for them when they were my age." Singer added that he also hopes to be the first person in his neighborhood to rack up another $200,000 in tuition bills during law school.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fo.onionstatic.com%2Fimages%2F25%2F25248%2Foriginal%2F700.hq.jpg%3F9364&hash=539da5f4d1e761079aacd1940370cb1988f26e5c)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/college-graduate-first-person-in-family-to-waste-1,35241/
MAH NARRATIVE
QuoteStudy finds rising cost in not going to college — but students should still look for value
By Michelle Singletary, Published: February 14
washingtonpost.com
With the rising cost of college, people have been asking if it's worth the investment.
That might be the wrong question.
We know that many employers demand a college degree — any degree — as a requirement for someone to be considered for an interview. It's frustrating for laid-off workers without degrees to be ignored or undervalued despite their years of experience and skills. That's the economy we have, with more people than jobs available.
Still if you have to borrow to go to college, the real question is not about the degree but rather the debt. Since it will take years to pay off, is that really worth it?
Now the Pew Research Center has looked at the issue in a different light — the rising cost of not going to college.
And it would appear there's hard evidence that it is worth it to get your degree, although I would still caution that you have to be careful in how much you pay.
Pew found that young college graduates are outperforming their peers with less education by all sorts of measures — from poverty levels to annual income to the ability to become employed full time.
College graduates aged 25 to 32 — the so-called millennials — earn about $17,500 more annually than employed young adults with only a high school diploma or its equivalent, such as a General Educational Development certificate, according to Pew. The research center surveyed 2,002 adults and supplemented its analysis with economic data from the Census Bureau.
Pew also noted that the income gap was significantly smaller in previous generations. "In 1979 when the first wave of baby boomers were the same age that millennials are today, the typical high school graduate earned about three-quarters (77 percent) of what a college graduate made," its report said. "Today, millennials with only a high school diploma earn 62 percent of what the typical college graduate earns."
Poverty rates are higher for people with only a high school diploma or the equivalent — 22 percent compared with 6 percent of today's college-educated young adults. This is a huge difference when you consider that only 7 percent of baby boomers with just a high school diploma were living in poverty in 1979, when they were in their late 20s and early 30s.
Today's young adults are the best-educated generation in history and as a result are more likely to be paid more. Millennials with a bachelor's degree earn a median income of $45,500 compared with $28,000 for a high school graduate. They are also are significantly less likely to be unemployed than peers with a high school diploma.
Nonetheless, a degree doesn't guarantee you won't face economic hardships, Pew pointed out.
"To be sure, the Great Recession and painfully slow recovery have taken their toll on the millennial generation, including the college-educated," the authors of the report wrote. "Young college graduates are having more difficulty landing work than earlier cohorts. They are more likely to be unemployed and have to search longer for a job than earlier generations of young adults."
Pew asked the young adults whether they had major regrets while in college. In retrospect, people felt they should have prepared better for the type of job they wanted, studied harder, start their job search earlier or chosen a different major. The top regret: Half the college graduates surveyed felt that getting more work experience would have put them in a better position to enter their chosen career field.
I'm dismayed at the number of college students and graduates I talk to who tell me they failed to get even one internship related to the job they wanted while they were in school. My daughter is a freshman at the University of Maryland. My husband and I have set up several conditions she has to meet in exchange for us paying for her college education. One is that she has to get summer internships related to work in the field of education, which she hopes to make her career. We're pleased she's already lined up summer work at a camp, as she's done the last several summers.
Pew asked the college-educated folks if college was worth it. The overwhelming majority said yes. However, here's an interesting fact from the report. Graduates who didn't take out education loans were more likely than those who did to say that their degree has paid off (91 percent compared with 79 percent).
So college does pay off for a lot of people. But don't confuse that with college at any cost. You need to be moneywise about what you can afford and get some work experience while you are still in school.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2014, 10:31:33 AMI don't think either is going to be mistaken as an actual sexual assailant. Yes the sleepwalking statue looks more realistic, can could theoretically be mistaken as a living person for a brief moment in time, and living people can theoretically commit sexual assault. I thought this potential was not so important, because he is rather obviously a statue, and with all the publicity I doubt there are many people on campus that aren't aware of the statue. Plus he gives no signs that he is about to assault anyone, and as a statue is incapable of approaching a woman.
What I was trying to express was that if we are going to see sexual violence in a statue, it would make as much sense to see it in David as the sleepwalking guy. Though personally I see it as close to zero in both cases.
My problem with the "sexual assault" theme is that this is a normal looking guy in his underwear apparently sleepwalking. If people are freaked out by the image of a normal looking guy in his underwear, I think they have issues.
the statue is creepy, as mentioned. all it takes for it to be wrong is a woman with a history (or without a history) to happen to see it from the corner of her eye, or while walking past it, and feel unsettled by it. this isn't an extreme circumstance with one outlier, either, as there have been hundreds of reports. also, whenever there is a report there tends to be several people who were equally as disturbed but decided not to report it .. just because. so, this is clearly an issue. so, i don't know why you're shrugging this off as "lol ridiculous; silly emotional women"
you're not gonna see it in david because david is obviously a statue that doesn't pretend to be hyper-realistic
i think the bigger issue is that you can't comprehend why a woman might think differently
I don't think silly women. I think silly college students who just learned the term "trigger" in their intro to feminism course.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 03:27:05 PM
I don't think silly women. I think silly college students who just learned the term "trigger" in their intro to feminism course.
wrong demographic
Student-Debt Rise Concentrated Among Those With Poor Credit
The nation's sharp rise in student debt is being driven largely by Americans with poor credit.
Overall student debt rose 12% to $1.08 trillion in 2013, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said in a report released Tuesday. Student debt is the second-largest form of household credit after mortgages.
...
Of the 12% overall rise in student debt, a third—or four percentage points—came from borrowers with the worst credit history, or those with credit scores of 620 or lower. About five percentage points came from those with scores between 621 and 680, and roughly two points was from those in the middle quintile—scores between 681 and 720. Only about one percentage point came from those in the 720-to-780 range. And among those with scores above 780, student debt was flat.
...
But delinquencies among student borrowers are rising, a development that could inflict further damage on borrowers' credit. That could make it harder for student borrowers to qualify for loans to purchase cars, homes and other items.
Roughly 11.5% of student-loan balances were delinquent in the fourth quarter of 2013, meaning a payment hadn't been made in at least 90 days, the New York Fed said. That's up from a delinquency rate of about 8.5% two years earlier.
...
Student loans have the highest delinquency rate among any form of household debt. And the official delinquency rate likely understates the problem, since many borrowers are still in school and thus don't have to make payments yet. Excluding those borrowers from the overall pool of student debt would likely increase the delinquency rate.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/02/18/student-debt-rise-concentrated-among-those-with-poor-credit/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.outbrain.com%2Fimageserver%2Fv2%2Fs%2FBc7e%2Fn%2FnJyog%2Fabc%2FfktZq%2FnJyog-d2s-150x94.jpg&hash=03bf744ba8d8b25af3f1657e8556c0fd4252d9be)
I thought black people paid cash?
They're big on lay away.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 01:45:35 PM
They're big on lay away.
I never got the appeal of that. You don't get it right then AND you have to pay a fee right? Seems like paying more for no reason.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 01:52:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 01:45:35 PM
They're big on lay away.
I never got the appeal of that. You don't get it right then AND you have to pay a fee right? Seems like paying more for no reason.
As you might expect, the more somebody really needs credit, the more expensive it is. Lay-away is just a forced savings plan.
:yes: It's for poors.
Yi may be including rent-to-own in that.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 19, 2014, 01:44:15 PM
Yi may be including rent-to-own in that.
Actually, it's just based on one black secretary I used to work with who was addicted to lay away.
I heard this on NPR this morning:
QuoteThe Business Of Frats: Shifting Liability For Trauma And Injury
February 25, 2014 3:32 AM
Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images
For those of you keeping track of the headlines detailing sexual assault and hazing at frat houses, it may come as no surprise that fraternities have a dark side. Caitlin Flanagan, a writer at The Atlantic, spent a year investigating Greek houses and discovered that "the dark power of fraternities" is not just a power over pledges and partygoers, but one held over universities as well.
"Fraternities are now mightier than the colleges and universities that host them," she writes. Alumni do tend to give generously to their alma maters, yes, but it's more than that. The American college system is slave to its need for a continual flow of students, Flanagan says. How else to convince underprepared, soon-to-be-loan-ridden students to attend than by marketing the experience as a major party? Colleges compete for these students with perks, frats and all their glory among them.
Flanagan's piece looks deeper into the tragic and unsavory practices rampant in Greek houses, and the ways in which they protect themselves when serious problems arise.
Interview Highlights
On the role of fraternities at colleges today
One of the biggest roles that I think people will be surprised to learn, is they're the largest single provider of undergraduate housing in the United States. One out of every eight students who lives on campus lives in Greek housing. So that's just this tremendous amount of housing that colleges don't have to pay for, they don't have to maintain, they don't have to insure. And it represents one of the many ways that colleges, as much as they're bedeviled by fraternities, are deeply dependent on that.
On how fraternities are insured
They don't get insurance. They self-insure. What that means, really, is they needed to put aside their old rivalries and band together and create a vast sum of money. The main one is called the FRMT, Fraternity Risk Management Trust. No one knows how much money is in that. The closest I could get to the amount is that it is under $1 billion. And when a kid is injured, when somebody is killed, when somebody drinks himself to death, when a girl is sexually assaulted, the check ultimately comes from [the fraternities'] own pocket.
On whether the universities face liability for incidents like rape and other crimes
They may have a moral obligation to address it. They rarely have a legal obligation to address it ... . When you have the right to monitor student behavior, you have legal responsibility for it when something goes wrong. But nowadays because that policy ... has fallen, the college is not responsible for what students do on their own time. If the kid slipped and fell at 7-Eleven, the college wouldn't be responsible. And similarly, if he or she slips at the fraternity, which is a private society in a privately owned building on privately owned land, the university has no responsibility.
On who ends up paying the claims if there are civil lawsuits
The most expensive part of joining a fraternity is the portion of your dues that go to fraternity insurance. And I think a lot of parents feel calmed by that. What will happen is, if Johnny has made any mistake the night that there's a big incident, if he was downstairs at the fraternity having beers and upstairs someone is getting sexually assaulted, and he's under 21, he's going to be a named defendant. He'll get dropped from his fraternity insurance in a second. The fraternity will probably drop him from the fraternity ...
It would come from your parents' homeowner policy. College kids' legal address is their parents' home address. Their liability is covered under the umbrella policy of their parents' homeowners insurance. And the fraternity is going to drop them in a second if it possibly can because they don't want to pay their liability once there's been an incident. And if the kid needs a legal defense, his parents are going to have to find the money for that too.
On what fraternities can do to fix some of these problems
Everyone knows exactly what they need to do because there have been very careful studies on this. If you take alcohol out of the fraternity house, if you make it an alcohol free residence, the number of claims drops by 85 percent and the severity of those claims, the dollar amount of those claims, drops by 95 percent. You show me any other industry that would have a chance to drop the number of claims by 85 percent and the severity by 95 percent by making a single change. If the fraternities are serious about cleaning up their act, that's the change they need to make and it's a very painful one. It will probably devastate them, in terms of the numbers of kids who want to join, because pumping the keg is part of being in a fraternity in American culture. But that's the change that would clean the system up.
"National Lampoon's Alcohol Free Animal House" would be the lamest movie ever made. :(
(Not that National Lampoon doesn't already have a number of strong contenders in that field.)
I really find the "sue the frat" theme to be unfortunate. When I was in college 5 of us rented a house from an old lady. The crap that went down in that house was every bit as stupid as what went on in frats, with plenty of underage drinking and drugs.
It was a hell of a lot cheaper for us to live in that house than in dorms or a frat. A main reason was probably the fact that the liability coverage was dealt with by simply avoiding having any deep pockets to go after (as opposed to rules combined with monitoring and liability insurance in dorms and frats). I guess that many frats would want a similar set up, and it is unfortunate they can't get it. Who wins by pushing students off campus and out of national organizations?
What the hell? Who wants to be a college student in alcohol free housing?
QuoteWhen you have the right to monitor student behavior, you have legal responsibility for it when something goes wrong.
Whoever said this is worse than Hitler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T24DPU-hkJM#t=158
Honest university commercial.
Student Loans Entice Borrowers More for Cash Than a Degree
Some Americans caught in the weak job market are lining up for federal student aid, not for education that boosts their employment prospects but for the chance to take out low-cost loans, sometimes with little intention of getting a degree.
Take Ray Selent, a 30-year-old former retail clerk in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. He was unemployed in 2012 when he enrolled as a part-time student at Broward County's community college. That allowed him to borrow thousands of dollars to pay rent to his mother, cover his cellphone bill and catch the occasional movie.
"The only way I feel I can survive financially is by going back to school and putting myself in more student debt," says Mr. Selent, who has since added $8,000 in student debt from living expenses. Returning to school also gave Mr. Selent a reprieve on the $400 a month he owed from previous student debt because the federal government doesn't require payments while borrowers are in school.
A number of factors are behind the growth in student debt. The soft jobs recovery and the emphasis on education have driven people to attain more schooling. But borrowing thousands in low-rate student loans—which cover tuition, textbooks and a vague category known as living expenses, a figure determined by each individual school—also can be easier than getting a bank loan. The government performs no credit checks for most student loans.
College officials and federal watchdogs can't say exactly how much of the U.S.'s swelling $1.1 trillion in student-loan debt has gone to living expenses. But data and government reports indicate the phenomenon is real. The Education Department's inspector general warned last month that the rise of online education has led more students to borrow excessively for personal expenses. Its report said that among online programs at eight universities and colleges, non-education expenses such as rent, transportation and "miscellaneous" items made up more than half the costs covered by student aid.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304585004579415022664472930
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FP1-BP313_STUDLO_G_20140302180012.jpg&hash=fabfee31d06ddbb830e633279aaf7f2762718469)
You design an economy that suppresses wages, actively pursues the elimination of jobs as a business strategy, jack up "preferred qualifications" like Masters degrees for what few jobs do exist, and you get what you get: people will adapt, improvise, overcome in order to survive.
Hey, it's not our predatory capitalist Yi Market economy, we're just living in it--
Livin' la Yida loca!Quotenon-education expenses such as rent, transportation and "miscellaneous" items made up more than half the costs covered by student aid.
Yeah, some people call that "food", "diapers for infants" and "healthcare."
lalalalalalalalalalala
Save it for the sheep, Wolf of Wall Street.
From that article I got that Selent's mother is heartless. :angry:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2014, 08:34:39 PM
Save it for the sheep, Wolf of Wall Street.
Save it for a board that doesn't find your screed ridiculous. What's that commie board we trolled way back? They'd eat that shit up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2014, 08:36:32 PM
Save it for a board that doesn't find your screed ridiculous. What's that commie board we trolled way back? They'd eat that shit up.
This board is full of suckers, and the 1% likes it that way.
And I don't remember the commie board, just the Islamic one. Bastards kicked me for using "hamsausageandbacon" as a greeting. :mad:
Here is an editorial piece in the Globe by Reich
He hits on some of the issues we have discussed in this and other threads regarding mobility. On those points I agree with him. Where I think he falls down in indentifying causes which he says are largely related to race relations. If that were true then Canada should not have similar problems of income equality. Its not as bad here but it is similar and we dont have anything like the race relations issues present in the US.
His other big issue is the rich not wanting to pay tax. I am not saying the US tax system coudnt be improved but I dont think it is a fundamental cause either. Here in Canada we still have a fairly progressive tax system and yet we still see similar problems of income inequality.
What is the fix? I wish someone actually knew the answer to that question.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/its-the-inequality-stupid/article17294105/
QuoteU.S. President Barack Obama calls income inequality the "defining challenge of our era." Polls show that a majority of Americans believe inequality has grown over the past decade, and that they favour tax increases on the wealthy to help the poor. The non-partisan Pew Research Center recently found that six out of 10 Americans believe their system unfairly favours the wealthy.
And yet the reaction of U.S. conservatives has been to change the subject. Those with presidential ambitions say the focus should be on poverty, not income inequality. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida points to the poor's "lack of mobility" as the core problem. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin blames their isolation from mainstream America.
Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks argues that the "interrelated social problems of the poor" have nothing to do with inequality. Even some Democratic operatives are worried that talking about the wage gap will turn off voters.
This is rubbish. The widening income gap is making it harder to escape poverty and thwarting equal opportunity, in both the United States and Canada.
Let me explain. When almost all the gains from economic growth go to the top 1 per cent of income earners, as they have for 30 years, the middle class is left without the purchasing power to keep the economy growing and generate jobs.
Once the middle class has exhausted its coping mechanisms – wives and mothers surging into paid work (as they did in the 1970s and 1980s), longer working hours (which characterized the 1990s) and deep indebtedness (2002-present) – the inevitable result is slower growth and fewer jobs.
This hits the poor especially hard, because they're first fired, last hired and bear the brunt of declining wages and benefits. A stressed middle class also has a harder time being generous to them.
Helping America's poor presumably requires money, but the U.S. fiscal cupboard is bare, and the only way to replenish it now is through tax increases on the wealthy.
The shrinking middle class also hobbles upward mobility. There is less money for schools, training and social services, and the poor face a more difficult challenge moving up – the income ladder is far longer and its middle rungs have disappeared.
U.S. conservatives also don't want to acknowledge any connection between inequality and political power. But it's precisely the concentration of power at the top – which flows largely from the concentration of income and wealth there – that has prevented Washington from dealing with these problems.
As wealth has accumulated at the top, it has reduced taxes on the wealthy, expanded loopholes that benefit the rich, deregulated Wall Street and provided larger subsidies, bailouts and tax breaks for large corporations.
Unequal political power is the noxious end game of widening income inequality. Big money has all but engulfed Washington and many state capitals, drowning out the voices of average Americans.
The final reason conservative Republicans would rather talk about poverty is because they can then characterize the poor as "them" – people who are different, who have brought their problems on themselves, who lack self-discipline or motivation. So any attempt to alleviate poverty requires that "they" change their ways.
Indeed, the question "Why should we pay for them?" is being asked with increasing frequency. It underlies the U.S. debate over unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. It's in the resistance of some young people to buying health insurance. It can be heard among residents of upscale neighbourhoods who don't want their tax dollars going to poorer neighbourhoods nearby.
Conservatives understand that "we" and "they" are the most important of political words. They demarcate who's within the sphere of mutual responsibility, and who's not – and so have been used to separate the middle class and wealthy from the poor.
The middle-class and wealthy citizens of East Baton Rouge Parish, La., for example, are trying to secede from the school district they share with poorer residents and set up their own district funded by their property taxes. Similar efforts are under way in Memphis, Atlanta and Dallas.
"Why should we pay for them?" is also reverberating in wealthy places like Oakland County, Mich., that border devastatingly poor places like Detroit.
"Now, all of a sudden, they're having problems and they want to give part of the responsibility to the suburbs?" says L. Brooks Paterson, the Oakland County executive. "They're not gonna talk me into being the good guy. 'Pick up your share?' Ha ha."
Why are the conservatives succeeding?
One obvious explanation involves race. Detroit is mostly black; Oakland County is mostly white. The secessionist school districts are almost entirely white. But race alone can't explain it.
Another culprit is the economic stress on the middle class. It's easier to be generous about the sphere of "we" when incomes are rising and future prospects seem even better, as after the Second World War, when America declared war on poverty and expanded civil rights.
Yet this doesn't explain America's wealthy. They've never been richer, but most adamantly refuse to pay anything close to the tax rates accepted 40 years ago.
Perhaps it's because America's wealthy no longer have any idea how the other half lives. Being rich today means not having to come across anyone who isn't. Elite schools, private jets, gated communities and vacation homes all insulate them.
Conservatives have it wrong. Poverty isn't separate from widening inequality. In fact, no country can do anything significant about poverty without addressing these wage gaps.
The first step for Americans is to break down the barriers of race, class and segregation by income that are pushing them apart. Canada would be well advised to watch for the same symptoms, and take similar steps
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2014, 08:36:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2014, 08:34:39 PM
Save it for the sheep, Wolf of Wall Street.
Save it for a board that doesn't find your screed ridiculous. What's that commie board we trolled way back? They'd eat that shit up.
Ah, those were the days.
For some reason I lasted a day or two longer than everyone else before I was banned, despite rolling with a Pinochet avatar. :D
I think,on average, it's a pretty moderate board. :)
QuoteReport: State higher education cuts fuel student debt crisis
by Patricia Sabga @patriciasabga March 6, 2014 9:15PM ET
A new report argues that tighter state budgets have triggered higher tuitions
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famerica.aljazeera.com%2Fcontent%2Fajam%2Farticles%2F2014%2F3%2F6%2Freport-state-highereducationcutsfuelsstudentdebtcrisis%2Fjcr%3Acontent%2Fmainpar%2Fadaptiveimage%2Fsrc.adapt.960.high.1394192017272.jpg&hash=cb47a5e9900f563977f753a773f406cd97d9fa92)
Indiana University senior Randall Burns holds a sign during a protest, Thursday, April 11, 2013 in Bloomington, Ind.Jeremy Hogan/Bloomington Herald-Times/AP Photo
Biola Jeje, 22, graduated Brooklyn College last May with a degree in political science and a mission: Force lawmakers to address the $1.2 trillion student debt crisis.
"It's unfair that it's happening to us, and we're even being sort of blamed for the amount of debt that we're being put in," she said from the offices of New York Students Rising, where she serves as statewide coordinator.
Jeje left college with $9,500 in student loans, less than half the $29,400 national average for four-year college graduates. She and her fellow activists are mobilizing support to march on Albany, New York state's capital, to deliver a message to legislators.
"We're demanding an immediate freeze on tuition, and then we're also demanding restoration of at least one and half billion that's been cut from state higher education," she said.
The march is part of Higher Ed Not Debt, a nationwide campaign launched Thursday to focus attention on the student debt crisis that affects 40 million Americans.
"Students are just being forced to borrow in ways and percentages and amounts they weren't even 10 years ago," said Robert Hiltonsmith, a policy analyst at the liberal think tank Demos, which released a study Thursday on the relationship between state funding cuts to higher education and soaring tuition.
Demos found that higher education cuts since the Great Recession correlate strongly with state budget gaps. In 2010 for example, Arizona had a 65 percent budget deficit and 51 percent decrease in higher education funding, while California's 53 percent budget gap was accompanied by a 28 percent cut to higher education.
Demos argues tighter state budgets have triggered higher state tuitions. Nationwide, state higher education funding has declined an average of $2,394 or 27 percent since the Great Recession, while tuition at four-year public universities has increased 20 percent. Factor in hikes to room and board fees, and total student charges at four-year public universities have risen an average of $2,292.
"When you look at the magnitude of these higher education cuts, especially even just since the Great Recession, and then you line that up kind of with the increases in tuition you can see they have to be closely linked," said Hiltonsmith.
According to Demos, when combined with stagnant wages, a college education — historically viewed as the price of admission to America's middle class — is also commanding a larger portion of the average American household budget, with tuition at four-year public colleges and universities consuming 15 percent of the median household income in 26 states.
"We're not arguing for free higher education," said Hiltonsmith. "We're arguing for a debt-free higher education where students contribute as much as they can; families contribute as much as they can, and the rest is appropriately funded."
For Jeje, no less than the future of the nation hangs in the balance. "A lot of public colleges used to be free, and a lot of public colleges in other countries are free," she said. "A lot of other places think it's smart to invest in higher education and this country needs to follow suit.
I was in student government in college; (I fell in with the wrong crowd :(). One of our representatives addressed the board of trustees in order to ask that tuition be raised no more than the rate of inflation. The meeting went:
Student Government Representative: Hardship! Students at risk! Longstanding debt!
Board of Trustees: Look, a student, how precious. :) Can he do tricks?
Best of luck, student activists!
And that's why violence is awesome.
Getting out of debt is the number one factor for social mobility.
David Brooks is wrong about it not being a problem of inequality but not for the reasons given by the G&M. That girl in debt $27k won't be able to buy a house or start a business or begin seriously investing in her future to get to a higher class until she's finished getting that off her back. The people benefiting from the inequality are the ones who only paid eight grand for their degrees and could pay that by working after school.
Now, not only does college keep getting more expensive, but you have to be in it longer. And every job requires it now when before nearly none did. And once you're done with it you still have to spend the rest of your life chasing various certifications just to stay on par. Now one dollar in every 14 our civilization produces each year is spent on it, and all we're getting for it is more barriers to advancement.
Have I told you lately I love you?
Americans are obsessed with certifications. That's whack.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 07, 2014, 04:08:54 PM
I was in student government in college; (I fell in with the wrong crowd :(). One of our representatives addressed the board of trustees in order to ask that tuition be raised no more than the rate of inflation. The meeting went:
Student Government Representative: Hardship! Students at risk! Longstanding debt!
Board of Trustees: Look, a student, how precious. :) Can he do tricks?
Best of luck, student activists!
I once served a committee responsible for higher education funding. Members were drawn from many different countries, including the US, the UK etc. It was our practice to meet student union representatives every year. They sent a long list of grievances to us before the meeting. But the day before the meeting, their no.1 concern became the language for communication. They insisted in speaking Cantonese. We insisted in speaking English.
On the day of the meeting, we deliberately asked all the UK and US members to sit in the front row. None of the students dared to speak a word of Chinese in such a set-up. And their English sucked, not surprisingly as student union representatives tended to be bummers. So here they were, sitting in front of the people who made decisions on funding, but were unable to actually say anything for fear of exposing the already exposed fact that their English sucked. They quickly left.
In Sweden you can work at a nuclear plant as long as you have a high school diploma, and it's working out great.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 07, 2014, 04:28:18 PM
In Sweden you can work at a nuclear plant as long as you have a high school diploma, and it's working out great.
You admire our purity.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 07, 2014, 04:27:51 PM
I once served a committee responsible for higher education funding. Members were drawn from many different countries, including the US, the UK etc. It was our practice to meet student union representatives every year. They sent a long list of grievances to us before the meeting. But the day before the meeting, their no.1 concern became the language for communication. They insisted in speaking Cantonese. We insisted in speaking English.
On the day of the meeting, we deliberately asked all the UK and US members to sit in the front row. None of the students dared to speak a word of Chinese in such a set-up. And their English sucked, not surprisingly as student union representatives tended to be bummers. So here they were, sitting in front of the people who made decisions on funding, but were unable to actually say anything for fear of exposing the already exposed fact that their English sucked. They quickly left.
The representative who addressed the board at my university spoke English as his first language and it turned out every bit as humiliating for him.
Quote from: The Brain on March 07, 2014, 04:30:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 07, 2014, 04:28:18 PM
In Sweden you can work at a nuclear plant as long as you have a high school diploma, and it's working out great.
You admire our purity.
You know I do. :(
Quote from: Savonarola on March 07, 2014, 04:08:54 PM
I was in student government in college; (I fell in with the wrong crowd :(). One of our representatives addressed the board of trustees in order to ask that tuition be raised no more than the rate of inflation. The meeting went:
Student Government Representative: Hardship! Students at risk! Longstanding debt!
Board of Trustees: Look, a student, how precious. :) Can he do tricks?
Best of luck, student activists!
I was in student government too. It was actually kind of fun. Nobody in law school cared less what happened in the wider student government, so I got the position by acclamation. But you walk in there as a 3rd year law student is to feel like you're a foot taller than all the undergrad reps.
I quickly fell in with the President, who was a very pragmatic sort (and is now a Conservative MP), who went about such atypical student government projects as trying to renovate our student-owned businesses, instead of picking quixotic battles with administration that we'd never win. Our unofficial "opposition" came from the Grad student reps, who were as crunchy and lefty as you'd expect.
Ah, good times.
Quote from: The Brain on March 07, 2014, 04:30:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 07, 2014, 04:28:18 PM
In Sweden you can work at a nuclear plant as long as you have a high school diploma, and it's working out great.
You admire our purity.
It helps to have decent high schools. :P
Student protests about the cost of higher education are incredibly naive.
"You mean you would prefer to pay less? We had never considered the possibility. Thanks for bringing it to our attention."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2014, 05:23:41 PM
Student protests about the cost of higher education are incredibly naive.
"You mean you would prefer to pay less? We had never considered the possibility. Thanks for bringing it to our attention."
Not at public schools. Political pressure can be exerted.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2014, 05:23:41 PM
Student protests about the cost of higher education are incredibly naive.
"You mean you would prefer to pay less? We had never considered the possibility. Thanks for bringing it to our attention."
"You mean you might actually get angry and wise enough stop taking out massive loans to buy us Mercedes-Benzes, nice houses, hookers, and blow? Uh-oh."
Quote from: Ideologue on March 07, 2014, 05:26:12 PM
"You mean you might actually get angry and wise enough stop taking out massive loans to buy us Mercedes-Benzes, nice houses, hookers, and blow? Uh-oh."
Yet you never see enrolled students, or prospective students, articulating that threat or carrying it out.
Not entirely true. Law schools are collapsing, in minor part because of people finally recognizing the sunk cost fallacy as such. But it is true that most trapped in the situation do try to see it through (whether it makes objective sense or not is immaterial). However, such protests, along with agitprop, do make those who have not yet mortgaged their lives for credentials think twice. That is the value of such exercises--and that is why they may have some benefit even for those within the system, who are otherwise powerless.
And have you seen state governments respond to the fall in law school enrollment by upping funding for public law schools?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2014, 05:23:41 PM
Student protests about the cost of higher education are incredibly naive.
"You mean you would prefer to pay less? We had never considered the possibility. Thanks for bringing it to our attention."
Well it did work in Quebec...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2014, 05:33:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 07, 2014, 05:26:12 PM
"You mean you might actually get angry and wise enough stop taking out massive loans to buy us Mercedes-Benzes, nice houses, hookers, and blow? Uh-oh."
Yet you never see enrolled students, or prospective students, articulating that threat or carrying it out.
You might never see it because you havent looked in the right places yet. :P
Yi: Not that I am aware of, but that's not what I was getting at. The point I was making was that public speech demeaning the institution of higher education works by harming its reputation as a place where people can buy opportunities for themselves. That will lead to decisions by those in power to either try to limit their rapine to something a bit more reasonable, or fail to, and suffer the consequences of decreasing enrollment, which could spell catastrophe for them personally and the system generally.
In the case of publically supported universities, I do imagine such pressure does have an effect on legislators as well, but it is not the primary value of negative discussion of the higher education system.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 07, 2014, 05:51:14 PM
Yi: Not that I am aware of, but that's not what I was getting at. The point I was making was that public speech demeaning the institution of higher education works by harming its reputation as a place where people can buy opportunities for themselves. That will lead to decisions by those in power to either try to limit their rapine to something a bit more reasonable, or fail to, and suffer the consequences of decreasing enrollment, which could spell catastrophe for them personally and the system generally.
In the case of publically supported universities, I do imagine such pressure does have an effect on legislators as well, but it is not the primary value of negative discussion of the higher education system.
We're not talking about the Log's of the world badmouthing the value and marketability of their degrees; we're talking about people bitching about the out of pocket expense.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famerica.aljazeera.com%2Fcontent%2Fajam%2Farticles%2F2014%2F3%2F6%2Freport-state-highereducationcutsfuelsstudentdebtcrisis%2Fjcr%3Acontent%2Fmainpar%2Fadaptiveimage%2Fsrc.adapt.960.high.1394192017272.jpg&hash=cb47a5e9900f563977f753a773f406cd97d9fa92)
Geddy Lee can afford 27k. :rolleyes:
I was waiting; was not disappointed. :lmfao:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2014, 05:54:25 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 07, 2014, 05:51:14 PM
Yi: Not that I am aware of, but that's not what I was getting at. The point I was making was that public speech demeaning the institution of higher education works by harming its reputation as a place where people can buy opportunities for themselves. That will lead to decisions by those in power to either try to limit their rapine to something a bit more reasonable, or fail to, and suffer the consequences of decreasing enrollment, which could spell catastrophe for them personally and the system generally.
In the case of publically supported universities, I do imagine such pressure does have an effect on legislators as well, but it is not the primary value of negative discussion of the higher education system.
We're not talking about the Log's of the world badmouthing the value and marketability of their degrees; we're talking about people bitching about the out of pocket expense.
Well, I'm saying that while it may not help them personally--though I concede they may be naive enough to believe so--the value is that it helps reform society.
How so?
Because. It. Is. Bad. Press. For. Colleges.
(And it also puts pressure on politicians who like votes and wants voters to vote for them.)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 07, 2014, 04:23:27 PM
Getting out of debt is the number one factor for social mobility.
David Brooks is wrong about it not being a problem of inequality but not for the reasons given by the G&M. That girl in debt $27k won't be able to buy a house or start a business or begin seriously investing in her future to get to a higher class until she's finished getting that off her back. The people benefiting from the inequality are the ones who only paid eight grand for their degrees and could pay that by working after school.
Now, not only does college keep getting more expensive, but you have to be in it longer. And every job requires it now when before nearly none did. And once you're done with it you still have to spend the rest of your life chasing various certifications just to stay on par. Now one dollar in every 14 our civilization produces each year is spent on it, and all we're getting for it is more barriers to advancement.
Valid and salient points all, MIM, but it's not like anybody really gives a shit, either in society or on Languish. I GOTS MINE, BITCH SHOULD GET A SUMMER JOB AT MCDONALDS
I was catching up with Paul Campos' posts on Lawyers, Guns, and Money. He's only one of two public(ly funded) intellectuals whom I can name who 1)have done anything that might merit their tenure protection and 2)deserve the title "professor." (The other is Paul Krugman.)
I bring it up because one of his recent posts reports the disturbing fact that Florida Coastal (an Infilaw product) has been accepting the student loan dollars of people with sub-134 LSATs.
If you are unsure what that number means in conventional terms, it equates roughly to "functionally illiterate."
I wish I could just get hurt like Ed. :bowler:
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 07, 2014, 07:51:32 PM
I wish I could just get hurt like Ed. :bowler:
You should be awful to a porn actress. That's where the money is these days.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2014, 07:01:06 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 07, 2014, 04:23:27 PM
Getting out of debt is the number one factor for social mobility.
David Brooks is wrong about it not being a problem of inequality but not for the reasons given by the G&M. That girl in debt $27k won't be able to buy a house or start a business or begin seriously investing in her future to get to a higher class until she's finished getting that off her back. The people benefiting from the inequality are the ones who only paid eight grand for their degrees and could pay that by working after school.
Now, not only does college keep getting more expensive, but you have to be in it longer. And every job requires it now when before nearly none did. And once you're done with it you still have to spend the rest of your life chasing various certifications just to stay on par. Now one dollar in every 14 our civilization produces each year is spent on it, and all we're getting for it is more barriers to advancement.
Valid and salient points all, MIM, but it's not like anybody really gives a shit, either in society or on Languish. I GOTS MINE, BITCH SHOULD GET A SUMMER JOB AT MCDONALDS
If someone had a good solution to the problem to economic inequality we would all be on board. Well except Yi of course.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 07, 2014, 06:37:13 PM
Geddy Lee can afford 27k. :rolleyes:
Good one Ed. :lol:
It that one of those transvestites? It looks suspiciously like the 'I'm a PC' guy dressed as a woman.
Its today's Tom Sawyer.
Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2014, 08:56:07 PM
It that one of those transvestites? It looks suspiciously like the 'I'm a PC' guy dressed as a woman.
Name is Randall, I'm sure it's a dude. BTW, there's a barely noticeable t-shirt, so that's probably a vest and not a woman's shirt as I first thought.
Edit- looking again, that may well be a woman's coat. :hmm:
I heard this on NPR, answering the question "Where does all that money go?":
QuoteDuke: $60,000 A Year For College Is Actually A Discount
In 1984, it cost $10,000 a year to go to Duke University. Today, it's $60,000 a year. "It's staggering," says Duke freshman Max Duncan, "especially considering that's for four years."
But according to Jim Roberts, executive vice provost at Duke, that's actually a discount. "We're investing on average about $90,000 in the education of each student," he says. Roberts is not alone in making the claim. In fact, it's one most elite research institutions point to when asked about rising tuition.
But just where exactly is all that money going? Michael Schoenfeld, Duke's vice president of public affairs, says for part of that answer, you need to look up: "For the first time in probably anybody's memory, there will be two cranes hovering over the main campus quad." Duke is in the process of renovating its library and dining hall; $8,000 of the $90,000 Duke spends on each student goes into building and maintaining physical infrastructure on campus.
Another $14,000 goes to pay a share of administrative and academic support salaries, which in Duke's case includes more than $1 million in total compensation to the university president, Richard Brodhead, and more than $500,000 to the provost, Peter Lange, according to 2011 tax filings. Also, $14,000 goes to dorms, food and health services; $7,000 goes to staff salaries for deans and faculty; and miscellaneous costs take up another $5,000.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fnews%2Fgraphics%2F2014%2F02%2Fduke_exp.gif&hash=036fcc27ebd9f8bbd46ae9414187a43b233272e4)
Then a big chunk, $20,000, goes to Duke students who get financial aid.
"For those paying full freight, the full sticker price, their tuition dollars are supporting students who otherwise could not afford to come to Duke," Lange says.
It benefits people like sophomore Tara Mooney. She is among the roughly 50 percent of Duke students who receive financial aid. "I call them normal people," she says. "Getting financial aid, that's what I consider normal."
Most financial aid recipients have to repay a portion of their aid, which comes in the form of loans and grants. Mooney is a special case. She's one of 500 undergraduate students (not including those on merit or athletic scholarships) who pay nothing at all.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fnews%2Fgraphics%2F2014%2F02%2Fduke_fullprice.gif&hash=e05a2e0e0a415194ad57bf0c53e3e476b596aa6f)
Mooney says her mom lost her job at a public school about the same time that she was applying to college. "When we saw the aid package is when my mom and I started crying, because we knew that I could actually come here," she says. "They were going to give me enough money that it was actually possible."
But the biggest category of costs is faculty, at $21,000 per year per undergraduate student.
Jennifer West is a professor of bioengineering and materials science with a long list of publications, awards and titles. To hire West away from Rice University, money wasn't enough. She came with an entourage. "I moved a whole entire research group with me, so I had to move a lot of people and then we had to move a lot of our equipment and rebuild our lab," she says. "They actually sent architects to Rice who looked at our lab facilities there, then used that information to go back and design the facility that would work for us at Duke."
West is not alone. Duke pays what it calls "startup costs" for a lot of professors, particularly in the sciences.
And decisions about hiring faculty can drive up costs in other parts of the university. Duke considers a lot of that spending when it says $90,000 is what it costs to educate an undergraduate each year.
Charles Schwartz, a retired professor from the University of California, Berkeley, who has been studying university finances for the past 20 years, takes issue with this way of accounting. He says it's unfair to place the financial cost of professors like Jennifer West, who spend most of their time in the lab, on undergraduate students. "It's just wrong to bundle all those costs together," he says.
Lange disagrees. "If for instance you try to say ... nothing about the time the faculty member does research redounds to the benefit of the undergraduate ... then I guess you can do the accounting a completely different way," he says. "I think that's a deep misunderstanding at how, at least at a place like Duke, how the actual educational delivery happens."
Schwartz doesn't deny the value of research. It helps advance the human condition, discover new technologies, find cures for cancer and, in Jennifer West's case, build transplantable organs from a small sample of cells. But Schwartz questions how much undergraduates benefit from that.
In the end, Schwartz and Lange don't disagree on the value of what goes on at places like Berkeley and Duke. The disagreement is over the story that Duke tells its undergraduates.
So if you're a student at Duke, are you getting a massive discount on the cost of your education? Or are you subsidizing a giant educational edifice that you as an undergraduate student will barely come into contact with?
The answer sort of depends on what kind of student you are.
If you're engaged in research and capitalizing on your professors' expertise, maybe you're getting something that's worth more than what you paid. If you've got a good financial aid package, you're definitely getting a good deal. But if you're a full-paying student, who's not learning much from professors outside the classroom, it's the university that's getting the deal.
Before all the teacher-haters and anti-intellectual mouthbreathers bitch:
QuoteDuke head coach Mike Krzyzewski received a big pay raise this year to $7.2 million making him the highest-paid coach in college basketball and all of college sports.
7.2 million to the basketball coach, yet the article is bitching about the million to the President. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 11, 2014, 02:01:56 PM
7.2 million to the basketball coach, yet the article is bitching about the million to the President. :hmm:
His salary does not come out of tuition money though but directly from money his program earns. Or at least he better or the University President should be fired.
An interesting piece on income inequality from the Economist of all places.
I think the bolded part at the end is a most astute observation and I fear will turn Ide's pants into... well you know.
QuoteCapital in the long run
Jan 9th 2014, 13:11 by R.A. | LONDON
..THOMAS PIKETTY, a French economist from the Paris School of Economics, is best known for his involvment in the joint project (with people like Emmanuel Saez and Anthony Atkinson) to build long-term series on income earned by the rich. It is thanks to these efforts that we know, for example, that the share of American income earned by the top 1% has returned to a level close to 20%, nearly matching the all-time high set in 1928. But Mr Piketty is likely to become much better known in 2014, when the English version of his 2013 book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", is published in March. The book aims to revolutionise the way people think about the economic history of the past two centuries. It may well manage the feat.
This week's Free exchange column examines the book. It is, first and foremost, a very detailed look at 200 years' worth of data on the distribution of income and wealth across the rich world (with some figures for large emerging markets also included). This mountain of data allows Mr Piketty to tell a simple and compelling story. Wealth as a share of income held steady at very high levels in the 18th and 19th centuries, contributing to stark inequalities in wealth and income. Rising worker wages in the late 19th and early 20th centuries stabilised growth in wealth concentrations but did nothing to reduce inequalities, which were only eliminated by the great shocks of the period from 1914 to 1950. Economists tricked themselves into thinking that the resulting compression in the income and wealth distribution was a natural feature of the maturation of capitalist economies. But as the shocks receded wealth began to accumulate again and growth in income inequality resumed. From the perspective of 2014, concentration of wealth and income begins to look like the natural state of capitalism rather than an exception.
Mr Piketty allows that this need not be the case. He sets out two "laws" to describe when and how capitalism will generate divergence rather than convergence in wealth and income:
The first explains variations in capital's share of income (as opposed to the share going to wages). It is a simple accounting identity: at all times, capital's share is equal to the rate of return on capital multiplied by the total stock of wealth as a share of GDP. The rate of return is the sum of all income flowing to capital—rents, dividends and profits—as a percentage of the value of all capital.
The second law is more a rough rule of thumb: over long periods and under the right circumstances the stock of capital, as a percentage of national income, should approach the ratio of the national-savings rate to the economic growth rate. With a savings rate of 8% (roughly that of the American economy) and GDP growth of 2%, wealth should rise to 400% of annual output, for example, while a drop in long-run growth to 1% would push up expected wealth to 800% of GDP. Whether this is a "law" or not, the important point is that a lower growth rate is conducive to higher concentrations of wealth.
In Mr Piketty's narrative, rapid growth—from large productivity gains or a growing population—is a force for economic convergence. Prior wealth casts less of an economic and political shadow over the new income generated each year. And population growth is a critical component of economic growth, accounting for about half of average global GDP growth between 1700 and 2012. America's breakneck population and GDP growth in the 19th century eroded the power of old fortunes while throwing up a steady supply of new ones.
Tumbling rates of population growth are pushing wealth concentrations back toward Victorian levels, in Mr Piketty's estimation. The ratio of wealth to income is highest among demographically challenged economies such as Italy and Japan (although both countries have managed to mitigate inequality through redistributive taxes and transfers). Interestingly, Mr Piketty reckons this world, in which the return to capital is persistently higher than growth, is the more "normal" state. In that case, wealth piles up faster than growth in output or incomes. The mid-20th century, when wealth compression combined with extraordinary growth to generate an egalitarian interregnum, was the exception.
The twist in the story is that while technological progress can raise labour productivity and boost wages, it can also make it easier to substitute capital for labour. In that case, even rapid productivity growth may merely enhance capital's share of income, the return to capital, and the concentration of income and wealth.
As with any sweeping narrative, Mr Piketty's book occasionally tries too hard to shoehorn history into the framework, and it doesn't always deal generously with inconvenient facts. But the database on which the book is built is formidable, and it is difficult to dispute his call for a new perspective on the modern economic era, whether or not one agrees with his policy recommendations (as many will not).
What Mr Piketty conveys most powerfully, in my opinion, is the fact that economics was once centrally concerned with the question of distribution. It was impossible to ignore in the 19th century! Not least because economists of a market-oriented disposition and those more sympathetic to Marx both wondered whether capitalism was capable of generating a sustainable distribution of the gains from growth. We are all used to sneering at communism because of its manifest failure to deliver the sustained rates of growth managed by market economies. But Marx's original critique of capitalism was not that it made for lousy growth rates. It was that a rising concentration of wealth couldn't be sustained politically. Ultimately, those of us who would like to preserve the market system need to grapple with that sort of dynamic, in the context of the worrying numbers on inequality that Mr Piketty presents.
An interesting opinion piece at the Globe essentially saying that time spent teaching at universities is way down. The excuse given is more time is being spent on research. But for at least 20% of professors in Ontario they have both a light teaching load and are not spending their time doing research. Its estimated that if those professors who are not spending their time doing research would spend their time teaching a large number of spaces would be created - or put another way, we have way too many profs burdening the system.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/professors-need-to-teach-more/article17414147/
I'm sure the zillion PhDs desperate for a teaching job--never mind a tenure track position--are thrilled to hear that assessment.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2014, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 11, 2014, 02:01:56 PM
7.2 million to the basketball coach, yet the article is bitching about the million to the President. :hmm:
His salary does not come out of tuition money though but directly from money his program earns.
Coach K owns a program, I always thought he was an employee?
Money being money is fungible . . .
Quote from: alfred russel on March 11, 2014, 05:27:43 PM
I'm sure the zillion PhDs desperate for a teaching job--never mind a tenure track position--are thrilled to hear that assessment.
To cure an infestation of lice, the eggs of the insect must likewise be destroyed.
I think wealth inequality is the natural result of private property and capital markets that provide a return.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 11, 2014, 05:57:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 11, 2014, 05:27:43 PM
I'm sure the zillion PhDs desperate for a teaching job--never mind a tenure track position--are thrilled to hear that assessment.
To cure an infestation of lice, the eggs of the insect must likewise be destroyed.
Does that apply to struggling law grads as well? :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2014, 01:52:54 PM
Before all the teacher-haters and anti-intellectual mouthbreathers bitch:
QuoteDuke head coach Mike Krzyzewski received a big pay raise this year to $7.2 million making him the highest-paid coach in college basketball and all of college sports.
Oh, please, that's just 120 undergrads.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2014, 01:52:54 PM
Before all the teacher-haters and anti-intellectual mouthbreathers bitch:
QuoteDuke head coach Mike Krzyzewski received a big pay raise this year to $7.2 million making him the highest-paid coach in college basketball and all of college sports.
He's built the Duke brand. :)
;)
Most profs don't make that much; I had posted an article a few months back which listed about half the professors in the United States are part time non-tenure, another 20% are full time non-tenure and in addition there are innumerable TAs who teach lower level classes. The examples in the article are upper administration and a super-star in the STEM field. Even at Duke that's the exception.
Many people complain about the cost of education and, to me, $240,000 seems like an exorbitant amount for an undergraduate degree; but what do you cut?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2014, 05:24:36 PM
An interesting opinion piece at the Globe essentially saying that time spent teaching at universities is way down. The excuse given is more time is being spent on research. But for at least 20% of professors in Ontario they have both a light teaching load and are not spending their time doing research. Its estimated that if those professors who are not spending their time doing research would spend their time teaching a large number of spaces would be created - or put another way, we have way too many profs burdening the system.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/professors-need-to-teach-more/article17414147/
The entire system is broken.
If you have 16 hours of classes a week then you've a heavy workload. Many have only a handful. Even taking reading time into account...why do you have to stay in that place for 3 or 4 years of such crap just to get a bit of paper which means you're allowed to apply for jobs?
Quote from: Tyr on March 12, 2014, 08:47:57 AM
The entire system is broken.
If you have 16 hours of classes a week then you've a heavy workload. Many have only a handful. Even taking reading time into account...why do you have to stay in that place for 3 or 4 years of such crap just to get a bit of paper which means you're allowed to apply for jobs?
It is a bad system, but I can't think of a better one.
I can.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 08:50:05 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 12, 2014, 08:47:57 AM
The entire system is broken.
If you have 16 hours of classes a week then you've a heavy workload. Many have only a handful. Even taking reading time into account...why do you have to stay in that place for 3 or 4 years of such crap just to get a bit of paper which means you're allowed to apply for jobs?
It is a bad system, but I can't think of a better one.
If you read the opinion piece I linked, we had a better system.
I don't read articles, I'm only here for the pics.
:D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fimage%2FiLEnvBYfHA5g.png&hash=abaf5d931a0846c94b4aec69a1cfda2d3bdc2936)
Your likelihood of losing your job to a computer.
In the future, the only job will be holodeck program designer.
Robot cooks?
Sure.
Computerized computer programmers (at 48%) - strikes me as a science-fiction distopia in the making. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2014, 06:02:16 PM
I think wealth inequality is the natural result of private property and capital markets that provide a return.
Does the order of magnitude of the inequality matter to you?
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 02:27:27 PM
Computerized computer programmers (at 48%) - strikes me as a science-fiction distopia in the making. :D
Much the same as computerised taxi drivers.
This is not the home you were looking for.
Quote from: HVC on March 12, 2014, 02:06:29 PM
Robot cooks?
Why not? I'm surprised no fast food places have those yet. With margins as small as they have they should really be interested in automating that.
Quote from: Beenherebefore on March 12, 2014, 02:39:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 02:27:27 PM
Computerized computer programmers (at 48%) - strikes me as a science-fiction distopia in the making. :D
Much the same as computerised taxi drivers.
This is not the home you were looking for.
I hope computerized taxi drivers are like the one in Total Recall. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2014, 02:40:49 PM
Quote from: Beenherebefore on March 12, 2014, 02:39:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 02:27:27 PM
Computerized computer programmers (at 48%) - strikes me as a science-fiction distopia in the making. :D
Much the same as computerised taxi drivers.
This is not the home you were looking for.
I hope computerized taxi drivers are like the one in Total Recall. :)
If the future hasn't improved since Total Recall, I for one don't want it.
I'd be interested in prostitutes with three boobs though.
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2014, 02:39:02 PM
Does the order of magnitude of the inequality matter to you?
Nope.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2014, 02:48:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2014, 02:39:02 PM
Does the order of magnitude of the inequality matter to you?
Nope.
What about the growing lack of social mobility?
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2014, 02:44:20 PM
I'd be interested in prostitutes with three boobs though.
Do you have three hands? :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2014, 02:44:20 PM
I'd be interested in prostitutes with three boobs though.
They'd all be modelled after models. With A cups. And the personality of your average sit-com, while reminding us of our mums.
The future is going to suck sweaty elephant balls.
That is dystopia for you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2014, 02:48:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2014, 02:39:02 PM
Does the order of magnitude of the inequality matter to you?
Nope.
Gotcha.
So it seems you agree with facts the article describes, but not the conclusion it draws.
I only read the bolded part.
What about waiters? I'd love to be able to order my restaurant food with an ipad. I've seen some high-end restaurants in China do it. It is perfectly workable.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 03:47:45 PM
What about waiters? I'd love to be able to order my restaurant with an ipad. I've seen some high-end restaurants in China do it. It is perfectly workable.
Not sure how you would automate the delivery of the food.
Pneumatic tubes. :cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2014, 03:49:02 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 03:47:45 PM
What about waiters? I'd love to be able to order my restaurant with an ipad. I've seen some high-end restaurants in China do it. It is perfectly workable.
Not sure how you would automate the delivery of the food.
Automating the ordering part helps cut down the number of staff, even if the delivery part can't be automated.
Yet :menace: I believe some Russian queen had a dining room with no servers at all. The kitchen is under the dining hall. Guests wrote the names of the dishes they wanted, wrote it on the "plate" in front of them, and rang a bell. The folks would deliver the food from below with a mechanical mechanism.
Actually I think the simplest solution about food delivery is for me to do it myself. I press a button to ask the kitchen to prepare the food. They press a button to tell me that it is ready. I go get it. Some airport lounges do it this way, because they don't have waiting staff.
Yuck. I'm not try to play adventures in food service.
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 04:07:34 PM
Yuck. I'm not try to play adventures in food service.
Why not?
I could be automated. But would I be happy? I don't know.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 04:16:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 04:07:34 PM
Yuck. I'm not try to play adventures in food service.
Why not?
Because if I did I would like look for such a position? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 04:36:32 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 04:16:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 04:07:34 PM
Yuck. I'm not try to play adventures in food service.
Why not?
Because if I did I would like look for such a position? :huh:
I don't get what you are saying :unsure:
If I wanted to bus tables, retrieve food - I'd look for part time work in a restaurant. Sort of similar to my feeling on self-check out in stores.
Quote from: Beenherebefore on March 12, 2014, 03:28:46 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2014, 02:44:20 PM
I'd be interested in prostitutes with three boobs though.
They'd all be modelled after models. With A cups. And the personality of your average sit-com, while reminding us of our mums.
The future is going to suck sweaty elephant balls.
That is dystopia for you.
My concern is that they're going to have difficulty fitting all the necessary machinery into my sexbot.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2014, 03:49:02 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 03:47:45 PM
What about waiters? I'd love to be able to order my restaurant with an ipad. I've seen some high-end restaurants in China do it. It is perfectly workable.
Not sure how you would automate the delivery of the food.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDXuGQRpvs4
Ahem, Yi said food. <_<
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 04:55:19 PM
If I wanted to bus tables, retrieve food - I'd look for part time work in a restaurant. Sort of similar to my feeling on self-check out in stores.
Ordering food: technology already allows that part to be automated easily, and I really do want to order my own food. I am tired of waiters mixing up orders, and in a lot of places it is a challenge to get someone to do the ordering in the first place.
Busing tables: that is indeed difficult to automate, and I probably don't want to do that myself.
Retreiving food: more like I don't mind doing it.
Self-check outs: agree that they don't really work. There is only one place that does it in HK that I know of. It is more like a marketing gimmick than anything. Doesn't work because the people in front are far too slow and they don't really know how to do it.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/23/robyn-urback-here-ontario-have-some-more-law-school-grads
QuoteLaw students are walking, talking dollar signs for Ontario universities. They bring with them hefty provincial government subsidies and that priceless higher-ed asset: "prestige." Law students don't require expensive laboratories or the latest and greatest equipment — the major cost to the university, by and large, is for the professors hired to instruct them. That cost generally doesn't increase if a few extra bums are squeezed into seats in the lecture hall, which is why universities seem to welcome as many law students as possible.
The recent news from the law school at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, therefore, should come as no surprise. According to a memo recently sent to students, the school is currently weighing the idea of increasing its enrolment by nearly one-third in order to meet greater revenue demands. That means the school's target admission number, which was set at approximately 165 in 2013, may rise by another 35 or 50 students.
This is great news, right? If there's anything Ontario needs more of (besides expert panels on transit infrastructure), it's lawyers.
Or maybe not. Ontario is experiencing anything but a drought of law school grads. According to the Law Society of Upper Canada, of the 1,750 students graduated from Ontario law schools in 2013, one in seven was expected not to find an articling position. That's up from 12% of unplaced grads two years ago, and 6% five years ago. Obviously, the problem of too few positions for too many grads is only getting worse. So why on earth would law schools consider pumping out even more articling candidates?
The answer lies in those walking, talking dollar signs. The issue is not unique to Queen's. Indeed, Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario, just opened a new law school this year, which will add an additional 60 candidates to the graduate pool each year. Other law schools in the province have also increased their admission numbers, including the University of Ottawa — with its first-year registrants jumping from 271 in 2007 to 381 in 2010 — and the University of Windsor, which has added about 60 spots since 1997.
To try to control the problem, the Law Society of Upper Canada has approved a motion to pilot a three-year program starting in 2014 whereby law school grads can complete a co-op and skills-training program in lieu of articling. But while the new program may quiet the articling crisis, it won't help the glut of lawyers competing for positions after they are successfully called to the bar.
Indeed, the Society may be wise to take a cue from Ontario's teachers colleges, which will soon halve the number of its admissions (and double the amount of time it takes candidates to earn their degrees). The measure is being implemented as a way to curb the backlog of unemployed teachers in the province, where there are roughly 9,000 grads pumped out each year for just 6,000 jobs. Needless to say, no Ontario teachers college would dare float a question of increasing its enrolment now.
Perhaps the plight of unplaced law school grads hasn't reached the "crisis point" of their teacher counterparts, which is why Queen's might get away with opening its admission doors. But to do so would be to ignore the weakening job prospects for its current students, as well as law students across the province. Queen's could opt to raise its law tuition as a means of garnering additional revenue, but obviously, that would not bring in the same type of change as some 50 new government-subsidized students. So, the prevailing question remains: How many dollar signs can you squeeze into a lecture hall?
N.B.: I got no idea if this is a reputable Canadian publication, but it sounds pretty accurate to me. Canadian 1Ls, welcome to the United States circa 2010.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 22, 2014, 03:57:11 PMN.B.: I got no idea if this is a reputable Canadian publication, but it sounds pretty accurate to me. Canadian 1Ls, welcome to the United States circa 2010.
The National Post is sufficiently reputable.
That's good. I just don't know Canuck sources. :)
Flannel Weekly and Canadian Tuxedo Aficionado would also be acceptable.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 23, 2014, 04:42:34 AM
Flannel Weekly and Canadian Tuxedo Aficionado would also be acceptable.
Acceptable? The
FW&CTA is synonymous with the objective truth in these part.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 23, 2014, 04:42:34 AM
Flannel Weekly and Canadian Tuxedo Aficionado would also be acceptable.
Canadian tuxedos are made out of flannel. Plad flannel.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 22, 2014, 11:30:20 PM
That's good. I just don't know Canuck sources. :)
The NP is a national newspaper, launched by everybody's favourite former media mogul Conrad Black. It was intended to be a challenger on the right of the Globe & Mail, which is the paper of record of the Toronto elites (and thus by default, the nation).
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 23, 2014, 04:42:34 AM
Flannel Weekly and Canadian Tuxedo Aficionado would also be acceptable.
You forgot about Maple Syrup Monthly.
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2014, 10:00:22 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 23, 2014, 04:42:34 AM
Flannel Weekly and Canadian Tuxedo Aficionado would also be acceptable.
Canadian tuxedos are made out of flannel. Plad flannel.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_bAttJ7mIlIM%2FTBEAZ_MBFxI%2FAAAAAAAAB4M%2FXkOhynICP24%2Fs1600%2Fdon%2Bcherry%2Bplaid%2Bjacket.jpg&hash=0afb60ca0d09562b474f2d4fc8e03634cd088278)
:thumbsup:
Knot's not ridiculously fat enough. Otherwise, perfect.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 22, 2014, 03:57:11 PMN.B.: I got no idea if this is a reputable Canadian publication, but it sounds pretty accurate to me. Canadian 1Ls, welcome to the United States circa 2010.
queen's university appears to be the stanford of canada. maclean's law school rating places it third. and they raised enrollment by only 35 students. i would blow your horn just yet :D
1/7 total graduates who can't find articling positions is pretty great compared to legal market down here. i mean, god. golden gate university: 21.5% :lol:
http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/03/-full-rankings-bar-admission-required-full-time-long-term.html
honestly, i think a significant amount of blame should be placed on the individual re: issues with law students finding employment post-graduation. there is so much information available today that many people just don't seek out. there's no excuse to ignore the wealth of knowledge out there. not everyone needs to get into the top 14 or even first tier schools to do well post-graduation. people who choose to remain in overly saturated markets, attend law school at a third or fourth tier law school that's located right next to a first tier or top 14 school, not work their ass off to reach top 25%, and don't blanket the country with applications post graduation kind of deserve what's coming to them.
i see a lot of people in my class who lack drive. for first summer internships, many applied to a handful of firms, got rejected, so gave up and are now planning on working at their old job over the summer. many will probably find employment after graduation since this is north dakota, but if they lived elsewhere? that lack of ambition would probably sink them, and i think that's their fault. i know people with extremely sub par grades who sent out fifty resumes to get their summer internship. on some law forums, some people have sent out 500+ resumes/cover letters before snagging a job. those who try do find internships or employment. granted, if everyone tried, there would be a substantial number of people who wouldn't get a job. but few actually try
People shouldn't have to apply for 500 jobs to get one.
500 its nuts.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2014, 01:35:12 PM
People shouldn't have to apply for 500 jobs to get one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2014, 01:38:24 PM
500 its nuts.
this was a pretty nutty forum, and i don't know that poster's circumstance (he might have also been exaggerating, though i did see another person say his was in the 300s). he might have been applying for big/mid law positions or a federal clerkship rather than
any position. or he might have made several poor decisions. the fact remains that if someone tries hard enough they will find job. bottom of the class at a fourth tier university in san francisco can probably find a job if he sends out enough applications. but he likely won't, because being bottom of the class in a poorly ranked university usually is a sign of some character flaw. so, he adds to the statistics of unemployment among law grads
La: for your logic to obtain there would have to be thousands of shyster jobs going unfilled every year. I see no evidence to suggest that's true. For one thing, with a flow of thousands a year, at some point you would have more unfilled shyster jobs than there are people.
The standard explanation, that there's a finite demand and a supply that exceeds it, makes much more sense.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2014, 01:35:12 PM
People shouldn't have to apply for 500 jobs to get one.
I applied for close to 300 before I got one, and I'm still applying for better ones, so 500 does not seem unrealistic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2014, 02:09:01 PM
La: for your logic to obtain there would have to be thousands of shyster jobs going unfilled every year. I see no evidence to suggest that's true. For one thing, with a flow of thousands a year, at some point you would have more unfilled shyster jobs than there are people.
The standard explanation, that there's a finite demand and a supply that exceeds it, makes much more sense.
what? if everyone sent out tons of applications until they found a position, then of course there would be many who would never find a job even if they sent out thousands upon thousands. but as i said, there are lots of people who aren't willing to do that. also, loads of people just don't want to move from their area, so they don't bother picking up the phone and calling every firm in wyoming, for example
(edit) oh, i think i see the confusion. my last sentence in the previous post: "adds to the statistics"? yeah, poor phrasing
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2014, 02:21:24 PM
(edit) oh, i think i see the confusion. my last sentence in the previous post: "adds to the statistics"? yeah, poor phrasing
That, and the rest of the paragraph before it. :D
Quotethe fact remains that if someone tries hard enough they will find job. bottom of the class at a fourth tier university in san francisco can probably find a job if he sends out enough applications.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2014, 02:37:48 PMThat, and the rest of the paragraph before it. :D
Quotethe fact remains that if someone tries hard enough they will find job. bottom of the class at a fourth tier university in san francisco can probably find a job if he sends out enough applications.
yup. but that doesn't mean he will. there's also ways to pad the resume post-graduation with meaningful experience to help with the process, such as pro bono work or further internships. it would probably require a second job to pay the bills, but sometimes life isn't easy. i think some law students expect to be handed a job on a silver plate, then give up when they discover that might not actually happen
So....if someone tries hard enough he will find a job, but it doesn't mean he will find a job? :unsure:
You've lost me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2014, 03:06:05 PM
So....if someone tries hard enough he will find a job, but it doesn't mean he will find a job? :unsure:
You've lost me.
"but that doesn't mean he will
try hard enough"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2014, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2014, 01:35:12 PM
People shouldn't have to apply for 500 jobs to get one.
I applied for close to 300 before I got one, and I'm still applying for better ones, so 500 does not seem unrealistic.
Sure, and that's a sign that there's something wrong with the system.
La, are you a Buddhist or a Taoist? This conversation has a kind of circular quality to it.
Please check one (and *only* one) of the following boxes:
[ ] I believe that every law school grad, if he were to try hard enough, could land a job in his field.
[ ] I believe that even if every law school grad were to try all the way to 11, there are still insufficient jobs in the field to consume the supply coming out of law schools.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2014, 03:17:25 PM
La, are you a Buddhist or a Taoist? This conversation has a kind of circular quality to it.
Please check one (and *only* one) of the following boxes:
[X] I believe that every law school grad, if he were to try hard enough, could land a job in his field.*
[ ] I believe that even if every law school grad were to try all the way to 11, there are still insufficient jobs in the field to consume the supply coming out of law schools.
*vast majority of cases. i mean, there are always extreme circumstances
every law school grad has a chance of landing a job in his field, if he tries hard enough. that there aren't enough jobs for every law school grad doesn't make the previous statement untrue. i'm looking at every individual's chance rather than the whole body of law grads
:hmm:
Every student can score in the top 30% on standardized tests. :bowler:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2014, 03:31:05 PM
Every student can score in the top 30% on standardized tests. :bowler:
essentially, yes. i'm not sure about every standardized test, but the ones that can be learned through pure practice and hard work
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2014, 03:31:05 PM
Every student can score in the top 30% on standardized tests. :bowler:
The Lake Wobegon of Law School Grads. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect
"Every law school grad is above average".
...
The downside of the "every law school grad should put out 500 resumes" is that every law firm looking to hire gets 10,000-plus resumes ... and still only wants to hire (say) 1 person. The result is that resumes get triaged very roughly, making grades/prestige of school/inside contacts more important than perhaps they should be - simply because it is an easy way to cut that 10,000 into a managable 200 or so. Who wants to actually read 10,000 resumes?
Which means in a tight market that if your grades/school are not top notch, and you don't have handy connections with the firm, your chances are not great no matter how many resumes you put out and how cleverly they are written, as they are likely to go straight into the garbage without being read.
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2014, 03:43:21 PMThe downside of the "every law school grad should put out 500 resumes" is that every law firm looking to hire gets 10,000-plus resumes ... and still only wants to hire (say) 1 person. The result is that resumes get triaged very roughly, making grades/prestige of school/inside contacts more important than perhaps they should be - simply because it is an easy way to cut that 10,000 into a managable 200 or so. Who wants to actually read 10,000 resumes?
Which means in a tight market that if your grades/school are not top notch, and you don't have handy connections with the firm, your chances are not great no matter how many resumes you put out and how cleverly they are written, as they are likely to go straight into the garbage without being read.
i agree completely, if we were discussing biglaw or midlaw. small-law, however? i promise you a defense attorney in grafton, north dakota isn't receiving hundreds of resumes. small firms that many overlook are everywhere. and i wasn't saying that our law grad could find a job solely within his market. i did say he might have to look elsewhere to other areas of the nation. it's going to be tough because that person would be competing with other graduates seeking employment with closer ties to the area, but it's not impossible
:frusty: : bleeding: :wacko: :weep:
Captain Mihali went to Harvard, so he can work in practically any jurisdiction or pharmacy he wants.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2014, 04:04:38 PM
:frusty: : bleeding: :wacko: :weep:
Everyone can find a job, unless they can't. But if they can't they just need to look harder, though that doesn't guarantee anything.
Quote from: sbr on March 23, 2014, 04:28:27 PMEveryone can find a job, unless they can't. But if they can't they just need to look harder, though that doesn't guarantee anything.
that's not a correct summary
The problem La is either your language is imprecise or your logic is flawed.
No one is disputing that any randomly selected, lower ranking, Gomer Pyle Law School attending, off slacking JD can improve his chances of landing a job by applying himself.
However, this discussion is taking place in the context of the issue of a JD glut. So while your thoughts about law student effort and success are interesting, not *every* grad can up their game and improve their chances. If everyone were to study 1,000 hours a night and send out a trillion cover letters, the bottom 20% would *still* not land a job in the field.
And Wigger was busting your nuts about everyone scoring in the top 30th percentile when you agreed with him. Percentile is a ranking; it's axiomatic that only 30% of the pool can land in the top 30th percentile.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2014, 05:06:46 PM
The problem La is either your language is imprecise or your logic is flawed.
No one is disputing that any randomly selected, lower ranking, Gomer Pyle Law School attending, off slacking JD can improve his chances of landing a job by applying himself.
However, this discussion is taking place in the context of the issue of a JD glut. So while your thoughts about law student effort and success are interesting, not *every* grad can up their game and improve their chances. If everyone were to study 1,000 hours a night and send out a trillion cover letters, the bottom 20% would *still* not land a job in the field.
well, yeah. that's obvious to everyone. no one is arguing differently
the law market is pretty damn awful, especially for the average law grad. but at the end of day, when i hear personal stories of people affected by the glut and unable to find employment, i can only think.. well, that was kind of your own fault. every law student/grad has to deal with the glut. it should be a major consideration for anyone thinking about enrolling in law school. i applied knowing full well just how awful the system was and what my chances were
if in the argument, ide is on one side of the spectrum, then i'm on the other. depending on the person, i would definitely recommend law school - provided he did his research. so, that's where i was getting at with my original posts. as to the market itself? number of grads finding employment are improving, and enrollment is falling. i mean, really, what more is there to discuss?
as to wiggin - IDK! you and (especially) sbr seemed really confused as to what i was saying. wiggin was pointing out how "everyone can..." could be interpreted two different ways
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2014, 05:43:42 PM
wiggin was pointing out how "everyone can..." could be interpreted two different ways
That point was fairly obvious, but it wasn't the one I was making. In a competitive system, individuals are being judged by not only what they do but what others do. Not only is it impossible on the meta-level for everyone to make the cut, it's impossible for many individuals as well, no matter how hard they try.
In general, I'm against the arch-conservative school of thought that considers unemployment and/or poverty to be personal moral failings that the government should ignore, but it's especially egregious when it's a moving target- rather than being expected to get a specific number of answers on a test right, you're expected to get more than Bob & Joe do.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2014, 06:19:51 PMIn a competitive system, individuals are being judged by not only what they do but what others do. Not only is it impossible on the meta-level for everyone to make the cut, it's impossible for many individuals as well, no matter how hard they try.
and i wasn't saying any differently. there's a reason why employment for graduates from the top 14 law schools is 81-94%, because to get into those schools tends to require more skill/hard work (usually both) than it does to get into much lower ranked schools. so, harvard law students aren't required to reach top 20% to get employment. they were already rewarded by getting in. those students who didn't make the cut and went to lower ranked schools face less competition, but they need to be higher in their class to easily find employment. those who are at the bottom, and truly fucked themselves in law school may still, however, manage to secure a job through determination post-graduation
whether it's 56% of graduates finding employment 9 months after graduation or 80%, there are still going to be a large number of people who won't find jobs because they didn't try hard enough. if a person doesn't try sufficiently enough before law school, during law school, or after law school, then that's on him
(edit)
QuoteIn general, I'm against the arch-conservative school of thought that considers unemployment and/or poverty to be personal moral failings that the government should ignore
hold up. we're not talking about the average citizen here, or unemployment/poverty in general. we're talking about people studying to become attorneys and job placements for those people post-graduation. those are two very different subjects
Go into medicine. The guy who is dead last in his class is still going to get a job making 150-200k.
I'm graduating in two months and I'm 183k in debt. I'll have to put loans into forbearance for the next six years at 6.8% interest so I'll probably be near 260k in principal by the time I'm done with residency. I can't believe that in the 90s-early 2000s student loan interest rates were around 2-3%.
I feel better about going to the doctor now.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 23, 2014, 08:07:25 PM
I feel better about going to the doctor now.
Don't worry. I'm sure all the best doctors are clamoring to work in suburban Ohio.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 23, 2014, 07:58:33 PM
hold up. we're not talking about the average citizen here, or unemployment/poverty in general. we're talking about people studying to become attorneys and job placements for those people post-graduation. those are two very different subjects
It's the same line of thought- if Pookie* worked harder, he wouldn't need welfare. If Ide worked harder, he'd have a higher paying job and could afford to repay his loans.
*to borrow a name from CDM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 23, 2014, 08:16:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 23, 2014, 08:07:25 PM
I feel better about going to the doctor now.
Don't worry. I'm sure all the best doctors are clamoring to work in suburban Ohio.
I ignore your microaggression
That doesn't appear to flow off the tongue. Seems forced.
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2014, 12:23:36 AM
That doesn't appear to flow off the tongue. Seems forced.
Indeed. It lacks the poetry of the original coinage.
Better than "microbutt"
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2014, 08:34:33 PMIt's the same line of thought- if Pookie* worked harder, he wouldn't need welfare. If Ide worked harder, he'd have a higher paying job and could afford to repay his loans.
*to borrow a name from CDM
but it's from a vastly different pool of people. we're not talking about the average person. the average person does not enroll in graduate/professional school (11%). the average person doesn't even enroll in college (30%). people who are poor/unemployed (generally) don't deserve their fate for a lot of reasons. having little empathy for the poor law school grad who gives up trying to find a job in the legal field and instead ends up working in an office (or wherever) is a bit different
Quote from: Fate on March 23, 2014, 08:05:56 PM
Go into medicine. The guy who is dead last in his class is still going to get a job making 150-200k.
I'm graduating in two months and I'm 183k in debt. I'll have to put loans into forbearance for the next six years at 6.8% interest so I'll probably be near 260k in principal by the time I'm done with residency. I can't believe that in the 90s-early 2000s student loan interest rates were around 2-3%.
Is there a risk that the US will eventually try to reign in its runaway spending on healthcare and also cut into the income of doctors?
Quote from: Zanza on March 24, 2014, 02:06:23 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 23, 2014, 08:05:56 PM
Go into medicine. The guy who is dead last in his class is still going to get a job making 150-200k.
I'm graduating in two months and I'm 183k in debt. I'll have to put loans into forbearance for the next six years at 6.8% interest so I'll probably be near 260k in principal by the time I'm done with residency. I can't believe that in the 90s-early 2000s student loan interest rates were around 2-3%.
Is there a risk that the US will eventually try to reign in its runaway spending on healthcare and also cut into the income of doctors?
Sure, it's happening already. But doctor's salaries aren't a primary driver of costs. One need only look at Canada where primary care docs make more than their US counterparts, yet the Canadian health care system is much less expensive. Although it's true that specialists there get paid less. They also don't graduate with ~200 grand worth of debt on average.
The hospital-industrial complex is more insidious than any individual doctor. There was a pillow on your bed? That will be $300.
But is the doctor-industrial complex more insidious than any individual hospital?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2014, 08:08:13 PM
But is the doctor-industrial complex more insidious than any individual hospital?
Yes. Because it's bigger.
Grad Students Driving the Growing Debt Burden
'The surge in student-loan debt in recent years has been driven disproportionately by borrowing for graduate school amid a weak economy and an open spigot of government credit, according to a report that raises questions about the broader debate about how to resolve Americans' growing burden.
The typical debt load of borrowers leaving school with a master's, medical, law or doctoral degree jumped an inflation-adjusted 43% between 2004 and 2012, according to a new report by the New America Foundation, a left-leaning Washington think tank. That translated into a median debt load—the point at which half of borrowers owed more and half owed less—of $57,600 in 2012.
The increases were sharper for those pursuing advanced degrees in the social sciences and humanities, versus professional degrees such as M.B.A.s or medical degrees that tend to yield greater long-term returns. The typical debt load of those earning a master's in education showed some of the largest increases, rising 66% to $50,879. It climbed 54% to $58,539 for those earning a master of arts.'
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303949704579459803223202602
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-CA514_STUDLO_G_20140324182709.jpg&hash=f9220aa92e77021c16d98dc60233ac1fb0656ae5)
Society doesnt want grad debt burdens? Stop employers from listing grad degrees under "preferred qualifications", which is HR-speak for "minimum qualifications".
Dont hate the player, hate the game.
Maybe make degree and professional certification status a legally protected class so it can't be used as a basis for discrimination in hiring. :menace:
It wouldn't work, obviously, but it sure would send all the evil HR drones into an uproar. It's satisfying in a "use their own weapons against them" sort of way.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/these-us-colleges-and-majors-are-the-biggest-waste-of-money/359653/
QuoteThese U.S. Colleges and Majors Are the Biggest Waste of Money
You can major in art at a lower-tier public university if you want to. Just don't expect it to make you rich.
This morning we published a review of recent research by PayScale on the most valuable colleges and majors in America, based on self-reported earnings by individuals who graduated from hundreds of schools.
Some of you asked: What about the least valuable colleges and majors in America? What a mischievous question! So we looked into that, too.
Here are the eleven schools in PayScale's data with a 20-year net return worse than negative-$30,000. In other words: these are the schools where PayScale determined that not going to college is at least $30,000 more valuable than taking the time to pay for and graduate from one of these schools.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202014-03-26%2520at%25203.18.02%2520PM.png&hash=a3858a06668afe43f698463c499334a879b2557a)
It gets worse. The self-reported earnings of art majors from Murray State are so low that after two decades, a typical high school grad will have out-earned them by nearly $200,000. Here are the degrees (i.e.: specific majors at specific schools) with the lowest 20-year net return, according to PayScale. They are all public schools: Bold names are for in-state students.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202014-03-26%2520at%252011.01.02%2520AM.png&hash=794518cc4c341f9500b4c8226ee9491a3dfd5c3d)
The same caveats that applied to our first article apply to this one. First, these estimates come from self-reported income. Self-reported income tends to skew up, because humans are a proud species, and we care more about our feelings than strict honesty with anonymous pollsters.
Second, PayScale calculates the next 20 years in earnings by inferring from the last 20 years. Sounds reasonable. But like any assumption, this carries risks. The "most coveted major" changes from time to time. If biomedical engineering becomes the next big VC category, scientists in California will be in higher demand than software engineers, whose earnings forecast might fall. PayScale can't predict that future. Moreover, if a school dramatically expanded a high-value program (like engineering) in the last five years, it might raise the financial value of its students in a way that PayScale doesn't full account for, since this research looks back two decades. In short, like most studies of this kind, the findings are fascinating and worth remembering and quoting—but also worth contextualizing.
Finally, as Jordan Weissmann notes, PayScale can tell us which colleges graduate the richest students. But it can't tell us which colleges make the biggest delta in student outcomes, which might be a more important question for college counselors and families. For that, you would need to study a huge group of similar kids, some of whom went to great colleges, some to middling colleges, and some to bad ones, and measure the difference. When we measure lifetime earnings of students graduating from elite (and poor) colleges, we're measuring both the quality of the college and the earnings potential of the student attending that college before they stepped foot on campus.
My mom is still paying for her education degree at Ohio State. :lol:
Insert one of my old comments here.
QuoteComparing Law School Rankings? Read The Fine Print
When students go to law school, they make a bunch of calculations. A big one is cost: top schools charge more than $50,000 a year, and graduate-student debt is on the rise. Another key calculation: The likelihood of getting a good job after graduation.
Each spring, US News & World Report releases its ranking of law schools. One of the factors that goes into the rankings: the percentage of students employed nine months after graduation.
But the US News rankings don't consider who employs the graduates, so long as they're employed in a professional position. Some schools have been hiring their own students, and rising in the rankings.
These students get a stipend from the school to work for nonprofits or in public service. That stipend can come out of the school's budget or sometimes alumni donations. And when a school hires its own students, it can bump up its ranking. William and Mary Law School, for example, jumped nine spots this year. It employs 20 percent of its students on a fellowship program.
The school's dean says the program helps students succeed by showing potential employers what they're capable of.
But Kyle McEntee, who graduated from law school in 2011 and runs a group called Law School Transparency, says students can't make an informed choice about their return on investment if they can't tell from a school's rankings how many of its jobs are permanent and how many are temporary.
Law schools say it's easy to see a breakdown of employment numbers on their websites. And the students and former students we spoke to love the programs. Brian Daner is now working as counsel on Capitol Hill, which he describes as a dream job. He was able to try out on the Hill thanks to a University of Virginia Law School fellowship. After five months, he was hired.
Andrew Beyda is in his final year at George Washington University Law School. He has a job lined up after graduation. But he says if he didn't, he'd be a candidate for his school's employment program. "It's a tough legal market," he says. "Frankly, lawyers aren't retiring or dying nearly fast enough for us to fill their spots."
We should allow cigarette manufacturers to advertise; but only at law schools. Everyone wins. :smoke:
or Murder Inc.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/31/news/economy/minimum-wage-college-graduates/index.html?iid=HP_LN
QuoteNEW YORK (CNNMoney)
If you thought paying tens of thousands of dollars for a college education guaranteed a high-paying job, think again.
About 260,000 people who had a college or professional degree made at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Things may be looking up a little, though -- it's the smallest number since 2008. The worst year was 2010, when the number skyrocketed to 327,000.
Despite the recent improvement, the number of workers with college degrees is still more than double what it was in 2005, prior to the Great Recession.
Related: 2014 minimum wage, state by state
While an improving economy might play a role in graduates snagging better-paying jobs, other less-encouraging factors might also be at play.
A total of 21 states, including New Jersey, New York and Connecticut recently, have higher minimum wage floors than the federal level of $7.25 per hour
Experts point to shifts in the post-recession labor market as the reason for so many college graduates in low-paying jobs.
"The only jobs that we're growing are low-wage jobs, and at the same time, wages across occupations, especially in low-wage jobs, are declining," said Tsedeye Gebreselassie, a staff attorney at the worker advocacy group National Employment Law Project.
Related: Surprising minimum wage jobs
Some 58% of the jobs created during the recent economic recovery have been low-wage positions like retail and food prep workers, according to a 2012 NELP report. These low-wage jobs had a median hourly wage of $13.83 or less.
At the same time, median household income has also dropped by more than $4,000 since 2000, according to the Census Bureau.
This has fed the growing number of college educated workers protesting for higher pay.
Debbra Alexis, a 27-year-old Victoria's Secret employee with a bachelor's degree in health sciences, gathered more than 800 signatures in support of her campaign for higher pay at her New York City store. The store, part of L Brands (LB), ended up giving across-the-board raises of about $1 to $2 per hour to all workers in the Herald Square store.
Related: Millennials turn up heat against low wages
A group of Kaplan tutors in New York City also formed a union to bargain for better wages.
And fast food worker Bobby Bingham, who got a bachelor's degree from University of Missouri in Kansas City, works four part-time low-wage jobs just to barely scrape by.
The consensus among these workers is that they thought pursuing pricey degrees would buy them access into the middle class. But that has been far from the reality in the wake of the recession.
"My family told me, 'just get your degree and it will be fine,'" Bingham told CNNMoney. "A degree looks very nice, but I don't have a job to show for it."
The world needs ditch diggers too, I guess. 260,000 people isn't a ton, in the broad scheme of things, but it's still enough to fill a city and it's still a terrifying indication of the twin threats of the college scam and collapsing economy.
More interesting was a linked article: http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/economy/2014/02/27/surprising-minimum-wage-jobs/?iid=EL
Only of of their [low-]wage jobs really is surprising. It includes pilot. :s I dunno about you, but I would feel a certain trepidation at boarding an aircraft whose pilot makes the equivalent of $10.25/hr, inasmuch as you know that three thoughts out of ten involve crashing into a landmark.
The other four--adjunct prof, home health aide, model (er...), and vet asst.--are known to me as reasonably low-paying positions. I make only five cents and fifty-five cents an hour less than twice as much as the two vet techs whose wages I know, respectively. Though in fairness to the field overall their employer pays seriously under market, even for SC.
Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2014, 07:32:44 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 24, 2014, 02:06:23 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 23, 2014, 08:05:56 PM
Go into medicine. The guy who is dead last in his class is still going to get a job making 150-200k.
I'm graduating in two months and I'm 183k in debt. I'll have to put loans into forbearance for the next six years at 6.8% interest so I'll probably be near 260k in principal by the time I'm done with residency. I can't believe that in the 90s-early 2000s student loan interest rates were around 2-3%.
Is there a risk that the US will eventually try to reign in its runaway spending on healthcare and also cut into the income of doctors?
Sure, it's happening already. But doctor's salaries aren't a primary driver of costs. One need only look at Canada where primary care docs make more than their US counterparts, yet the Canadian health care system is much less expensive. Although it's true that specialists there get paid less. They also don't graduate with ~200 grand worth of debt on average.
My survey (1 doctor, my co-workers's son) ~60k
$60k debt or $60k salary?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 01, 2014, 01:34:27 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/31/news/economy/minimum-wage-college-graduates/index.html?iid=HP_LN
The world needs ditch diggers too, I guess. 260,000 people isn't a ton, in the broad scheme of things, but it's still enough to fill a city and it's still a terrifying indication of the twin threats of the college scam and collapsing economy.
More if you consider that 21 states have minimum wages above $7.25
Yep.
Thing is, too, you know if there are 260,000 people making $7.25, there are 520,000 making $7.50.
How does he know that?
This looks to have been a deeply flawed belief given that degrees are dime a dozen.
QuoteThe consensus among these workers is that they thought pursuing pricey degrees would buy them access into the middle class
Well they don't literally cost dimes. -_-
I knew I should have put "*not an actual verified number" next to that.
But I base it on the low-wage jobs I'm aware of, few of which pay straight minwage, with most paying somewhat above, although by no means a living wage.
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2014, 09:07:27 PM
This looks to have been a deeply flawed belief given that degrees are dime a dozen.
QuoteThe consensus among these workers is that they thought pursuing pricey degrees would buy them access into the middle class
Well they don't literally cost dimes. -_-
Which is more to my point. That anyone makes $7.25/hr is a travesty, but that's a different order of catastrophe, which we're not prepared to address.
Is it a waste for people to get degrees if they're just going to make $7.25/hr (or $9.25/hr or $11.25/hr)? Maybe we can agree on that, and pursue some sort of action.
Yes. We should stop telling children that a degree is a ticket to the good life. Perhaps it once was but we don't live in those times.
Then give yours back.
I'll sell you mine for $25,000. Frame's extra.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 01, 2014, 09:56:55 PM
I'll sell you mine for $25,000. Frame's extra.
Do I get your soul too?
I owe it to the company store.
No sale then.
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2014, 09:50:05 PM
Yes. We should stop telling children that a degree is a ticket to the good life. Perhaps it once was but we don't live in those times.
Better tell Cal and the rest of the HR flunkies that too, or who ever are the ones that require degrees for toilet scrubbing jobs nowdays.
What does eating have to do with it? :unsure:
Quote from: sbr on April 01, 2014, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2014, 09:50:05 PM
Yes. We should stop telling children that a degree is a ticket to the good life. Perhaps it once was but we don't live in those times.
Better tell Cal and the rest of the HR flunkies that too, or who ever are the ones that require degrees for toilet scrubbing jobs nowdays.
I'm not sure how what I said conflicts with requiring a degree as a minimum bar to entry. If anything, you'd expect such given that degrees are more widely available.
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2014, 11:27:57 PM
What does eating have to do with it? :unsure:
:lol: :blush:
I should not post on the goddamn iPad! There's inevitably some autocorrect typo in the post. Fucking hell.
... but I only brought an iPad with me in the trip, so I'm stuck. Bah!
Speaking of obnoxious ipadisms - why does it always come up with an "undo typing?" dialogue if I put it down in the middle of a post or email? That shit (not "shot" autocorrect) is truly annoying.
Ok, there are some people who make a minimum wage with a degree. That's a good enough piece of information for an outrage, but how many people without a degree make the minimum wage? The fact that getting a degree doesn't work out for some people doesn't mean that it doesn't work out on average.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2014, 08:56:53 AM
Ok, there are some people who make a minimum wage with a degree. That's a good enough piece of information for an outrage, but how many people without a degree make the minimum wage? The fact that getting a degree doesn't work out for some people doesn't mean that it doesn't work out on average.
Well, that number is 300 million times 0.00087. BLS says 4.7 percent of the population made minimum wage in 2012, so your point seems to hold up pretty well if we assume the remainder have high school or less.
Just saw this, which seems somewhat germane to the conversation:
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/us-jobs-wages/?source=cnn_bin
Apparently, 18 million jobs pay $10/hr or less, 63 million pay $10-20, so we're looking at around 81 million jobs at $20/hr or under.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 03, 2014, 09:20:35 PM
Apparently, 18 million jobs pay $10/hr or less, 63 million pay $10-20, so we're looking at around 81 million jobs at $20/hr or under.
The Languishite GOPtards will say that's 63 million too many, dammit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2014, 09:25:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 03, 2014, 09:20:35 PM
Apparently, 18 million jobs pay $10/hr or less, 63 million pay $10-20, so we're looking at around 81 million jobs at $20/hr or under.
The Languishite GOPtards will say that's 63 million too many, dammit.
To which I would suggest they try to live on 40k a year without any form of governmental assistance.
Quote from: sbr on April 01, 2014, 11:07:10 PM
Better tell Cal and the rest of the HR flunkies that too, or who ever are the ones that require degrees for toilet scrubbing jobs nowdays.
Cal is neither a flunky nor works in HR. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2014, 09:28:26 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 01, 2014, 11:07:10 PM
Better tell Cal and the rest of the HR flunkies that too, or who ever are the ones that require degrees for toilet scrubbing jobs nowdays.
Cal is neither a flunky nor works in HR. :)
i think that sentence has two n's too many :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 03, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
To which I would suggest they try to live on 40k a year without any form of governmental assistance.
I get that living on minimum wage is very difficult. But 40k? If you are a single mother with a family of four, yeah it is. If you are a single guy, it isn't hard at all.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2014, 10:38:09 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 03, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
To which I would suggest they try to live on 40k a year without any form of governmental assistance.
I get that living on minimum wage is very difficult. But 40k? If you are a single mother with a family of four, yeah it is. If you are a single guy, it isn't hard at all.
Location makes a big difference, garbon probably pays that much in rent.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2014, 10:42:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2014, 10:38:09 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 03, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
To which I would suggest they try to live on 40k a year without any form of governmental assistance.
I get that living on minimum wage is very difficult. But 40k? If you are a single mother with a family of four, yeah it is. If you are a single guy, it isn't hard at all.
Location makes a big difference, garbon probably pays that much in rent.
:yeahright:
You live in Manhattan, don't you? :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 03, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2014, 09:25:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 03, 2014, 09:20:35 PM
Apparently, 18 million jobs pay $10/hr or less, 63 million pay $10-20, so we're looking at around 81 million jobs at $20/hr or under.
The Languishite GOPtards will say that's 63 million too many, dammit.
To which I would suggest they try to live on 40k a year without any form of governmental assistance.
I'm making it. -_-
There is only war.
On the topic of "putting yourself through college with work":
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/
Quote[...]
MSU calculates tuition by the "credit hour," the term for the number of hours spent in a classroom per week. By this metric, which is used at many U.S. colleges and universities, a course that's worth three credit hours is a course that meets for three hours each week during the semester. If the semester is 15 weeks long, that adds up to 45 total hours of a student's time. The Reddit user quantified the rising cost of tuition by cost per credit hour:
This is interesting. A credit hour in 1979 at MSU was 24.50, adjusted for inflation that is 79.23 in today dollars. One credit hour today costs 428.75.
Follow-up comments compared the rising cost of academic credit at MSU to changes in the federal minimum wage. In 1979, when the minimum wage was $2.90, a hard-working student with a minimum-wage job could earn enough in one day (8.44 hours) to pay for one academic credit hour. If a standard course load for one semester consisted of maybe 12 credit hours, the semester's tuition could be covered by just over two weeks of full-time minimum wage work—or a month of part-time work. A summer spent scooping ice cream or flipping burgers could pay for an MSU education.
The cost of an MSU credit hour has multiplied since 1979. So has the federal minimum wage. But today, it takes 60 hours of minimum-wage work to pay off a single credit hour, which was priced at $428.75 for the fall semester.
His conclusion: "It's impossible to work your way through college nowadays."
According to the graph, the price of an MSU education began exceeding what could reasonably be earned with part-time, minimum-wage work around 1993. That's when a single MSU credit hour became worth more than 20 hours of wages. Imagine a 15-week semester with a course load of 12 credit hours. If each credit hour required 20 hours of minimum wage work, a student would have to work 16 hours a week to pay for school.
That's doable. But today the same student would have to work 48 hours a week at that minimum wage job to pay for his classes.
This reality is not specific to MSU. Last week, Olson set out to analyze a more comprehensive data set: in-state tuition costs for all public 4-year universities in the U.S. from 1987 through 2010. This weekend he posted a new graph showing that the 1987-2010 national trend mirrors the 1979-2013 MSU trend. Instead of comparing minimum-wage hours to the price of a single credit hour for one semester, here Olson shows what it would take to pay for a whole year's tuition.
[...]
And this is only considering the cost of tuition, which is hardly an accurate representation of what students actually spend for college. According to the College Board, average room and board fees at public universities today exceed tuition costs by a little more than 100 percent. (For the current academic year, average tuition at 4-year public schools is $8,893, but with room and board, the total average cost comes to $18,391.)
[...]
Interesting article, Syt. :cheers:
Even at my first part-time job, I was making above minimum wage...and in college my jobs during the school year were several dollars above minimum wage. :unsure:
QuoteOne credit hour today costs 428.75
We just need to find ways for students to earn $428.75 each evening, and sometimes more. That may not be possible for all students of course, but I think it can be done for about half of them.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 02:09:53 PM
Even at my first part-time job, I was making above minimum wage...and in college my jobs during the school year were several dollars above minimum wage. :unsure:
I was going to say "Here comes Yi to claim that the actual number of people making minimum wage is barely distinguishable from statistical noise," but it seems that I was wrong. Bravo. Kuuuudos.
Anyway, it's a good thing housing, food, and gasoline are practically free. Otherwise tying up 16 hours' worth of wages every week--or let's say 10, for that vast, eclipsing majority, who make well over the minimum wage!--would be really problematic. Likewise, it's a stroke of luck that fulltime jobs are so plentiful and easy to obtain--and so willing to work with school schedules--due to our booming, frankly overheated, economy.
The statement was "It's impossible to work your way through college nowadays." on calculations from minimum wage earnings.
There are a huge number of things you can't do with a minimum wage job.
But what you can do is make extra cash on the side as a student, which as we all know is what the majority of minimum wage earners in America are doing.
Whether an inner-city single mother supporting herself or a senior citizen who needs the work for medical coverage is actively enrolled for the semester, well, that's between them and Admissions.
Great, let's raise the minimum wage for single mothers and senior citizens paying for medical care. That should increase their hireability.
The minimum wage doesn't need to be raised. That would collapse the economy.
500,000 more unemployed and a couple points added to the CPI hardly qualifies as "collapsing" the economy.
No, I'm pretty sure raising the minimum wage would result in the complete collapse of the American economic model as we know it, or there wouldn't be such ferocious opposition to it.
You'd think that employers would embrace it, since it would give them an even greater excuse opportunity to eliminate jobs than usual.
You win.
Yay. In your face, Flanders.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2014, 10:42:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2014, 10:38:09 PM
I get that living on minimum wage is very difficult. But 40k? If you are a single mother with a family of four, yeah it is. If you are a single guy, it isn't hard at all.
Location makes a big difference, garbon probably pays that much in rent.
Yes. Rent in NJ pretty much bottoms out at $12k a year, unless you've got an inside track on somebody who'll let you board on a room-rent basis. The county I'm in is particularly bad because while the prices are more or less in line with most of the rest of the state, the infrastructure is so poor that forgoing a vehicle for public transportation is
not an option. So you can pretty much add another $2-5k just for vehicle ownership costs (
not including vehicle payments themselves).
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 03:34:47 PM
The statement was "It's impossible to work your way through college nowadays." on calculations from minimum wage earnings.
18,000 a year for room and board and tuition and nothing else for an average state school. And you are a full time student, that is a complication. Let's see...presuming you are working part time and can instantly go full time for summer and winter break (which is almost LOL unlikely but I will go with it)...let's say about 15 weeks full time and 37 weeks part time. So we are talking 1,340 hours of work a year. Therefore you would need $13.43 an hour of take home pay just to cover these basic things. Pretty tall order for somebody with no experience or qualifications.
Granted you can do some cool things like write off a lot of that tuition for taxes and stuff. The traditional college jobs of doing your time in the low paying service industries to work your way through school don't work anymore. You would probably need a serious job to get those sorts of wages and good paying part time work is hard to find. Hard, not impossible, so I bet there is some 18 year old out there going through with a $20.00 an hour job attending a state school. Damn overachieving jerk.
We are talking pretty bottom level tuition that is subsidized by the government at a major state school. If you attend a private school it probably is impossible. Probably best to go get your associates at a community/junior college if you want to work through school, they also have a great hours for working people so you could possibly work full time.
There's the matter of work affecting your academic performance, too.
When I was at Columbia, the faculty chair once told us that they intentionally set up the class schedule in a way to discourage people from working part-time.
Quote from: celedhring on April 06, 2014, 07:28:19 AM
There's the matter of work affecting your academic performance, too.
When I was at Columbia, the faculty chair once told us that they intentionally set up the class schedule in a way to discourage people from working part-time.
Any more specifics on that? Was that for a specific department?
Strikes me as odd given that there are always students on work study.
When I went to school, only a couple times (where department offered two needed courses but they took place at the same time) where there any issues for me creating the schedule I wanted. In fact, for two terms, I had my schedule setup that I only had class 3 days a week. I think I probably could fit some additional part time work (over my easy art dept gig) had such been necessary.
Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2014, 08:05:26 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 06, 2014, 07:28:19 AM
There's the matter of work affecting your academic performance, too.
When I was at Columbia, the faculty chair once told us that they intentionally set up the class schedule in a way to discourage people from working part-time.
Any more specifics on that? Was that for a specific department?
Strikes me as odd given that there are always students on work study.
When I went to school, only a couple times (where department offered two needed courses but they took place at the same time) where there any issues for me creating the schedule I wanted. In fact, for two terms, I had my schedule setup that I only had class 3 days a week. I think I probably could fit some additional part time work (over my easy art dept gig) had such been necessary.
I was taking an MFA at their School of the Arts, and I think it was specific to that school. People weren't expected to do work-study until the thesis years (3rd onwards), although a few managed some hours here and there. I had a Spanish scholarship that covered tuition+allowance for living expenses, but most of my mates were either rich (limousine picks me up after class rich - no kidding here) or ran huge loans. One of my friends was running 250k by the third year, since filmmaking can make you run huge expenses in order to make short films and the like (I was a screenwriting candidate, so I didn't need to spend much in those).
The program had a big "you only live for this now" mentality - which imho made it great, as long as you could afford it.
Alright, yeah I wondered if it was a grad program like that.
Quote from: celedhring on April 06, 2014, 08:38:10 AM
I was taking an MFA at their School of the Arts,
Lulz.
QuoteThe program had a big "you only live for this now" mentality - which imho made it great, as long as you could afford it.
"You only live for this now...because you sure as shit aren't going to be able to live on this later!"
Seems like celedhring is doing alright from it.
I'm glad he's one of the lucky ones, as opposed to the ones left behind as tremendously overqualified barristas.
I already had a career as writer before going to Columbia but that program helped me a lot in furthering it. A lot of my current jobs can be traced to me going there. And I did learn a lot, it really is a very good program.
Still, no way I would have enrolled in it if I didn't have a scholarship. No way to repay that money unless you make it really big or live on food stamps until age 60.
I should've gotten an MFA.
I watched a re-run of Spendaholics the other day. A 21-year-old woman had run up £50,000 of debt. She and her boyfriend had a mortgage together. The experts persuaded then to sell their flat and rent it back, raising £25,000, and their debtors wrote of the rest of what they were owed. They're not going to learn any lessons without a couple of years in debtors' prison.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 06, 2014, 10:13:07 AM
I should've gotten an MFA.
:lol: You want to talk about a debate as to whether something is worth it, the debate over law school's got nothing on an MFA.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2014, 03:29:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 06, 2014, 10:13:07 AM
I should've gotten an MFA.
:lol: You want to talk about a debate as to whether something is worth it, the debate over law school's got nothing on an MFA.
I know successful people with MFA degrees.
Of course, they were successful in their arts related field first and then got their MFA degrees as a side project...
And I know unsuccessful people with MFA degrees. So there. Nyah.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2014, 06:02:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2014, 03:29:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 06, 2014, 10:13:07 AM
I should've gotten an MFA.
:lol: You want to talk about a debate as to whether something is worth it, the debate over law school's got nothing on an MFA.
I know successful people with MFA degrees.
Of course, they were successful in their arts related field first and then got their MFA degrees as a side project...
In my experience - although there's a big "OOOH SHINY!!!!" effect when you display an Ivy League diploma over here - and MFA from a decent school will help open doors. At the end it will be up to how good you are at your craft, but it does help to make people pay attention to you. Plus the actual learning.
Quote from: celedhring on April 08, 2014, 09:24:22 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2014, 06:02:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2014, 03:29:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 06, 2014, 10:13:07 AM
I should've gotten an MFA.
:lol: You want to talk about a debate as to whether something is worth it, the debate over law school's got nothing on an MFA.
I know successful people with MFA degrees.
Of course, they were successful in their arts related field first and then got their MFA degrees as a side project...
In my experience - although there's a big "OOOH SHINY!!!!" effect when you display an Ivy League diploma over here - and MFA from a decent school will help open doors. At the end it will be up to how good you are at your craft, but it does help to make people pay attention to you. Plus the actual learning.
:yes:
I once defended a discrimination case where the Complainant alleged he was the most qualified for a particular position because he had the most letters behind his name and so the reason he wasnt hired must have been because of his advancing age.
In fact he was not hired because of his over developed sense of self worth.
Ed Anger, AAS COMSUBPAC ASSHOLE ESQ
Ide, check out this week's Economist. Interesting article about return on education investment. Highest by degree is Comp Sci at Cal Tech, lowest by degree is Fine Arts at Florida International University.
Will do. Sounds up my alley.
I get Florida International and Florida Atlantic mixed up, but I know at least one of them is a decent school, and perhaps both.
They're both decent, though for different things. FIU attracts a lot of South American money, and just got a law school. I think their undergrad academics are inferior to FAU, though.
FAU is decent for business, nursing, education, biomedical, and electrical/computer/mechanical/ocean engineering. Hell, they are excellent for ocean engineering, but there are not many engineering schools that offer it.
BTW, raw data for the education ROI is here (http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-2013).
Only the football program matters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2014, 08:12:22 PM
Ide, check out this week's Economist. Interesting article about return on education investment. Highest by degree is Comp Sci at Cal Tech, lowest by degree is Fine Arts at Florida International University.
Yes, we need Ide to read another article so he can continue to validate his own self-loathing.
Well my education didn't cost me a dime.
And I reckon it's never earned me one either. :smarty: :unsure:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 09, 2014, 08:58:10 PM
I get Florida International and Florida Atlantic mixed up, but I know at least one of them is a decent school, and perhaps both.
The only Florida school I know is FSU, which has a really great film program. I almost enrolled in it but no fucking way I was going to spend two years of my life living in fucking Tallahassee.
Quote from: celedhring on April 10, 2014, 04:28:58 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 09, 2014, 08:58:10 PM
I get Florida International and Florida Atlantic mixed up, but I know at least one of them is a decent school, and perhaps both.
The only Florida school I know is FSU, which has a really great film program. I almost enrolled in it but no fucking way I was going to spend two years of my life living in fucking Tallahassee.
They have some awesome tail at that school however.
Ran into a bar buddy of mine at the supermercado yesterday. He's finishing up a Poli Sci PhD here, into his job search. We were both surprised by how little freshly minted PhDs get paid, at least at the caliber of school he fits: 40ish.
Quote from: mongers on April 09, 2014, 09:21:20 PM
Well my education didn't cost me a dime.
And I reckon it's never earned me one either. :smarty: :unsure:
Not only was my degree free, but I also had a council grant, my parents' contribution was tax deductible through a covenant, and I had an industrial sponsorship bursary. I was better off then than I am now.
Like an SEC football player going to the NFL, when Brazen left college she took a paycut :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2014, 08:54:07 AM
Ran into a bar buddy of mine at the supermercado yesterday. He's finishing up a Poli Sci PhD here, into his job search. We were both surprised by how little freshly minted PhDs get paid, at least at the caliber of school he fits: 40ish.
Depends on the subject, I guess. I heard that investment banks pay good money for mathematics PhDs.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 11, 2014, 09:48:36 AM
Depends on the subject, I guess. I heard that investment banks pay good money for mathematics PhDs.
How many could they possibly need? I also wonder just how practical they can be 'I have noticed if we have an investment that consists of multiples of primes above 17 it generates a Mandelbrot set if used in a complex polynomial series, doesn't that just blow your mind?'
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 09, 2014, 09:06:11 PM
BTW, raw data for the education ROI is here (http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-2013).
:showoff:
From the USC Law Office of Career Services:
QuoteImmediate need for qualified individuals to assist in completing document review on
complex civil rights discrimination litigation. Project will continue for 3 or more months until complete.
Hours are flexible depending on number of individuals assisting on project. Full time reviewers
preferred. Firm is located in Mount Pleasant [i.e., Charleston]. Compensation is $8 per hour.
Start date is immediate. To Apply: Email resume. Deadline date to apply: April 30, 2014
QuoteCompensation is $8 per hour.
I think I'm going to email them and ask if that's a typo. :wacko:
Also, completely unrelated, but I thought you'd all enjoy it:
QuoteYokel Law Firm
–
204 Whitsett St.
Greenville, SC 29603
Attention: David M. Yokel, Esq.
^_^
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2014, 11:22:15 AM
QuoteCompensation is $8 per hour.
:lol: People must be beating their door down to get at that plum offer.
If they missed a "1" it would be a little less but not much less than market in the state. But actual $8? I have to believe even Charleston School of Law grads are worth more than this.
If you start to get down during three grueling years of law school take heart that a barely above minimum wage job is waiting for you on the other side.
Quote from: Valmy on April 11, 2014, 10:01:13 AM
How many could they possibly need? I also wonder just how practical they can be 'I have noticed if we have an investment that consists of multiples of primes above 17 it generates a Mandelbrot set if used in a complex polynomial series, doesn't that just blow your mind?'
It isn't about being able to apply really funky math, it is about having the intelligence, discipline, and way of thinking for a math phd.
Aliens are confused why we take our best and brightest, have them train to be rocket scientists for many years, then have them go to work in finance where they need to start with a 6 month crash course in the basics and whose purpose in life from that point forward is to make rich people more money.
Are? :unsure:
Are.
Are!
Están.
:pirate
:area52:
I'm sure aliens like having money too. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 16, 2014, 01:05:18 PM
I'm sure aliens like having money too. :rolleyes:
So you consider Jews to be aliens? Raciss!
My alma mater for graduate school made the news :)
QuoteFired professor sues Wayne State University, claims it bilked millions from U.S.
Thousand-dollar rats. Inflated salaries. Phony surgical supply requests.
The government paid Wayne State University for all of this and more, according to a whistle-blower lawsuit that's been secretly unfolding in federal court, where a former medical school professor claims the university bilked more than $169 million in research grant money from the U.S. government.
The lawsuit, filed in 2012 and investigated by the government over the past 15 months, wasn't unsealed until last month in U.S. District Court in Detroit. The U.S. Attorney's Office is not intervening, but said in court documents that the government "remains a real party in interest" in the case and will monitor it from the sidelines.
If the employee who blew the whistle is successful, the government stands to win up to 70% of any settlement or judgment under federal law; the employee gets the rest.
Wayne State University officials declined to comment on specifics of the lawsuit, noting the university has not yet been served in the case and learned of it only from the media. Wayne State did, however, issue this statement:
"The author of the litigation — an individual who was terminated from his employment for research-related misconduct — has attempted to challenge his termination multiple times using several approaches. Without exception, every such attempt has failed decisively. Should Wayne State be served with this latest claim, we will defend aggressively, and we are confident that it will result in dismissal, as have all of his earlier attempts."
The whistle-blower in this case is Christian Kreipke, 37, formerly of Grosse Pointe, who alleges that for months he watched WSU lie on its grant proposals about the actual costs of research projects so that it could get more in grant money. For example, the lawsuit cited:
■ $235,000 for 300 lab rats that actually cost $12-$80 apiece
■ $96,000 in inflated salaries for three lab technicians
■ $98,000 in inflated costs for surgical supplies
■ $150,000 for a researcher who did no work for it.
■ $790,000 for a research project that should have cost $140,000.
"I have personal knowledge that the federal government was defrauded as it awarded millions of dollars in grants based on inflated proposals," Kreipke stated in court documents.
Kreipke, who comes from a long line of WSU graduates, alleges he complained about the suspected fraud to university officials. But he ended up getting fired from his $115,000-a-year-job in April 2012 and filed the lawsuit six months later.
"WSU attempted to impugn my reputation and standing in the research community by informing my colleagues that I was guilty of research fraud, when nothing could be further from the truth," Kreipke has stated in court documents, adding Wayne State "in its overzealous attempt to retaliate against me, also terminated my entire staff."
Wayne State has not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing.
The U.S. Attorney's Office declined comment on the lawsuit, which at this point is only being pursued by Kreipke.
That's because federal prosecutors on March 14 declined to intervene in the case and let Kreipke pursue it privately "in the name of the United States" while the government observes from the sidelines. The government said that its decision not to intervene "carries no necessary implication for the merits of the case" and that it "retains the right" to intervene later.
Kreipke filed his lawsuit under the federal False Claims Act, which allows individuals to sue on behalf of the government when they see federal dollars being used fraudulently. Nationwide, whistle-blower lawsuits last year triggered nearly $3 billion in settlements and judgments, most of which the government received.
When a private individual files a whistle-blower lawsuit, the federal government can take one of three actions: It can request the lawsuit be dismissed; It can intervene — an option that entitles whistle-blowers a 15-to-25% cut of any judgment; or it can decline to intervene, in which the individual pursues the case independently and is entitled to 25 to 30% of any settlement or judgment, with the government getting the rest.
In Kreipke's case, the government chose the last option.
Meanwhile, Kreipke must provide the U.S. Attorney's Office with any documents it requests and update it with any developments, including a possible settlement.
Kreipke's lawyer, Shereef Akeel, said his client's reputation is at stake.
"Dr. Kreipke's exemplary career has been destroyed for standing up for the truth. What they did to the professor for refusing to partake in what he believed was wrong speaks outrage," Akeel said.
"Unfortunately, what happened to the professor is what typically happens to whistle-blowers who get the courage to speak out. What is even more regrettable is that the professor, his parents, brother, aunt, great aunt are all graduates from WSU. This nightmare has shocked and disappointed the entire family immensely."
According to court documents, Kreipke was hired as an assistant professor in 2009 by the WSU School of Medicine and the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology. Under the terms of his contract, he was required, among other things, to teach cell biology, conduct research, publish research results in peer-reviewed journals and be the lead investigator on research projects funded by grants.
During his time at Wayne State, Kreipke was the lead researcher of a study in rats that found that a medication called clazosentan may help treat traumatic brain injury. The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Institutes of Health.
According to Kreipke's lawsuit, more than $573,000 in grant money for that research project was fraudulently obtained.
Wayne State University: We keep it real
(Anyone want a lab rat? I can hook you up.)
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2014, 11:22:15 AM
From the USC Law Office of Career Services:
QuoteImmediate need for qualified individuals to assist in completing document review on
complex civil rights discrimination litigation. Project will continue for 3 or more months until complete.
Hours are flexible depending on number of individuals assisting on project. Full time reviewers
preferred. Firm is located in Mount Pleasant [i.e., Charleston]. Compensation is $8 per hour.
Start date is immediate. To Apply: Email resume. Deadline date to apply: April 30, 2014
QuoteCompensation is $8 per hour.
I think I'm going to email them and ask if that's a typo. :wacko:
Also, completely unrelated, but I thought you'd all enjoy it:
QuoteYokel Law Firm
–
204 Whitsett St.
Greenville, SC 29603
Attention: David M. Yokel, Esq.
^_^
That's actually below minimum wage here in NJ. :showoff:
Quote■ $235,000 for 300 lab rats that actually cost $12-$80 apiece
■ $96,000 in inflated salaries for three lab technicians
■ $98,000 in inflated costs for surgical supplies
■ $150,000 for a researcher who did no work for it.
■ $790,000 for a research project that should have cost $140,000.
Wow medical costs are inflated, researchers are lazy and projects sometimes run over budget. Amazing shocker. The rats thing seems weird though.
Is US$8 an hour really that bad? That is more than double HK's minimum wage. Assuming 40 hours per week, that is a very decent salary for an entry level lawyer or accountant here. Though an entry level professional will likely need to put in a lot more hours than that.
Odds are you get paid more working at McDonald's with a law degree than you would taking that job.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 17, 2014, 10:24:11 AM
Is US$8 an hour really that bad? That is more than double HK's minimum wage. Assuming 40 hours per week, that is a very decent salary for an entry level lawyer or accountant here. Though an entry level professional will likely need to put in a lot more hours than that.
Yes, that's terrible. Most people don't put in 7 years of training to get a job that pays the same as a clerk at a gas station.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 17, 2014, 10:26:04 AM
Odds are you get paid more working at McDonald's with a law degree than you would taking that job.
McD's generally won't hire people with law degrees, whereas they will.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 17, 2014, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 17, 2014, 10:26:04 AM
Odds are you get paid more working at McDonald's with a law degree than you would taking that job.
McD's generally won't hire people with law degrees, whereas they will.
Yet another career path closed to Ide. :(
Elite Colleges Don't Buy Happiness
A new Gallup survey of 30,000 college graduates of all ages in all 50 states has found that highly selective schools don't produce better workers or happier people.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303417104579544161033770526
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-CB065_COLLEG_G_20140505190005.jpg&hash=7a6c6865209529ff5aefe906b4cf04bfcced59d0)
Source: Murdoch rag.
38% of 63% is more than 41% of 52%.
Is law considered part of the humanities? :huh:
Dunno, it's not an undergrad subject. I was just generally arguing against humanity degrees and for STEM education.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 06, 2014, 08:37:43 AM
Elite Colleges Don't Buy Happiness
A new Gallup survey of 30,000 college graduates of all ages in all 50 states has found that highly selective schools don't produce better workers or happier people.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303417104579544161033770526
I am the 49%!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2014, 10:50:10 AM
Is law considered part of the humanities? :huh:
No, it's part of inhumanities.
Only Ide can save America:
QuoteStudy liberal arts -- and gain power
By Eric Liu
(CNN) -- Forty years ago, English was the top major at Yale. Today it's not even in the top five. History majors have fallen by more than half in the last decade. At Harvard, humanities majors fell from 14% of students in 1966 to 7% in 2010.
And it's not just the Ivies. Every month there seems to be a new report on how liberal arts and the humanities are disappearing from American colleges and universities. Academics everywhere are asking each other anxiously what they can do to reverse the decline.
But they're asking the wrong people the wrong question. Instead of talking mainly to other elites, champions of a well-rounded liberal arts education should be speaking directly and more creatively to the public.
The question they should be asking is this: Do you realize you are missing out on a golden pathway to influence and purpose?
And this: Do you realize you're going to need us soon to rescue the United States?
This is brave talk, I know, considering that the share of students majoring in the humanities has been shrinking dramatically. The reasons are well known and seemingly unstoppable: As higher education has gotten far more expensive, parents and legislators demand better "return on investment." The greater the focus on ROI, the more attention is paid to "strategic" fields with obvious employment prospects, like business and computer science.
And the more that happens, the less interest there is in fields like English, philosophy and, as President Obama himself mockingly noted, art history.
I have nothing against the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and math. Nor do I think a business or marketing degree is inherently useless. But the rush to "practical" education, which has accelerated since the Great Recession, arises not so much from optimism about what science and technology can do for our country but from anxiety about falling behind in a time of severe inequality.
When a society like America becomes ever more winner-takes-all, panic starts to set in. People obsess over declines in relative status. They forget why we educate children. They forget what made (and can still make) our country exceptional.
A liberal arts education has its roots, etymologically and otherwise, in the requirements of liberty: what it takes to be a self-governing citizen rather than a slave. To be a citizen of a country like the United States you should be literate in the humanities as well as the sciences, in the arts as well as accounting. Illiteracy is risky. Willful illiteracy is civic malpractice.
To disparage liberal arts, as politicians often do, is to disparage citizenship itself. And though it may seem populist to champion so-called practical fields, there's nothing more elitist than saying that most people can't benefit from a liberal arts education.
This is why it's frustrating how poorly some humanities champions make their case, especially when they do so on terms set by the very marketplace that devalues them.
It is true -- perhaps surprisingly -- that liberal arts majors, during their peak earning years, make more money than people who studied pre-professional fields. But I believe those who study the humanities also end up being great citizens, leaders and creators.
A humanities education offers very few skills except for those that can't be automated. A humanities education offers very little job security except for the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
You should study history only if you're interested in how people exercise power over one another.
You should study literature only if you're interested in understanding the motivations of your friends, family, colleagues and competitors.
You should study art and art history only if you're interested in seeing patterns others don't or can't.
You should study theater only if you're interested in knowing how to read and send cues in social situations.
You should study philosophy only if you're interested in creating the explanatory frameworks within which everyone else lives.
You should study music only if you're interested in having a voice.
But don't take my word for it. Ask Barack Obama (political science), Conan O'Brien (English and history), Michael Lewis (art history), Oprah Winfrey (speech and drama), Ted Turner (classics), Clarence Thomas (English literature) or Natalie Portman (psychology).
As Americans worry ever more about keeping up, whether because of inequality at home or competition from China, we should heed the example of Steve Jobs. Jobs didn't have to be one of the world's best software coders. All he had to do was develop the vision that would attract some of the world's most talented coders.
China can manufacture all the planet's iPhones. Americans still imagine and design them. That's an advantage we have to cultivate in our colleges. As Jobs once said, "technology alone is not enough -- it's technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing."
QuoteAsk Barack Obama (political science Columbia, plus juris doctorate from Yale), Conan O'Brien (English and history Harvard), Michael Lewis (art history Princeton plus master's degree from the London School of Economics), Oprah Winfrey (speech and drama Tennessee State [well, fine]), Ted Turner (classics Brown [expelled?]), Clarence Thomas (English literature, plus juris doctorate from Yale) or Natalie Portman (psychology Harvard).
Yeah, let's ask these exceptions even to their own exceptional cohorts how getting into
elite institutions worked out.
I guess the humanities teach you how to be an arrogant scumbag.
QuoteEric Liu (graduate Harvard and Yale Law School)
Disgusting.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 06, 2014, 01:36:29 PM
QuoteAsk Barack Obama (political science Columbia, plus juris doctorate from Yale), Conan O'Brien (English and history Harvard), Michael Lewis (art history Princeton plus master's degree from the London School of Economics), Oprah Winfrey (speech and drama Tennessee State [well, fine]), Ted Turner (classics Brown [expelled?]), Clarence Thomas (English literature, plus juris doctorate from Yale) or Natalie Portman (psychology Harvard).
Yeah, let's ask these exceptions even to their own exceptional cohorts how getting into elite institutions worked out.
I guess the humanities teach you how to be an arrogant scumbag.
QuoteEric Liu (graduate Harvard and Yale Law School)
Disgusting.
Enough grousing, you have to save America. Now go imagine an iPhone and develop a vision.
If only I had studied humanities and not this blasted STEM. :(
My humanities degree seems okay. :unsure:
Quote from: Phillip V on May 06, 2014, 08:37:43 AM
Elite Colleges Don't Buy Happiness
A new Gallup survey of 30,000 college graduates of all ages in all 50 states has found that highly selective schools don't produce better workers or happier people.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303417104579544161033770526
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-CB065_COLLEG_G_20140505190005.jpg&hash=7a6c6865209529ff5aefe906b4cf04bfcced59d0)
Better or happier, who gives a fuck. That's a ticket punched for a better life.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 06, 2014, 01:36:29 PM
I guess the humanities teach you how to be an arrogant scumbag.
It certainly does. :bowler:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 06, 2014, 01:36:29 PM
I guess the humanities teach you how to be an arrogant scumbag.
QuoteEric Liu (graduate Harvard and Yale Law School)
Disgusting.
Relax.
No way. The false equivalence is mind-boggling. Even if it's an open letter specifically for Ivy League undergrads, it's obscene.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 06, 2014, 06:48:01 PM
No way. The false equivalence is mind-boggling. Even if it's an open letter specifically for Ivy League undergrads, it's obscene.
:lol: Dude, you should have gotten a humanities degree. You'd know what "chill out" means.
If the very same article were written with the courses of study reversed, you'd be splooging all over it. The only reason you see it as obscene is because it was written from a different tribal viewpoint than yours.
I don't, BTW, agree with either your assessment or Liu's. I think that university should be for the purpose of broadening the mind, but I think that that can be done in STEM courses as easily as in humanities courses. The reason why more people are taking STEM degrees is because that's where employment in the future is going to be focused, as far as we can tell. People who are better at the humanities can, and should, continue to get humanities degrees, and the jobs those degrees enable. Getting a STEM degree if you don't like the work is stupid, because, even if you get that first, high-paying job, you are going to hate it and probably lose it.
No one should seek a given type of degree because someone in the news or on a blog tells them that more people should get a degree in X.
Yeah, it's kind of ironic really.
Ide - you feel like you've been screwed by class based mechanisms in society. Yet even while you recognize that, you focus the bulk of you critique and venom according to a superficial set of distinctions (STEM vs humanities) that makes it harder for people who've been screwed like you to make common cause an attempt to address those mechanisms.
People pushing worthless degrees is a class issue. Ide has no contradiction there. Debt is the biggest barrier to social mobility, and dumping it on the poor in order to sell them shitty degrees is one of the main things keeping them from becoming rich.
Its a good thing the internet wasnt around for me to read stuff like that when I was deciding to go to university to get my "useless" degree. It was hard enough convincing my father it was a good idea as it was.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2014, 05:08:42 PM
People pushing worthless degrees is a class issue. Ide has no contradiction there. Debt is the biggest barrier to social mobility, and dumping it on the poor in order to sell them shitty degrees is one of the main things keeping them from becoming rich.
I'm pretty sure that Ide's on record denigrating people with humanities degrees and blaming them for the results of their own, in his eyes stupid, choices.
... when what he should be doing is make common cause with them.
No. I don't blame 18-22 year olds for making bad choices. I blame the perverse destruction of the value of a college degree by misguided policy that has been overtaken by a rentier class of professors. (The education itself was probably never terribly valuable except as a signaling method, though arguably ~1900 history and literature grads were better "trained" in their discipline.)
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 05:28:32 PM
(The education itself was probably never terribly valuable except as a signaling method, though arguably ~1900 history and literature grads were better "trained" in their discipline.)
What a bunch of BS.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 05:23:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2014, 05:08:42 PM
People pushing worthless degrees is a class issue. Ide has no contradiction there. Debt is the biggest barrier to social mobility, and dumping it on the poor in order to sell them shitty degrees is one of the main things keeping them from becoming rich.
I'm pretty sure that Ide's on record denigrating people with humanities degrees and blaming them for the results of their own, in his eyes stupid, choices.
... when what he should be doing is make common cause with them.
I'm pretty sure Ide is posting tongue in cheek, and I know MIM is.
Better trained, at least, in the state of the art of their day. I think that's probably trivially true. How many baccalaureate degree-granting institutions were there in 1900, and how many people went to college to study history? "The best and brightest" would be a rather nasty class statement, but I'd suspect the average history grad went to a far better institution, had far more personal contact with his professors, had more interest in the field, and was subject to stricter grading, than one in 2007, when I graduated.
I had the opportunity (rather unethically, but let's not dwell) to read an paper by the woman in my program who was also my college's valedictorian. I'm not saying mine were publishable research, but they were getting there and in my work I used a great deal of primary sources when possible and vetted secondary sources when I couldn't. Hers liberally cited Wikipedia and, as far as actual literary merit goes, it was absolutely atrocious trash, riddled with terrible grammar and typos on top of being unduly boring to read.
And just to brag a little bit and you'll damned well let me because I've had a rough week, there's a reason I got an academic award and she didn't... :) I actually got the impression that my profs thought she was an idiot, simply diligent (to the extent our latterday relaxed academic standards require diligence, anyway), and not quite dumb enough to give grades less than A to.
STEM degree is best degree.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 05:28:32 PM
No. I don't blame 18-22 year olds for making bad choices. I blame the perverse destruction of the value of a college degree by misguided policy that has been overtaken by a rentier class of professors. (The education itself was probably never terribly valuable except as a signaling method, though arguably ~1900 history and literature grads were better "trained" in their discipline.)
From the POV of an employer, college credentials still primarily serve a signalling function. What has changed is the nature of signal. When a significant proportion of the population goes to college - as is the case now - it dilutes the distinctiveness of the qualification and so the mere fact that one holds a degree does not lead as ineluctably to lucrative employment as it might have during an era where (say) only 10% went to college. That is not to say college has no value - in fact the consequence of not going to college for job prospects may be even more severe than in the past. The problem is not so much college itself, but rather the economics of going to and financing college, and the lack of viable non-college alternatives like German style apprenticeships.
The STEM/non-STEM distinction I think is a red herring for this and other reasons already discussed. it is only relevant if one really wants to work an area that requires particular scientific qualifications that one didn't get.
Incidentally, the BLS publishes an estimate of those occupations expected to enjoy the most job growth over the next 10 years: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm
I found it rather interesting.
For one thing, it runs contrary to the common belief that jobs at the lower end of the skill/pay scale are being systematically elimated by automation. Retail sales, food prep, personal/health care aides, construction, laborers, secreataries, receptionists, landscaping, truck driver, etc. are all on the list. So are classic middle class occupations like bookkeepers, first line supervisors, office clerks, nurses, elementary schools teachers, carpenters.
Second with the exception of RNs, software developers, and perhaps medical assistants, none of these professions requires STEM qualifications.
More from the BLS: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm
Computer sciences, mathematical sciences and architecture are expected to grow faster than average.
Physical and life sciences exactly at average.
All other engineering occupations are expected to grow *slower* than average.
healthcare expected to grow well above average but mostly in nursing, various kinds of assistants to practioners, and therapists of all kinds.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2014, 12:07:51 PM
All other engineering occupations are expected to grow *slower* than average.
Fuck.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2014, 11:52:52 AM
Incidentally, the BLS publishes an estimate of those occupations expected to enjoy the most job growth over the next 10 years: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm
I found it rather interesting.
For one thing, it runs contrary to the common belief that jobs at the lower end of the skill/pay scale are being systematically elimated by automation. Retail sales, food prep, personal/health care aides, construction, laborers, secreataries, receptionists, landscaping, truck driver, etc. are all on the list. So are classic middle class occupations like bookkeepers, first line supervisors, office clerks, nurses, elementary schools teachers, carpenters.
Second with the exception of RNs, software developers, and perhaps medical assistants, none of these professions requires STEM qualifications.
I wonder what they look at in coming to their projections. I've seen a number of analysis saying several of those areas are expected to come under intense pressure from automation. Food preparation, truck driver, retail sales - all are expected to be heavily effected by automation.
Perhaps it's just the timeline - automated vehicles look to very much be coming, but I don't know if we'll see their impact within the next 10 years.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2014, 11:52:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 05:28:32 PM
No. I don't blame 18-22 year olds for making bad choices. I blame the perverse destruction of the value of a college degree by misguided policy that has been overtaken by a rentier class of professors. (The education itself was probably never terribly valuable except as a signaling method, though arguably ~1900 history and literature grads were better "trained" in their discipline.)
From the POV of an employer, college credentials still primarily serve a signalling function. What has changed is the nature of signal. When a significant proportion of the population goes to college - as is the case now - it dilutes the distinctiveness of the qualification and so the mere fact that one holds a degree does not lead as ineluctably to lucrative employment as it might have during an era where (say) only 10% went to college. That is not to say college has no value - in fact the consequence of not going to college for job prospects may be even more severe than in the past. The problem is not so much college itself, but rather the economics of going to and financing college, and the lack of viable non-college alternatives like German style apprenticeships.
The STEM/non-STEM distinction I think is a red herring for this and other reasons already discussed. it is only relevant if one really wants to work an area that requires particular scientific qualifications that one didn't get.
Incidentally, the BLS publishes an estimate of those occupations expected to enjoy the most job growth over the next 10 years: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm
I found it rather interesting.
For one thing, it runs contrary to the common belief that jobs at the lower end of the skill/pay scale are being systematically elimated by automation. Retail sales, food prep, personal/health care aides, construction, laborers, secreataries, receptionists, landscaping, truck driver, etc. are all on the list. So are classic middle class occupations like bookkeepers, first line supervisors, office clerks, nurses, elementary schools teachers, carpenters.
Second with the exception of RNs, software developers, and perhaps medical assistants, none of these professions requires STEM qualifications.
Also accountants ("M"). So... basically all of the good ones.
I am well aware of the disproportionate growth of garbage jobs, which makes a degree even less valuable (or, perversely, indispensible--requiring a B.A. to sling fries).
I don't think we disagree--I'm simply using the term "value" in the context of college degrees a bit differently. We are all of us quite aware of the human potential destruction society we've created thanks to requiring children to undertake tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt to signal to employers that they have the work ethic to mostly show up to class and take some exams.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2014, 12:27:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2014, 11:52:52 AM
Incidentally, the BLS publishes an estimate of those occupations expected to enjoy the most job growth over the next 10 years: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm
I found it rather interesting.
For one thing, it runs contrary to the common belief that jobs at the lower end of the skill/pay scale are being systematically elimated by automation. Retail sales, food prep, personal/health care aides, construction, laborers, secreataries, receptionists, landscaping, truck driver, etc. are all on the list. So are classic middle class occupations like bookkeepers, first line supervisors, office clerks, nurses, elementary schools teachers, carpenters.
Second with the exception of RNs, software developers, and perhaps medical assistants, none of these professions requires STEM qualifications.
I wonder what they look at in coming to their projections. I've seen a number of analysis saying several of those areas are expected to come under intense pressure from automation. Food preparation, truck driver, retail sales - all are expected to be heavily effected by automation.
Perhaps it's just the timeline - automated vehicles look to very much be coming, but I don't know if we'll see their impact within the next 10 years.
I expect it's just that--it's beyond their time horizon. But the low skill jobs will, eventually, be annihilated. Eventually, jobs will be annihilated.
There's also the difference in signals you're talking about, Joan. A STEM degree signals a bundle of skills--at the very least, reasoning skills. A humanities degree signals a bundle of expectations--and maybe the ability to write a coherent email, but I wouldn't count on it, and neither do employers. All things being equal, STEM degrees are thus at least a little bit more versatile. Plus, as the joke goes, declining growth or not, there are still actually "engineering companies." There's no such thing as a "history company" and very few "poetry companies" outside of academia itself, which is an exceptionally stupid dream to pursue.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 12:31:58 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2014, 11:52:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 05:28:32 PM
No. I don't blame 18-22 year olds for making bad choices. I blame the perverse destruction of the value of a college degree by misguided policy that has been overtaken by a rentier class of professors. (The education itself was probably never terribly valuable except as a signaling method, though arguably ~1900 history and literature grads were better "trained" in their discipline.)
Second with the exception of RNs, software developers, and perhaps medical assistants, none of these professions requires STEM qualifications.
Also accountants ("M"). So... basically all of the good ones.
No - you certainly do not need a BS in mathematics to be an accountant. My guess is that only a small minority of CPA's have mathematics degrees.
There are also managerial occupations on that list for which a non-science major or a social sciences major would be a more logical fit.
QuoteI don't think we disagree--I'm simply using the term "value" in the context of college degrees a bit differently. We are all of us quite aware of the human potential destruction society we've created thanks to requiring children to undertake tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt to signal to employers that they have the work ethic to mostly show up to class and take some exams.
Value is relative. Yes we agree on this but quite often you seem to put emphasis on factors I would consider more extraneous or less relevant to the main point.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 12:31:58 PM
Also accountants ("M"). So... basically all of the good ones.
Accountants aren't really "M". If you are talking CPA/Chartered Accountants, the base of knowledge probably has more in common with law than a mathmetician's.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2014, 12:27:06 PM
I wonder what they look at in coming to their projections. I've seen a number of analysis saying several of those areas are expected to come under intense pressure from automation. Food preparation, truck driver, retail sales - all are expected to be heavily effected by automation.
Perhaps it's just the timeline - automated vehicles look to very much be coming, but I don't know if we'll see their impact within the next 10 years.
First, the hype tends to outrun the fact.
Second, technology tends to create its own set of needs and demands. Ubiquitous PCs and cheap printers decreased the need for people to take dictation but fostered the vast growth of previous non-existent IT departments, not to mention a long tail of service technicians and consultants with their own need for clerical support.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 12:37:43 PM
There's also the difference in signals you're talking about, Joan. A STEM degree signals a bundle of skills--at the very least, reasoning skills. A humanities degree signals a bundle of expectations--and maybe the ability to write a coherent email, but I wouldn't count on it, and neither do employers. All things being equal, STEM degrees are thus at least a little bit more versatile. Plus, as the joke goes, declining growth or not, there are still actually "engineering companies." There's no such thing as a "history company" and very few "poetry companies" outside of academia itself, which is an exceptionally stupid dream to pursue.
STEM degrees tend to focus very particular kinds of skills that often yet very useful in typical corporate environments, at times perhaps even counter-productive. Humanities degrees due focus on skills that are commonly helpful in virtually any commercial setting - writing and presentation for example. True not ever degree taker actually acquires those skills but that is a more general problem not confined to the humanities.
Also aside from a few specialty consultants. there are precious few "engineering companies" in any proper sense. There may be conglomerates commonly referred to that way, but if you really look at what they are doing, there are lots of people doing things like marketing, sales, management, finance, logistics, clerical, compliance, support and so on. The number of people actually doing engineering work is a fraction.
This is not helping my morale right before finals Minsky.
However I also have a humanities degree.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 08, 2014, 12:45:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 12:31:58 PM
Also accountants ("M"). So... basically all of the good ones.
Accountants aren't really "M". If you are talking CPA/Chartered Accountants, the base of knowledge probably has more in common with law than a mathmetician's.
I've always counted it as STEM. It's quantitative, hard vs. soft. It's certainly not a humanity. :unsure: I mean, what is it? A trade? I also support trades. (The lack of trade education is actually one of the worst things about law school.)
Quote from: JoanThere are also managerial occupations on that list for which a non-science major or a social sciences major would be a more logical fit.
You know, I used to make fun of the business majors. :( That's a kind of dumb-person economics, hence potentially "S."
QuoteAlso aside from a few specialty consultants. there are precious few "engineering companies" in any proper sense. There may be conglomerates commonly referred to that way, but if you really look at what they are doing, there are lots of people doing things like marketing, sales, management, finance, logistics, clerical, compliance, support and so on. The number of people actually doing engineering work is a fraction.
Alright, I can cop to using "STEM" in a somewhat non-rigorous way. But marketing, logistics, secretarial, law/HR/whatever degrees are certainly not "humanities." One is best prepared for those fields by either trade school (or no school, and post-high school work experience) or, at higher echelons, a university's business school.
Edit: and "finance"
is straight up STEM.
Since I have no desire to shit up Sav's thread despite how personally hurtful I find it ( :P ).
STEM:
Quote from: SavA couple weeks ago I designed a radio system for Mongolia State Rail as part of a GE bid. The tracks ran from Chinese border, through the Gobi, into the mountains, through Ulan Bator and finally to the Russian border in the Khentii mountains.
As a Radio Frequency Engineer I thought that was a neat project; it's a challenging environment for radio and an exotic locale. I was curious as to what other professionals found interesting in their careers.
Humanities/false trade school:
QuoteOne time I paid my student loans. It was almost two years ago.
If it makes you feel better, you probably wouldn't have gotten a good job with a STEM degree either.
If it makes you feel better, fifty years ago you'd be ECT'd to death, but we don't do that anymore.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2014, 01:15:26 PM
If it makes you feel better, you probably wouldn't have gotten a good job with a STEM degree either.
Raz: expert on employment.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 01:10:01 PM
Since I have no desire to shit up Sav's thread despite how personally hurtful I find it ( :P ).
STEM:
Quote from: SavA couple weeks ago I designed a radio system for Mongolia State Rail as part of a GE bid. The tracks ran from Chinese border, through the Gobi, into the mountains, through Ulan Bator and finally to the Russian border in the Khentii mountains.
As a Radio Frequency Engineer I thought that was a neat project; it's a challenging environment for radio and an exotic locale. I was curious as to what other professionals found interesting in their careers.
Humanities/false trade school:
QuoteOne time I paid my student loans. It was almost two years ago.
I think the stuff I posted is not too different from Sav's, and I don't have a STEM degree.
OK, but you're an exceptional person. As a video game developer, your experience can't be any more generalized than that of a successful poet or actor. Also you do have a lot of "E"/"M" experience, viz. programming, if I'm not mistaken.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 01:32:01 PM
OK, but you're an exceptional person. As a video game developer, your experience can't be any more generalized than that of a successful poet or actor. Also you do have a lot of "E"/"M" experience, viz. programming, if I'm not mistaken.
Not at all.
I mean, I did code some:
10 Print "hello world"
20 Goto 10
... and I did take one Fortran 76 course in university. But that's about it.
... and let me tell you, there are a lot of unexceptional video game developers as well. Holy hell, are there some idiots in this industry.
Talent isn't necessarily the "exception" I meant, although in your case it's true. :hug:
"Becoming [creative field employee]" is not really a valid career plan, except possibly in film, which is big enough that you can make a go of it as a marginal worker, like, say, katmai. The biggest factor as I understand it is, in addition to a certain base level of competence/deadline-meeting (though this might not be strictly necessary), connections/luck, what they call "the breaks." Law is actually a lot like that these days.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 01:37:36 PM
... and let me tell you, there are a lot of unexceptional video game developers as well. Holy hell, are there some idiots in this industry.
Next time somebody posts a kickstarter I am tempted to contribute to I will make sure I vet them with you first :P
That Darkest Dungeon guy is alright yes?
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2014, 01:45:52 PM
Next time somebody posts a kickstarter I am tempted to contribute to I will make sure I vet them with you first :P
I don't know everyone. Far from it, in fact :)
My point was more that the stuff I did - with a non-STEM base - was cool and not just down to me being amazing or something (flattering as the idea is). In fact, on both of those trips some of the people who accompanied me were less than brilliant, to put it mildly.
QuoteThat Darkest Dungeon guy is alright yes?
Seems like it to me. Out of the team, I'm only really familiar with the coder; he's a quirky guy, but I have no reason to believe he can't do what they're promising. I wouldn't promote their game if I had doubts; I think it looks sweet.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 01:04:14 PM
I've always counted it as STEM. It's quantitative, hard vs. soft. It's certainly not a humanity. :unsure: I mean, what is it? A trade? I also support trades. (The lack of trade education is actually one of the worst things about law school.)
I think the closest comparison is probably law. It isn't really a trade: a recent college grad ready to sit for the CPA exam is really rather useless.
My take on why it is relatively marketable: it has a reputation of being completely and mind numbingly boring and dull, which keeps a lot of people away. It requires a reasonably large amount of base knowledge in something most people consider horrific, and also a lot of experience. It doesn't have the allure of glamour and riches that lawyering has for some reason--no one is making a TV show called Boston Accounting, or LA Accountancy.
Yeah, but law is basically a trade.
So accountants require a lot of training even post-school? I didn't know that. I guess I kind of thought you just sat down, got shown where the bathrooms were, and started accounting things. -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 04:56:31 PM
Yeah, but law is basically a trade.
So accountants require a lot of training even post-school? I didn't know that. I guess I kind of thought you just sat down, got shown where the bathrooms were, and started accounting things. -_-
I was thinking in the sense that it isn't a trade because when you get out of school you are clueless as to how things actually need to be done. From what I understand, that is a lot like law. But then that may be like a plumber too.
If you get a job at a really big firm in accounting, you will work a lot of hours and do things like pick up dinner for senior members of the team working late, put together boxes to store workpapers, and carry workpapers and supplies between client locations and your central office. The upside is that you get a decent paycheck and get given really challenging work that you have no ability to successfully complete (browbeating you into completing it properly is the job of people with 3-5 years experience). So you learn fast.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 01:45:16 PM
except possibly in film, which is big enough that you can make a go of it as a marginal worker, like, say, katmai.
It's actually not that easy to convince women to take their clothes off in front of a camera, even if you are paying them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2014, 05:09:29 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 01:45:16 PM
except possibly in film, which is big enough that you can make a go of it as a marginal worker, like, say, katmai.
It's actually not that easy to convince women to take their clothes off in front of a camera, even if you are paying them.
:yes: Even with a hidden camera it can be very challenging.
Median net worth of grads under 40 with student debt is only $8,700
'The financial travails of people under 40 with student-loan debt extend far beyond the college loans themselves, according to a new study.
That’s because people with student loans often have other types of debt as well, such as car loans or credit-card borrowing, that weigh heavily on their overall financial well-being.
...
The median student debt is about $13,000, a seemingly manageable amount.
But because of the other loans they’ve taken out, the median total indebtedness of college graduates under 40 with student loans is $137,010, according to the study. That is almost twice the $73,250 debt level for their counterparts with no college debt.'
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-young-people-with-student-debt-have-median-net-worth-of-only-8700-20140514-story.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-53732b34%2Fturbine%2Fla-fi-young-people-with-student-debt-have-aver-001%2F750%2F16x9&hash=5949ed86f3cc4565b702f5f0c78b0b8e550360ea)
Well I guess that isn't surprising that if you are tacking on debt a student loan - you'll tack it on for other things.
I remember when I had like $15k in consumer debt and that was it. God damn, those were the halcyon days.
On the other hand, banks don't give you a forebearance just because you don't feel like paying this month and credit cards don't have IBR. So it's kind of a wash.
Of course, I still have like $10k in consumer debt. <_<
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/05/you_can_do_anything_with_a_law_degree_no_no_you_cannot.html
I know you crybabies don't like Slate but this editorial by some guy speaks for hundreds of thousands:
Quote from: Jim SaskaWhen I was considering going to law school, I asked my dad for some advice. What if I don't like being an attorney? What if I don't end up like The West Wing's Sam Seaborn, jumping between a lucrative private practice and rewarding government work? "Don't worry," said my usually sagacious father, "you can do anything with a law degree."
My dad isn't an attorney. But now I am, and let me assure you: My dad didn't know what he was talking about.
Everyone who has ever considered law school has heard some variant of "you can do anything with a law degree." Of course, this statement isn't technically true. You can't practice medicine with it, for example, unless you also have a medical degree (which, to the delight of Sallie Mae, some J.D.s also have). But the more general sentiment, that a law degree will afford you a wide range of opportunities, is also total BS.
Getting a J.D. means you can call yourself a lawyer. That's it. Besides the approval of Jewish mothers (who prefer doctors anyway) and a drinking problem, it won't give you anything else. And it sure as hell won't help you get a nonlegal job.
Last year, 11.2 percent of law school graduates were still unemployed nine months after graduation. If you really could do anything with a law degree, then those unemployed graduates would probably be doing something. Meanwhile, the national unemployment rate for recent college graduates was 10.9 percent. So, compared with other recent students, law school grads appear to have a leg down on the competition.
The ostensible purpose of law school is to train future lawyers, just like medical schools produce future doctors for lawyers to sue. But no one ever says, "You can do anything with a medical degree." This is probably because that would be an outrageously stupid thing to say, as med school provides highly specialized, highly expensive training. Law school is no different. The average debt after discussing the Hairy Hand and debating decisions by Learned Hand for three years is $122,158 for private school graduates and $84,600 for public school graduates. And that's just the cost of law school—those figures don't include undergraduate loans or credit card debt. That's an outrageous amount of money to pony up for a degree when the best possible outcome is getting the most-despised job in America.
Now, if a law degree were a valued commodity outside the legal community, then maybe it would be worth the huge debt, lost time, and bad jokes. But it isn't.
"In my experience hunting for a nonlegal job, your J.D. hurts more than it help," says Andre LaMorgia, a Brooklyn Law School graduate and trade compliance analyst in Philadelphia. In its employment stats, the American Bar Association considers jobs like LaMorgia's to be "J.D. Advantage" positions, meaning a law degree should give you a boost. But LaMorgia says that if he didn't have a friend who worked at the company, "my résumé would have gone right into the garbage can."
Now, there are plenty of examples of law school graduates finding success in other fields, but that's not really evidence that a J.D. is useful. If you buy into that kind of fallacy, you might as well start snorting China White, then sit back and wait for your new drug habit to turn you into a famous rock star.
Attorneys who switch professions tend to rely on skills independent of their legal training. Casey Berman, an ex-attorney who writes the Leave Law Behind blog, believes the key to changing your job track is figuring out what your personal strengths are and finding a job tailored to them. This sounds obvious, but unlike a whole bunch of other obvious-sounding advice, it has the benefit of being true.
Berman believes that more college kids should focus on finding their "unique genius." ("I know it sounds really California new age-y," he says, adding, "what can I say, I went to Berkeley.") If you find that specialized skillset outside of law, there's no reason to get a J.D. "If I had the patience at 22 [for self-reflection], I wouldn't have gone to law school," he says.
That's sensible, considering that human resource managers outside the legal world treat a J.D. as the scarlet acronym. "Generally, I imagine they're going to be too expensive with not enough relevant experience to justify the salary," says Maureen Chu, an HR and operations manager in D.C. She believes that law school gives candidates a competitive disadvantage. "It's lost time. Whatever you learned in law school is not useful to what we need. So every other candidate has three years on you."
In the last few months, I've interviewed for jobs at a nonprofit, a think tank, and a PR firm among other places of business. I know from personal experience that the first question a lawyer will hear in a nonlegal job interview is, "Why don't you want to practice law?" My answer to that question always elicits, "Well, you know we don't pay as much as a law firm, right?" A law degree makes an otherwise qualified candidate look expensive, and often carries a rotten whiff of failure. And other than the New York Mets, no employer wants to hire an expensive failure.
Thankfully, no one is forcing you to go to law school. If your parents are forcing you to go to law school, show them this article. If they persist, ask them why they want you to be miserable. If their callous hearts remain unswayed, remember that you're an emancipated adult.
I don't want to suggest that law school is a bad idea for everyone—many of the attorneys I spoke with for this article love their careers. At the same time, almost all of them put a tremendous amount of thought into choosing the legal profession, and none of them went to law school because "you can do anything with a law degree." Those of us who did enroll for that reason have a more mixed track record.
It turns out there are better ways of figuring out what you want to do with your life than getting an outrageously expensive degree that detracts from your future employability. While unpaid internships suck, they suck approximately $50,000 a year less than law school. More importantly, internships will give you a better idea of whether a particular career is right for you than learning the rule against perpetuities ever will. Alternatively, an MBA isn't exactly cheap, but it's still cheaper, and faster, than getting a J.D. Plus, it has the added bonus of actually helping you get a job.
While I wish I hadn't listened to my dad, I don't blame him for a decision that was clearly my fault. And, to be fair, "you can do anything with a law degree" isn't the worst possible advice. At least my dad didn't say, "You can do anything with a Ph.D. in art history."
No offense dude, but I know a lot of lawyers (not even including the ones in this den of scum and villainy) and very few of them are unemployed. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on May 14, 2014, 12:30:23 PM
No offense dude, but I know a lot of lawyers (not even including the ones in this den of scum and villainy) and very few of them are unemployed. :sleep:
Lots of Meth cases to try in Kentucky.
Oddly with a quick google search - most hits for that phrase seem to be people attacking its validity. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 12:32:30 PM
Oddly with a quick google search - most hits for that phrase seem to be people attacking its validity. :unsure:
"meth cases Kentucky" or "versatile J.D."?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2014, 12:39:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 12:32:30 PM
Oddly with a quick google search - most hits for that phrase seem to be people attacking its validity. :unsure:
"meth cases Kentucky" or "versatile J.D."?
"you can do anything with a law degree"
Quote from: Caliga on May 14, 2014, 12:30:23 PM
No offense dude, but I know a lot of lawyers (not even including the ones in this den of scum and villainy) and very few of them are unemployed. :sleep:
I bet a survey of lawyers you meet in a professional capacity who identify themselves as lawyers does wind up with a pretty high employment rate. :P
All the veterinarians I know are also employed. 100%.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 12:44:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2014, 12:39:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 12:32:30 PM
Oddly with a quick google search - most hits for that phrase seem to be people attacking its validity. :unsure:
"meth cases Kentucky" or "versatile J.D."?
"you can do anything with a law degree"
Yeah, it is a pretty thoroughly debunked myth, but what I really found interesting was the key quote from the actual HR person that lets us peek behind the curtain for a minute. The belief that the JD, unlike just about any other degree, is an
active hindrance, can sometimes seem like paranoia--but it really is how some HR folks think.
Not to be discouraging, but I don't think it is paranoia.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2014, 12:48:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 12:44:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2014, 12:39:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 12:32:30 PM
Oddly with a quick google search - most hits for that phrase seem to be people attacking its validity. :unsure:
"meth cases Kentucky" or "versatile J.D."?
"you can do anything with a law degree"
Yeah, it is a pretty thoroughly debunked myth, but what I really found interesting was the key quote from the actual HR person that lets us peek behind the curtain for a minute. The belief that the JD, unlike just about any other degree, is an active hindrance, can sometimes seem like paranoia--but it really is how some HR folks think.
You have to think like an HR person, and then it totally makes sense.
'The guy has a JD, but he's not actually a lawyer. Why? Either he's a drifter type who doesn't know what the hell he wanted to do and keeps chopping and changing, deciding to go into law one year, that he doesn't like law the next; or he tried to be a lawyer, and failed at it. Either way, why do I want him?'
I actively discourage my kids from going into law. When I graduated there were limited opportunities. Now I think there are even less. The daughter of one of my partners is completing her third year of undergrad and she recently announced she wanted to go to law school. We are planning the intervention as I type this.
STEM?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 02:15:15 PM
I actively discourage my kids from going into law. When I graduated there were limited opportunities. Now I think there are even less. The daughter of one of my partners is completing her third year of undergrad and she recently announced she wanted to go to law school. We are planning the intervention as I type this.
I wouldn't encourage my boys to go into law, but actively discourage?
The profession has treated me pretty well, all things considered...
And as for STEM - my career options were much brighter after finishing law school than they were after my BSc.
BSc? Supposedly they get real degrees.
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2014, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 02:15:15 PM
I actively discourage my kids from going into law. When I graduated there were limited opportunities. Now I think there are even less. The daughter of one of my partners is completing her third year of undergrad and she recently announced she wanted to go to law school. We are planning the intervention as I type this.
I wouldn't encourage my boys to go into law, but actively discourage?
The profession has treated me pretty well, all things considered...
And as for STEM - my career options were much brighter after finishing law school than they were after my BSc.
I don't believe you for a minute.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2014, 02:35:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2014, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 02:15:15 PM
I actively discourage my kids from going into law. When I graduated there were limited opportunities. Now I think there are even less. The daughter of one of my partners is completing her third year of undergrad and she recently announced she wanted to go to law school. We are planning the intervention as I type this.
I wouldn't encourage my boys to go into law, but actively discourage?
The profession has treated me pretty well, all things considered...
And as for STEM - my career options were much brighter after finishing law school than they were after my BSc.
I don't believe you for a minute.
Believe it. It was my crappy job with my BSc that convinced me to go to law school.
STEM degrees aren't all sunshine and lollipops, son. :contract:
You get at least a MSc in STEM. BSc lol.
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2014, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 02:15:15 PM
I actively discourage my kids from going into law. When I graduated there were limited opportunities. Now I think there are even less. The daughter of one of my partners is completing her third year of undergrad and she recently announced she wanted to go to law school. We are planning the intervention as I type this.
I wouldn't encourage my boys to go into law, but actively discourage?
The profession has treated me pretty well, all things considered...
And as for STEM - my career options were much brighter after finishing law school than they were after my BSc.
If they have a real love for doing it, I would encourage them to do it. Not if they think it is the road to easy wealth, or are doing it for lack of a better thing to do.
Like you and CC, I have done well, all considered; but the attrition rate is horrendous, and it is becomming more and more difficult to break in.
However, these things go in cycles. The moment Ide and company convince everyone to go into STEM and avoid law, is the moment when there will be, three or four years down the road, a critical shortage of law students ...
Maybe in like 1970 or whenever you Beeb got his geology degree it didn't work. Today it's $100k starting, working for a petro company, while even a pretty good J.D. with good grades is like $40k a year if they're lucky, and often enough an elite J.D. with good grades is $35k a year, making less than the fucking courthouse janitor, let alone the skilled support staff. You would also do vastly more socially beneficial work as a geologist.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2014, 02:48:28 PM
Maybe in like 1970 or whenever you Beeb got his geology degree it didn't work. Today it's $100k starting, working for a petro company, while even a pretty good J.D. with good grades is like $40k a year if they're lucky, and often enough an elite J.D. with good grades is $35k a year, making less than the fucking courthouse janitor, let alone the skilled support staff. You would also do vastly more socially beneficial work as a geologist.
I got my BSc in 1997 - I'm not that old. :mad:
As Malthus points out these things come in waves. 1997 was not a promising time to be a geologist. Oil and mineral prices were quite flat. Plus, as The Brain is right in pointing out, a BSc wasn't all that great - I'd have to get a MSc or PhD to do really meaningful work.
And what I like about my particular job is that I feel I really do "socially beneficial work" by protecting victims of crime. :)
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 02:46:57 PM
The moment Ide and company convince everyone to go into STEM and avoid law, is the moment when there will be, three or four years down the road, a critical shortage of law students ...
:lol:
What we have right now is a critical shortage in Canada with people with STEM degrees. We graduate way too many law students. If Ide et al convince people not to go to law school then the numbers might reduce down to where people might actually get articles and then employment after law school.
Btw, who knows they are really going to love doing law before they go to law school?
I really doubt it. TV is full of shows about rich and glamorous lawyers having exciting court cases where their plucky creativity wins the day over professional skill. Very few shows are about rich and glamorous Engineers. Maybe Sav could write one though.
Glamorous engineers? :hmm:
There's Star Trek for that. Blind Kunta Kinte working his magic down in engineering.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:01:12 PM
Btw, who knows they are really going to love doing law before they go to law school?
:)
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2014, 03:12:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:01:12 PM
Btw, who knows they are really going to love doing law before they go to law school?
:)
I said "know". That is different than thinking you will. Nobody knows what law school is going to be like until they get there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:01:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 02:46:57 PM
The moment Ide and company convince everyone to go into STEM and avoid law, is the moment when there will be, three or four years down the road, a critical shortage of law students ...
:lol:
What we have right now is a critical shortage in Canada with people with STEM degrees. We graduate way too many law students. If Ide et al convince people not to go to law school then the numbers might reduce down to where people might actually get articles and then employment after law school.
Btw, who knows they are really going to love doing law before they go to law school?
The same way anyone "knows" they are going to love any occupation - that is, they don't.
The difference isn't between those with miraculous foreknowledge and those without, it is the difference between those who genuinely
want to do the activity, and those who merely drift into it. The former may well be awfully dissapointed with it; but that unhappy outcome is a lot less likely than for the latter.
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 03:21:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:01:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 02:46:57 PM
The moment Ide and company convince everyone to go into STEM and avoid law, is the moment when there will be, three or four years down the road, a critical shortage of law students ...
:lol:
What we have right now is a critical shortage in Canada with people with STEM degrees. We graduate way too many law students. If Ide et al convince people not to go to law school then the numbers might reduce down to where people might actually get articles and then employment after law school.
Btw, who knows they are really going to love doing law before they go to law school?
The same way anyone "knows" they are going to love any occupation - that is, they don't.
Thats the point. Why would you ever let your kid go to law school because he "really loves it" since there is no way for him to do so rationally. There may be some other good reason for him to do it but that isnt it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 03:21:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:01:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 02:46:57 PM
The moment Ide and company convince everyone to go into STEM and avoid law, is the moment when there will be, three or four years down the road, a critical shortage of law students ...
:lol:
What we have right now is a critical shortage in Canada with people with STEM degrees. We graduate way too many law students. If Ide et al convince people not to go to law school then the numbers might reduce down to where people might actually get articles and then employment after law school.
Btw, who knows they are really going to love doing law before they go to law school?
The same way anyone "knows" they are going to love any occupation - that is, they don't.
Thats the point. Why would you ever let your kid go to law school because he "really loves it" since there is no way for him to do so rationally. There may be some other good reason for him to do it but that isnt it.
I read about lawyers, I watched legal tv shows, as I got older I talked to lawyers what their jobs were like - it all sounded like a good fit to me.
Of course as a kid I naturally equated "lawyer=litigator", but when I got to law school I was seduced into thinking I wanted to do solicitor's work and be a securities lawyer (the fact a historic stock market bubble was going on probably also helped), and once I started doing that kind if work I found out I hated it and grew disillusioned with law.
But once I switched into litigation it's been more-or-less what I always expected. :)
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 03:04:51 PM
Glamorous engineers? :hmm:
Yes. Ones who shock the Chemical Engineering Establishment with the plucky and unorthodox way they create cheap and environmentally friendly fertilizers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 03:21:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:01:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 02:46:57 PM
The moment Ide and company convince everyone to go into STEM and avoid law, is the moment when there will be, three or four years down the road, a critical shortage of law students ...
:lol:
What we have right now is a critical shortage in Canada with people with STEM degrees. We graduate way too many law students. If Ide et al convince people not to go to law school then the numbers might reduce down to where people might actually get articles and then employment after law school.
Btw, who knows they are really going to love doing law before they go to law school?
The same way anyone "knows" they are going to love any occupation - that is, they don't.
Thats the point. Why would you ever let your kid go to law school because he "really loves it" since there is no way for him to do so rationally. There may be some other good reason for him to do it but that isnt it.
You appear to be addressing an argument no-one is making ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 03:21:40 PM
The same way anyone "knows" they are going to love any occupation - that is, they don't.
The difference isn't between those with miraculous foreknowledge and those without, it is the difference between those who genuinely want to do the activity, and those who merely drift into it. The former may well be awfully dissapointed with it; but that unhappy outcome is a lot less likely than for the latter.
In accounting, if you ask someone how they decided to be an accountant and they say it is what they always dreamed of doing, they are either lying or a freak, and probably both. Possible exception is someone whose parents were accountants.
Everyone has some story like, "I just wanted to get a job." Often followed by (if they are honest), "I needed to find something after washing out of some other college program that people think is interesting."
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2014, 03:03:04 PM
I really doubt it. TV is full of shows about rich and glamorous lawyers having exciting court cases where their plucky creativity wins the day over professional skill. Very few shows are about rich and glamorous Engineers. Maybe Sav could write one though.
No, sorry, fiction has to have some degree of verisimilitude. :(
;)
One of the ideas on my (all to long and growing) idea list was to take the evil and good twins from "The Amazing Adventures of Captain Canada (https://www.fictionpress.com/s/2287566/1/The-Amazing-Adventures-of-Captain-Canada) " and writing about their daily lives. (The evil twin was an engineer.) Something like Keeping up with the Kardashians, but with lasers and giant robots. Unfortunately that would mean watching "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and I'm not sure I'm willing to make that sort of sacrifice.
More and more, I realize that Things To Come is a plan for life.
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 03:41:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:23:51 PM
Thats the point. Why would you ever let your kid go to law school because he "really loves it" since there is no way for him to do so rationally. There may be some other good reason for him to do it but that isnt it.
You appear to be addressing an argument no-one is making ... :hmm:
QuoteIf they have a real love for doing it, I would encourage them to do it
:hmm:
The American dream moved North to Canada according to this opinion piece in the NY Times
QuoteIt was in 1931 that the historian James Truslow Adams coined the phrase "the American dream."
The American dream is not just a yearning for affluence, Adams said, but also for the chance to overcome barriers and social class, to become the best that we can be. Adams acknowledged that the United States didn't fully live up to that ideal, but he argued that America came closer than anywhere else.
Adams was right at the time, and for decades. When my father, an eastern European refugee, reached France after World War II, he was determined to continue to the United States because it was less class bound, more meritocratic and offered more opportunity.
Yet today the American dream has derailed, partly because of growing inequality. Or maybe the American dream has just swapped citizenship, for now it is more likely to be found in Canada or Europe — and a central issue in this year's political campaigns should be how to repatriate it.
A report last month in The Times by David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy noted that the American middle class is no longer the richest in the world, with Canada apparently pulling ahead in median after-tax income. Other countries in Europe are poised to overtake us as well.
In fact, the discrepancy is arguably even greater. Canadians receive essentially free health care, while Americans pay for part of their health care costs with after-tax dollars. Meanwhile, the American worker toils, on average, 4.6 percent more hours than a Canadian worker, 21 percent more hours than a French worker and an astonishing 28 percent more hours than a German worker, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Canadians and Europeans also live longer, on average, than Americans do. Their children are less likely to die than ours. American women are twice as likely to die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth as Canadian women. And, while our universities are still the best in the world, children in other industrialized countries, on average, get a better education than ours. Most sobering of all: A recent O.E.C.D. report found that for people aged 16 to 24, Americans ranked last among rich countries in numeracy and technological proficiency.
Economic mobility is tricky to measure, but several studies show that a child born in the bottom 20 percent economically is less likely to rise to the top in America than in Europe. A Danish child is twice as likely to rise as an American child.
When our futures are determined to a significant extent at birth, we've reverted to the feudalism that our ancestors fled. "Equality of opportunity — the 'American dream' — has always been a cherished American ideal," Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist at Columbia University, noted in a recent speech. "But data now show that this is a myth: America has become the advanced country not only with the highest level of inequality, but one of those with the least equality of opportunity."
Consider that the American economy has, over all, grown more quickly than France's. But so much of the growth has gone to the top 1 percent that the bottom 99 percent of French people have done better than the bottom 99 percent of Americans.
Three data points:
• The top 1 percent in America now own assets worth more than those held by the entire bottom 90 percent.
• The six Walmart heirs are worth as much as the bottom 41 percent of American households put together.
• The top six hedge fund managers and traders averaged more than $2 billion each in earnings last year, partly because of the egregious "carried interest" tax break. President Obama has been unable to get financing for universal prekindergarten; this year's proposed federal budget for pre-K for all, so important to our nation's future, would be a bit more than a single month's earnings for those six tycoons.
Inequality has become a hot topic, propelling Bill de Blasio to become mayor of New York City, turning Senator Elizabeth Warren into a star, and elevating the economist Thomas Piketty into such a demigod that my teenage daughter asked me the other day for his 696-page tome. All this growing awareness is a hopeful sign, because there are policy steps that we could take that would create opportunity and dampen inequality.
We could stop subsidizing private jets and too-big-to-fail banks, and direct those funds to early education programs that help break the cycle of poverty. We can invest less in prisons and more in schools.
We can impose a financial transactions tax and use the proceeds to broaden jobs programs like the earned-income tax credit and career academies. And, as Alan S. Blinder of Princeton University has outlined, we can give companies tax credits for creating new jobs.
It's time to bring the American dream home from exile.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 01:16:19 PM
The American dream moved North to Canada according to this opinion piece in the NY Times
Quote
• The six Walmart heirs are worth as much as the bottom 41 percent of American households put together.
Ok that is hilarious. Sad, but hilarious.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2014, 03:41:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 03:23:51 PM
Thats the point. Why would you ever let your kid go to law school because he "really loves it" since there is no way for him to do so rationally. There may be some other good reason for him to do it but that isnt it.
You appear to be addressing an argument no-one is making ... :hmm:
QuoteIf they have a real love for doing it, I would encourage them to do it
:hmm:
As I later clarified, having a love for the practice did not mean you knew how to do it - it only meant you really
wanted to do it.
As in, "I would love to become an astronaut - it has always been my dream". Well, how many kids saying that actually know what it is like to be an astronaut? I'm guessing "none".
It may be totally irrational for a kid to "love" the idea of being an astronaut because naturally, he or she knows nothing about it, but it would be absurd to say that this
cannot be a motivation for kids to grow up and do just that - and my guess is that, just like the law, those kids who had that dream would do better with the actual tedium and stress involved in being an astronaut that those who just got into it becase they though the space program was a good career move.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2014, 01:40:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 01:16:19 PM
The American dream moved North to Canada according to this opinion piece in the NY Times
Quote
• The six Walmart heirs are worth as much as the bottom 41 percent of American households put together.
Ok that is hilarious. Sad, but hilarious.
The upside is that to nationalize almost half the wealth in the U.S., you only have to take it away from
six people. And if they struggle, six dead class enemies isn't really the tragedy of the kulaks, is it?
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2014, 01:40:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 01:16:19 PM
The American dream moved North to Canada according to this opinion piece in the NY Times
Quote
• The six Walmart heirs are worth as much as the bottom 41 percent of American households put together.
Ok that is hilarious. Sad, but hilarious.
Yeah, but I'm probably worth more than the bottom 25% or so of American households put together. Lots of households have negative net worth, which really skews the stats.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 01:45:03 PM
The upside is that to nationalize almost half the wealth in the U.S., you only have to take it away from six people.
That isn't right. :P
Fair enough. I still think we should still nationalize them.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 01:45:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2014, 01:40:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 01:16:19 PM
The American dream moved North to Canada according to this opinion piece in the NY Times
Quote
• The six Walmart heirs are worth as much as the bottom 41 percent of American households put together.
Ok that is hilarious. Sad, but hilarious.
The upside is that to nationalize almost half the wealth in the U.S., you only have to take it away from six people. And if they struggle, six dead class enemies isn't really the tragedy of the kulaks, is it?
I don't see why it would stop there.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 01:45:03 PM
The upside is that to nationalize almost half the wealth in the U.S., you only have to take it away from six people.
No. What that misleading statistic really says is that almost half the people in the US have no wealth to speak of.
Well, does that actually change the math?
If there 300 million and six people in the U.S., and six Waltons own half the wealth, does it matter whether the other half is owned by 300 million equally or by 200 million in equal shares with the other 100 million owning nothing? The Waltons still control half the wealth.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 02:18:44 PM
Well, does that actually change the math?
If there 300 million and six people in the U.S., and six Waltons own half the wealth, does it matter whether the other half is owned by 300 million equally or by 200 million in equal shares with the other 100 million owning nothing? The Waltons still control half the wealth.
Your confusing median with mean.
"The Waltons have wealth equal to the bottom 40% of all Americans" does not mean "The Waltons control 40% of the wealth of America".
The Waltons don't own half the wealth. They own as much as half the people, but most of those people have nothing.
STEM?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2014, 02:24:07 PM
The Waltons don't own half the wealth. They own as much as half the people, but most of those people have nothing.
Do you think they all still sleep in the same house and say "Good night, Johnboy"? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2014, 02:24:07 PM
The Waltons don't own half the wealth. They own as much as half the people, but most of those people have nothing.
Oh. Duh. Sorry. :Embarrass:
I'm beginning to understand why ide thinks a STEM degree is like having a superpower. :lol:
I misread it, I copped. Get off my back.
:yeah:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2014, 02:24:07 PM
The Waltons don't own half the wealth. They own as much as half the people, but most of those people have nothing.
Still six people having more than 125 million people is pretty funny. I mean each of those 125 million people could own 50 bucks total and each of those six people would still be a billionaire. I mean there is nothing and there is 50 bucks.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 02:34:02 PM
I misread it, I copped. Get off my back.
Or you will attack? And we don't want that?
:lol:
At long last, this thread delivers! :thumbsup:
Quote from: The Brain on May 15, 2014, 03:25:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 02:34:02 PM
I misread it, I copped. Get off my back.
Or you will attack? And we don't want that?
I thought it was Valmy who had The Power. :hmm:
Kids these days really do have it better than we did - at least Canadian ones.
QuoteMany millennials may not be living in their parents' basements after all.
A new report by BMO Economics suggests that young Canadians, specifically those between 25 to 34 years old, are richer than their parents were at that age.
Using Statistics Canada data, and other metrics, the study found that millennials today have more money than the generation preceding them at the same age.
Millennials had a median income of $34,700 in 2011, up from $33,900, when adjusted for inflation, among those in the same age bracket 30 years ago, says the report.
"This means millennials can buy about 2 per cent more goods and services than their parents could in the mid-1980s," writes BMO senior economist Sal Guatieri. "That doesn't sound like much, but the difference adds up over time."
The report suggests young families are also wealthier than their parents were. Net median incomes for the head of a household aged 25 to 34 years old was $52,0900 in 2012, nearly double the $28,752 income of their counterpart in 1984.
But although they may be richer, millennials also have more debt than their parents did when they were their age.
BMO says 84.4 per cent of households headed by young people owe some form of debt, compared with 82 per cent of the same households in 1984. The number of millennials who have a mortgage, at 85.6 per cent, is also higher than those in the same age group, at 79.2 per cent, in 1984.
"Though saddled with more debt and costlier homes, young people tend to be wealthier, have a little more spending power and enjoy better job opportunities than three decades ago," wrote Guatieri.
The report noted that one area that has worsened in the last 30 years has been the rising cost of housing, which has attributed to bigger mortgages and more debt.
"Although earning slightly more than their parents did in the 1980s, millennials need to pay more to get their foot in the housing door," he said, adding that the average house price in 2011 was ten times the median salary of a young family. In 1984, this ratio was only about five times more.
"While many baby boomers prospered financially in the past thirty years, one could say that their children are starting new careers and families on an equal, if not firmer, footing in most regions," concluded Guatieri.
A number of reports have suggested that the wealth of millennials have been negatively impacted by a variety of factors including higher rates of unemployment and higher tuition rates.
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
And yet more millenials have mortgages which implies that more of them own homes - "The number of millennials who have a mortgage, at 85.6 per cent, is also higher than those in the same age group, at 79.2 per cent, in 1984".
Nationalize Canada.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 05:18:13 PM
Nationalize Canada.
I think you meant you should emulate Canada.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 05:49:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 05:18:13 PM
Nationalize Canada.
I think you meant you should emulate Canada.
No, we'll need most of it as the new North American breadbasket in a few decades. Should go get it now while we can.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 05:49:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 05:18:13 PM
Nationalize Canada.
I think you meant you should emulate Canada.
So step 1 - Radically reduce our population and settle everyone remaining along the border with Canada?
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2014, 06:08:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 05:49:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 15, 2014, 05:18:13 PM
Nationalize Canada.
I think you meant you should emulate Canada.
So step 1 - Radically reduce our population and settle everyone remaining along the border with Canada?
If we had your population, universities and wealth I think we would do a lot better. I recommend the following:
Step 1 - Create a single payor health system. You will save money and you will be amazed at how much better people will feel and how much more productive they will be when they dont have to worry about whether they will get medical care or whether they will get screwed by an insurer.
Step 2 - Get rid of stupid drug laws are at least have police departements that dont enforce stupid drug laws.
Step 3 - Create labour laws that actually protect labourers.
Step 4 - Well, I dont think you are really going to get past step 1 so what is the point?
:lol:
Step 4: discover large amounts of natural resources relative to population during a commodity boom.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
And yet more millenials have mortgages which implies that more of them own homes - "The number of millennials who have a mortgage, at 85.6 per cent, is also higher than those in the same age group, at 79.2 per cent, in 1984".
they live a 2 hour commute away :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
And yet more millenials have mortgages which implies that more of them own homes - "The number of millennials who have a mortgage, at 85.6 per cent, is also higher than those in the same age group, at 79.2 per cent, in 1984".
Except those record rates of mortgages means record high levels of household debt.
I don't think anyone should be emulating Canada.
Congratulations to Class of 2014, the Most Indebted Ever
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/congatulations-to-class-of-2014-the-most-indebted-ever-1368/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-CU894_class2_G_20140515160833.jpg&hash=0dfc3a9dd5dd601d28bbf1c86d0c8f8482489543)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-CU890_percen_G_20140515160459.jpg&hash=532ef9561dc44e087117a24d9f9951787e705f05)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBN-CU892_paydeb_G_20140515160642.jpg&hash=db53c8f88b851279095eb78e7faffc0f9dc72de1)
So they are most indebted since last year's class?
Quote from: garbon on May 16, 2014, 10:47:32 AM
So they are most indebted since last year's class?
Right, when was the last time we did not have the most indebted class graduating?
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
Hi.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 16, 2014, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
Hi.
Shhh, people dont like us talking about how good things are.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 16, 2014, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
Hi.
Dude Rivière-du-Loup is not a major city.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2014, 10:56:51 AM
Shhh, people dont like us talking about how good things are.
clap along if you feel like a Canadian with a 34K roof
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 10:57:48 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 16, 2014, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
Hi.
Dude Rivière-du-Loup is not a major city.
Nope, nor am I Viper.
Yeah well neither is St-Jean-sur-le-Lac or wherever you live.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2014, 10:56:51 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 16, 2014, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
Hi.
Shhh, people dont like us talking about how good things are.
im doing pretty good, as are most of my friends, so I don't fall into the believing in doom and gloom group, I was just wondering how comparable the 34k stat really is. I wasn't around in the 80's so I was curious. I know the biggest cost in most peoples lives is housing so that's what I was curious about. So, could your 80s self afford a house in Vancouver on 34k? What about a couples 68k?
*edit* actually not even 34k, but whatever the equivalent was back then since the 34k was adjusted for inflation.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2014, 07:45:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
And yet more millenials have mortgages which implies that more of them own homes - "The number of millennials who have a mortgage, at 85.6 per cent, is also higher than those in the same age group, at 79.2 per cent, in 1984".
Except those record rates of mortgages means record high levels of household debt.
I don't think anyone should be emulating Canada.
Is there something better?
btw household debt in Canada isnt all that bad after all. main reason? Our banks lend to people who can actually afford it - unlike what happened in the US. From Carrick's article in the Globe:
QuoteNo more shrill warnings about the dangers of high household debt levels. I'm moving on.
Don't freak – the personal finance law that debt is bad has not been repealed. Debt makes you vulnerable to a drop in income or job loss, and it may prevent you from saving enough for retirement. Reducing the amount you owe is a good thing to do, period.
But today's high debt loads are not as dangerous as once thought. We need a more nuanced discussion on debt than just shouting at people about how bad it is.
Part of the change in thinking on debt reflects a sense that we are returning to a more normal economy after five years of confusion and disruption. Things that seemed almost apocalyptic a few years ago now seem liveable, if not desirable.
The case for not worrying quite so much about debt was laid out by the chief economist at CIBC World Markets earlier this week in a note issued with the headline: Debt is Not a Four-Letter Word. "There's no reason to raise alarm bells over household debt," Avery Shenfeld wrote.
The most-often quoted gauge of Canada's indebtedness is our average debt-to-income ratio, which hit 164 per cent as of the end of last year. Mr. Shenfeld said that's high compared with U.S. levels both now and in 2006, before the housing market crashed. Still, he thinks debt levels in this country are not a big worry.
One reason is that debt in Canada is generally held by people who can afford to pay if off. "The problem in the U.S. was that too much debt was issued to people who couldn't afford it," Mr. Shenfeld said.
The affordability of debt in Canada can be seen in the fact that delinquency rates on lines of credit, loans and credit cards have been low and falling. The number of mortgages in either default or arrears (payments missed for more than three months) has also been heading lower. We may be carrying large debts on average in Canada, but we're paying them off with ease for the most part.
That's certainly the story told by the country's debt-service ratio, which measures how much of our disposable income goes toward interest on mortgages, credit lines and other debts. Statistics Canada says the debt-service ratio in the fourth quarter of last year was 7.1 per cent, the lowest level since records started being kept in 1990.
Historically low interest rates are the reason why debt's so affordable. Stern warnings about debt – I've written my share – typically focus on what might happen when rates return to normal levels. But now it's looking like this won't happen for quite a long while.
Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz has talked recently about how the country's aging population could result in slower economic growth and lower interest rates than we saw pre-crisis. Mr. Shenfeld believes that when the central bank does raise rates, it will move cautiously. "The Bank of Canada knows that households have more debt than they did in previous economic cycles, and thus it will be more careful on the upcoming pace of interest rate hikes."
Don't get complacent about debt, though. For one thing, it will be a huge burden if your income falls as a result of changes in your work.
Reduced income is the top reason people cite for their financial problems when they visit Toronto-based Consolidated Credit Counseling Services of Canada, according to executive director Jeffrey Schwartz. "In many cases, it's people who were employed at one point, lost their jobs and are now re-employed but not earning at the rates that they were before," Mr. Schwartz said.
Last week's unemployment report highlights the lack of job security in today's economy. A total of 28,900 jobs were lost in April and, longer term, there's been more growth in part-time work than full-time positions.
Another risk posed by high debt loads is that people won't be able to save enough for retirement. CIBC's Mr. Shenfeld said he's particularly concerned about people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who are carrying big mortgages and thus don't have the cash to save as much as the previous generation. "When they reach 65, they may not be in as good a position as their parents were at the same age."
The less debt you have, the stronger you are financially. Let's can the shrill warnings about debt and leave it at that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
Yeah well neither is St-Jean-sur-le-Lac or wherever you live.
Montreal.
Quote from: HVC on May 16, 2014, 12:05:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2014, 10:56:51 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 16, 2014, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Could you afford a home in and around a major Canadian city on 34k back in the 80's? Because you sure as hell can't now.
Hi.
Shhh, people dont like us talking about how good things are.
im doing pretty good, as are most of my friends, so I don't fall into the believing in doom and gloom group, I was just wondering how comparable the 34k stat really is. I wasn't around in the 80's so I was curious. I know the biggest cost in most peoples lives is housing so that's what I was curious about. So, could your 80s self afford a house in Vancouver on 34k? What about a couples 68k?
*edit* actually not even 34k, but whatever the equivalent was back then since the 34k was adjusted for inflation.
In the 80s interest were insanely higher, 16-20% ranges.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 16, 2014, 12:33:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
Yeah well neither is St-Jean-sur-le-Lac or wherever you live.
Montreal.
Damn and you can get a house there for 34K?
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 16, 2014, 12:33:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
Yeah well neither is St-Jean-sur-le-Lac or wherever you live.
Montreal.
:yeahright: Tell the truth, suburbanite. :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
Yeah well neither is St-Jean-sur-le-Lac or wherever you live.
For being slowly digested over the course of a thousand years, there's no place classier.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2014, 12:16:39 PM
Is there something better?
btw household debt in Canada isnt all that bad after all. main reason? Our banks lend to people who can actually afford it - unlike what happened in the US. From Carrick's article in the Globe:
My understanding is the main concern is that interest rates are at record-low levels. Rates rising to more historically normal levels may create a lot of hardship.
But yeah, I agree that a lot of the prophesizing of doom has proven misplaced - it's like the never-ending 'housing bubble' disaster that somehow continually fails to occur.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 12:37:04 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 16, 2014, 12:33:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
Yeah well neither is St-Jean-sur-le-Lac or wherever you live.
Montreal.
Damn and you can get a house there for 34K?
No, HVC said on 34k. I make around that.
To be fair to HVC, that's totally impossible in Toronto & Vancouver. Montreal's market is 4-5 times cheaper than those 2.
Montreal is an affordable city? Huh I thought it was one of those international cities full of big corps and all that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 01:48:00 PM
Montreal is an affordable city? Huh I thought it was one of those international cities full of big corps and all that.
Used to be. Insane Quebec government ensued, and most of 'em moved down the highway to Toronto. Hence land in Toronto is like four times as expensive.
So there was a period of sane Quebec government? :Canuck:
Anyway Montreal sounds like the place to be....I mean unless you want a job.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 02:09:15 PM
So there was a period of sane Quebec government? :Canuck:
Anyway Montreal sounds like the place to be....I mean unless you want a job.
bank of Montreal is headquartered in Toronto :D
Quote from: Malthus on May 16, 2014, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2014, 12:16:39 PM
Is there something better?
btw household debt in Canada isnt all that bad after all. main reason? Our banks lend to people who can actually afford it - unlike what happened in the US. From Carrick's article in the Globe:
My understanding is the main concern is that interest rates are at record-low levels. Rates rising to more historically normal levels may create a lot of hardship.
But yeah, I agree that a lot of the prophesizing of doom has proven misplaced - it's like the never-ending 'housing bubble' disaster that somehow continually fails to occur.
Well that ties into the banks lending to people who can actually afford the debt level - which is why the mortgage rules were changed to make more certain of that.
Interest rates are at record low levels because of monetary policy.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 02:09:15 PM
Anyway Montreal sounds like the place to be....I mean unless you want a job.
My impression of Montreal on my several visits is that it is a city in need of an economic (business) revival.
Quote from: garbon on May 16, 2014, 04:15:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 02:09:15 PM
Anyway Montreal sounds like the place to be....I mean unless you want a job.
My impression of Montreal on my several visits is that it is a city in need of an economic (business) revival.
OMG GENTRIFICATION NOOO
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2014, 04:10:31 PM
Interest rates are at record low levels because of monetary policy.
Really/ What Canadian monetary policy is responsible? That's not a subject i know a lot about.
http://chronicle.com/article/Executive-Compensation-at/146519/#id=table
Executive compensation at public universities. P.S. I found Monkeybutt's real identity. Congrats on being numero uno at six million dollars a year. Go Buckeyes!
Quote from: Ideologue on May 18, 2014, 11:51:50 PM
http://chronicle.com/article/Executive-Compensation-at/146519/#id=table
Executive compensation at public universities. P.S. I found Monkeybutt's real identity. Congrats on being numero uno at six million dollars a year. Go Buckeyes!
Students should protest against these rich 1%'s. :mad:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 18, 2014, 11:51:50 PM
http://chronicle.com/article/Executive-Compensation-at/146519/#id=table
Executive compensation at public universities. P.S. I found Monkeybutt's real identity. Congrats on being numero uno at six million dollars a year. Go Buckeyes!
I..I mean Gee is no longer at Ohio State.
And eat me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2014, 08:13:53 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 18, 2014, 11:51:50 PM
http://chronicle.com/article/Executive-Compensation-at/146519/#id=table
Executive compensation at public universities. P.S. I found Monkeybutt's real identity. Congrats on being numero uno at six million dollars a year. Go Buckeyes!
I..I mean Gee is no longer at Ohio State.
And eat me.
Wow! That was one expensive goofball OSU had working for them!
I loved Gee and the fearless way he expressed his eccentricities, and I know he was one of those money-raising machines, but $6 million/year is a bit much. Especially when that's almost 4 times the compensation of #2.
He's West Virginia's eccentric now.
All the top talent eventually end up in the Big 12.
Hook 'em horns. OH WAIT
College Students Strip to Pay Tuition Costs
'With college tuition bills up to $60,000 a year, today’s grads are often saddled with crushing debt. Economists say student loan debt is slowing down our economy because young adults can’t afford to pay the cost of college.
But Maggie found a solution, working just four nights a week. She said she makes $180,000 a year stripping, and she will actually take a pay cut when she becomes a lawyer.'
http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/college-students-strip-pay-tuition-costs/story?id=23782754
Dino, 21, is a male stripper who performs to pay for college:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FLifestyle%2FABC_dino_stripper_mar_140519_4x3t_384.jpg&hash=287b2f517f8491d1f3cd0a3623183c67986de6ec)
Quote from: Phillip V on May 24, 2014, 01:21:23 PM
But Maggie found a solution, working just four nights a week. She said she makes $180,000 a year stripping,
Sounds to me that the college degree is now unnecessary.
Ide, I think you should totally should do that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2014, 03:32:48 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 24, 2014, 01:21:23 PM
But Maggie found a solution, working just four nights a week. She said she makes $180,000 a year stripping,
Sounds to me that the college degree is now unnecessary.
Short shelf life on that type of career, but if she's careful with her money...
Quote from: Habbaku on May 24, 2014, 04:34:15 PM
Short shelf life on that type of career, but if she's careful with her money...
Most definitely, but yeah, if you get the proper financial planning involved, those kinds of numbers can be stretched out for quite a long time.
She can easily stretch it out long enough to find a rich husband.
I'm actually pretty dubious she makes $180k net. I'd expect there's a lot of tipout at a stripclub, and even if not, we're talking $800 or so a night, which is obscene for what is basically sex work without sex. But if so, it's no wonder attractive hookers charge so much.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2014, 09:06:29 PM
I'm actually pretty dubious she makes $180k net. I'd expect there's a lot of tipout at a stripclub, and even if not, we're talking $800 or so a night, which is obscene for what is basically sex work without sex. But if so, it's no wonder attractive hookers charge so much.
2 things:
1) never trust a stripper, especially about money. Who wants to say they give lap dances to nasty old men to pull down $60k? Saying they make a lot more money than they do is a way to get power all the detractors. ("You say I'm a slut and look down on me? Well I make way more money than you do, who is the sucker now?")
2) the line between a stripper and a hooker is often quite blurry.
The lines blurry because if she's bringing in the kind of money she so far passed the line she can barely see it.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 24, 2014, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2014, 09:06:29 PM
I'm actually pretty dubious she makes $180k net. I'd expect there's a lot of tipout at a stripclub, and even if not, we're talking $800 or so a night, which is obscene for what is basically sex work without sex. But if so, it's no wonder attractive hookers charge so much.
2 things:
1) never trust a stripper, especially about money. Who wants to say they give lap dances to nasty old men to pull down $60k? Saying they make a lot more money than they do is a way to get power all the detractors. ("You say I'm a slut and look down on me? Well I make way more money than you do, who is the sucker now?")
That's fair, although if I were a woman or gay and STDs didn't exist, I'd suck dick for $60k.
Quote2) the line between a stripper and a hooker is often quite blurry.
True. I kind of wonder in what light character and fitness will look at her--and I say that without animosity or reproach, if she's dancing, fucking, or filing for her money, that's fine with me in principle. I'm mainly rebelling against the idea, probably more out of emotion than consideration, that the market price of two thousand lapdances from an 8 is $180k.
Quote from: CountDeMoneyMost definitely, but yeah, if you get the proper financial planning involved, those kinds of numbers can be stretched out for quite a long time.
QuoteBut Maggie found a solution, working just four nights a week. She said she makes $180,000 a year stripping, and she will actually take a pay cut when she becomes a lawyer.'
Doesn't seem in the offing.
Gross.
A girlfriend of mine made $500 a night back in the 90's, in a place with no Lapp dancing. I can see 180K easy.
Lapp dancing is clearly where the big money's at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs4JvYIzj5U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs4JvYIzj5U)
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2014, 09:26:01 PM
That's fair, although if I were a woman or gay and STDs didn't exist, I'd suck dick for $60k.
:console:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2014, 09:41:31 PM
A girlfriend of mine made $500 a night back in the 90's, in a place with no Lapp dancing. I can see 180K easy.
Yeah, the stripper that lived next to me back in the 90s lived better than I did.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it doesn't seem likely. A lap dance is like $20. Call it $30 with tip. Most good places aren't going to let you work the floor 40 hours a week, especially concentrating in prime hours. They want a variety of girls working. The money can get big in the private VIP rooms, but that is where things can start getting blurry.
Another one for Ide:
Quote
Why the liberal arts matter
By Fareed Zakaria
It's graduation season in the United States, which means the season of commencements speeches – a time for canned jokes and wise words. This year I was asked to do the honors at Sarah Lawrence in New York, a quintessential liberal arts college. So I thought it was worth talking about the idea of a liberal arts education – which is under serious attack these days.
The governors of Texas, Florida and North Carolina have all announced that they do not intended to spend taxpayer money subsidizing the liberal arts.Florida's Governor, Rick Scott, asks, "Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don't think so." Even President Obama recently urged students to keep in mind that a technical training could be more valuable than a degree in art history.
I can well understand the concerns about liberal arts because I grew up in India in the 1960s and '70s. A technical training was seen as the key to a good career. If you were bright, you studied science, so that's what I did.
But when I got to America for college, I quickly saw the immense power of a liberal education.For me, the most important use of it is that it teaches you how to write. In my first year in college, I took an English composition course. My teacher, an elderly Englishman with a sharp wit and an even sharper red pencil, was tough.
I realized coming from India, I was pretty good at taking tests, at regurgitating stuff I had memorized, but not so good at expressing my own ideas. Now I know I'm supposed to say that a liberal education teaches you to think but thinking and writing are inextricably intertwined. When I begin to write, I realize that my "thoughts" are usually a jumble of half-baked, incoherent impulses strung together with gaping logical holes between them.
Whether you're a novelist, a businessman, a marketing consultant or a historian, writing forces you to make choices and it brings clarity and order to your ideas. If you think this has no use, ask Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.
Bezos insists that his senior executives write memos – often as long as six printed pages. And he begins senior management meetings with a period of quiet time – sometimes as long as 30 minutes – while everyone reads the memos and makes notes on them.
Whatever you do in life, the ability to write clearly, cleanly and, I would add, quickly, will prove to be an invaluable skill.
The second great advantage of a liberal education is that it teaches you how to speak and speak your mind. One of the other contrasts that struck me between school in India and college in America was that an important part of my grade was talking.My professors were going to judge me on the process of thinking through the subject matter and presenting my analysis and conclusions – out loud.
Speaking clearly and concisely is a big advantage in life.
The final strength of a liberal education is that it teaches you how to learn – to read in a variety of subjects, find data, analyze information. Whatever job you take, I guarantee that the specific stuff you will have learned at college, whatever it is, will prove mostly irrelevant or quickly irrelevant. Even if you learned to code but did it a few years ago, before the world of apps, you would have to learn to code anew. And given the pace of change that is transforming industries and professions these days, you will need that skill of learning and retooling all the time.
These are liberal education's strengths and they will help you as you move through your working life. Of course, if you want professional success, you will have to put in the hours, be focused and disciplined, work well with others, and get lucky. But that would be true for anyone, even engineers.
With all the primitive cultures we have here in Florida I think additional anthropologists would be of great value to the state.
It's shoddy work, that: the classism that informs Zakaria's article is almost text, and his reasoning is distressingly specious. (Six whole pages of dry business prose? You'll need four years of formal instruction to write that in a couple of hours! Maybe six or seven!)
But I'll tell what I enjoy about these pieces: they mean my position is becoming the conventional wisdom. It's such an atypical development that I didn't even notice till now.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2014, 01:39:17 PM
But I'll tell what I enjoy about these pieces: they mean my position is becoming the conventional wisdom.
No, the conventional wisdom is that with the advent of technology, future earners require more specific skill sets tailored to it; not "meh, teh liberal arts suck". Your wisdom in that regard is still unconventional.
That's basically my position.
I don't think "teh liberal arts" themselves suck. If that were the case, my hobbies would probably run to different areas than history, film, comic books, and the like--all big liberal arts. I think the "liberal arts education" sucks, and sucks bigtime, because it does not prepare people to participate in the economy.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2014, 01:53:28 PM
I think the "liberal arts education" sucks, and sucks bigtime, because it does not prepare people to participate in the economy.
Sure it does. You just had the misfortune of fucking yours up with a law degree.
What doors did my history degree open that I left unexplored again?
Teaching, maybe. That's a little tautological.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/us/colleges-rattled-as-obama-presses-rating-system.html?from=homepage
QuoteWASHINGTON — The college presidents were appalled. Not only had President Obama called for a government rating system for their schools, but now one of his top education officials was actually suggesting it would be as easy as evaluating a kitchen appliance.
"It's like rating a blender," Jamienne Studley, a deputy under secretary at the Education Department, said to the college presidents after a meeting in the department's Washington headquarters in November, according to several who were present. "This is not so hard to get your mind around."
The rating system is in fact a radical new effort by the federal government to hold America's 7,000 colleges and universities accountable by injecting the executive branch into the business of helping prospective students weigh collegiate pros and cons. For years that task has been dominated by private companies like Barron's and U.S. News & World Report.
Mr. Obama and his aides say colleges and universities that receive a total of $150 billion each year in federal loans and grants must prove they are worth it. The problem is acute, they insist: At too many schools, tuition is going up, graduation rates are going down, and students are leaving with enormous debt and little hope of high-paying jobs.
The idea that the government would try to rate the schools has rattled the entire higher education system, from elite private institutions to large state universities to community colleges.
"Applying a sledgehammer to the whole system isn't going to work," said Robert G. Templin Jr., the president of Northern Virginia Community College. "They think their vision of higher education is the only one." Many college leaders accuse the president of grasping for a simplistic solution to what they call a crisis of soaring tuition.
The rating system, which the president called for in a speech last year and is under development, would compare schools on factors like how many of their students graduate, how much debt their students accumulate and how much money their students earn after graduating. Ultimately, Mr. Obama wants Congress to agree to use the ratings to allocate the billions in federal student loans and grants. Schools that earn a high rating on the government's list would be able to offer more student aid than schools at the bottom.
Many college presidents said a rating system like the one being considered at the White House would elevate financial concerns above academic ones and would punish schools with liberal arts programs and large numbers of students who major in programs like theater arts, social work or education, disciplines that do not typically lead to lucrative jobs.
They also predicted that institutions that serve minority and low-income students, many of whom come from underfunded schools and have had less college preparation, would rank lowest in a new rating system, hurting the very populations the president says he wants to help.
William E. Kirwan, the chancellor of the University System of Maryland, said Mr. Obama's desire to hold down costs and improve graduation rates is a "noble effort." But he questioned the wisdom of trying to create a rating system. "It's hard for me to imagine how that can work," said Dr. Kirwan, who is known as Brit.
But officials said Mr. Obama was determined to shake up a system that he has said costs too much and often provides too little value.
"We have a financial and moral obligation to be good stewards of these dollars," Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, said in an interview. He said schools often did a poor job of providing information to prospective students and their parents, making the choice of a college complicated. "To defend the status quo, for me, you can't do that."
The cost of attending public and private colleges continues to significantly outpace earnings growth in the United States. Tuition, room and board at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, N.Y., one of the most expensive schools in the nation, will approach $65,000 in the next academic year. Costs will be about $60,000 at Stanford and more than $50,000 for out-of-state students at the University of Michigan.
White House officials said the government rating system would provide new incentives for colleges to hold down costs and broaden access to a more diverse student population — and provide an alternative to the private rankings, where colleges often battle for spots by erecting lavish new athletic centers and libraries and by becoming more selective in whom they admit. The officials said Mr. Obama's system would not rank schools numerically but would give them grades or ratings like "excellent," "good," "fair" or "poor."
"He is not interested in driving anybody out of business, unless they are poorly serving the American people," said Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. "In which case, I think he's probably pretty comfortable with that."
In interviews, several college presidents expressed deep reservations about the idea.
"As with many things, the desire to solve a complicated problem in what feels like a simple way can capture people's imagination," said Adam F. Falk, the president of Williams College in Massachusetts. Dr. Falk said the danger of a rating system is that information about the colleges is likely to be "oversimplified to the point that it actually misleads."
Charles L. Flynn Jr., the president of the College of Mount Saint Vincent in the Bronx, said a rating system for colleges is a bad idea that "cannot be done well." He added, pointedly, "I find this initiative uncharacteristically clueless."
Schools vary widely in the information they collect about the earnings of their graduates — some conduct surveys and do polling — but the college presidents said no school can mandate that graduates supply the statistics. Several college presidents said they were open to the idea of the government's requiring more information about tuition increases, graduation rates, the amount of debt their students incur and the success of their graduates in the work force. But most said they were extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a government rating system based on those metrics.
"We think that entire approach is quite wrongheaded," said Kenneth W. Starr, the president of Baylor University in Waco, Tex., and the prosecutor of the Whitewater investigation of President Bill Clinton.
Ms. Muñoz, Mr. Duncan and other top officials have held numerous meetings with college presidents, students and others to seek input. Some, like Nancy L. Zimpher, the chancellor of the State University of New York system, are supportive.
"I don't have a problem with the government incentivizing a focus on access and completion when that's my core mission," Dr. Zimpher said. She said, however, that some data about graduation rates and postgraduate earnings were incomplete and would have to be improved.
Ms. Muñoz said officials were aware of those concerns and were taking them into consideration as they developed what she called a "version 1.0" of a rating system, which could be unveiled by the end of the year. In a blog post on the Education Department website last week, Ms. Studley wrote that they were listening to the concerns of college presidents, who insist that any system must "thoughtfully measure indicators like earnings, to avoid overemphasizing income or first jobs, penalizing relatively lower paid and public service careers, or minimizing the less tangible benefits of a college education."
But officials said Mr. Obama had repeatedly told his advisers that he was determined not to let college presidents off the hook. Aides said that after the president pledged to deal with rising college costs in his 2013 State of the Union address, he kept rejecting policy ideas as too timid and demanded tougher proposals.
"This is a system which perpetuates itself, and is moving in a direction which is unsustainable for the American people," Ms. Muñoz said.
Some college presidents accused Mr. Obama and his top aides of being obstinate.
"This is a take-it-or-leave-it approach," said Tracy Fitzsimmons, the president of Shenandoah University in Virginia.
Ms. Muñoz countered that Mr. Obama had no patience for anyone who attempted to block the effort.
"For those who are making the argument that we shouldn't do this, I think those folks could fairly have the impression that we're not listening," Ms. Muñoz said. "There is an element to this conversation which is, 'We hope to God you don't do this.' Our answer to that is: 'This is happening.' "
LA VICTOIRE!
I mean, it's early days yet, but despite Obamacare being garbage, his insubstantial efforts to bring the unemployment rate down, and his failure to drive over Congress with a tank, I've really come around on the Obama presidency.
States cut back funding, the topic in question becomes a problem as schools increase tuition to offset the losses, popular pressure force the Feds to get involved to help fix it, and then people bitch about the Feds being too nosy in state's issues.
What?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2014, 01:56:37 PM
What doors did my history degree open that I left unexplored again?
Teaching, maybe. That's a little tautological.
there are tons of positions that just require a four-year degree. they may have nothing to do with history, but so what? a friend of mine graduated with a liberal arts degree, interned for some car rental company, and is now an assistant manager with promotion opportunities in the future
Do they make internships for 31 year olds? Chandler had that one on Friends.
Quote from: LaCroix on May 26, 2014, 03:51:18 PM
a friend of mine graduated with a liberal arts degree, interned for some car rental company, and is now an assistant manager with promotion opportunities in the future
Something about that just strikes me as so depressing. -_-
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2014, 05:03:00 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on May 26, 2014, 03:51:18 PM
a friend of mine graduated with a liberal arts degree, interned for some car rental company, and is now an assistant manager with promotion opportunities in the future
Something about that just strikes me as so depressing. -_-
Garbon in a sentence. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2014, 05:06:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2014, 05:03:00 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on May 26, 2014, 03:51:18 PM
a friend of mine graduated with a liberal arts degree, interned for some car rental company, and is now an assistant manager with promotion opportunities in the future
Something about that just strikes me as so depressing. -_-
Garbon in a sentence. :rolleyes:
:P
Actually I know what it is. Being able to say I'm an assistant manager at a car rental place with the possibility of promotion! :w00t: That's what it is. :(
No, I know. And in fairness, I'm projecting a little bit. I thought like that a few years ago, too. :(
Ide, you really do need a different 'personal' thread here on Languish; it'll do you some good to get away from this one. :cool:
Yes, in fact Ide should take it as a challenge to at least avoid posting in this thread. Much like how I've avoided replying to AR4Dorsey. (And I'm admittedly doing a bang on job. :))
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2014, 05:10:25 PM
:P
Actually I know what it is. Being able to say I'm an assistant manager at a car rental place with the possibility of promotion! :w00t: That's what it is. :(
i mean, it's definitely not glamorous. but, the point is to stay in the company and rise through the ranks, which opens more opportunities later down the road. not every career starts off sounding impressive
Quote from: garbon on May 24, 2014, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 24, 2014, 09:26:01 PM
That's fair, although if I were a woman or gay and STDs didn't exist, I'd suck dick for $60k.
:console:
Still he should go for it. It's not like he's going to see 40 anyway.
Quote from: LaCroix on May 26, 2014, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2014, 01:56:37 PM
What doors did my history degree open that I left unexplored again?
Teaching, maybe. That's a little tautological.
there are tons of positions that just require a four-year degree. they may have nothing to do with history, but so what? a friend of mine graduated with a liberal arts degree, interned for some car rental company, and is now an assistant manager with promotion opportunities in the future
Ide seems to operate under the impression that the Next Job You Get is The Last Job You'll Ever Have. For somebody who doesn't believe in terminal degrees, he certainly believes in terminal careers.
Fuck, Sean Connery was a milkman. Herman Melville was a customs bureaucrat. Harry S. Truman asked men what side of their trousers they slung their cock. ****** used to be an assistant manager at a rental car company.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2014, 05:40:12 PM
Harry S. Truman asked men what side of their trousers they slung their cock.
You say that like it is a negative.
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2014, 05:44:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2014, 05:40:12 PM
Harry S. Truman asked men what side of their trousers they slung their cock.
You say that like it is a negative.
It certainly isn't appropriate in the Oval Office. Unless you're LBJ.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2014, 05:47:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2014, 05:44:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2014, 05:40:12 PM
Harry S. Truman asked men what side of their trousers they slung their cock.
You say that like it is a negative.
It certainly isn't appropriate in the Oval Office. Unless you're LBJ.
Scandal has taught me that everything is permitted in the oval office. :smarty:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2014, 05:40:12 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on May 26, 2014, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2014, 01:56:37 PM
What doors did my history degree open that I left unexplored again?
Teaching, maybe. That's a little tautological.
there are tons of positions that just require a four-year degree. they may have nothing to do with history, but so what? a friend of mine graduated with a liberal arts degree, interned for some car rental company, and is now an assistant manager with promotion opportunities in the future
Ide seems to operate under the impression that the Next Job You Get is The Last Job You'll Ever Have. For somebody who doesn't believe in terminal degrees, he certainly believes in terminal careers.
Fuck, Sean Connery was a milkman. Herman Melville was a customs bureaucrat. Harry S. Truman asked men what side of their trousers they slung their cock. ****** used to be an assistant manager at a rental car company.
The trick is to get into a track that offers advancement, whether in a single career or with options to divert into another track.
It's harder than "get job as milkman" --> "CEO for dairy company." It's even harder when milkman jobs are closed to you thanks to overqualification or age.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2014, 05:53:27 PM
It's harder than "get job as milkman" --> "CEO for dairy company." It's even harder when milkman jobs are closed to you thanks to overqualification or age.
Or in this case, even more extremely hard because the job of milkman has largely disappeared due to advances in technology.
I was using it as a stand-in.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2014, 05:40:12 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on May 26, 2014, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2014, 01:56:37 PM
What doors did my history degree open that I left unexplored again?
Teaching, maybe. That's a little tautological.
there are tons of positions that just require a four-year degree. they may have nothing to do with history, but so what? a friend of mine graduated with a liberal arts degree, interned for some car rental company, and is now an assistant manager with promotion opportunities in the future
Ide seems to operate under the impression that the Next Job You Get is The Last Job You'll Ever Have. For somebody who doesn't believe in terminal degrees, he certainly believes in terminal careers.
Fuck, Sean Connery was a milkman. Herman Melville was a customs bureaucrat. Harry S. Truman asked men what side of their trousers they slung their cock. ****** used to be an assistant manager at a rental car company.
Einstein did his best work as a patent clerk.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 27, 2014, 06:45:55 AM
Einstein did his best work as a patent clerk.
Which was far from a menial job.
I was going to take a writing course this summer, but between working 8 hours a day, with 3-4 hours on the road on top of that, I simply don't have the juice. Maybe if it were 100% online, possibly, but I just can't do it. Not 3 credits crushed into 7 weeks in the middle of a balls ass hot summer.
Plus you have lights out at 9.
Gotta make bedcheck, or it's solitary.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.screeninsults.com%2Fimages%2Fthe-bridge-on-the-river-kwai-hayakawa.JPG&hash=78acf0cac09e402537e63d7836494df75831f31a)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent9.flixster.com%2Fquestion%2F67%2F73%2F10%2F6773103_std.jpg&hash=23f4673eeb1e901054939f98b69103723ce0d440)
Great, I wanna watch Shawshank again. Fuck.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.modernman.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Fthrow-momma-from-the-train-main.png&hash=df622dc263d7529570f3e00ab302b26e41284a6c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-t5VVKuQ3dNI%2FUHF2Wlxaf1I%2FAAAAAAAAN6U%2FlVCoUZpUj7U%2Fs400%2Fgoodfellas-paul-sorvino.png&hash=dafce4ffd3187162955a3091c078860b7415db9c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-drxmvklo4ig%2FT9P2pbjUjRI%2FAAAAAAAAAn4%2FvOf6lMM6reQ%2Fs400%2F037.1%2BPreminger%2Bin%2BStalag%2B17.jpg&hash=060fe0b826e40c835bca421f81822dd1e6f10b04)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.midwesternsplendor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2FCookieFeedTheKitty-600x400.jpg&hash=8abfb80959f2a53ec12a739d92ecd21795ee7d61)
I don't know if I went too far. :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2014, 08:37:33 PM
Gotta make bedcheck, or it's solitary.
:lol: :( :console:
Quote from: HVC on May 27, 2014, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2014, 08:37:33 PM
Gotta make bedcheck, or it's solitary.
:lol: :( :console:
Dude, I shit you not; the other night, I can hear Mom upstairs get out of bed, around 1am-ish; starts to come down to the kitchen, and naturally I kill the lights, flip the iPad cover and go tactical. She's rummaging around, probably for a Motrin or something, and then I hear her start to come down the stairs. I can hear her listening by the door, trying to see if I'm awake. And I'm listening to her listening for me. And I'm thinking, if this isn't some goddamned bullshit: playing the same Run Silent, Run Deep bullshit we did when I was fucking 13.
Somebody, please shoot me. I'll be on New Hampshire Ave tomorrow in a black Jeep. You can do it like the end of
Bad Lieutenant, don't even have to say hello. It would be better that way, anyway.
All those nights you spent as a 13 year old thinking "I can't wait until I grow up and I don't have to put up with the shit!" Little did you know.
Oh well, I guess it means she cares.
Fuckers wonder why I'm always in a foul fucking mood.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2014, 09:20:05 PM
Fuckers wonder why I'm always in a foul fucking mood.
to be fair you were in a fool mood before all this happened too :P
Quote from: HVC on May 27, 2014, 09:22:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2014, 09:20:05 PM
Fuckers wonder why I'm always in a foul fucking mood.
to be fair you were in a fool mood before all this happened too :P
That was nothing.
Quote
Alarm Raised by Plan to Ease Credit Norms on U.S. Parent Loans
By Janet Lorin - May 27, 2014
Parents whose financial standing disqualify them from most loans may have an easier time borrowing to pay their children's college costs under a U.S. government proposal to ease credit standards.
The plan doesn't sit well with consumer advocates and economists, who are sounding an alarm. The Education Department wants to look at "adverse credit" over two years instead of five and consider approving loans even if parents have delinquent credit balances, according to an agency document released this month.
Consumer advocates say loosening the norms for parent PLUS loans will only hurt borrowers, and default rates, already on the rise, will continue to climb. Just 45 percent of the outstanding $62 billion in parent loans are being actively repaid, mostly because borrowers don't need to make payments until six months after their children graduate or leave college, according to department data. Families are struggling to pay for college as the costs increase faster than the rate of inflation.
"Some of these loan characteristics -- potential payment shocks and not verifying a borrower's income -- certainly strongly contributed to the mortgage crisis," said Katie Buitrago, senior policy analyst with the Woodstock Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit group focused on fair-lending issues. "If you are deferring for 4 1/2 years, that's a lot of time for your financial situation to change."
'Bottom Line'
When Parent PLUS loans were first offered in the 1980s, borrowers had to start repaying right away, while their children were in school. Congress changed the law in 2008 amid the financial crisis, letting parents defer payments. When the time comes to pay, many are startled by the higher balance that includes accrued interest.
"The idea that you wouldn't have to pay anything for years might make it more likely you don't pay attention to what the bottom line says," said Susan Dynarski, an economist at the University of Michigan. "I don't understand the logic behind deferral on a PLUS loan."
The Education Department declined to comment on why it wants to change the standards and what the next steps are for the PLUS proposal.
Since a 1992 change in the law, parents have been able to borrow through the PLUS program up to the cost of attendance, minus any aid the student receives. One year at a private college can top $60,000. Parents who have trouble meeting their loan obligation don't have the option of income-based repayment, a protection offered with federal student loans.
'Draconian' Practices
"If someone defaults on their PLUS loans, they're subject to the draconian debt collection practices of the federal government, which include wage and benefit garnishment," Buitrago said. "It's much more difficult to discharge PLUS loans in bankruptcy than mortgage loans."
The majority of parents borrowing with PLUS loans choose to defer, according to Chris Greene, a spokesman for the department's office of Federal Student Aid. Interest rates are fixed for the life of the loans though parents need to take out a separate loan for each school year. The rate for the academic year starting July 1 is 7.21 percent, up from 6.41 percent currently and as high as 8.5 percent in 2009-2010. Parent PLUS loans also carry an origination fee equal to 4.3 percent of the loan amount, four times the rate for the most popular student loan.
In March, the department released default rates for parent loans for the first time. The rate for all schools rose to 5.1 percent for parents who deferred and began repaying in 2010, up from 2.6 percent in 2008.
Default Rates
For-profit schools had the highest default rate for parent PLUS loans in that time frame, at 13.3 percent, up from 6.3 percent. The rate at four-year public colleges was 3.1 percent, up from 1.9 percent, while it was 3.4 percent at private nonprofit four-year colleges, up from 2.0 percent. It's unclear whether the default rates will be released going forward, said Denise Horn, a department spokeswoman.
Many Parent PLUS borrowers have modest assets and income. In the 2011-2012 year, about 36 percent of students whose parents took out the loans also received Pell grants, which are for low-income students, according to National Center for Education Statistics data.
"A good share of these families are not the most financially secure households," said Thomas Weko, a former Education Department official who is managing researcher for post-secondary education at the nonprofit American Institutes for Research in Washington. "A decent number of people are going to get in trouble."
'Frightening' Scenario
The department had tightened some credit standards in 2011 to match the stricter requirements of private lenders, who a year earlier lost the ability to originate federal loans, Weko said.
Under the proposed standard changes, parents could have almost $2,100 in loan balances that are delinquent 90 days or more, are in collection or charged off, and still qualify for a PLUS loan. Under current rules, any delinquency of 90 days or more is a reason for rejection, and if a parent appeals a rejection, the Education Department has used a $500 threshold for bad credit. It would still look back five years for some metrics such as default, bankruptcy and foreclosure.
"Until we bring in some element of the ability to repay, I don't know if we're providing the right loans to the right people in the right amounts," said Suzanne Martindale, an attorney for Consumers Union. "That's frightening."
The Education Department doesn't have the legal authority to impose an "ability to repay standard" for eligibility for any of its loans, said Horn, the agency spokeswoman.
To contact the reporter on this story: Janet Lorin in New York at [email protected]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-27/alarm-raised-by-plan-to-ease-credit-norms-on-u-s-parent-loans.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-27/alarm-raised-by-plan-to-ease-credit-norms-on-u-s-parent-loans.html)
Quote
Universities can't fulfil the myth, but they can't become a vocational school either (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/universities-cant-fulfil-the-myth-but-they-cant-become-a-vocational-school-either/)
Universities come with a mythical mission. But they don't fulfil it.
by Chris Lee - May 31 2014, 12:46pm CDT
SCIENCE POLICY AND EDUCATION
Is it time to rethink higher education? I'm someone who went through the system and I'm now, to a greater or lesser extent, contributing to its maintenance, so it seems strange that I should advocate its dismantling. Yet I'm beginning to think that I ought to.
Unlike most rants of this nature, I have no complaints about the modern standard of education. The myth of falling standards has been with us since the Roman republic decided that they wanted the south of France as their personal back garden. If they really were falling for that long, we would all be living in caves wondering how our fore bearers were able to create this thing called fire.
Indeed, I think that students today learn a hell of a lot more than I did in my day. Although I may mourn the fact that Lagrangian mechanics is now a footnote on the way to a physics degree, that is not a sign of falling standards, but rather tells us that it is more important to learn other things to obtain a relevant education.
No, my complaint is that universities do not fill the role that there were supposed to play, and they are very inefficient at fulfilling the role that they actually play.
Full article is much longer.
The ABA has proposed a new accreditation standard that would permit law schools to admit up to 10% of their student body sans LSAT scores--and still retain accreditation.
This should make Ide's day; a professor gets beaten and there's video surveillance of the incident:
QuoteArizona professor's jaywalking arrest quickly gets out of hand
(CNN) -- A jaywalking rarely makes national news, but the arrest of Arizona professor Ersula Ore has done just that.
What began as a walk home from classes at Arizona State University ended with police charging the professor with assault.
The English professor was walking in the middle of a Tempe, Arizona, street one evening last month when a campus police officer stopped her. The incident escalated, and she was handcuffed and landed on the pavement.
Appearing Monday on CNN's "New Day," Ore was asked about her own words and actions in the incident and replied, "I think I did what I was supposed to do. I was respectful. I asked for clarification. I asked to be treated with respect, and that was it."
In a dashboard camera recording released Friday, Ore steadfastly questions officer Stewart Ferrin and asks him to be respectful.
The two talk over each other as the situation escalates, with Ferrin threatening to arrest Ore unless she produces her ID.
"If you don't understand the law, I'm explaining the law to you," the officer says. "The reason I'm talking to you right now is because you are walking in the middle of the street."
Ore explains that she walked in the street to avoid construction.
"I never once saw a single solitary individual get pulled over by a cop for walking across a street on a campus, in a campus location," she says.
The explanation does not satisfy, and Ferrin begins to cuff the professor.
"Don't touch me," Ore says, her voice beginning to rise. "Get your hands off me."
The officer warns her to put her hands behind her back, or "I'm going to slam you" on the police car.
"You really want to do that?" Ore asks. "Do you see what I'm wearing?"
Ferrin responds, "I don't care what you're wearing." She kicks the officer.
Shortly, Ore is on the ground. Her lawyer, Alane M. Roby, says the action caused her dress to ride up, "exposing her anatomy to all onlookers."
Ore faces charges of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, failing to provide ID and obstructing a public thoroughfare. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
The university said it found "no evidence of inappropriate actions by the ASUPD officers involved."
Given the "underlying criminal charges," the university declined to provide any more details.
Monday on "New Day," Ore said the incident started when the officer stopped his car next to her and asked whether she knew the difference between a road and a sidewalk.
She said she asked him, "Do you always accost women in the middle of the road and speak to them with such disrespect and so rudely as you did to me?"
She said that at no point did he ask her name or tell her why she was being questioned.
"He throws the car door open actually, is what happens, and he's towering over me," she said. "He's intimidating. I don't know why he's so aggressive."
Roby said they'll fight the charges and accused the officer of escalating the situation in violation of his training.
"Professor Ore's one crime that evening was to demand respect that she deserves as a productive, educated and tax paying member of society," Roby said in a statement to CNN, adding that they maintain any actions Ore took were in self-defense.
That includes the caught-on-camera kick she delivered to the officer's shin.
"She can clearly be heard on the dash can video instructing the officer not to grab toward her genital area prior to him reaching for her in attempt to pull her skirt down over her exposed private area," Roby wrote.
When asked on "New Day" about kicking the officer, Ore said she'd been advised by her lawyer not to comment.
The incident has made headlines as far away as Iran and England. Closer to home, her department at the university has asked for a thorough investigation, including "an audit on the conduct of its police force vis-a-vis racial profiling."
The university said it has completed one investigation. If evidence of officer wrongdoing surfaces, it said, an additional inquiry will be conducted and appropriate measures taken.
You can see the video at the site: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/justice/arizona-jaywalking-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/justice/arizona-jaywalking-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_c3)
:yeahright: I didn't see any private areas being exposed.
Did you go through it frame by frame?
Crack KGB analysis there Slava.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 30, 2014, 05:29:25 PM
Crack KGB analysis there Slava.
:( Yeah, it's no NSA analysis, I'm sure they have good algorithms to find exposed privates. Snowden didn't take that secret with him, though. :(
Nothing ever has or will make my day. It's like you DON'T EVEN KNOW ME.
However:
QuoteThe English professor
QuoteProfessor Ore's one crime that evening was to demand respect that she deserves as a productive, educated and tax paying member of society,
First thought: LOL.
Second thought: this is the most classist, shitty way to put it possible. I didn't know tax dollars were supposed to buy you respect before the law. What a fucking maroon.
Third thought upon seeing the video: I hope you enjoy your resisting arrest charges! How's that for an education?
Yeah everyone should just be docile when confronted by the police. :mellow:
It would've saved me a lot of trouble.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2014, 06:26:20 PM
Yeah everyone should just be docile when confronted by the police. :mellow:
:lol: If docile means handing over your ID when requested, then I think it's a damn good idea to be docile.
Also that. It's not that big a deal.
Fwiw, I do think he was kind of a dick, but that's cops for you. Almost no one who wants to be one should be allowed to be. Still, it's a dumb move to get that wrought up over a jaywalking ticket (maybe) and an ID check.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2014, 06:38:35 PM
Fwiw, I do think he was kind of a dick, but that's cops for you.
Which is a problem. We're expected to let these individuals treat us like shit; like we'd not let most, if anyone, else in our lives treat us the same.
Anyway, she fucked up when she thought it was a good idea to be in Arizona with brown skin.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2014, 06:26:20 PM
Yeah everyone should just be docile when confronted by the police. :mellow:
It's generally a very good idea, especially if you leave the copy of your tax return at home.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2014, 06:38:35 PM
Also that. It's not that big a deal.
Fwiw, I do think he was kind of a dick, but that's cops for you. Almost no one who wants to be one should be allowed to be. Still, it's a dumb move to get that wrought up over a jaywalking ticket (maybe) and an ID check.
What did he do that you thought was dickish?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2014, 07:26:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2014, 06:38:35 PM
Also that. It's not that big a deal.
Fwiw, I do think he was kind of a dick, but that's cops for you. Almost no one who wants to be one should be allowed to be. Still, it's a dumb move to get that wrought up over a jaywalking ticket (maybe) and an ID check.
What did he do that you thought was dickish?
The way he started the conversation was unfitting of a trained professional in uniform. You don't start off with a sarcastic remark; that makes you and every other cop wearing your uniform look bad, and that could aggravate someone who has a short fuse or has had a very bad day. The cop gave an opening for the situation to get out of control.
Using a confrontational, rising tone when the situation called for de-escalation--basically failing to contain his emotional reaction (although hardly to half the same extent as the good Professor). Also, stopping someone for jaywalking is de facto dickish.
I got the impression both the video and the tape started somewhat into the confrontation. Did you think they started at the start?
When I first read about it I thought a stop for jaywalking was weak sauce as well, but you can see on the video it's a fairly wide street.
Meh, me and my co-worker got stopped for jaywalking recently. The difference is that the cop didn't ask us whether we knew the difference between a red light and a green light. He introduced himself politely, described what we did, described the danger of what we did, and explained that we could've been fined. It was clear that he was trained to communicate in a way that did not invite talk-back or debate, much less heated arguments.
I would have tased DG, declared him a commie and eliminate him. hail the Computer!
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2014, 06:19:45 PM
Nothing ever has or will make my day. It's like you DON'T EVEN KNOW ME.
However:
QuoteThe English professor
QuoteProfessor Ore's one crime that evening was to demand respect that she deserves as a productive, educated and tax paying member of society,
First thought: LOL.
Second thought: this is the most classist, shitty way to put it possible. I didn't know tax dollars were supposed to buy you respect before the law. What a fucking maroon.
No respect for you. :P
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2014, 06:44:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2014, 06:38:35 PM
Fwiw, I do think he was kind of a dick, but that's cops for you.
Which is a problem. We're expected to let these individuals treat us like shit; like we'd not let most, if anyone, else in our lives treat us the same.
The issue is how best to prevent a cop from trampling all over your rights. Acting out will simply lead to the cop trampling all over you
physically.
I suspect that if a cop is causing you shit, it is best to remain calm, note all the details of how he or she is acting the shit, and complain about it later. That moves the confrontation from a forum where the cop has every advantage - a physical confrontation in the street - to one where you have more of a level playing field - a complaint procedure and/or the media.
Mouthing off, or worse, fighting the cop, will simply never end well for you. Cops are trained in "controlling" (which may include beating up) people who try shit like that, and can call for back-up.
People--and their mouths--get themselves locked up.
Treat a cop with a shitty attitude the way you treat an argument with your girlfriend: shut the fuck up, don't escalate with them, and bitch about it later to your buddies.
Just don't escalate with them.
Quote from: Malthus on July 01, 2014, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2014, 06:44:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2014, 06:38:35 PM
Fwiw, I do think he was kind of a dick, but that's cops for you.
Which is a problem. We're expected to let these individuals treat us like shit; like we'd not let most, if anyone, else in our lives treat us the same.
The issue is how best to prevent a cop from trampling all over your rights. Acting out will simply lead to the cop trampling all over you physically.
I suspect that if a cop is causing you shit, it is best to remain calm, note all the details of how he or she is acting the shit, and complain about it later. That moves the confrontation from a forum where the cop has every advantage - a physical confrontation in the street - to one where you have more of a level playing field - a complaint procedure and/or the media.
Mouthing off, or worse, fighting the cop, will simply never end well for you. Cops are trained in "controlling" (which may include beating up) people who try shit like that, and can call for back-up.
Oh certainly. I know how to be all "yes, massah" when confronted by a cop. My point was that I think it is really shitty that we have to be deferential to individuals treating us poorly. There isn't really anyone that I typically deal with that I'd put up with such shit from.
Also the bit in bold probably is a waste of time unless you've a lot of time on your hands / powerful friends. My mother failed mightily in her complaint about my unwarranted traffic stop.
:mellow: Certainly there is some middle ground between kicking a cop in the shin and kissing ass.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2014, 01:06:19 PM
:mellow: Certainly there is some middle ground between kicking a cop in the shin and kissing ass.
Everything bad had already happened to her by the time she kicked him, so only germane if one was defending all of her actions.
Now granted she wouldn't have gotten the charge that she did if she hadn't assaulted him but she still would have eaten pavement.
Fair enough. Her first bad move was not producing her ID. You think to do so when asked would have been all "Yes massah?"
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
Oh certainly. I know how to be all "yes, massah" when confronted by a cop. My point was that I think it is really shitty that we have to be deferential to individuals treating us poorly. There isn't really anyone that I typically deal with that I'd put up with such shit from.
Also the bit in bold probably is a waste of time unless you've a lot of time on your hands / powerful friends. My mother failed mightily in her complaint about my unwarranted traffic stop.
If the threat of violence and force of law makes you act polite toward someone then it can't be all bad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2014, 01:10:57 PM
Fair enough. Her first bad move was not producing her ID. You think to do so when asked would have been all "Yes massah?"
In this case, sure she should have as I believe Arizona requires such.
Though on the other hand, I still don't like this idea that you have to be hypervigilant about your actions around police. Can't ever be tired or cranky.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2014, 01:13:51 PM
If the threat of violence and force of law makes you act polite toward someone then it can't be all bad.
I've been commended at work for how polite and tactful I am. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 01, 2014, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2014, 06:44:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2014, 06:38:35 PM
Fwiw, I do think he was kind of a dick, but that's cops for you.
Which is a problem. We're expected to let these individuals treat us like shit; like we'd not let most, if anyone, else in our lives treat us the same.
The issue is how best to prevent a cop from trampling all over your rights. Acting out will simply lead to the cop trampling all over you physically.
I suspect that if a cop is causing you shit, it is best to remain calm, note all the details of how he or she is acting the shit, and complain about it later. That moves the confrontation from a forum where the cop has every advantage - a physical confrontation in the street - to one where you have more of a level playing field - a complaint procedure and/or the media.
Mouthing off, or worse, fighting the cop, will simply never end well for you. Cops are trained in "controlling" (which may include beating up) people who try shit like that, and can call for back-up.
Oh certainly. I know how to be all "yes, massah" when confronted by a cop. My point was that I think it is really shitty that we have to be deferential to individuals treating us poorly. There isn't really anyone that I typically deal with that I'd put up with such shit from.
Also the bit in bold probably is a waste of time unless you've a lot of time on your hands / powerful friends. My mother failed mightily in her complaint about my unwarranted traffic stop.
A complaint may well not work or be a waste of time. But it sure as hell will work better than assaulting a cop. A waste of time is better than being used as a punching-bag. :lol:
In any event, just because you don't see action on every complaint doesn't mean all complaints are pointless.
Quote from: Malthus on July 01, 2014, 01:22:55 PM
A complaint may well not work or be a waste of time. But it sure as hell will work better than assaulting a cop. A waste of time is better than being used as a punching-bag. :lol:
Well, of course. But then I don't think that's up for debate.
Quote from: Malthus on July 01, 2014, 01:22:55 PM
In any event, just because you don't see action on every complaint doesn't mean all complaints are pointless.
Sure but then I'm jaded about such matters being taken seriously unless it is something particularly egregious. It just isn't worth it.
That said, in a rare moment of my parents agreeing, my father said he was actually glad that my mother lodged a complaint / we* really should get in the habit of speaking up about all of these incidents.
*Yes, by "we" he meant Canadians.
Even basic discourtesy reports pile up in a personnel jacket, and have a direct impact on performance reviews, promotion boards, assignments and professional opportunities.
But the negative aspect of that is you wind up with a cop with an even shittier attitude.
What do you do when they ask a trick question like "Do you know why I stopped you"
Which of these is the best answer?
"Uh, I dropped my wallet and you are returning it maybe?"
"You filthy pig, I'll fucking kill you. You hear me? I'll shoot your down in the street like a dog!"
"I don't know, how long were following me?"
"Did you know I went to Stanford?"
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2014, 02:49:52 PM
What do you do when they ask a trick question like "Do you know why I stopped you"
Which of these is the best answer?
"Uh, I dropped my wallet and you are returning it maybe?"
"You filthy pig, I'll fucking kill you. You hear me? I'll shoot your down in the street like a dog!"
"I don't know, how long were following me?"
"Did you know I went to Stanford?"
I said "No." That's when it quickly became I was driving erratically, weaving in and out of lanes...and my eyes told him it looked like I was on drugs.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 30, 2014, 09:59:01 PM
I would have tased DG, declared him a commie and eliminate him. hail the Computer!
Indeed. You have been given Ultra-Violet clearance.
It's the beginning of the end for Thomas Cooley, the worst law school in America, and thus, the world. Having suffered a decline in enrollment of more than 40% since 2009, they've made moves to close one of their five (ugh) branches and have declared a financial emergency in preparation of laying off faculty.
Yes we can.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 09:23:21 PM
It's the beginning of the end for Thomas Cooley, the worst law school in America, and thus, the world. Having suffered a decline in enrollment of more than 40% since 2009, they've made moves to close one of their five (ugh) branches and have declared a financial emergency in preparation of laying off faculty.
Yes we can.
New law schools are opening up. I'm sure those in want of shitty legal educations will still have many venues to receive the services they desire.
Not really. The Lousiana one's been tabled, the one in Tacoma, WA is considered something of a joke and won't make it past the planning stages. You may be referring to Indiana Tech, and unaccredited school (is it even provisionally accredited yet? will it ever be) that has managed to enroll about 45 people over two years, just fired/was abandoned by its dean, has named one its professors, andre douglas pond cummings [sic] as interim dean, and is obviously preparing to close, hopefully in enough time that its class of 2012 will be able to discharge their foolishly-undertaken debt.
Vermont Law School (emphasis: environmental law!) is also on a death watch, and is generally expected by observers to begin to close, if not close outright, within the next year or two.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 09:37:50 PM
Not really. The Lousiana one's been tabled, the one in Tacoma, WA is considered something of a joke and won't make it past the planning stages. You may be referring to Indiana Tech, and unaccredited school (is it even provisionally accredited yet? will it ever be) that has managed to enroll about 45 people over two years, just fired/was abandoned by its dean, has named one its professors, andre douglas pond cummings [sic] as interim dean, and is obviously preparing to close, hopefully in enough time that its class of 2012 will be able to discharge their foolishly-undertaken debt.
Vermont Law School (emphasis: environmental law!) is also on a death watch, and is generally expected by observers to begin to close, if not close outright, within the next year or two.
My father told me that Florida A&M is about to open a school, and he may have mentioned another school is going to open in the state.
Jesus, that'd be insane. There's like 11 in FL already.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 09:46:44 PM
Jesus, that'd be insane. There's like 11 in FL already.
My father is retired from that state, that is why he was telling me. He could be wrong though, or I could be misremembering.
A person in our department is going to John Marshall Law School at night. Not sure what will happen when she graduates. She has had internships. She already has a job where is makes decent money. Theoretically she could transfer to the legal department of our company, but I'm not sure how possible that is. Your thoughts?
She probably won't be fired, which is a plus.
I'd need to know more about your legal dept's hiring practices to really say for sure. Isn't it a Big 4 accounting firm? My guess is that they hire from top schools.
However, it doesn't strike me as inconceivable at all that she could transition into a legal (or, even more likely, compliance) role, since she she's a known quantity to the firm, has skills the firm values already, is theoretically adding new ones, and hasn't been letting the current skills grow stale, which is perhaps even more important. She's as well-placed as a non-trad can be: guaranteed continued employment in the old job at least (as guaranteed as employment ever is, anyhow), and with a resume that could make her JD, even from a semi-lousy school, a genuine plus factor. Plus accounting and law are so closely allied that the two degrees are potentially very mutually reinforcing, especially with that work experience. Ultimately, I think she'll be fine even if it doesn't get her what she hopes for.
That said, this is an analysis from an "is she destroying her life?" perspective. If the question is less narrowly posed as "do I think she's wasting her money?" I think it's just as likely that her ROI won't be terribly impressive, even if she succeeds in a qualified way (it'll be even worse when you consider the amount of labor input) and that it may turn out to be a complete waste. But it doesn't sound like she's gambling her entire future, just the price of the degree itself, which isn't half as terrible.
The problem most JDs have is that they go from the liberal arts into law school without any connections or any skills, and they come out with no connections as well as no skills, other than those which the JD confers. These skills are very hard to define and evaluate. In my own opinion the most important skill one learns in law school is toleration of extreme boredom for years on end. There are also research skills (which one should have already learned in college) and writing skills (you can not just tolerate boredom, you can create it!). Finally, there's that nebulous "critical thinking," although there are probably cheaper ways to learn how to make yourself and others unhappy.
In any event, many employers seem to have no problem quantifying the value of these skills as actively negative (I've heard it best described as "the JD represents a bundle of expectations rather than a bundle of skills," which has been confirmed by the experience of the post-crash classes and even been stated outright by at least one disinterested HR officer in an interview). The upshot of this is that they get legal employment, or they get nothing (or next to nothing).
Since this doesn't apply to her, my take is: she's not pants-on-head retarded, and her course is not unreasonable, although I doubt it is the most profitable or happiest road she could possibly take. (For example, why not an MBA?)
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 09:23:21 PM
It's the beginning of the end for Thomas Cooley, the worst law school in America.
It's the end of the Cooley trade. :( Who will Michiganders get to harvest sugar cane now? :(
Hang down your head Tom Cooley,
Hang down your head and cry.
Hang down your head Tom Cooley,
Poor boy your're going to die.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118747/ivy-league-schools-are-overrated-send-your-kids-elsewhere
QuoteDon't Send Your Kid to the Ivy League
The nation's top colleges are turning our kids into zombies
In the spring of 2008, I did a daylong stint on the Yale admissions committee. We—that is, three admissions staff, a member of the college dean's office, and me, the faculty representative—were going through submissions from eastern Pennsylvania. The applicants had been assigned a score from one to four, calculated from a string of figures and codes—SATs, GPA, class rank, numerical scores to which the letters of recommendation had been converted, special notations for legacies and diversity cases. The ones had already been admitted, and the threes and fours could get in only under special conditions—if they were a nationally ranked athlete, for instance, or a "DevA," (an applicant in the highest category of "development" cases, which means a child of very rich donors). Our task for the day was to adjudicate among the twos. Huge bowls of junk food were stationed at the side of the room to keep our energy up.
The junior officer in charge, a young man who looked to be about 30, presented each case, rat-a-tat-tat, in a blizzard of admissions jargon that I had to pick up on the fly. "Good rig": the transcript exhibits a good degree of academic rigor. "Ed level 1": parents have an educational level no higher than high school, indicating a genuine hardship case. "MUSD": a musician in the highest category of promise. Kids who had five or six items on their list of extracurriculars—the "brag"—were already in trouble, because that wasn't nearly enough. We listened, asked questions, dove into a letter or two, then voted up or down.
With so many accomplished applicants to choose from, we were looking for kids with something special, "PQs"—personal qualities—that were often revealed by the letters or essays. Kids who only had the numbers and the résumé were usually rejected: "no spark," "not a team-builder," "this is pretty much in the middle of the fairway for us." One young person, who had piled up a truly insane quantity of extracurriculars and who submitted nine letters of recommendation, was felt to be "too intense." On the other hand, the numbers and the résumé were clearly indispensable. I'd been told that successful applicants could either be "well-rounded" or "pointy"—outstanding in one particular way—but if they were pointy, they had to be really pointy: a musician whose audition tape had impressed the music department, a scientist who had won a national award.
"Super People," the writer James Atlas has called them—the stereotypical ultra-high-achieving elite college students of today. A double major, a sport, a musical instrument, a couple of foreign languages, service work in distant corners of the globe, a few hobbies thrown in for good measure: They have mastered them all, and with a serene self-assurance that leaves adults and peers alike in awe. A friend who teaches at a top university once asked her class to memorize 30 lines of the eighteenth-century poet Alexander Pope. Nearly every single kid got every single line correct. It was a thing of wonder, she said, like watching thoroughbreds circle a track.
These enviable youngsters appear to be the winners in the race we have made of childhood. But the reality is very different, as I have witnessed in many of my own students and heard from the hundreds of young people whom I have spoken with on campuses or who have written to me over the last few years. Our system of elite education manufactures young people who are smart and talented and driven, yes, but also anxious, timid, and lost, with little intellectual curiosity and a stunted sense of purpose: trapped in a bubble of privilege, heading meekly in the same direction, great at what they're doing but with no idea why they're doing it.
When I speak of elite education, I mean prestigious institutions like Harvard or Stanford or Williams as well as the larger universe of second-tier selective schools, but I also mean everything that leads up to and away from them—the private and affluent public high schools; the ever-growing industry of tutors and consultants and test-prep courses; the admissions process itself, squatting like a dragon at the entrance to adulthood; the brand-name graduate schools and employment opportunities that come after the B.A.; and the parents and communities, largely upper-middle class, who push their children into the maw of this machine. In short, our entire system of elite education.
I should say that this subject is very personal for me. Like so many kids today, I went off to college like a sleepwalker. You chose the most prestigious place that let you in; up ahead were vaguely understood objectives: status, wealth—"success." What it meant to actually get an education and why you might want one—all this was off the table. It was only after 24 years in the Ivy League—college and a Ph.D. at Columbia, ten years on the faculty at Yale—that I started to think about what this system does to kids and how they can escape from it, what it does to our society and how we can dismantle it.
Ayoung woman from another school wrote me this about her boyfriend at Yale:
Before he started college, he spent most of his time reading and writing short stories. Three years later, he's painfully insecure, worrying about things my public-educated friends don't give a second thought to, like the stigma of eating lunch alone and whether he's "networking" enough. No one but me knows he fakes being well-read by thumbing through the first and last chapters of any book he hears about and obsessively devouring reviews in lieu of the real thing. He does this not because he's incurious, but because there's a bigger social reward for being able to talk about books than for actually reading them.
I taught many wonderful young people during my years in the Ivy League—bright, thoughtful, creative kids whom it was a pleasure to talk with and learn from. But most of them seemed content to color within the lines that their education had marked out for them. Very few were passionate about ideas. Very few saw college as part of a larger project of intellectual discovery and development. Everyone dressed as if they were ready to be interviewed at a moment's notice.
Look beneath the façade of seamless well-adjustment, and what you often find are toxic levels of fear, anxiety, and depression, of emptiness and aimlessness and isolation. A large-scale survey of college freshmen recently found that self-reports of emotional well-being have fallen to their lowest level in the study's 25-year history.
So extreme are the admission standards now that kids who manage to get into elite colleges have, by definition, never experienced anything but success. The prospect of not being successful terrifies them, disorients them. The cost of falling short, even temporarily, becomes not merely practical, but existential. The result is a violent aversion to risk. You have no margin for error, so you avoid the possibility that you will ever make an error. Once, a student at Pomona told me that she'd love to have a chance to think about the things she's studying, only she doesn't have the time. I asked her if she had ever considered not trying to get an A in every class. She looked at me as if I had made an indecent suggestion.
There are exceptions, kids who insist, against all odds, on trying to get a real education. But their experience tends to make them feel like freaks. One student told me that a friend of hers had left Yale because she found the school "stifling to the parts of yourself that you'd call a soul."
"Return on investment": that's the phrase you often hear today when people talk about college. What no one seems to ask is what the "return" is supposed to be. Is it just about earning more money? Is the only purpose of an education to enable you to get a job? What, in short, is college for?
The first thing that college is for is to teach you to think. That doesn't simply mean developing the mental skills particular to individual disciplines. College is an opportunity to stand outside the world for a few years, between the orthodoxy of your family and the exigencies of career, and contemplate things from a distance.
Learning how to think is only the beginning, though. There's something in particular you need to think about: building a self. The notion may sound strange. "We've taught them," David Foster Wallace once said, "that a self is something you just have." But it is only through the act of establishing communication between the mind and the heart, the mind and experience, that you become an individual, a unique being—a soul. The job of college is to assist you to begin to do that. Books, ideas, works of art and thought, the pressure of the minds around you that are looking for their own answers in their own ways.
College is not the only chance to learn to think, but it is the best. One thing is certain: If you haven't started by the time you finish your B.A., there's little likelihood you'll do it later. That is why an undergraduate experience devoted exclusively to career preparation is four years largely wasted.
Elite schools like to boast that they teach their students how to think, but all they mean is that they train them in the analytic and rhetorical skills that are necessary for success in business and the professions. Everything is technocratic—the development of expertise—and everything is ultimately justified in technocratic terms.
... [more in link]
Quote"Return on investment": that's the phrase you often hear today when people talk about college. What no one seems to ask is what the "return" is supposed to be. Is it just about earning more money? Is the only purpose of an education to enable you to get a job? What, in short, is college for?
It is not the only purpose, but it is by far the most important one. The reason non-wealthy people spend 10,000 a year for an educational program is to get a job. I mean there are lots of other great things one might achieve in college but come on now. The fact that every single job seems to require one, and the lack of one severely limits advancement even in the corporate drone world, indicates this is precisely what society forces you to do to get a job.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 12:52:49 PM
Quote"Return on investment": that's the phrase you often hear today when people talk about college. What no one seems to ask is what the "return" is supposed to be. Is it just about earning more money? Is the only purpose of an education to enable you to get a job? What, in short, is college for?
It is not the only purpose, but it is by far the most important one. The reason non-wealthy people spend 10,000 a year for an educational program is to get a job. I mean there are lots of other great things one might achieve in college but come on now. The fact that every single job seems to require one, and the lack of one severely limits advancement even in the corporate drone world, indicates this is precisely what society forces you to do to get a job.
I concur.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 12:52:49 PM
Quote"Return on investment": that's the phrase you often hear today when people talk about college. What no one seems to ask is what the "return" is supposed to be. Is it just about earning more money? Is the only purpose of an education to enable you to get a job? What, in short, is college for?
It is not the only purpose, but it is by far the most important one. The reason non-wealthy people spend 10,000 a year for an educational program is to get a job. I mean there are lots of other great things one might achieve in college but come on now. The fact that every single job seems to require one, and the lack of one severely limits advancement even in the corporate drone world, indicates this is precisely what society forces you to do to get a job.
The issue really is this: in our society, we place very little value on expanding our individual conciousness (or whatever other hippy-dippy phrase you want to describe this notion ;) ). In the larger sense, it is presumed to be the most important thing you can do - but you must do it while spending your time usefully obtaining a career, usefully producing and consuming products and services.
Kids at university age, and who have the "privilege" associated with going to university, are caught between these two motives. They have been conditioned to think that expanding conciousness is the goal, better than any other; but at the same time, they are made aware (some for the first time in their lives) that they have been supported all their lives by the hard work of others, and they must now struggle and strive to support themselves in the big bad world outside of university. That world values money, the making and spending of.
Academics simply don't really feel this, because of course being an academic is in some ways like never having to face the big bad world. For them, the answer is obvious - expanding the conciousness *is* the most important goal, money comes from grant applications. There is a tendancy to look down on the business of getting a job outside of academia as squalid and grubby, a second-best for those who fail to successfully pursue an academic career.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 12:52:49 PM
Quote"Return on investment": that's the phrase you often hear today when people talk about college. What no one seems to ask is what the "return" is supposed to be. Is it just about earning more money? Is the only purpose of an education to enable you to get a job? What, in short, is college for?
It is not the only purpose, but it is by far the most important one. The reason non-wealthy people spend 10,000 a year for an educational program is to get a job. I mean there are lots of other great things one might achieve in college but come on now. The fact that every single job seems to require one, and the lack of one severely limits advancement even in the corporate drone world, indicates this is precisely what society forces you to do to get a job.
But do you think that extends on same basis to people paying out $40,000 a year? Recall the article is largely an attack on those going to elite schools (in some of the parts I didn't post he drifts into some cursing :D).
I really don't want to hear a fucking thing about the "negatives" about Ivy schools. You go to one of those schools, your ticket is punched for life if it wasn't already, and your "return on investment" is limited only by your own imagination and inherent douchebaggery.
Same bullshit as the "money can't buy happiness" crowd. What a bunch of bullshit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 04:00:02 PM
You go to one of those schools, your ticket is punched for life if it wasn't already, and your "return on investment" is limited only by your own imagination and inherent douchebaggery.
Of course, that isn't want the article is really about. In fact by the end portion, a big complaint is about the existence of said elite schools - not on a price factor but that the people that come out of them are out of touch with those of lower socioeconomic standing / those of lower standing are disadvantaged.
This struck me as amusing:
QuoteExperience itself has been reduced to instrumental function, via the college essay. From learning to commodify your experiences for the application, the next step has been to seek out experiences in order to have them to commodify. The New York Times reports that there is now a thriving sector devoted to producing essay-ready summers, but what strikes one is the superficiality of the activities involved: a month traveling around Italy studying the Renaissance, "a whole day" with a band of renegade artists. A whole day!
Send those artists back to the reservation. :mad:
Quote from: Savonarola on July 24, 2014, 04:51:35 PM
This struck me as amusing:
QuoteExperience itself has been reduced to instrumental function, via the college essay. From learning to commodify your experiences for the application, the next step has been to seek out experiences in order to have them to commodify. The New York Times reports that there is now a thriving sector devoted to producing essay-ready summers, but what strikes one is the superficiality of the activities involved: a month traveling around Italy studying the Renaissance, "a whole day" with a band of renegade artists. A whole day!
Send those artists back to the reservation. :mad:
I think the tick-box approach has been around a long time, just as North American tourists find it hard to resist doing London (tower of london), Stonehenge and Bath, so earlier upper middle class English visting the continent couldn't help but give into a rather superficial itinerary.
Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:15:09 PM
I think the tick-box approach has been around a long time, just as North American tourists find it hard to resist doing London (tower of london), Stonehenge and Bath, so earlier upper middle class English visting the continent couldn't help but give into a rather superficial itinerary.
It's not the package tours that I find amusing; it's not how I prefer to travel, but many people seem to enjoy them. Nor is it that you have to go on these package tours in order to become the "Right" sort of person to go to an Ivy League school. After all in the 18th and 19th century in order to become the right sort of person to fit into British society a young man had to go on a grand tour. What I find amusing is that there's an industry that exists to create package experiences that will become part of your college entrance essay. It's American capitalism at it's finest. :bowler:
Though it just occurs, unto me, good sirs ( :bowler:) that maybe I'm thinking of this the wrong way. VM could fund his retirement by selling passes for a day or a week for this forum as an package experience for a prospective college students. Concrete! Renegade lawyers! The Japanese My Little Pony Space Confederacy! Byzantium! Dreadnoughts! Angry white men! Blueberries! Film reviews for the Lumpen Proletariat! If one can't craft a story of triumph and courage after spending a week with us he probably doesn't belong at Harvard.
;)
Angry white men? Like that's unique.
A daring college entrance exam essay would be about how one went on a college essay experience package tour, and found it to be a life changing experience--first you realized the bullshit involved, and then by breaking away from the bullshit.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2014, 08:04:55 AM
Angry white men? Like that's unique.
Ours are guaranteed to be at least 30% angrier than the average angry white man. After the United States Senate, Languish is your best source for angry white men.
Get off my lawn
Quote from: Savonarola on July 25, 2014, 08:12:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2014, 08:04:55 AM
Angry white men? Like that's unique.
Ours are guaranteed to be at least 30% angrier than the average angry white man. After the United States Senate, Languish is your best source for angry white men.
I don't know what you are talking about. We are delightful.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 09:23:21 PM
It's the beginning of the end for Thomas Cooley, the worst law school in America, and thus, the world. Having suffered a decline in enrollment of more than 40% since 2009, they've made moves to close one of their five (ugh) branches and have declared a financial emergency in preparation of laying off faculty.
Yes we can.
had a conversation a few weeks ago about cooley with an ivy league law graduate. the argument was these are people smart enough to get law school and therefore should know how to do their own research. :D
Well, that's what the judge in the NYLS fraud suit said.
And "smart enough to get into law school" is meaningless at a Cooley. You wouldn't consider someone who graduated from ITT a sophisticated consumer, would you?
Quote from: Savonarola on July 25, 2014, 07:55:26 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:15:09 PM
I think the tick-box approach has been around a long time, just as North American tourists find it hard to resist doing London (tower of london), Stonehenge and Bath, so earlier upper middle class English visting the continent couldn't help but give into a rather superficial itinerary.
It's not the package tours that I find amusing; it's not how I prefer to travel, but many people seem to enjoy them. Nor is it that you have to go on these package tours in order to become the "Right" sort of person to go to an Ivy League school. After all in the 18th and 19th century in order to become the right sort of person to fit into British society a young man had to go on a grand tour. What I find amusing is that there's an industry that exists to create package experiences that will become part of your college entrance essay. It's American capitalism at it's finest. :bowler:
Though it just occurs, unto me, good sirs ( :bowler:) that maybe I'm thinking of this the wrong way. VM could fund his retirement by selling passes for a day or a week for this forum as an package experience for a prospective college students. Concrete! Renegade lawyers! The Japanese My Little Pony Space Confederacy! Byzantium! Dreadnoughts! Angry white men! Blueberries! Film reviews for the Lumpen Proletariat! If one can't craft a story of triumph and courage after spending a week with us he probably doesn't belong at Harvard.
;)
Now that's an idea someone here should run with. :D
I made up about 50% of my uni admission essay. Then again, since I was applying for a fiction writing program, I thought it to be apt.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/the-only-job-with-an-industry-devoted-to-helping-people-quit/375199/
QuoteThe Only Job With an Industry Devoted to Helping People Quit
So many lawyers want out that there is now a coterie of consultants and coaches ready to guide them through the process of finding a new career path.
I went to law school because I didn't know what to do after college and I'm bad at math. Law school seemed like a safe, respectable path and gave me an easy answer to what I was going to do with my life. And, as part of the millennial generation obsessed with test scores and academic achievement, I relished the spoils of a high LSAT score, admission to an Ivy League law school, and a job offer from a fancy corporate law firm.
I spent my first year as lawyer holed up in a conference room sorting piles of documents wearing rubber covers on my fingertips that looked like tiny condoms. Eventually, I was trusted with more substantive tasks, writing briefs and taking depositions. But I had no appetite for conflict and found it hard to care about the interests I was serving. I realized I had never seriously considered whether I was cut out to be a lawyer, much less a corporate litigator. After a few years, I just wanted out, but I had no idea where to begin.
I knew that I was not alone. Law-firm associate consistently ranks at the top of unhappy-professions lists and despite starting salaries of $160,000, law firms experience significant yearly associate attrition. What I didn't realize was that the plight of burnt-out attorneys, particularly those at law firms, has recently spawned an industry of experts devoted to helping lawyers leave law. Attorneys now have their choice of specialized career counselors, blogs, books, and websites offering comfort and guidance to wannabe ex-Esqs.
"Law is the only career I know that has a sub-profession dedicated to helping people get out of it," says Liz Brown, author of the help manual, Life After Law: Finding Work You Love with the J.D. You Have, published last year.
This sub-profession has found a market among lawyers for whom the moment of desperation to get out of the law firm is the first time they have had to think critically about their careers.
The problem can begin with the choice to go to law school, which is often made for reasons having nothing to do with the actual practice of law and without diligence about whether the profession is really a fit. "I like to joke that I'm a Jewish kid who didn't like blood so I couldn't go to medical school, so I went to law school," says Casey Berman, a former attorney and founder of the blog Leave Law Behind, who admits, "I spent more time thinking about my iPhone purchase years later than a degree that was expensive and took three years out of my twenties."
Law school is very often the default choice of people who don't know what else to do, explains veteran New York City career consultant Eileen Wolkstein, who sees many unhappy attorneys in her practice. There's an assumption that the degree will easily open doors in many professions, and law school acts as a socially acceptable procrastination technique to delay more definitive career choices.
Once in law school, however, joining a law firm can seem like the only choice. "The types of people who go to law school seem to chase 'the best' like addicts," says Marc Luber, founder of J.D. Careers Out There, a website for lawyers in career transition. "They want the best grade, the most prestigious workplace, the highest salary."
Through formalized on-campus recruiting (particularly at top schools), the path to the law firm is so well-paved that students can navigate it on auto-pilot. "My law school made it so easy to get a job at a firm that I barely had to do any work at all to generate several associate position offers," says one of my former University of Pennsylvania Law School classmates. The appeal of the law firm is only enhanced by the reality of student loans. "Big law was really the only path I considered. With the level of debt I incurred by going to law school, taking the highest paying job felt like the only real, responsible choice," says another Ivy League grad.
While law schools are efficient at funneling students into law firms, much of the curriculum is based on theoretical analysis, and, as a result, there's a disconnect between the training students receive and the skills required in practice. "People graduate from law school not knowing what lawyers actually do," says Luber.
Though there are those who find it fulfilling, practicing at a law firm can be rough. Associates are expected to keep up a grueling schedule of billable hours and must be at the beck and call of partners and clients. These working conditions, Brown points out, can be at odds with the expectations of many millennials who feel that they should have more control over their lives.
Young lawyers are also often unprepared for the adversarial nature of practice. It's common for people to go into litigation because they write and speak well, but "they don't realize you have to go in and fight every day," says Berman. And many feel disappointment that there is not more social good in the work they do for corporate clients.
Faced with the realities of life in a law firm, discontented lawyers confront for the first time, often many years after they made the decision to go to law school, that law, or at least practicing in a law firm, may not have been the right choice for them. "Put someone who wasn't really chasing a specific path into a job that is very demanding and stressful and they eventually question why they're there," says Luber.
Attorneys often feel trapped, however, by what Brown terms the "twin bonds of money and status." Many lawyers start out in a firm job with the intention of paying-off loans (which, in 2012, averaged $140,000 for undergrad and law school combined), but quickly become accustomed to the lifestyle comforts their hefty paychecks afford. And for a type-A, trophy-collector lawyer, not being associated with an elite, if much maligned, profession is almost unthinkable. Then there's the guilt at walking away from a degree in which they've invested so many resources, says Kate Neville, founder of Neville Career Consulting, a Washington D.C.-based firm specializing in transitioning attorneys. Plus, lawyers are frequently operating in a bubble where there is very little recognition of the validity of alternative careers. "You can't just talk about quitting," says Brown. "That's crazy talk at a firm."
Given these stumbling blocks, many attorneys need hand-holding from outside sources in redirecting their careers. After seven years at a leading New York law firm and "realizing I had no life plan and having a slight breakdown about it, I decided to go to a career therapist," explains one client of Dr. Wolkstein's. It's not uncommon, Dr. Wolkstein told me, for lawyers who've been at firms for years to come to her feeling "so beaten down that they need help to regain their sense of themselves."
This help often begins with circling back to the questions these attorneys failed to ask themselves before they went to law school. "I advise everyone that the first step of finding the right path is to figure out who you are, what you want, and what you're good at," says Luber, who provides any visitor to his site J.D. Careers Out There with The Career Mirror: Reflection Questions for your Job Search. Meant to aid the introspection, the questionnaire asks lawyers to ponder, "what does 'success' mean to you?" and "if you won the lottery how would you want to spend your time?" For membership fees of $24.97 per month or $199 per year, lawyers can also gain access to Luber's trove of career advice videos, and for additional fees, enlist Luber as a private career coach. In Brown's book, Life After Law, she provides advice and inspiration in the form of real-world stories of former J.D.s who've found happiness in careers ranging from media consultant to acupuncturist to rabbi.
Of course, transitioning lawyers must not only engage in soul-searching, but also figure out concrete strategies for breaking into a new field, a task that might seem daunting to those who went the law-school-straight-to-law-firm route. "Law school doesn't teach you how to market yourself," explains Neville, who coaches clients in networking skills and articulating and reframing their abilities for prospective non-legal employers. Wolkstein's work with clients often includes assigning homework in the form of putting together lists of potential networking contacts, sending out emails to university alumni, and attending industry events.
"For the first couple months, I barely did what she suggested at all because it seemed too time consuming," says a former big law attorney who enlisted Wolkstein's help in transitioning to an in-house position at a media company. But after realizing "I didn't have much of a choice if I wanted to find a new job, I slowly started to follow her instructions, and began to see results shortly thereafter."
Attorneys who want to break into entirely new fields must sometimes also engage in additional education or at least lengthy volunteer or intern experience. For lawyers used to excelling and collecting accolades, as well as the cushy perks of having secretaries, firm-provided meals, and town cars, starting low on the totem pole can be a bitter pill to swallow. "It's a long and hard journey that requires the person to be persistent," says Wolkstein.
The good news is that for those who do persevere, the change can be incredibly rewarding. "I have not met a single former lawyer who regrets changing professions," writes Brown in Life After Law. "Most wish they had done it sooner." And whether a lawyer goes into government or starts a business or becomes or a Lego sculpture artist, the skills learned as attorneys, such as hard work, attention to detail, and thinking strategically become assets in new professions. "You always use the analytical skills and writing skills," says Don Shacknai, a former lawyer who now the holds the title of first deputy commissioner at New York City's Housing Preservation & Development agency.
Following the financial crisis, which saw the implosion of several major law firms, the grassroots alternative career movement is gaining traction in the broader legal world. "The bar is starting to realize that every law school is not going to be able to place students in law firms the way they used to, so there have to be other avenues," says Amy Impellizzeri, author of the forthcoming Lawyer Interrupted, a guide for lawyers looking to make career changes within or outside the law, to be published next year by the big daddy of the legal establishment, the American Bar Association. And law-school career centers are now occasionally referring students to sites like J.D. Careers Out There.
While for some the corner partner office may still represent the pinnacle of legal achievement, the expectations for a successful career are changing and there are now ever-expanding resources for J.D.s who want out of the law. For those of us who still get flashbacks of that conference room full of documents, that's a good thing.
Quote from: celedhring on July 26, 2014, 05:17:58 AM
I made up about 50% of my uni admission essay. Then again, since I was applying for a fiction writing program, I thought it to be apt.
I can't remember any of my final essays for college. I do recall some really negative ones that I'd written and then scrapped but not what I actually sent.
I do recall joining a bunch of do-nothing clubs my junior year of high school. -_-
Quote
I went to law school because I didn't know what to do after college and I'm bad at math.
:P
It's so obvious now, but when they're inside and going down that path they don't see it. It's a form of letting circumstances make your decisions for you, which is almost never a good idea.
Who wrote that insipid piece of law school propaganda? It's almost subtle, I'll give them that--it almost reads like a well-intentioned essay about how nasty legal careers can be, albeit radically out-of-touch (or, at best, focused on an audience of T14 winners). But then they overplay their hand and never stop:
QuoteThrough formalized on-campus recruiting (particularly at top schools), the path to the law firm is so well-paved that students can navigate it on auto-pilot. "My law school made it so easy to get a job at a firm that I barely had to do any work at all to generate several associate position offers," says one of my former University of Pennsylvania Law School classmates.
:lol: Ok.
QuoteAttorneys often feel trapped, however, by what Brown terms the "twin bonds of money and status."
They do, it's true. :lol:
QuoteAnd whether a lawyer goes into government or starts a business or becomes or a Lego sculpture artist, the skills learned as attorneys, such as hard work, attention to detail, and thinking strategically become assets in new professions. "You always use the analytical skills and writing skills," says Don Shacknai, a former lawyer who now the holds the title of first deputy commissioner at New York City's Housing Preservation & Development agency.
Would you say the J.D. is an... advantage? :hmm:
CROCK MEET SHIT.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 29, 2014, 03:23:23 PM
Quote
I went to law school because I didn't know what to do after college and I'm bad at math.
:P
It's so obvious now, but when they're inside and going down that path they don't see it. It's a form of letting circumstances make your decisions for you, which is almost never a good idea.
That is the truest and most universal part of the article. It's a common denominator for most of us. Unfortunately, since we are bad at math, the invention of a time machine seems even more out of the question.
Edit: it does get better at the end with a subliminal, euphemistic admission of the egregiously bad job market. Sure, I stopped reading it halfway through, so what? That's what I was evidently trained to do.
QuoteAnd whether a lawyer goes into government or starts a business or becomes or a Lego sculpture artist, the skills learned as attorneys, such as hard work, attention to detail, and thinking strategically become assets in new professions. "You always use the analytical skills and writing skills,"
What total bullshit.
Hard work? Bill that 2-minute phone call at 1/4 hour!
Attention to detail? Create legal disclaimers designed to conceal and confuse! Exploit
expressio unius est exclusio alerius for possible litigious gain!
Thinking strategically? Why test for consequences when there are none!
The only skill lawyers learn is to be risk-averse douchebags using language as a weapon to their clients' (financial) benefit, to the detriment of everything and everybody else, see
Languish v Shitcock, 2003.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2014, 05:10:13 PM
QuoteAnd whether a lawyer goes into government or starts a business or becomes or a Lego sculpture artist, the skills learned as attorneys, such as hard work, attention to detail, and thinking strategically become assets in new professions. "You always use the analytical skills and writing skills,"
What total bullshit.
Hard work? Bill that 2-minute phone call at 1/4 hour!
Attention to detail? Create legal disclaimers designed to conceal and confuse! Exploit expressio unius est exclusio alerius for possible litigious gain!
Thinking strategically? Why test for consequences when there are none!
The only skill lawyers learn is to be risk-averse douchebags using language as a weapon to their clients' (financial) benefit, to the detriment of everything and everybody else, see Languish v Shitcock, 2003.
You say that as if it was a bad thing. :(
Is this the thread where we talked about how automation is going to eliminate all the jobs?
I got an interesting perspective on that. I've been given the opportunity / conned into doing some "heritage" work for my company's accounting group. I went through some of the financial disclosures back from 1919-1940, and where now some companies have hundreds of pages of highly detailed stuff supplemented by a bunch of references to other disclosures, the disclosures back then were often 4 pages: 1 of which was a general statement on the business by management, and 1 was a statement by the external auditor saying things were all good.
Then I interviewed a person who started in about 1980 about how a large company would consolidate pre internet & pre computers for everyone. The process was so manual that just getting the basics that we report today would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible--but still much of the technology used wasn't available in 1930, and the disclosures were much more.
The point being that if you were an accountant in 1920, probably most of your daily work would be automated by 1980, and most of what was done in 1980 has been automated today. But because the volume and quality of reported items has significantly increased, I would guess that the size of accounting departments has also increased.
Pretty much the same in the HK government. Sometimes I looked at the papers that we did back in the 70s and 80s. They were simple. In the past, they used to write 4 pages in English to ask for funding from the legislative arm. Nowadays we write 40 pages, and in both Chinese and English.
The old papers were also full of typos. Without computer word processors, they just accepted that there would be typos. Now the bosses raise hell if they find a spelling mistake.
There are some things that we do more work for now that genuinely provide more information to readers.
We now also now have someone* reading through ~150 pages of financial disclosures before publication to ensure things like the company name doesn't wrap between two lines at any point in the document.
*that person is me. :(
Y'all need a better typesetting program.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2014, 10:05:30 AM
There are some things that we do more work for now that genuinely provide more information to readers.
We now also now have someone* reading through ~150 pages of financial disclosures before publication to ensure things like the company name doesn't wrap between two lines at any point in the document.
*that person is me. :(
Isn't that something that machines can do these days? I read the other day an article that software can now turn financial articles into varied news articles for the business pages, so ...
Quote from: Syt on July 30, 2014, 10:11:25 AM
Isn't that something that machines can do these days? I read the other day an article that software can now turn financial articles into varied news articles for the business pages, so ...
That is still a very difficult problem. The quality and accuracy of these software systems is still only passable, and it is fairly easy to figure out if a group of articles is algorithmically-generated. Unless, of course, someone went through and cherry-picked the good ones.
Quote from: Syt on July 30, 2014, 10:11:25 AM
Isn't that something that machines can do these days? I read the other day an article that software can now turn financial articles into varied news articles for the business pages, so ...
I don't know. We write our reports, give them to a professional printer, who puts them in printing format as well as the format needed to submit to the SEC. I review what the printer produces, and makes sure haven't omitted anything or made critical mistakes like have the name of the company wrap at the end of a sentence.
Could the printer incorporate a program to prevent the company name from wrapping? Probably. But why bother when you can have me review the thing at 430am the day before the filing is due?
I find it quaint that this is still done on paper, anyways. Does the SEC at least get an electronic version to work off of?
Quote from: Syt on July 30, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
I find it quaint that this is still done on paper, anyways. Does the SEC at least get an electronic version to work off of?
They are submitted to the sec electronically and conveniently available electronically on the sec website.
But we also print copies for shareholders and internal use.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2014, 10:05:30 AM
There are some things that we do more work for now that genuinely provide more information to readers.
We now also now have someone* reading through ~150 pages of financial disclosures before publication to ensure things like the company name doesn't wrap between two lines at any point in the document.
*that person is me. :(
My favorite is making sure that numbers printed always reconcile perfectly with other numbers printed. Because if a regulator tallies up the 20 intermediate numbers and gets $176,389,098, and we show the total to be $176,389,099, he will immediate distrust everything that comes out of our company.
Quote from: Syt on July 30, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
Does the SEC at least get an electronic version to work off of?
The Big 10 demands it be delivered in triplicate using carbon paper though.
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2014, 12:03:22 PM
My favorite is making sure that numbers printed always reconcile perfectly with other numbers printed. Because if a regulator tallies up the 20 intermediate numbers and gets $176,389,098, and we show the total to be $176,389,099, he will immediate distrust everything that comes out of our company.
We of course not only do that, but also have rounding policies that are reasonably complex to ensure the numbers foot and reconcile (generally don't force round subtotals, numbers that are referenced in footnotes, numbers that have significant scrutiny and are not large, etc--separate procedures for different charts).
We even have a policy on the oxford comma--don't use them in external disclosures.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2014, 10:24:33 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 26, 2014, 05:17:58 AM
I made up about 50% of my uni admission essay. Then again, since I was applying for a fiction writing program, I thought it to be apt.
I can't remember any of my final essays for college. I do recall some really negative ones that I'd written and then scrapped but not what I actually sent.
I do recall joining a bunch of do-nothing clubs my junior year of high school. -_-
I made a totally bogus essay about the humanistic reasons why I wanted to be a screenwriter and the life-changing moments that put me on that path. I felt so dirty that I had to take a shower after finishing it, but it landed me the spot (later when I got the interview, I saw that the admissions guy was incredibly emotional and intense).
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2014, 12:07:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 30, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
Does the SEC at least get an electronic version to work off of?
The Big 10 demands it be delivered in triplicate using carbon paper though.
Big 12 doesn't, but accuses everyone of cheating.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2014, 09:36:27 AM
Is this the thread where we talked about how automation is going to eliminate all the jobs?
I got an interesting perspective on that. I've been given the opportunity / conned into doing some "heritage" work for my company's accounting group. I went through some of the financial disclosures back from 1919-1940, and where now some companies have hundreds of pages of highly detailed stuff supplemented by a bunch of references to other disclosures, the disclosures back then were often 4 pages: 1 of which was a general statement on the business by management, and 1 was a statement by the external auditor saying things were all good.
Then I interviewed a person who started in about 1980 about how a large company would consolidate pre internet & pre computers for everyone. The process was so manual that just getting the basics that we report today would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible--but still much of the technology used wasn't available in 1930, and the disclosures were much more.
The point being that if you were an accountant in 1920, probably most of your daily work would be automated by 1980, and most of what was done in 1980 has been automated today. But because the volume and quality of reported items has significantly increased, I would guess that the size of accounting departments has also increased.
Indeed. That's basically why my job exists--in 1970, when all documents were paper, you might've had actual attys going through it, costing more per hour, but they were going through 100,000 pages rather than ten million (9,900,000 of which are only responsive due to judges' unwillingness to hold a discovery request for "all documents discussing ____" as burdensome, even though it totally is.
That's why Joan and I argue about this. I foresee a time where the growth in work for humans stops. He doesn't.
Quote from: celI made a totally bogus essay about the humanistic reasons why I wanted to be a screenwriter and the life-changing moments that put me on that path.
Ugh, okay, Francois. Did you have an unhappy childhood too? :P
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2014, 12:07:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 30, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
Does the SEC at least get an electronic version to work off of?
The Big 10 demands it be delivered in triplicate using carbon paper though.
:P
Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2014, 12:20:26 PM
Ugh, okay, Francois. Did you have an unhappy childhood too? :P
No, I played the Cinema Paradiso card here.
I remember that a couple years after I joined there was a security failure at our faculty and some of the admission dossiers got leaked. I was terrified to death ANYBODY could read the absolute pile of schmaltzy pretentious shit I wrote and - even worse - thought I meant any of it.
Quote from: derspiess on July 30, 2014, 12:18:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2014, 12:07:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 30, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
Does the SEC at least get an electronic version to work off of?
The Big 10 demands it be delivered in triplicate using carbon paper though.
Big 12 doesn't, but accuses everyone of cheating.
Bah he was attacking the NCAA. Besides stop talking trash to your own conference :mad:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2014, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2014, 09:36:27 AM
Is this the thread where we talked about how automation is going to eliminate all the jobs?
I got an interesting perspective on that. I've been given the opportunity / conned into doing some "heritage" work for my company's accounting group. I went through some of the financial disclosures back from 1919-1940, and where now some companies have hundreds of pages of highly detailed stuff supplemented by a bunch of references to other disclosures, the disclosures back then were often 4 pages: 1 of which was a general statement on the business by management, and 1 was a statement by the external auditor saying things were all good.
Then I interviewed a person who started in about 1980 about how a large company would consolidate pre internet & pre computers for everyone. The process was so manual that just getting the basics that we report today would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible--but still much of the technology used wasn't available in 1930, and the disclosures were much more.
The point being that if you were an accountant in 1920, probably most of your daily work would be automated by 1980, and most of what was done in 1980 has been automated today. But because the volume and quality of reported items has significantly increased, I would guess that the size of accounting departments has also increased.
Indeed. That's basically why my job exists--in 1970, when all documents were paper, you might've had actual attys going through it, costing more per hour, but they were going through 100,000 pages rather than ten million (9,900,000 of which are only responsive due to judges' unwillingness to hold a discovery request for "all documents discussing ____" as burdensome, even though it totally is.
That's why Joan and I argue about this. I foresee a time where the growth in work for humans stops. He doesn't.
What you don't recognize is that technology is part of the reason the number of pages involved in discoveries has jumped by orders of magnitude. It is much easier to create, store, index, and retrieve documents than ever before. Thus, more documents and better ways to identify relevant documents. So now we have people to filter the 10,000,000 page mess down to the 100,000 pages the attorneys would have started with 40 years ago.
The foreseen and unforeseen effects of technology create whole classes of jobs, often more than they destroy.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2014, 12:20:26 PM
That's why Joan and I argue about this. I foresee a time where the growth in work for humans stops. He doesn't.
Your view has a very respectable intellectual heritage. Marx argued it. Keynes argued it. (they were both optimistic about it though).
Problem was their predictions didn't come true. It's not because they over-stated future technical progress either - in fact Marx probably under-predicted that. It is because of two causes:
(1) the nature of human wants differed from the either Marx or Keynes believed to the good life (the lesiured life of a post-Romantic 19th century German intellectual on the one hand, the leisured life of a Bloomsbury English intellectual on the other). What Keynes tut-tutted as "intense, unsatisfied purposiveness" appears to be more ubiquitous and enduring than he had hoped. As it turns out, quiet afternoons reading and smoking one's pipe don't satisfy everyone.
(2) the nature of work itself is constantly in flux. Labor is not as Marx sometimes reductively conceived it, undifferentiated lumps of physical exertion over time. The very concept of what people understand as market compensable labor changes over time.
It's always possible to argue "this time will be different". My criticism is the same criticism I would and do make against all other variants of that argument in all other contexts - prove it and explain specifically why the now is so special. Yes - sometimes this time is different. Sometimes there is a true massive paradigmatic break in the "laws" that seem to govern human societies. Agriculture was one. The Industrial Revolution was another. But those are rare occurences. If we are in the process of such a massive shift in the fundamental nature of human production and distribution it certainly doesn't seem all that clear to me. We are certainly still very far off from Siege's "singularity" where machine intelligence and motor planning can duplicate all human capabilities.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2014, 01:51:36 PM
Problem was their predictions didn't come true.
But per capita the demand for human labor has markedly decreased. Standardized work weeks of 40 hours(and even less in some European countries today), end of child labor and longer periods of education before entering work force, retirement...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 02:21:06 PM
But per capita the demand for human labor has markedly decreased.
I doubt that because against the trends you raise, there is the introduction of women to the work force (thus almost doubling demand per capita) and the fact that working lives are longer (many more people living into their 50s and 60s).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2014, 02:28:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 02:21:06 PM
But per capita the demand for human labor has markedly decreased.
I doubt that because against the trends you raise, there is the introduction of women to the work force (thus almost doubling demand per capita) and the fact that working lives are longer (many more people living into their 50s and 60s).
On behalf of women everywhere: :mad:
Women have always worked.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 02:34:21 PM
Women have always worked.
Not for market wages.
You are making the same mistake that Berkut did earlier.
Of course technology is going to decrease the amount of physical exertion required, that's the whole point.
That has basically zero to do whether it will reduce "jobs" i.e. labor compensable in the market.
I'm not talking about child-rearing, I'm talking about tasks for which their compensation was subject to market forces, be it service, factory work, washing and mending people's clothes, working the fields, etc.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 02:45:37 PM
I'm not talking about child-rearing, I'm talking about tasks for which their compensation was subject to market forces, be it service, factory work, washing and mending people's clothes, working the fields, etc.
That neither changes the analysis nor my response.
It's just another way of making that point that automation tends to broaden the extent of market compensable labor.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2014, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 02:45:37 PM
I'm not talking about child-rearing, I'm talking about tasks for which their compensation was subject to market forces, be it service, factory work, washing and mending people's clothes, working the fields, etc.
That neither changes the analysis nor my response.
It's just another way of making that point that automation tends to broaden the extent of market compensable labor.
No, it's a way of making the point that the work force didn't suddenly double 70 years ago and that working hours have actually decreased. Women may have been excluded from a large variety of jobs, but they still worked and their labor affected the labor market for men.
I don't think there's any debate that the labor market has broadened, the (quite open) question is whether the creation of new jobs keeps up with the destruction of old ones.
They only lie sleeping.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 03:42:58 PM
I don't think there's any debate that the labor market has broadened, the (quite open) question is whether the creation of new jobs keeps up with the destruction of old ones.
I agree with the criterion.
So then the question is whether total amount of market compensated hours worked has increased absolutely and per capita. The answer to the former is clearly yes (by a lot) and the latter I just don't know. Deconstructing the elements are:
1) effective hours per worker - vacations, 40 hour week laws, etc. pull down, although declines in unionization may be reversing in US and elsewhere.
2) market workers per unit of population - fewer pre-25s working, BUT more women doing market work and better health plus mandatory accommodation laws also increase.
Show me the data.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2014, 04:01:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 03:42:58 PM
I don't think there's any debate that the labor market has broadened, the (quite open) question is whether the creation of new jobs keeps up with the destruction of old ones.
I agree with the criterion.
So then the question is whether total amount of market compensated hours worked has increased absolutely and per capita. The answer to the former is clearly yes (by a lot) and the latter I just don't know. Deconstructing the elements are:
1) effective hours per worker - vacations, 40 hour week laws, etc. pull down, although declines in unionization may be reversing in US and elsewhere.
2) market workers per unit of population - fewer pre-25s working, BUT more women doing market work and better health plus mandatory accommodation laws also increase.
Show me the data.
You know, you could make that your catchphrase. :cool:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/)
This is chock full of tables. One that I found particularly interesting:
QuoteEstimated Trend in the Lifetime Distribution of Discretionary Time, 1880-2040
Activity 1880 1995 2040
Lifetime Discretionary Hours 225,900 298,500 321,900
Lifetime Work Hours 182,100 122,400 75,900
Lifetime Leisure Hours 43,800 176,100 246,000
Source: Fogel (2000)
Notes: Discretionary hours exclude hours used for sleep, meals and hygiene. Work hours include paid work, travel to and from work, and household chores.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 04:30:35 PM
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/)
This is chock full of tables. One that I found particularly interesting:
QuoteEstimated Trend in the Lifetime Distribution of Discretionary Time, 1880-2040
That table is interesting, though not really germane to the immediate question.
The summary page shows tables demonstrating a fairly steady decline in weekly hours worked per worker, with a significant blip during the depression years. So that sort of addresses (1) although without taking into account that workers in the past presumably had shorter lives.
Re (2) BLS date on labor force participation goes back only to 1948 but it does show materially lower levels of labor force participation in the late 40s and the 1950s (consistently under 60% as opposed to around 63% now and over 65% from 1985-2009.
Here's another way of looking at it.
Table 2 in PW's link reports Census Data results showing a decline in average weekly hours worked from 42.7 to 39.2 from 1950 to 1988.
But over the same period, labor force participation rates increased from 59% to 66%.
So the overall effect is no per capita decrease in hours worked, probably a small increase.
There might have been a small dip from 1988 to 2008 but I wouldn't expect very much.
And of course, total hours worked went way up due to population growth.
I think one can conclude post-WW2 there is no evidence of decline in per capita work hours; the story may be quite different if one goes back into the 19th century.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2014, 05:18:42 PM
I think one can conclude post-WW2 there is no evidence of decline in per capita work hours; the story may be quite different if one goes back into the 19th century.
Well, you were saying this was something Marx was wrong about.
I have a suspicion that current numbers are artificially high, that in spite of higher productivity today's workers are spending more time at work doing things that aren't directly helping their company, whether it be free time they're spending on facebook or solitaire, or pointless make-work tasks like Dorsey's company name splitting hunt. Obviously, I have no numbers to back up this hunch.
For many people, 40 hours seems to be the "sweet spot" where they feel they have the right amount of free time and still have productive lives. There's a lot of resistance to cutting the work week further than that, and very, very few well-paying professional gigs which don't expect you to put in 40 hours, even if the amount of work they actually give you could in some cases be done in 20.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 05:57:46 PM
Well, you were saying this was something Marx was wrong about.
I have a suspicion that current numbers are artificially high, that in spite of higher productivity today's workers are spending more time at work doing things that aren't directly helping their company, whether it be free time they're spending on facebook or solitaire, or pointless make-work tasks like Dorsey's company name splitting hunt. Obviously, I have no numbers to back up this hunch.
Was that a make work task? The last annual filing we did had me at the printer's office at 4:30 AM right before a filing reviewing the document.
I think these things take on a life of their own. No one wants to look sloppier than anyone else. For example, just to keep things standardized, we have a policy that internal reports should follow the same guidelines as external disclosures. In external disclosures we don't use the oxford comma, which means there is effectively a policy against the oxford comma in internal documents. So if you are working for me and have an oxford comma in a report, I'm going to have you remove it. Otherwise, when we pass off the report, the manager may think, "if they are careless with oxford commas, what else are they careless with?"
Which is very unfortunate because I actually prefer the oxford comma. :(
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2014, 08:10:43 PM
Was that a make work task? The last annual filing we did had me at the printer's office at 4:30 AM right before a filing reviewing the document.
Do you think it had any effect on the bottom line? Sounded to me like it was just one of the bosses being finicky.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 30, 2014, 08:25:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2014, 08:10:43 PM
Was that a make work task? The last annual filing we did had me at the printer's office at 4:30 AM right before a filing reviewing the document.
Do you think it had any effect on the bottom line? Sounded to me like it was just one of the bosses being finicky.
Of course not.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2014, 12:20:26 PMjudges' unwillingness to hold a discovery request for "all documents discussing ____" as burdensome, even though it totally is.
Not to mention essentially impossible. I've gotten discovery requests for "all emails containing content related to x or y or z by any party".
The usual solution is to explain why this sort of request is not feasible, and then if an understanding is not met we just have to hand over terabytes of data and say have fun going through it, jerk. I've had it go both ways.
hey, ide, fun article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-law-school-scam/375069/
also:
QuoteIn 2010, for example, two of the three InfiLaw schools admitted entering classes with a median LSAT score of 149, while the third had an entering class with a median score of 150. Only 10 of the other 196 schools fully accredited by the ABA had an entering class with a median LSAT score below 150. (By 2013, some 30 additional institutions had joined these schools.) An LSAT score of 151 is approximately the average among everyone who takes the test.
:lol:
Quote from: LaCroix on August 14, 2014, 09:13:26 PM
hey, ide, fun article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-law-school-scam/375069/
also:
QuoteIn 2010, for example, two of the three InfiLaw schools admitted entering classes with a median LSAT score of 149, while the third had an entering class with a median score of 150. Only 10 of the other 196 schools fully accredited by the ABA had an entering class with a median LSAT score below 150. (By 2013, some 30 additional institutions had joined these schools.) An LSAT score of 151 is approximately the average among everyone who takes the test.
:lol:
You didn't tell me it was Paul Campos. :wub: (Except for his pro-fat propaganda.)
It's a solid article about the dumbening of law students, which is occurring due to financial pressures everywhere. I assure you was already starting to happen in 2008 thanks to basically just blind avarice (someone with a 2.96 undergrad GPA like yours truly should basically not be admitted anywhere, although interestingly enough I could probably squeak my way into a T14 now).
The InfiLaw employees/henchpeople in the comments section are kind of hilarious.
I'm detecting a faint subtext--it's possibly my imagination, but I am curious if you're pissed about my LSAT crack a little while back. I did say I was sorry; they say the best revenge is living well.
Also from The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/376014/what-will-a-liberal-arts-education-look-like-in-50-years/
Jackasses with no valuable insights pontificate in self-serving, self-deluding platitudes. It's lame.
Quote"We won't have liberal arts and sciences at all 50 years from now"
Correct.
Quote"unless we really understand how to save what's good, but reinvent what's new and needed"
Oh. Well, the part where you charge $40,000 to certify that someone synthesized some shit he or she read, and hence is English fluent (honest), could stand some reinvention.
You really shouldn't blame the higher education system for attempting to adapt to what Corporate America and its shareholders demand from the workforce of the future. That just makes you sound pissy.
But I blame them for failing to adapt...
I blame you for not going out and getting certifications. Degrees are just the cupcake, they're the baseline. You need specific certifications. That's the icing.
Law degree? Ha! That's nothing without your Cisco and Microsoft certifications.
Degree holders without certifications are just well-read sales associates at the local retailer of your choice.
In fifty years, our grandkids will spend more time chasing certs than actually doing their jobs. This shit is out of control.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2014, 09:19:28 PMI'm detecting a faint subtext--it's possibly my imagination, but I am curious if you're pissed about my LSAT crack a little while back.
oh no, not at all. my lsat score was laughably bad. i just personally found it funny. :D
Quote from: LaCroix on August 17, 2014, 05:19:57 AM
oh no, not at all. my lsat score was laughably bad. i just personally found it funny. :D
Between moving between two different school districts with different curriculum, and being forced by my parents to repeat Algebra I in 9th grade when I didn't need to repeat it--yanking him out of Little League didn't work, maybe extending his sentence will!--there was math stuff on my SAT I had never seen before. Easiest test I ever took, finished first by over an hour. It was the prettiest Scantron test sheet in all its cascading symmetry. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2014, 11:51:09 AMBetween moving between two different school districts with different curriculum, and being forced by my parents to repeat Algebra I in 9th grade when I didn't need to repeat it--yanking him out of Little League didn't work, maybe extending his sentence will!--there was math stuff on my SAT I had never seen before. Easiest test I ever took, finished first by over an hour. It was the prettiest Scantron test sheet in all its cascading symmetry. :lol:
i dropped out of school three times between 12–16 and had a HS gpa of 1.7~ before dropping for good. i forget my SAT score, but it was equivalent to a 22 on the ACT, iirc. i like rubbing it in my best law buddy's face, who's ranked a spot lower than me but got a 33 :D
The test to finish my electrical apprenticeship and get my license was the easier test I ever took. Back then it was ~35 questions and you needed 70% to pass.
I got to the testing site a bit early and sat in my car and read over a practice test I had taken during my code review class; the guy who gave the class had a huge database with a ton of questions that had been asked on previous tests. At least 20 of the questions on the real test were word for word identical to the practice test, including the multiple choice answers being in the same order. I knocked all of those out in about 5 minutes, then spent about 30 minutes in the code book answering the 10 easiest questions left, guessed on the remaining questions and got up and turned in my test.
I could feel the death stares from behind me as I turned in the test and left the room while most people were still on the first page. Ended up passing by 2-3 questions.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 16, 2014, 06:43:51 AM
In fifty years, our grandkids will spend more time chasing certs than actually doing their jobs. This shit is out of control.
It is better for them to be chasing useless qualifications, than rebelling against the regime :ph34r:
Quote from: Monoriu on August 17, 2014, 05:00:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 16, 2014, 06:43:51 AM
In fifty years, our grandkids will spend more time chasing certs than actually doing their jobs. This shit is out of control.
It is better for them to be chasing useless qualifications, than rebelling against the regime :ph34r:
See it's replies like this that make me think, you're trying too hard, so you have to be a pro-democracy activist or maybe a deep-cover CIA operative. :ph34r:
Quote from: mongers on August 17, 2014, 05:52:53 PM
See it's replies like this that make me think, you're trying too hard, so you have to be a pro-democracy activist or maybe a deep-cover CIA operative. :ph34r:
:lol:If that is all you can think of, obviously I have not been trying hard enough :contract:
For Ide, to start his weekend right. It's focused on women, but it can pretty much fit anybody.
QuoteWhy Sally can't get a good job with her college degree
By Joann Weiner
Poor Sally. She has spent tens of thousands of dollars and four long years to get her college degree and has $26,000 in student loans to pay off, yet she can't find a job that puts her degree to good use. Sally and her parents may be asking whether college was "worth it."
Sally epitomizes many of her fellow college graduates who wonder why college graduates can't find good jobs.
The experts give all sorts of explanations for Sally's plight.
One of the most perplexing and frustrating explanations is that Sally is over-educated.
Think of the psychology major who brewed your Starbucks coffee this morning, or the Uber driver with the degree in philosophy who took you home last night.
Almost half of all recent college graduates are working at jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree, according to a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
While it might have been rare to see college graduates in these low-quality jobs a few years ago, they're increasingly the norm these days. That same New York Fed study found that more and more recent college graduates are taking low-wage jobs and working part-time while fewer and fewer of them are working full-time at high-quality jobs.
Wharton School professor Peter Capelli tried to figure out whether the problem in the labor market is because the jobs don't require the skills that candidates are offering or because workers don't have the proper skills that employers are seeking.
Here's what he found. The main problem with the U.S. job market isn't a gap in basic skills or a shortage of employees with particular skills, but a mismatch between the supply and the demand for certain skills. There's a greater supply of college graduates than a demand for college graduates in the labor market.
This mismatch, according to Capelli, exists because most jobs in today's economy don't require a college degree.
"Indeed, a reasonable conclusion is that over-education remains the persistent and even growing situation of the U.S. labor force with respect to skills," Capelli said in his study.
Given all the non-economic benefits to a college education, it's hard to call having too much education a "problem," but in light of Capelli's findings, it's worth noting that women are the ones who are getting educated.
Women now earn about 60 percent of the roughly 1 million bachelor's degrees granted each year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. And about 30 percent of all women above age 25 have a college degree or more, according to the Census Bureau. (About 80 percent of women age 25 to 29 have a high school degree.)
Those degrees, however, aren't translating into good jobs.
Which means that maybe Sally's problem isn't because she's not qualified for the job, but, instead, is because Sally has skills that employers don't want.
Maybe the U.S. economy isn't generating the types of jobs that require a college degree.
A look projected job growth shows that good jobs will be hard to find. At a median wage of $83,580 a year, the occupation with the fastest projected job growth, industrial-organizational psychologists, pays well. But, there's not much demand for this type of psychologist. The field will generate only 900 jobs in 10 years, according to the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook.
The next fastest growing occupation, personal care aides, will generate a lot more jobs — more than 58,000 a year compared with 90 a year for the specialized psychologists — in that same time period. That occupation, however, isn't very appealing to Sally with her bachelor's degree. A personal care aide doesn't need a high school degree, much less a college degree. And the job pays commensurately for this level of education: $19,910 a year.
More generally, the occupations with the fastest growth — personal care and home health aides and skincare specialists — tend to pay low wages. And, as the National Women's Law Center's report underpaid and overloaded: women in low-wage jobs noted, women make up a disproportionate share of the fast-growing, low-wage workforce.
This job growth is sort of good news for women. The jobs don't pay well, but at least they exist.
In what should also be considered good news, highly educated women aren't taking very many of these low-wage jobs. Women with at least a bachelor's degree make up only 5.5 percent of the low-wage work force, according to the NWLC.
This leads to a second explanation for Sally's plight: She may be under-educated.
Given the woes of the underemployed college graduate, it's paradoxical that one reason that Sally may not be able to get a good job is because she doesn't have enough education.
Yet, a close look at the educational requirements for the jobs with the fastest growth shows that many of these jobs aren't open to mere college graduates.
Consider psychology, where women make up nearly 75 percent of degree holders. As indicated above, the field of industrial and organizational psychology is projected to be the fastest growing occupation over the decade. Not only is it fast growing, it's also high paying. A typical IO psychologist will make $83,580 a year. However, getting a job as an industrial and organizational psychologist isn't a piece of cake. There are very few new jobs opening each year and the job requires several years of education beyond the bachelor's degree. Depending on the specialty, psychologists must be licensed, obtain a doctorate in psychology, complete a multi-year internship, and pass a professional exam before they can practice psychology.
In fact, if they don't have an advanced degree, graduates with a bachelor's degree in psychology will likely be working as a human resources assistant, mental health technician or sales associate.
That may be the reason why a recent survey by Payscale showed that almost half of all graduates with a degree in psychology were underemployed. The reason they feel underemployed is because with a median salary of $38,200 they feel they are underpaid.
This analysis leads to a final reason why Sally can't get a good job with her college degree.
She has the wrong degree.
Students with traditional liberal arts degrees frequently find themselves underemployed, while students with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) have little trouble finding good jobs in their profession. Nine out of the top 10 least underemployed majors are in STEM (law is the exception).
Women, however, aren't studying STEM. Biology is the only STEM degree among the top 10 most popular bachelor's degrees for women, and it comes in slightly above English language and literature as a preferred degree. Moreover, women aren't making up for this gap by studying science and technology in graduate school — not a single STEM subject makes it among the top 10 master's degrees for women.
Putting these three explanations together — too much education, not the right level of education, the wrong degree — paints a worrisome picture for the job prospects of college-educated women.
On the one hand, a college degree provides a needed credential to get a job, even if that job doesn't require a college degree. But, on the other hand, if a woman wishes to move up on the pay scale, she may have to consider dropping her liberal arts degree in favor of a more technically-oriented degree, like engineering or physics. Barring these changes, women may find that they are very well-educated, but not necessarily very well compensated.
QuoteGiven all the non-economic benefits to a college education, it's hard to call having too much education a "problem,"
I hope this jackass gets ground glass in her next frappucino.
QuoteWomen, however, aren't studying STEM. Biology is the only STEM degree among the top 10 most popular bachelor's degrees for women, and it comes in slightly above English language and literature as a preferred degree. Moreover, women aren't making up for this gap by studying science and technology in graduate school — not a single STEM subject makes it among the top 10 master's degrees for women.
I take it back. I just hope she gets slugged in the jaw by someone whose non-economic benefits to wasting four years of their prime somehow just can't bring a smile to their face when they have to, economically, pay their PAYE education tax every month.
Because I didn't feel like starting another shit thread.
QuoteOn Leadership
What employers really want? Workers they don't have to train
By Peter Cappelli September 5 at 8:09 AM
Not that long ago, an idea began to circulate that the U.S. economy was going to run out of workers. Consulting firms began pushing the idea, citing each others'reports as evidence. Reporters wrote about it. And a great many people in the private sector and the government swallowed the concept whole. By the mid-2000s, many big employers and even some government agencies were preparing for the Great Labor Shortage to set in by 2010.
While the idea seems preposterous now, something similarly absurd is happening again. Raise your hand if you've heard this: There are good jobs out there for people who have skills. But employers can't find people to hire because high schools are failing and college students aren't majoring in the hard subjects where the jobs are. The economy, as they say, is facing a skills gap. (The latest jobs report, out Friday, shows the lowest hiring numbers in eight months.)
I've recently reviewed all the papers and stories on this question, and there is no more truth to this notion than there was to the labor shortage idea. It got popular attention with media reports about a handful of employers in the depths of the Great Recession who could not fill job openings. Then came a series of papers issued by consultants and business associations asking employers whether they were having difficulty hiring employees. Many were, but the investigators didn't ask what was difficult, or investigate why.
The real issue is that employers' expectations — for the skills of new graduates, for what they must invest in training, and for how much they need to pay their employees — have grown increasingly out of step with reality.
The first problem with the skills gap argument is that the employer reports, which form the entire basis of evidence, are about overall hiring rather than jobs filled by recent graduates. In other words, the complaint is really that companies are having trouble finding applicants at all career levels with the right work history, rather than not having enough recent graduates with the skills to be hired. Because the vast majority of job seekers have been out of school for decades, the complaints are really unrelated to what schools are doing now.
When employers are specifically asked about recent graduates, their complaints have nothing to do with academic skills. They often express the same concerns older generations have always had about young people — they are not conscientious enough, they don't listen, they expect too much. Although you'd never know it from the news, the actual evidence on student achievement shows that U.S. students have actually been doing better over the past generation. Drop-out rates are down significantly, and scores on the standardized National Assessment of Education Progress tests show improvement in both math and English scores.
And while companies may complain young workers aren't getting the right degrees, students are actually increasingly pursuing vocational majors that they hope employers will like. Business majors, for instance, outnumber liberal arts majors by as much as seven to one, depending on the definitions used. And since 2001, science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) degrees have increased at a rate equal to or greater than the overall increase in bachelor degrees being awarded.
These complaints reveal an unsettling truth: What employers really want are workers they don't have to train. One of the studies I reviewed from the Chronicle of Higher Education asked employers specifically what they were looking for in new college grads. Only one of the top five priorities had to do with candidates'academic experience, even though this was for new graduates who have yet to take a full-time job.
Companies simply haven't invested much in training their workers. In 1979, young workers got an average of 2.5 weeks of training a year. While data is not easy to come by, around 1995, several surveys of employers found that the average amount of training workers received per year was just under 11 hours, and the most common topic was workplace safety — not building new skills. By 2011, an Accenture study showed that only about a fifth of employees reported getting on-the-job training from their employers over the past five years.
A few of the employer surveys I reviewed do offer some more credible answers for why employers might not be finding the applicants they want. A surprising number admit they aren't paying enough: Some 30 percent of U.S. employers in a 2014 survey by ManpowerGroup said job seekers were looking for more pay than was being offered. Still, just 14 percent said they were increasing starting salaries to fight the problem. Some employers also recognize they're having trouble anticipating their own skill needs.
If something new really has happened, it's that employer practices have changed. More companies are hiring from the outside rather than growing their own talent from within. This in turn has led to declining tenure among employees, who are more willing to jump ship. The real challenge we face is that if everyone is hiring for the ability to do a job, rather than for the potential to do it well, how does anyone get that initial experience?
Unfortunately, a great many policymakers have bought the skills gap view. Their conclusion is that we should make schools more responsible for training job applicants. Several state legislatures, for example, have been considering proposals to push college students into majors where employers want to hire.
We should rethink this fast. Schools are not good at providing what employers want, which is work-based skills and experience. Instead, employers need to be much more involved, not just in telling schools what they want but in providing opportunities for new grads to get work experience and learn the relevant expertise. We need a different approach: one where employers are not just consumers of skills, but are part of the system for producing them.
Peter Cappelli is the George W. Taylor professor of management at The Wharton School and Director of Wharton's Center for Human Resources.
QuoteOn Leadership
Our irrational, harmful bias against the unemployed
By Peter Cappelli
May 5
The persistent high level of unemployment in the six years since the Great Recession began is fast becoming the defining theme of this generation — and a leadership imperative that can no longer be ignored.
Friday's news on job growth is good: an increase of 288,000 jobs this past month, bringing the unemployment rate to 6.3 percent, well down from its 30-year peak of 10 percent. The number of discouraged workers who want a job but have given up trying to find one is unchanged, however. When we include those in the mix, we're still left with about three available candidates for every job vacancy out there.
The three and a half million people who remain "long-term unemployed" — that is, who have been out of work for more than six months — represent more than a third of unemployed workers. This is the highest it's been since the Great Depression. Being out of work that long creates many problems, such as a loss of housing or health care, that not only cause hardship for individuals and their families, but also place even more burdens on public and private support systems.
Yet the tools for addressing the long-term unemployment problem are within our grasp. And chief among them is for employers to move past the stigma that the unemployed are somehow less qualified to hold a job. That bias persists in corporate human resources departments, but it is unsupported by evidence.
It's maddening to see such imaginary fears become real barriers to solving our employment crisis. A field study by Northeastern University economics Ph.D. candidate Rand Ghayad and another led by Kory Kroft at University of Toronto sent out fake resumes to employers. The studies found strong evidence that employers' willingness to consider applicants dropped like a stone after the candidates had been unemployed for six months. The companies actually preferred candidates with no relevant experience to those with a background in the field but who'd been out of work for a stretch.
Corporate leaders haven't always viewed unemployment this way. Traditionally when the economy improved and created new jobs, businesses would look to the ranks of the unemployed to fill them. Until the mid-1980s, the term "layoff" actually referred to a temporary job loss — and employers were expected to rehire these workers as soon as the economy turned up again.
But by the 1990s, that stopped happening, and the term became a euphemism for permanent job losses instead. This coincided with the "jobless recoveries" that have accompanied every recession since then.
So if employers are not rehiring from the ranks of the unemployed now, how do they fill new jobs? By hiring from each other. This nonsensical game of musical chairs (I hire your workers, you hire someone else's, and then they try to hire mine) would seem to be unsustainable. Sooner or later, one might think, employers will start to see the unemployed as a valuable alternative.
But in fact, they haven't. Vacancies are simply staying open longer as employers wait to find individuals who are willing to move from other companies. And it has become so prevalent for employers to reject unemployed job candidates outright that last year the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission threatened to start investigating these cases.
Why won't employers take long-term unemployed candidates more seriously? The reason has much to do with simple bias, and little to do with hard evidence.
One myth about the unemployed is that something must be wrong with a person who lost his or her job. The economists Bob Gibbons and Larry Katz found evidence of this when they studied how people who were laid off because their plant closed — an event that clearly wasn't their fault. They had an easier time getting rehired than those who were laid-off for other reasons.
Meanwhile, the most intense bias against the long-term unemployed seems to be the result of yet another myth: If they were good, someone else would have hired them by now. All it takes is for enough hiring managers to think this same way, and no one would ever get a job.
The final reason for bias against the long-term unemployed is the notion that their skills must have gotten out of date by not working. That might be true for surgeons, whose manual dexterity can decline quickly, or maybe in tech fields where software has advanced to a new generation.
But few jobs are like that. Studies have found that the performance of new hires who had been unemployed for a long time was no different than that of new hires who came directly from jobs elsewhere. In fact, most jobs are so routine that taking a break from them — a sabbatical — is actually a good thing for improving work performance. Ironically, so few employees learn new skills on the job these days that it's much more likely that an unemployed person might have expanded his or her skill set, either by taking classes, mastering new software or learning new marketing techniques in the course of extended unemployment.
Ruling out job candidates because they have been unemployed imposes big costs on both citizens, who remain without jobs and income, and on the economy — not to mention on employers who are losing out on an entire population of talented candidates. There is no justification for doing it. In fact, it's a form of discrimination.
Responsible business leaders should, at the very minimum, tell their human resource departments to update their hiring policies so they don't filter applicants based on current employment status. The biggest problem is likely to be overcoming the prejudices of hiring managers, who often have little information about the real predictors of job performance and so rely on these false assumptions that unemployed candidates probably aren't good performers. A simple statement from leadership that this is not the case is often enough to change their approach.
Moreover, corporate leaders should support policy changes that provide tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed. The credits would incentivize employers to look past their own biases, and would cost the government nothing unless an eligible candidate is hired. I reviewed the research for a group called the National Employer Opportunities Network, and we found that such tax credits are a cheap and ultimately beneficial way to move people off government programs.
Plus, in the process, it may actually increase total employment — and help stop the pointless game of musical chairs that hurts rather than helps everyone.
Peter Cappelli is the George W. Taylor Professor of Management at The Wharton School and Director of Wharton's Center for Human Resources.
Video on how automation will replace most human jobs including e.g. a lot of lawyers, doctors and white collar workers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
You folks might find this podcast interesting, if you have an hour to spare.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/04/bryan_caplan_on.html
QuoteBryan Caplan of George Mason University and blogger at EconLog talks to EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the value of a college education. Caplan argues that the extra amount that college graduates earn relative to high school graduates is misleading as a guide for attending college--it ignores the fact that a sizable number of students don't graduate and never earn that extra money. Caplan argues that the monetary benefits of a college education have a large signaling component rather than representing the value of the knowledge that's learned. Caplan closes by arguing that the subsidies to education should be reduced rather than increased.
That's an unfortunate perspective.
And here we were all this time, trying so hard not to be England.
Quote from: Zanza on September 06, 2014, 11:11:55 AM
Video on how automation will replace most human jobs including e.g. a lot of lawyers, doctors and white collar workers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
Damn. :(
Quote from: Zanza on September 06, 2014, 11:11:55 AM
Video on how automation will replace most human jobs including e.g. a lot of lawyers, doctors and white collar workers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
I mean, it's basically what I've been saying for years, but it's put together in a more terrifying manner.
QuoteBaltimore millennials creatively forge their own career path
Many are eschewing the 9-to-5 grind for creative self-employment
Last winter, Rachel Millman began searching for a home in Baltimore. She combed through listings online, but the work of narrowing down her search based on static images became tedious. What if, instead, she could take a video tour through each house, and use a slightly more dynamic medium to decide whether to schedule an in-person tour?
When Millman closed on her new home in Canton this year, having already pitched her idea to a number of receptive real estate agents she had met along the way, she knew this was the right moment. She quit her full-time magazine job of the last two years and, at age 25, founded Reel Estate Media, a company that works with real estate agents in the area to record walk-through videos of houses for sale and video profiles for the agents themselves. As of now, she's the only employee.
"I've been thinking of starting my own company pretty much since I graduated from college," says Millman, who graduated in May 2011 after studying electronic media and film at Towson University. "I thought: 'I'm young. Now's the time,' and I just decided to do it, probably against the better judgment of a lot of people."
While Millman wouldn't have purchased a house if she were paying for it entirely on her own — she and her fiance, a financial services adviser, are moving in together — her decision to forgo the stability of a full-time job with a guaranteed paycheck is one that mirrors a nationwide trend among the millennial generation, the cohort of roughly 73 million Americans born in the 1980s and 1990s who are loosely defined as being between the ages of 18 and 34 today. More millennials are creating their own jobs, either as a response to a continually crummy economy in which they can't find work, or because they would rather be their own bosses and run their own businesses.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/bs-b-0618-cover-millennial-jobs-20140617,0,1610660.story
It's gotta be nice to be able to sell your snatch at 25--to a financial services adviser, no less--for the security needed to, wheee! Let's start my own company! on a whim. And in Canton, the home of the $400,000 row house.
That's where you've failed, Ide. You're still young, get out there and shake dat ass for a financial services adviser. Do it while you're still thin.
I'm not as thin as I'd like to be. Anyway, we all know damned well that but for the tip-top one-percenters in the sexual market, men can't sell their bodies to women. That's why unalloyed feminism that doesn't recognize female privilege is a fucking joke, as well as why nine out of every ten male children should either be aborted or turned gay with a synthetic hormone bath in the womb.
A 24 year old woman was arrested today for smothering her 1 year old boy and 3 year old daughter down the road in Cheverly. I mean, sure you have to test early for STEM aptitude, but c'mon, give them a chance at it first.
Heh.
Anyway, I take it back. That was the old, nihilistic Ide talking. I'm the new, humanist Ide, who likes people and thinks they're all individuals with their own pains and hopes and dreams and irreplaceable, invaluable qualities. WWJD? Not make inflammatory statements that border on gender essentialism, self-loathing, and sour grapes.
Oh, blow it out your ass, Howard.
Quote from: Zanza on September 06, 2014, 11:11:55 AM
Video on how automation will replace most human jobs including e.g. a lot of lawyers, doctors and white collar workers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
That is that CGPGrey video isn't it? Yeah this is going to require a big societal shift since the whole purpose of government and civilization and all that is to mobilize human labor...if there is no huge need for human labor then what? Of course the powers might not give a shit because that will not impact them and they can keep the people down with their mighty security bots. So either paradise or dystopia around the bend.
This video did not really address the huge problem of security and hacking and viruses and all of that. My computer gets shit on it all the time, what happens when the computer driving your car gets hacked into? Gamer nerds could have murdered Anita Sarkeesian a long time ago that way.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 11:06:31 PM
I'm not as thin as I'd like to be. Anyway, we all know damned well that but for the tip-top one-percenters in the sexual market, men can't sell their bodies to women. That's why unalloyed feminism that doesn't recognize female privilege is a fucking joke, as well as why nine out of every ten male children should either be aborted or turned gay with a synthetic hormone bath in the womb.
Ide the MRA? Not sure I like this look on you.
Remember when we discussed the socialist paradise that will break out when robots do all the shit jobs way back in like 2004? We could be nearly there. We just need somebody to lead the revolution.
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2014, 11:20:53 PM
Gamer nerds could have murdered Anita Sarkeesian a long time ago that way.
:lol:
10 Cls
20 Disable air bag
30 Sleep
40 End
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2014, 11:23:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 11:06:31 PM
I'm not as thin as I'd like to be. Anyway, we all know damned well that but for the tip-top one-percenters in the sexual market, men can't sell their bodies to women. That's why unalloyed feminism that doesn't recognize female privilege is a fucking joke, as well as why nine out of every ten male children should either be aborted or turned gay with a synthetic hormone bath in the womb.
Ide the MRA? Not sure I like this look on you.
Remember when we discussed the socialist paradise that will break out when robots do all the shit jobs way back in like 2004? We could be nearly there. We just need somebody to lead the revolution.
In all seriousness--because I was being a little schtickish, as I always hope is obvious when I am, but rarely seems to be--I think there is a serious problem with some modern expressions of feminism, that I haven't been able to articulate yet without reference to MRA-sounding hogwash. It boils down to the fact that I think there is such a thing as female privilege, that has only been very lightly addressed in gender political circles. One aspect of that privilege is that a fair number of women can still choose to live by their looks alone, without reference to strength, intelligence, or financial or social capital. Women are also not feared (even if I understand why men are, and this is why I believe a pervasive surveillance state is a necessary aspect of a perfect society). Most women are also afforded--I think--a far greater degree of validation for just existing than men are, but this may be a serious personal problem I alone experience. Finally, feminist rhetoric can very easily descend into misandry, and either no one cares, or no one can speak against it without being called a misogynist; irreproachable control over a conversation is the
definition of privilege.
I think there is also insufficient criticism or analysis of standard female sexual desires, whereas there is a wealth of criticism of men's (I'm supposedly pro-anorexia, for example). Partly this is a failure of the overall culture to teach women to understand themselves and self-criticize or at least pursue their aims in an enlightened way, but from an outside viewpoint it's no wonder that one woman's endless pursuit of big, strong, violent men results in black eyes and rapes; nor is it any wonder another woman's pursuit of rich men results in spiritual desolation. Feminism decries this, but because men are the patent villains in these stories, any drives that send a woman toward ruin in the first place are essentially denied, and cast into the fire as "victim blaming."
But like I said, it's best that I pretend--or somehow legitimately convince myself--that these are delusions, because no one wants to hear it, not even me.
For the record, I think male privilege exists too and is absolutely a bigger problem overall. (Compared to race and class privilege, of course, gender politics is close to solved in the First World--the viciousness of our Eliot Rodgers aside--though compared to race and class privilege, squaring the fucking circle is close to solved, too.)
QuoteMost women are also afforded--I think--a far greater degree of validation for just existing than men are, but this may be a serious personal problem I alone experience.
LOL, in a nation where they've had the vote for less than 100 years, still encounter harassment and prejudice on a daily basis in the workplace while statistically earning less, and still to this day have to fight for the legal control of their own reproductive systems, I'd say it's just you.
Meh, all things considered, if there's a "female privilege", I'd say they've earned it by now.
But we all know it's really about projecting your dating and intimacy hang-ups, so it's OK, buddy. :console: :hug:
Isn't it actually the case that women earn more than men except in top professions (where there very much is, and obviously, a nasty patriarchal thing happening). I mean, this is the result you'd expect when a vastly greater proportion of men are locked the fuck up or have criminal records, and a greater proportion of women drop out of their careers for a few years to be moms, because they have this choice.
Anyway, that's not the kind of validation I meant, and yes, probably. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 11:06:31 PM
I'm not as thin as I'd like to be. Anyway, we all know damned well that but for the tip-top one-percenters in the sexual market, men can't sell their bodies to women. That's why unalloyed feminism that doesn't recognize female privilege is a fucking joke, as well as why nine out of every ten male children should either be aborted or turned gay with a synthetic hormone bath in the womb.
Don't go down this path, Ide.
Many students do not learn critical-thinking skills in college, and they're suffering in the job market, a new study finds.
QuoteThe Economic Price of Colleges' Failures
Kevin Carey, Sept 1 2014
NYTimes
Four years ago, the sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa dropped a bomb on American higher education. Their groundbreaking book, "Academically Adrift," found that many students experience "limited or no learning" in college. Today, they released a follow-up study, tracking the same students for two years after graduation, into the workplace, adult relationships and civic life. The results suggest that recent college graduates who are struggling to start careers are being hamstrung by their lack of learning.
"Academically Adrift" studied a sample of students who enrolled at four-year colleges and universities in 2005. As freshmen, they took a test of critical thinking, analytic reasoning and communications skills called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (C.L.A.). Colleges promise to teach these broad intellectual skills to all students, regardless of major. The students took the C.L.A. again at the end of their senior year. On average, they improved less than half of one standard deviation. For many, the results were much worse. One-third improved by less than a single point on a 100-point scale during four years of college.
This wasn't because some colleges simply enrolled smarter students. The nature of the collegiate academic experience mattered, too. Students who spent more time studying alone learned more, even after controlling for their sociodemographic background, high school grades and entrance exam scores. So did students whose teachers enforced high academic expectations. People who studied the traditional liberal arts and sciences learned more than business, education and communications majors.
Yet despite working little and learning less — a third of students reported studying less than five hours a week and half were assigned no long papers to write — most continued to receive good grades. Students did what colleges asked of them, and for many, that wasn't very much.
"Academically Adrift" called into question what college students were actually getting for their increasingly expensive educations. But some critics questioned whether collegiate learning could really be measured by a single test. Critical thinking skills are, moreover, only a means to an end. The end itself is making a successful transition to adulthood: getting a good job, finding a partner, engaging with society. The follow-up study, "Aspiring Adults Adrift," found that, in fact, the skills measured by the C.L.A. make a significant difference when it comes to finding and keeping that crucial first job.
The students in the study graduated in the teeth of the post-Great Recession labor market, in mid-2009. Two years later, 7 percent were unemployed, consistent with national studies finding that recession-era college graduates were more likely to be unemployed than recent college grads in better economic times, but much less likely to be jobless than young adults with no college degree. An additional 16 percent were underemployed, working less than 20 hours a week or in an unskilled job such as grocery store cashier.
Even after statistically controlling for students' sociodemographic characteristics, college majors and college selectivity, those who finished school with high C.L.A. scores were significantly less likely to be unemployed than those who had low C.L.A. scores. The difference was even larger when it came to success in the workplace. Low-C.L.A. graduates were twice as likely as high-C.L.A. graduates to lose their jobs between 2010 and 2011, suggesting that employers can tell who got a good college education and who didn't. Low-C.L.A. graduates were also 50 percent more likely to end up in an unskilled occupation, and were less likely to be satisfied with their jobs.
Remarkably, the students had almost no awareness of this dynamic. When asked during their senior year in 2009, three-quarters reported gaining high levels of critical thinking skills in college, despite strong C.L.A. evidence to the contrary. When asked again two years later, nearly half reported even higher levels of learning in college. This was true across the spectrum of students, including those who had struggled to find and keep good jobs.
Through diplomas, increasingly inflated grades and the drumbeat of college self-promotion, these students had been told they had received a great education. The fact that the typical student spent three times as much time socializing and recreating in college as studying and going to class didn't change that belief. Nor did unsteady employment outcomes and, for the large majority of those surveyed, continued financial dependence on their parents.
Students who were interviewed in depth by Mr. Arum and Ms. Roksa put great stock in collegiate social experiences that often came at the expense of academic work, emphasizing the value of the personal relationships they built. But only 20 percent found their most recent job through personal contacts, and of those, less than half came from college friends. And while the recent graduates were gloomy about the state of the nation, they professed strong belief in their own future success. The vast majority thought their lives would be better than that of their parents. "They learned from the experts that they can do well with little effort," Mr. Arum told me, "so they're optimistic."
On average, college graduates continue to fare much better in the job market than people without degrees. But Mr. Arum and Ms. Roksa's latest research suggests that within the large population of college graduates, those who were poorly taught are paying an economic price. Because they didn't acquire vital critical thinking skills, they're less likely to get a job and more likely to lose the jobs they get than students who received a good education.
Yet those same students continue to believe they got a great education, even after two years of struggle. This suggests a fundamental failure in the higher education market — while employers can tell the difference between those who learned in college and those who were left academically adrift, the students themselves cannot.
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 12:04:15 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 11:06:31 PM
I'm not as thin as I'd like to be. Anyway, we all know damned well that but for the tip-top one-percenters in the sexual market, men can't sell their bodies to women. That's why unalloyed feminism that doesn't recognize female privilege is a fucking joke, as well as why nine out of every ten male children should either be aborted or turned gay with a synthetic hormone bath in the womb.
Don't go down this path, Ide.
See, that's not a discussion.
Edit: nevermind.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 12:16:36 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 12:04:15 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 11:06:31 PM
I'm not as thin as I'd like to be. Anyway, we all know damned well that but for the tip-top one-percenters in the sexual market, men can't sell their bodies to women. That's why unalloyed feminism that doesn't recognize female privilege is a fucking joke, as well as why nine out of every ten male children should either be aborted or turned gay with a synthetic hormone bath in the womb.
Don't go down this path, Ide.
See, that's not a discussion. But you're right, and I'll agree to whatever you say. I no longer have the stomach for any argument, because everything I perceive to be true, from the necessity for a command economy to interpersonal problems being hugely tied to biology, is held in contempt by everybody I fucking know. I don't have the spirit to be morally right by my own lights any more, so I'd just as soon substitute society's judgment for mine.
I'm barely even making fun, being ironic, or anything like that. I'd very much prefer to give up my own conscience.
Did it occur to you that you may just be wrong on most issues? :P
Perhaps it's your genes. But then your views on biological determinism would be right.
The Ideologue paradox? :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 11:51:38 PMIn all seriousness--because I was being a little schtickish, as I always hope is obvious when I am, but rarely seems to be--I think there is a serious problem with some modern expressions of feminism, that I haven't been able to articulate yet without reference to MRA-sounding hogwash. It boils down to the fact that I think there is such a thing as female privilege, that has only been very lightly addressed in gender political circles. One aspect of that privilege is that a fair number of women can still choose to live by their looks alone, without reference to strength, intelligence, or financial or social capital. Women are also not feared (even if I understand why men are, and this is why I believe a pervasive surveillance state is a necessary aspect of a perfect society). Most women are also afforded--I think--a far greater degree of validation for just existing than men are, but this may be a serious personal problem I alone experience. Finally, feminist rhetoric can very easily descend into misandry, and either no one cares, or no one can speak against it without being called a misogynist; irreproachable control over a conversation is the definition of privilege.
I think there is also insufficient criticism or analysis of standard female sexual desires, whereas there is a wealth of criticism of men's (I'm supposedly pro-anorexia, for example). Partly this is a failure of the overall culture to teach women to understand themselves and self-criticize or at least pursue their aims in an enlightened way, but from an outside viewpoint it's no wonder that one woman's endless pursuit of big, strong, violent men results in black eyes and rapes; nor is it any wonder another woman's pursuit of rich men results in spiritual desolation. Feminism decries this, but because men are the patent villains in these stories, any drives that send a woman toward ruin in the first place are essentially denied, and cast into the fire as "victim blaming."
But like I said, it's best that I pretend--or somehow legitimately convince myself--that these are delusions, because no one wants to hear it, not even me.
For the record, I think male privilege exists too and is absolutely a bigger problem overall. (Compared to race and class privilege, of course, gender politics is close to solved in the First World--the viciousness of our Eliot Rodgers aside--though compared to race and class privilege, squaring the fucking circle is close to solved, too.)
You have a hard time articulating it without it sounding like MRA hogwash because that's basically what it is.
Yes, some women can do well for themselves by conforming to the behaviour patterns imposed on them by the patriarchy, especially if they happen to be able to look desirable as well (see the ladies of Fox opining on cat-calling: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-outnumbered-catcalling-flattering for example). That's not privilege.
Sure, there's a certain kind of power that can be harnessed from having a snatch that many men want, and from doling it out judiciously, but it ain't privilege. Because you know what? You could have sucked cock and doled your ass out to rich gay dudes when you were young and pretty (which might still be the case, I dunno) and if you'd combined it with some luck and some timing and some hard work you could have parlayed it into some sort of semi-permanent success just like the women you apparently envy. Being a whore is not limited by gender, even though more women than men are forced into that position against their will and even though more women than men find it's their best option given their circumstances.
And yeah, thinking that women are powerful and privileged because they won't fuck you but you'd fuck (some of) them is right in the heartland of MRA territory... like, pretty much the seat of government.
Oh, but when it's a guy, it's entrepreneurial. When it's a woman, she's a whore.
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 12:20:49 AM
Because you know what? You could have sucked cock and doled your ass out to rich gay dudes when you were young and pretty (which might still be the case, I dunno) and if you'd combined it with some luck and some timing and some hard work you could have parlayed it into some sort of semi-permanent success just like the women you apparently envy.
Nah.
I don't think you understood exactly what I was getting at, and it shows when you ignore my "some women are attracted to brutes" angle. And I'm not talking about film noir gold diggers or actual prostitutes, which I wasn't talking about at all, I'm talking about (some) women who semi-consciously pursue money, status, and power, the same way (some) men pursue youth and beauty, neither of which are entirely healthy modes of sexuality.
This is in a different universe than me sucking cock for $50 or whatever the gay rate was in 2002. I did have a gay experience once, you may or may not know, and it was profoundly boring to me though I was happy that I helped a good friend with his increasingly-crappy relationship (they're still together, so I think I did a good deed :) ). In any event, I don't think a heterosexual woman fucking a heterosexual man is perfectly analogous, especially when I am discussing desires that are real, not faked. For example, I have no doubt that a woman who seeks out a PTSD-afflicted ex-Marine's desires are not false.
But obviously I'm mainly talking about my ex-girlfriend, whom I should not use as a representative example of her gender; and I'm also talking about my personal feelings of inadequacy. So sure, you're probably right. I'd sooner stop. People are people and they're all different et cetera. That's my new paradigm.
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2014, 12:39:25 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 12:20:49 AM
Because you know what? You could have sucked cock and doled your ass out to rich gay dudes when you were young and pretty (which might still be the case, I dunno) and if you'd combined it with some luck and some timing and some hard work you could have parlayed it into some sort of semi-permanent success just like the women you apparently envy.
Nah.
How's Wiktor? :)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 12:40:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2014, 12:39:25 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 12:20:49 AM
Because you know what? You could have sucked cock and doled your ass out to rich gay dudes when you were young and pretty (which might still be the case, I dunno) and if you'd combined it with some luck and some timing and some hard work you could have parlayed it into some sort of semi-permanent success just like the women you apparently envy.
Nah.
How's Wiktor? :)
He seemed ok last time we met for a coffee (about 8 months ago or so). Why?
Well, if that didn't work, how about the ol' standby: fuck you, you fat old hag.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 12:51:05 AM
Well, if that didn't work, how about the ol' standby: fuck you, you fat old hag.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 08, 2014, 12:22:34 AM
Oh, but when it's a guy, it's entrepreneurial. When it's a woman, she's a whore.
You're new avatar is turning me on Money.
G.
Hey, Jake, I didn't mean to be offensive in any way about it, or dismissive, or a jerk. I should've stuck to my guns--inarticulate ideas shouldn't be articulated until you've got them. At least for most of my crazy notions, I have solid ideological underpinnings based on general morality and not what (might be) my own psychic scars. You're also not wrong that without being very careful, such ideas wind up aligned with people that approach a genuinely nihilistic worldview when it comes to their views on women and, indeed, humans in general.
Your diagnosis of "envy" is not incorrect. It's not so much that I think that the world, as currently ordered, is better for women, necessarily; only that as it is currently ordered, with my personality, I'd have found it easier as a woman. Of course, that's unknowable without some very powerful models and an exceptionally good computer, so it need not be something I dwell upon. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 12:39:47 AM
I don't think you understood exactly what I was getting at, and it shows when you ignore my "some women are attracted to brutes" angle. And I'm not talking about film noir gold diggers or actual prostitutes, which I wasn't talking about at all, I'm talking about (some) women who semi-consciously pursue money, status, and power, the same way (some) men pursue youth and beauty, neither of which are entirely healthy modes of sexuality.
That's fair enough, and there are definitely women who make poor and or very mercenary decisions (whether deliberately or through layers of self-deception). That's just human, though, and even if some of those decisions seem to be gender specific than doesn't make their existence "privilege".
QuoteThis is in a different universe than me sucking cock for $50 or whatever the gay rate was in 2002. I did have a gay experience once, you may or may not know, and it was profoundly boring to me though I was happy that I helped a good friend with his increasingly-crappy relationship (they're still together, so I think I did a good deed :) ). In any event, I don't think a heterosexual woman fucking a heterosexual man is perfectly analogous, especially when I am discussing desires that are real, not faked. For example, I have no doubt that a woman who seeks out a PTSD-afflicted ex-Marine's desires are not false.
Not quite sure where you're going with this, beyond some lingering disappointment at your most recent breakup - which is fair enough, though I don't think break-up misery is a solid basis to make general philosophical conclusions about gender relations.
My point was that having your body viewed primarily as a vehicle for sexual satisfaction for men, and the attendant ability to cash in on that formally or informally, is not privilege.
QuoteBut obviously I'm mainly talking about my ex-girlfriend, whom I should not use as a representative example of her gender; and I'm also talking about my personal feelings of inadequacy. So sure, you're probably right. I'd sooner stop. People are people and they're all different et cetera. That's my new paradigm.
:hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 02:29:21 AM
Hey, Jake, I didn't mean to be offensive in any way about it, or dismissive, or a jerk. I should've stuck to my guns--inarticulate ideas shouldn't be articulated until you've got them. At least for most of my crazy notions, I have solid ideological underpinnings based on general morality and not what (might be) my own psychic scars. You're also not wrong that without being very careful, such ideas wind up aligned with people that approach a genuinely nihilistic worldview when it comes to their views on women and, indeed, humans in general.
Yeah, and you're good guy. Would be a pity to lose you to the brain-eater.
QuoteYour diagnosis of "envy" is not incorrect. It's not so much that I think that the world, as currently ordered, is better for women, necessarily; only that as it is currently ordered, with my personality, I'd have found it easier as a woman. Of course, that's unknowable without some very powerful models and an exceptionally good computer, so it need not be something I dwell upon. :)
I don't think I diagnosed "envy"? :huh:
My diagnosis, should you want it, is an unhealthy combination of frustration, over-thinking, and inertia. While envy does rear its head occasionally, I think it's a result of the former three. Should you get the over-thinking in check, take some actions to improve your situation, and have it work out (key part, there), then I think any envy stuff, such as it is, will recede.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 12:39:47 AM
People are people and they're all different et cetera. That's my new paradigm.
A poor starting point for your new totalitarian state. People may think they are different but they are all the same to the all-seeing eye of the Panopticon.
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 11:04:27 AM
My point was that having your body viewed primarily as a vehicle for sexual satisfaction for men, and the attendant ability to cash in on that formally or informally, is not privilege.
It's an option others don't have. No one is forced to be a gold digger.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2014, 03:52:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 11:04:27 AM
My point was that having your body viewed primarily as a vehicle for sexual satisfaction for men, and the attendant ability to cash in on that formally or informally, is not privilege.
It's an option others don't have. No one is forced to be a gold digger.
Yes and no. It may be that you are forced if you are not afforded alternative options.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 12:51:05 AM
Well, if that didn't work, how about the ol' standby: fuck you, you fat old hag.
You should have asked about Dawid. Wiktor is so 2008. :secret:
Hetero men can be gold-diggers too - it is just more common at a different age: women have an easier time gold-digging when young, and men have an easier time gold-digging when old. Find an elderly and lonely widow with cash when you are an old dude, and bob's your uncle, apparently. ;)
Well, I gess you can do that when you are young too, but with more social disapproval.
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2014, 03:57:17 PM
Yes and no. It may be that you are forced if you are not afforded alternative options.
It may be that the redundantly repetitive alternative options are not preferable because gold digging is such easy, well-compensated work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2014, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2014, 03:57:17 PM
Yes and no. It may be that you are forced if you are not afforded alternative options.
It may be that the redundantly repetitive alternative options are not preferable because gold digging is such easy, well-compensated work.
The legal system is also very conducive to it. Nice gig if you can get it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2014, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2014, 03:57:17 PM
Yes and no. It may be that you are forced if you are not afforded alternative options.
It may be that the redundantly repetitive alternative options are not preferable because gold digging is such easy, well-compensated work.
It may.
Is there a particular conclusion you wish us to draw from that possibility?
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 05:28:09 PM
Is there a particular conclusion you wish us to draw from that possibility?
That the post by Marty is not correct.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2014, 05:55:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 05:28:09 PM
Is there a particular conclusion you wish us to draw from that possibility?
That the post by Marty is not correct.
Asoka.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2014, 11:24:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2014, 11:20:53 PM
Gamer nerds could have murdered Anita Sarkeesian a long time ago that way.
:lol:
10 Cls
20 Disable air bag
30 Sleep
40 End
I laughed
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 11:04:27 AM
Yeah, and you're good guy. Would be a pity to lose you to the brain-eater.
Agreed.
Even so, those capable of wielding power over others, will. Care should be taken always when it comes to power dynamics.
QuoteQuoteYour diagnosis of "envy" is not incorrect. It's not so much that I think that the world, as currently ordered, is better for women, necessarily; only that as it is currently ordered, with my personality, I'd have found it easier as a woman. Of course, that's unknowable without some very powerful models and an exceptionally good computer, so it need not be something I dwell upon. :)
I don't think I diagnosed "envy"? :huh:
My diagnosis, should you want it, is an unhealthy combination of frustration, over-thinking, and inertia. While envy does rear its head occasionally, I think it's a result of the former three. Should you get the over-thinking in check, take some actions to improve your situation, and have it work out (key part, there), then I think any envy stuff, such as it is, will recede.
[/quote]
Yeah, that's why I've said for years, and you all tell me I need medication. :P
I'm feeling much better lately. I don't even know what I'm going to tell the therapist I'm starting to see Thursday. I guess how I did feel. :unsure:
Anyway, on topic: DEATH TO THE LAW SCHOOL! DEATH TO THE LIBERAL ARTS! STEM IS GREAT!
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 08:15:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2014, 11:04:27 AM
Yeah, and you're good guy. Would be a pity to lose you to the brain-eater.
Agreed.
Even so, those capable of wielding power over others, will. Care should be taken always when it comes to power dynamics.
QuoteQuoteYour diagnosis of "envy" is not incorrect. It's not so much that I think that the world, as currently ordered, is better for women, necessarily; only that as it is currently ordered, with my personality, I'd have found it easier as a woman. Of course, that's unknowable without some very powerful models and an exceptionally good computer, so it need not be something I dwell upon. :)
I don't think I diagnosed "envy"? :huh:
My diagnosis, should you want it, is an unhealthy combination of frustration, over-thinking, and inertia. While envy does rear its head occasionally, I think it's a result of the former three. Should you get the over-thinking in check, take some actions to improve your situation, and have it work out (key part, there), then I think any envy stuff, such as it is, will recede.
Yeah, that's why I've said for years, and you all tell me I need medication. :P
I'm feeling much better lately. I don't even know what I'm going to tell the therapist I'm starting to see Thursday. I guess how I did feel. :unsure:
Anyway, on topic: TIME TO BREAK ME DOWN AND REBUILD ME
[/quote]You don't just overthink, you overtalk.
Leave home. Join a circus or some shit. Rediscover America.
I think you should take down and rebuild that quote structure, holmes.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 08:22:01 PM
I think you should take down and rebuild that quote structure, holmes.
Yeah, but I won't Ideas. You wanna know why? Because my whole fucking life revolves around that. And so does yours. THis was my rebellion. You need to find yours.
:lol:
Lulz, semester's not even a week old, first 18-year old drinks herself to death at Towson.
At least it was during the add/drop period, so I'm certain her folks can get most of the tuition refunded.
Any withdrawal prior to the 12th class day give you a 100% refund with only a small matriculation fee. That should cover the burial expenses.
If your roommate commits suicide, you get As for the rest of the semester.
As it happened in off-campus housing, it may make the Baltimore Sun, but not CLERY Act statistics. Whew, says Admissions.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2014, 09:47:27 PM
If your roommate commits suicide, you get As for the rest of the semester.
I wonder if anyone got to be a valedictorian after having eight roommates off themselves? That would be one hell of a depressing speech at the graduation. :hmm:
[BB] Classmates who supplied alcohol to the underage student should face manslaughter/negligent homicide charges. :sleep: [/BB]
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 08, 2014, 10:00:18 PM
[BB] Classmates who supplied alcohol to the underage student should face manslaughter/negligent homicide charges. :sleep: [/BB]
BB lived in civilized jurisdictions where the drinking age is/was 18.
LOL, frontier life, all civilized and whatnot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 08, 2014, 09:42:14 PM
Lulz, semester's not even a week old, first 18-year old drinks herself to death at Towson.
At least it was during the add/drop period, so I'm certain her folks can get most of the tuition refunded.
Here in Canada, first year student toasted by lightning.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/09/05/firstyear_university_of_waterloo_student_killed_by_lightning.html
For Ide: she was totally STEM, into nanotech.
Newest university rankings (http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onions-university-rankings,36887/)
538 looks at the economics of college majors: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economic-guide-to-picking-a-college-major/
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 12, 2014, 03:49:20 PM
538 looks at the economics of college majors: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economic-guide-to-picking-a-college-major/
And Ide swoons.
Quote
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fespnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F09%2Fcasselman-feature-majors-table1.png%3Fw%3D1024&hash=5d55f20af655f7b2b597bc629a43ea887572cdca)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2014, 03:52:41 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 12, 2014, 03:49:20 PM
538 looks at the economics of college majors: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economic-guide-to-picking-a-college-major/
And Ide swoons.
Ide needs to pay very close attention to the STEM section where the author talks about the overly broad brush the area gets painted with and how it isn't all flowers and rainbows in it.
Yeah, but flowers can grow because sometimes it actually does fucking rain in it.
Back in 2002-2003, in my first stint in college, I was a Psychology major.
Godjesus had his plan for me. :pope:
I wonder if Ide was more successful he'd be an ardent capitalist. Telling us all to read Ayn Rand and going on about how "moochers" will bring us down.
Ide betrayed THE LAAAAAAAWWW.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 12, 2014, 05:23:40 PM
I wonder if Ide was more successful he'd be an ardent capitalist. Telling us all to read Ayn Rand and going on about how "moochers" will bring us down.
Unlikely.
Also, compared to the collapsing society we live in, I'm Goddamned bourgeois.
Quote from: The Brain on September 12, 2014, 05:26:01 PM
Ide betrayed THE LAAAAAAAWWW.
Man, if we lived in Mega City One, I'd definitely make a second go at the bar.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 12, 2014, 05:23:40 PM
I wonder if Ide was more successful he'd be an ardent capitalist. Telling us all to read Ayn Rand and going on about how "moochers" will bring us down.
Good commies have always been all about the hard science and industry. There's no proletariat in humanities froofery. :P
Leftist revolutionaries have come disproportionately from the ranks of shysterdom.
I really don't get you people. What is so terribly offensive about my hatred of the liberal arts as an institution? STEM is not an infinite panacea; very well. Do you guys really think the world needs more history majors?
No.
Lenin went to Kazan University to study law. :sleep:
I think communist revolutionaries are usually liberal arts majors going out and convincing the blue-collar proletariat to throw off their chains. :P
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 12, 2014, 05:21:38 PM
Back in 2002-2003, in my first stint in college, I was a Psychology major.
Godjesus had his plan for me. :pope:
I was a psychology major. It is also considered STEM. Low paid STEM but still STEM. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2014, 07:43:09 PM
I really don't get you people. What is so terribly offensive about my hatred of the liberal arts as an institution? STEM is not an infinite panacea; very well. Do you guys really think the world needs more history majors?
Nothing is offensive about your hatred. I fully support your STEM cult.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 08:40:10 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 12, 2014, 05:21:38 PM
Back in 2002-2003, in my first stint in college, I was a Psychology major.
Godjesus had his plan for me. :pope:
I was a psychology major. It is also considered STEM. Low paid STEM but still STEM. :)
:cool:
I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude. I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem.
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude. I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem.
Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude. I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem.
Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.
Probably, for the most part. Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude. I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem.
Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.
Probably, for the most part. Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).
Well I think there is a difference between taking a few classes vs. making it one's major. :P
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:14:04 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude. I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem.
Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.
Probably, for the most part. Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).
Well I think there is a difference between taking a few classes vs. making it one's major. :P
Yeah. I would probably advise most young people nowadays to combine something like Classics with a double major in the more prosaic fields, like business.
Still, I think there is something to be said for the humanities' intellectual elite to focus in on areas like the Classics. The problem is that too many humanities students erroneously believe themselves to be part of that elite. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2014, 06:58:09 PM
Leftist revolutionaries have come disproportionately from the ranks of shysterdom.
They get business degrees? :huh:
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2014, 08:11:45 PM
Lenin went to Kazan University to study law. :sleep:
Yeah but he never finished and was kicked out. So he studied on his own and passed the bar anyway. :contract:
Abe Lincoln did the same thing only never started college in the first place.
I sent that article to my son and told him to read the entire thing...
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2014, 01:12:28 AM
I sent that article to my son and told him to read the entire thing...
What does your son want to study.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 13, 2014, 01:39:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2014, 01:12:28 AM
I sent that article to my son and told him to read the entire thing...
What does your son want to study.
Given that last month he sent 36,240 text messages, not much at all, apparently.
The world would be a much better place if all the psychology and drama majors went into actuarial science instead.
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2014, 01:48:46 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 13, 2014, 01:39:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2014, 01:12:28 AM
I sent that article to my son and told him to read the entire thing...
What does your son want to study.
Given that last month he sent 36,240 text messages, not much at all, apparently.
:hmm: You have unlimited texting, right?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 12, 2014, 11:00:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2014, 06:58:09 PM
Leftist revolutionaries have come disproportionately from the ranks of shysterdom.
They get business degrees? :huh:
Law.
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2014, 01:48:46 AM
Given that last month he sent 36,240 text messages, not much at all, apparently.
I sincerely doubt I will have sent that many by the time I die.
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:18:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:14:04 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude. I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem.
Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.
Probably, for the most part. Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).
Well I think there is a difference between taking a few classes vs. making it one's major. :P
Yeah. I would probably advise most young people nowadays to combine something like Classics with a double major in the more prosaic fields, like business.
Still, I think there is something to be said for the humanities' intellectual elite to focus in on areas like the Classics. The problem is that too many humanities students erroneously believe themselves to be part of that elite. ;)
The classics are a hobby, not a career path. At least majoring in, say, film, gives you technical skills that you may be able to bring to a real, extant industry. It's an old joke, but how many classics firms are hiring? In what fashion does being able to quote Aeschylus make you a more marketable person? In a related vein, for what reason do you need to pay somebody to read Aeschylus, anyway? These are reasonable questions but for the humanities-industrial complex (and a not inconsiderable cross-section of Languish) you'd think they were on par with asking why it's ill-considered to rape babies or something.
So, I don't agree that a double-major is some kind of good idea. Sorry, I'm very tired so my thoughts are a little disorganized.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
The classics are a hobby, not a career path. At least majoring in, say, film, gives you technical skills that you may be able to bring to a real, extant industry. It's an old joke, but how many classics firms are hiring? In what fashion does being able to quote Aeschylus make you a more marketable person? In a related vein, for what reason do you need to pay somebody to read Aeschylus, anyway? These are reasonable questions but for the humanities-industrial complex (and a not inconsiderable cross-section of Languish) you'd think they were on par with asking why it's ill-considered to rape babies or something.
What academic career path prepares one for, say, inland marine insurance sales?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 08:52:16 AM
So, I don't agree that a double-major is some kind of good idea. Sorry, I'm very tired so my thoughts are a little disorganized.
Why would it hurt though?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 13, 2014, 06:27:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2014, 01:48:46 AM
Given that last month he sent 36,240 text messages, not much at all, apparently.
I sincerely doubt I will have sent that many by the time I die.
Well, Berkut Jr. can definitely forget about being a surgeon.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 08:52:16 AM
So, I don't agree that a double-major is some kind of good idea. Sorry, I'm very tired so my thoughts are a little disorganized.
If you had studies your classics more you'd likely be able to organize your thoughts better.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 09:01:37 AM
What academic career path prepares one for, say, inland marine insurance sales?
None, which is why post high school education should be completely irrelevant in that field.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 09:01:37 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
The classics are a hobby, not a career path. At least majoring in, say, film, gives you technical skills that you may be able to bring to a real, extant industry. It's an old joke, but how many classics firms are hiring? In what fashion does being able to quote Aeschylus make you a more marketable person? In a related vein, for what reason do you need to pay somebody to read Aeschylus, anyway? These are reasonable questions but for the humanities-industrial complex (and a not inconsiderable cross-section of Languish) you'd think they were on par with asking why it's ill-considered to rape babies or something.
What academic career path prepares one for, say, inland marine insurance sales?
It's a well known fact that no-one had careers in game design before colleges started offering game design degrees.
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2014, 10:16:17 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 08:52:16 AM
So, I don't agree that a double-major is some kind of good idea. Sorry, I'm very tired so my thoughts are a little disorganized.
If you had studies your classics more you'd likely be able to organize your thoughts better.
:yes: His rants about his inability to find gainful employment would be 27% more clear and 12% more concise.
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2014, 10:25:42 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2014, 10:16:17 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 08:52:16 AM
So, I don't agree that a double-major is some kind of good idea. Sorry, I'm very tired so my thoughts are a little disorganized.
If you had studies your classics more you'd likely be able to organize your thoughts better.
:yes: His rants about his inability to find gainful employment would be 27% more clear and 12% more concise.
:lol:
I studied the classics to my satisfaction on my own time and my own dime. It was faster and cheaper. :P
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 13, 2014, 10:17:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 09:01:37 AM
What academic career path prepares one for, say, inland marine insurance sales?
None, which is why post high school education should be completely irrelevant in that field.
Then why require a college diploma as an employer?
All you football-fucking monkeys are blaming higher education for the irrelevancy of their degrees, when you should be turning your lonely eyes at the employers that demand them as a mandatory minimum requirement.
Why blame employers when it was the higher education industry who devalued the degrees by overproducing them?
Not that employers can't be blamed for an awful lot, obviously.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 05:35:19 PM
Why blame employers when it was the higher education industry who devalued the degrees by overproducing them?
They didn't overproduce degrees, they overproduced graduates. You want to blame somebody, blame breeders like Ed, who's going to send two lines' worth of Toronto Maple Leafs to fucking college. The degrees aren't the problem, parents are.
Or the olds aren't dying off fast enough anymore. :P
I don't know why, but with this thread I get this distinct feeling of déjà vu , like we've been over some of this ground before. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 05:35:19 PM
Why blame employers when it was the higher education industry who devalued the degrees by overproducing them?
Their "requirements" are inflating the demand for them. It's one of the main contributors to the problem, IMO.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:18:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:14:04 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude. I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem.
Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.
Probably, for the most part. Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).
Well I think there is a difference between taking a few classes vs. making it one's major. :P
Yeah. I would probably advise most young people nowadays to combine something like Classics with a double major in the more prosaic fields, like business.
Still, I think there is something to be said for the humanities' intellectual elite to focus in on areas like the Classics. The problem is that too many humanities students erroneously believe themselves to be part of that elite. ;)
The classics are a hobby, not a career path. At least majoring in, say, film, gives you technical skills that you may be able to bring to a real, extant industry. It's an old joke, but how many classics firms are hiring? In what fashion does being able to quote Aeschylus make you a more marketable person? In a related vein, for what reason do you need to pay somebody to read Aeschylus, anyway? These are reasonable questions but for the humanities-industrial complex (and a not inconsiderable cross-section of Languish) you'd think they were on par with asking why it's ill-considered to rape babies or something.
Of course you don't need to pay anyone to read Aeschylus, whatever that means. But..
(a) It wouldn't be a net benefit for Western civilization if nobody studied Classics, the Renaissance, etc. anymore at universities.
(b) The entire structure of education should not be dictated by the market or production imperative, even if much of it should be.
(c) There are all kinds of Classics, etc. majors that go on to have productive careers after graduation.
(d) I don't see the problem with a double major in, say, the humanities and business.
However, yeah, I wouldn't recommend most people enter into only humanities studies (or even double majors), and certainly less people should be doing so than there are now.
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2014, 06:37:08 PM
I don't know why, but with this thread I get this distinct feeling of déjà vu , like we've been over some of this ground before. :hmm:
The thread is 260 pages long, of course a lot of stuff gets repeated.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 13, 2014, 06:37:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 05:35:19 PM
Why blame employers when it was the higher education industry who devalued the degrees by overproducing them?
Their "requirements" are inflating the demand for them. It's one of the main contributors to the problem, IMO.
True, it is a feedback loop.
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2014, 06:37:08 PM
I don't know why, but with this thread I get this distinct feeling of déjà vu , like we've been over some of this ground before. :hmm:
Yeah, on Languish time really is a flat circle.
Quote from: Camerus on September 13, 2014, 06:38:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:18:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:14:04 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude. I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem.
Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.
Probably, for the most part. Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).
Well I think there is a difference between taking a few classes vs. making it one's major. :P
Yeah. I would probably advise most young people nowadays to combine something like Classics with a double major in the more prosaic fields, like business.
Still, I think there is something to be said for the humanities' intellectual elite to focus in on areas like the Classics. The problem is that too many humanities students erroneously believe themselves to be part of that elite. ;)
The classics are a hobby, not a career path. At least majoring in, say, film, gives you technical skills that you may be able to bring to a real, extant industry. It's an old joke, but how many classics firms are hiring? In what fashion does being able to quote Aeschylus make you a more marketable person? In a related vein, for what reason do you need to pay somebody to read Aeschylus, anyway? These are reasonable questions but for the humanities-industrial complex (and a not inconsiderable cross-section of Languish) you'd think they were on par with asking why it's ill-considered to rape babies or something.
Of course you don't need to pay anyone to read Aeschylus, whatever that means. But..
(a) It wouldn't be a net benefit for Western civilization if nobody studied Classics, the Renaissance, etc. anymore at universities.
(b) The entire structure of education should not be dictated by the market or production imperative, even if much of it should be.
(c) There are all kinds of Classics, etc. majors that go on to have productive careers after graduation.
(d) I don't see the problem with a double major in, say, the humanities and business.
However, yeah, I wouldn't recommend most people enter into only humanities studies (or even double majors), and certainly less people should be doing so than there are now.
Opportunity cost of learning something good.
Education does have a public purpose--making better citizens, who are learned in Western civilization--but if the primary benefit of a snobbed-up populace is to society, why is the individual shouldering the financial burden of it? Not, ordinarily, for personal betterment, but out of the mistaken belief that they are improving their marketability. And indeed, if you want to extend high school another two years and give people a liberal arts grounding, that's not necessarily a terrible thing--though again the issue of opportunity cost arises. The problem is as it ever was: immature people believing their crappy history degree has any ROI in a purely pecuniary sense.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 07:13:14 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 13, 2014, 06:38:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:18:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:14:04 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2014, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: Camerus on September 12, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
I assume more people would study STEM had they but the aptitude. I don't think it's lack of promotion of STEM that's the problem.
Maybe, but at the same time, people who are studying things like Classics or Philosophy could likely be put on more useful courses.
Probably, for the most part. Society generally requires that only the Elect should have access to that kind of rarefied material (non-sarcastic).
Well I think there is a difference between taking a few classes vs. making it one's major. :P
Yeah. I would probably advise most young people nowadays to combine something like Classics with a double major in the more prosaic fields, like business.
Still, I think there is something to be said for the humanities' intellectual elite to focus in on areas like the Classics. The problem is that too many humanities students erroneously believe themselves to be part of that elite. ;)
The classics are a hobby, not a career path. At least majoring in, say, film, gives you technical skills that you may be able to bring to a real, extant industry. It's an old joke, but how many classics firms are hiring? In what fashion does being able to quote Aeschylus make you a more marketable person? In a related vein, for what reason do you need to pay somebody to read Aeschylus, anyway? These are reasonable questions but for the humanities-industrial complex (and a not inconsiderable cross-section of Languish) you'd think they were on par with asking why it's ill-considered to rape babies or something.
Of course you don't need to pay anyone to read Aeschylus, whatever that means. But..
(a) It wouldn't be a net benefit for Western civilization if nobody studied Classics, the Renaissance, etc. anymore at universities.
(b) The entire structure of education should not be dictated by the market or production imperative, even if much of it should be.
(c) There are all kinds of Classics, etc. majors that go on to have productive careers after graduation.
(d) I don't see the problem with a double major in, say, the humanities and business.
However, yeah, I wouldn't recommend most people enter into only humanities studies (or even double majors), and certainly less people should be doing so than there are now.
Opportunity cost of learning something good.
Education does have a public purpose--making better citizens, who are learned in Western civilization--but if the primary benefit of a snobbed-up populace is to society, why is the individual shouldering the financial burden of it? Not, ordinarily, for personal betterment, but out of the mistaken belief that they are improving their marketability. And indeed, if you want to extend high school another two years and give people a liberal arts grounding, that's not necessarily a terrible thing--though again the issue of opportunity cost arises. The problem is as it ever was: immature people believing their crappy history degree has any ROI in a purely pecuniary sense.
So what is your RX? Removing humanities studies from university? Limiting only 1 course per student? Or something else?
Quotas for degrees as determined by a competent and responsible central planning apparatus, staffed principally by economists, rather than career educators, in order to prevent regulatory capture. But "death to the liberal arts" is only a slogan, not a program. We still need high school history teaches and a scant few actual history profs, for example.
Edit: quotas for degrees paid for by student loan dollars, I mean. I guess it's a free country. For now.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 13, 2014, 06:53:49 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2014, 06:37:08 PM
I don't know why, but with this thread I get this distinct feeling of déjà vu , like we've been over some of this ground before. :hmm:
The thread is 260 pages long, of course a lot of stuff gets repeated.
Psst, gently tap the side of the case a couple of times, that should unstick the needle in your irony gauge.
It's working fine, thanks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 05:38:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2014, 05:35:19 PM
Why blame employers when it was the higher education industry who devalued the degrees by overproducing them?
They didn't overproduce degrees, they overproduced graduates. You want to blame somebody, blame breeders like Ed, who's going to send two lines' worth of Toronto Maple Leafs to fucking college. The degrees aren't the problem, parents are.
Boo fucking hoo. Now calm down before I punch your cat in the fart box.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 05:33:28 PM
Then why require a college diploma as an employer?
All you football-fucking monkeys are blaming higher education for the irrelevancy of their degrees, when you should be turning your lonely eyes at the employers that demand them as a mandatory minimum requirement.
I do blame employers. I also blame employers for expecting bachelors degrees to be fucking vocational training for their employees.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 13, 2014, 10:53:03 PM
I also blame employers for expecting bachelors degrees to be fucking vocational training for their employees.
It depends on the vocation, now doesn't it? A Journalism degree prepares one for the basic of journalism, a computer science degree prepares one for the basics in the computer sciences; however, you don't see journalism degree holders applying to IT positions, nor do you see IT professionals applying for journalism positions (unless it's web heavy). So wouldn't the real problem be the lack of journalism opportunities in this day and age, as opposed to computer science jobs, which pretty much runs the world?
Every morning when I wake up, I think to myself, you know what we need more of, more than anything in this world? Journalists.
It was just an example, for fuck's sake. Cunt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 11:15:25 PM
It was just an example, for fuck's sake. Cunt.
You're hired.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 11:02:04 PM
A Journalism degree prepares one for the basic of journalism, a computer science degree prepares one for the basics in the computer sciences; however, you don't see journalism degree holders applying to IT positions, nor do you see IT professionals applying for journalism positions (unless it's web heavy).
Nope. Never happens :unsure: :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 11:02:04 PM
It depends on the vocation, now doesn't it? A Journalism degree prepares one for the basic of journalism, a computer science degree prepares one for the basics in the computer sciences; however, you don't see journalism degree holders applying to IT positions, nor do you see IT professionals applying for journalism positions (unless it's web heavy). So wouldn't the real problem be the lack of journalism opportunities in this day and age, as opposed to computer science jobs, which pretty much runs the world?
First, computer science != IT. Second, there are plenty of software developers who have non-technical degrees, or even no degree. Not a good field to use as an example. :P
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 11:47:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 11:02:04 PM
It depends on the vocation, now doesn't it? A Journalism degree prepares one for the basic of journalism, a computer science degree prepares one for the basics in the computer sciences; however, you don't see journalism degree holders applying to IT positions, nor do you see IT professionals applying for journalism positions (unless it's web heavy). So wouldn't the real problem be the lack of journalism opportunities in this day and age, as opposed to computer science jobs, which pretty much runs the world?
First, computer science != IT. Second, there are plenty of software developers who have non-technical degrees, or even no degree. Not a good field to use as an example. :P
History degree here, software developer by trade.
On a scale of one to ten, with ten being "indispensable," please rate how useful your history degree has been in your professional development. :)
Probably opened the door. History degree >>>>>>>>> No degree.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2014, 12:36:04 PM
On a scale of one to ten, with ten being "indispensable," please rate how useful your history degree has been in your professional development. :)
9. I probably wouldn't of gotten hired at my first post-college job without a degree.
Rephrasing to satisfy your computer mind. Please rate how useful the specific content of your history degree has been in your professional development. :grr:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 11:47:29 AM
First, computer science != IT.
Explain.
QuoteSecond, there are plenty of software developers who have non-technical degrees, or even no degree. Not a good field to use as an example. :P
So in other words, and as Brazen as opined, a liberal arts undergraduate degree has not been a barrier to employment, now has it?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 05:33:28 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 13, 2014, 10:17:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2014, 09:01:37 AM
What academic career path prepares one for, say, inland marine insurance sales?
None, which is why post high school education should be completely irrelevant in that field.
Then why require a college diploma as an employer?
All you football-fucking monkeys are blaming higher education for the irrelevancy of their degrees, when you should be turning your lonely eyes at the employers that demand them as a mandatory minimum requirement.
Yup.
It's a real chicken-and-egg scenario. Which came first? It's a trick question: with chickens and eggs, it's God; with degree devaluation, it was LBJ, who is, after all, like God.
Shy shouldn't employer require degrees though, even when the job clearly doesn't specifically require the education of a degree?
If you have vastly more applicants than openings, and no specific way to narrow them down (or those specifics have already been used), then is is not at all unreasonable to discard those without degrees, other factors being equal.
Above: Collective action problems stymie Berkut.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 12:48:18 PM
Shy shouldn't employer require degrees though, even when the job clearly doesn't specifically require the education of a degree?
If you have vastly more applicants than openings, and no specific way to narrow them down (or those specifics have already been used), then is is not at all unreasonable to discard those without degrees, other factors being equal.
Employment market is probably a poster boy for situations where individually rational decisions wind up being irrational in the aggregate. For example, it may be rational to only consider candidates that are currently employed. After all, people who stay employed tend to be better workers than people who got fired or laid off. But there is an obvious problem when everyone is doing it.
There are also secondary effects. The market reacts to the individual employer requirements, and often in ways that are again irrational in the aggregate.
"Why shouldn't male peacocks have the most outrageous and overgrown tail feather displays? After all, it helps attract female peacocks, who can know, with some degree of certainty, that their progeny will also have awkward, expensive, and otherwise-useless tail feather displays. And if the display is stamped 'Stanford,' all the better."
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2014, 12:53:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 12:48:18 PM
Shy shouldn't employer require degrees though, even when the job clearly doesn't specifically require the education of a degree?
If you have vastly more applicants than openings, and no specific way to narrow them down (or those specifics have already been used), then is is not at all unreasonable to discard those without degrees, other factors being equal.
Employment market is probably a poster boy for situations where individually rational decisions wind up being irrational in the aggregate. For example, it may be rational to only consider candidates that are currently employed. After all, people who stay employed tend to be better workers than people who got fired or laid off. But there is an obvious problem when everyone is doing it.
There are also secondary effects. The market reacts to the individual employer requirements, and often in ways that are again irrational in the aggregate.
Right, I was specifically commenting on the guy looking to hire someone - I agree that this behavior can be sub optimal overall.
A person looking to hire people though cannot be expected to discard such criteria, especially when they are not given any other criteria to use in its place.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2014, 12:56:40 PM
"Why shouldn't male peacocks have the most outrageous and overgrown tail feather displays? After all, it helps attract female peacocks, who can know, with some degree of certainty, that their progeny will also have awkward, expensive, and otherwise-useless tail feather displays. And if the display is stamped 'Stanford,' all the better."
Presumably having a degree is not useless though, even if it is not specifically applicable to the job in question.
I imagine there could be some jobs where having a degree could be seen as being actively a negative, but those are not the norm.
All things being equal, some random guy with a degree is probably a better statistical candidate for being a more productive employee than someone without one.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 12:58:41 PM
Right, I was specifically commenting on the guy looking to hire someone - I agree that this behavior can be sub optimal overall.
A person looking to hire people though cannot be expected to discard such criteria, especially when they are not given any other criteria to use in its place.
Agreed. The worst part about such situations is that nothing can be done about it on the individual level, at least not without some unique insight. If you can look inside the person's soul and find out exactly how well they'll perform at the job, then obviously you would be very dumb to follow the same strategy when you can find unwanted excellent workers on the cheap, but developing unique insights is hard.
My aim was an evocation of the problem, not a meticulous cartography directly linking every feature of runaway sexual selection in nature and the credential treadmill Western civilization has found itself on.
I do think pat of the problem is lazy people making hiring decisions.
Maybe this is just my personal experience speaking, but it seems to me that there is a lot of attempts to substitute check off criteria for actual evaluation, which requires actual work.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2014, 12:53:52 PM
Employment market is probably a poster boy for situations where individually rational decisions wind up being irrational in the aggregate. For example, it may be rational to only consider candidates that are currently employed. After all, people who stay employed tend to be better workers than people who got fired or laid off. But there is an obvious problem when everyone is doing it.
I blame HR retards. And Yiconomists.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2014, 12:42:00 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 11:47:29 AM
First, computer science != IT.
Explain.
Computer science is the study of the theory of computation. It's heavily mathematical. In industry, computer science grads typically take jobs as software engineers. IT is the architecture and management of computing systems. There may be some programming involved, but the primary responsibility is to the systems. Sometimes referred to as systems engineers[1].
It also frequently involves scope. At companies like Google, where the systems are the product (essentially), the people who architect and maintain them are not IT. At companies like Coca-Cola, where the systems are there to support the core business, they are IT.
[1] Thus causing no end of headaches for me, since I was a different kind of systems engineer.
QuoteQuoteSecond, there are plenty of software developers who have non-technical degrees, or even no degree. Not a good field to use as an example. :P
So in other words, and as Brazen as opined, a liberal arts undergraduate degree has not been a barrier to employment, now has it?
No, it isn't. I never said it was.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 01:08:01 PM
I do think pat of the problem is lazy people making hiring decisions.
Maybe this is just my personal experience speaking, but it seems to me that there is a lot of attempts to substitute check off criteria for actual evaluation, which requires actual work.
That is also caused by HR trying to force themselves into the hiring process at points where they do not belong.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 01:08:01 PM
I do think pat of the problem is lazy people making hiring decisions.
Maybe this is just my personal experience speaking, but it seems to me that there is a lot of attempts to substitute check off criteria for actual evaluation, which requires actual work.
That is also caused by HR trying to force themselves into the hiring process at points where they do not belong.
Yeah, that is certainly true as well. HR is not just useless in the hiring process, they are mostly actively detrimental to it, in my experience.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 01:08:01 PM
I do think pat of the problem is lazy people making hiring decisions.
Maybe this is just my personal experience speaking, but it seems to me that there is a lot of attempts to substitute check off criteria for actual evaluation, which requires actual work.
That may be a rational decision in its own right. Evaluating hundreds of candidates very carefully takes time, and time is valuable. Maybe there is an efficient market solution waiting for this, but I can't think of one.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 01:11:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2014, 12:42:00 PM
So in other words, and as Brazen as opined, a liberal arts undergraduate degree has not been a barrier to employment, now has it?
No, it isn't. I never said it was.
It wasn't directed at you, Captain Nuance.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 01:14:13 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 01:08:01 PM
I do think pat of the problem is lazy people making hiring decisions.
Maybe this is just my personal experience speaking, but it seems to me that there is a lot of attempts to substitute check off criteria for actual evaluation, which requires actual work.
That is also caused by HR trying to force themselves into the hiring process at points where they do not belong.
Yeah, that is certainly true as well. HR is not just useless in the hiring process, they are mostly actively detrimental to it, in my experience.
I guess it depends on the company. I've been part of the hiring process in my company for a while, and there HR is very useful and helpful. I guess the crucial part is how much HR truly understands the needs of the departments doing the hiring, and whether they have people specializing in one area doing the work.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2014, 01:19:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 01:08:01 PM
I do think pat of the problem is lazy people making hiring decisions.
Maybe this is just my personal experience speaking, but it seems to me that there is a lot of attempts to substitute check off criteria for actual evaluation, which requires actual work.
That may be a rational decision in its own right. Evaluating hundreds of candidates very carefully takes time, and time is valuable. Maybe there is an efficient market solution waiting for this, but I can't think of one.
QuoteFederal agencies set job applicant limits
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-federal-job-application-limits-20140816,0,6907747.story
Some agencies have begun to limit the number of applications they accept per vacancy. Instead of setting a deadline for applications, some job announcements stay open only until the limit — in some cases as few as 25 resumes — is reached.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 01:14:13 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2014, 01:08:01 PM
I do think pat of the problem is lazy people making hiring decisions.
Maybe this is just my personal experience speaking, but it seems to me that there is a lot of attempts to substitute check off criteria for actual evaluation, which requires actual work.
That is also caused by HR trying to force themselves into the hiring process at points where they do not belong.
Yeah, that is certainly true as well. HR is not just useless in the hiring process, they are mostly actively detrimental to it, in my experience.
It doesn't help that noone who is ambitious and capable ends up in HR.
It's a part of a broader problem - those who end up tasked with the creation of the elite are themselves generally quite mediocre. Same is true for educators.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 09, 2014, 02:29:34 PM
Newest university rankings (http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onions-university-rankings,36887/)
I used that in my economics classroom. Biggest laugh was the USMA fun fact.
Here's something for Ide, courtesy of Lapham's daily email :P--
Quote1618 / England
What Need We More of Learning?
Now for learning, what your neede is thereof I know not, but with us, this is all we goe to schoole for: to read common Prayers at Church and set downe common prices at Markets; write a Letter and make a Bond; set downe the day of our Births, our Marriage Day, and make our Wills when we are sicke for the disposing of our goods when we are dead. These are the chiefe matters that we meddle with, and we find enough to trouble our heads withal. For if the fathers knowe their owne children, wives their owne husbands from other men, maydens keep their by-your-leaves from subtle batchelors, Farmers know their cattle by the heads, and Sheepheards know their sheepe by the brand, what more learning have we need of but that experience will teach us without booke? We can learne to plough and harrow, sow and reape, plant and prune, thrash and fanne, winnow and grinde, brue and bake, and all without booke; and these are our chiefe businesses in the Country, except we be Jury men to hang a theefe, or speake truth in a man's right, which conscience & experience will teach us with a little learning. Then what should we study for, except it were to talke with the man in the Moone about the course of the Starres? No, Astronomy is too high a reach for our reason: we will rather sit under a shady tree in the Sunne to take the benefit of the cold ayre, then lye and stare upon the Starres to mark their walke in the heavens, while we loose our wits in the cloudes. And yet we reverence learning as well in the Parson of our parish as our Schoolmaster, but chiefely in our Justices of peace, for under God and the King they beare great sway in the Country. But for great learning in great matters and in great places we leave it to great men. If we live within the compasse of the Law, serve God and obey our King—and as good Subjects ought to doe, in our duties and our prayers dayly remember him—what need we more of learning?
Nicholas Breton, from The Court and Country.
Breton was a prolific author popular with his contemporaries for his pastoral and religious poems, and also wrote satires and pithy witticisms: "I wish my deadly foe, no worse/ Than want of friends, and empty purse."
Why is this the only thread I've felt the need to bludgeon it to 'death' with a stickybat. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
QuoteFederal agencies set job applicant limits
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-federal-job-application-limits-20140816,0,6907747.story
Some agencies have begun to limit the number of applications they accept per vacancy. Instead of setting a deadline for applications, some job announcements stay open only until the limit — in some cases as few as 25 resumes — is reached.
We need to make a bot that sends thousands of worthless applications a day to them. :shifty:
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2014, 02:28:46 PM
Why is this the only thread I've felt the need to bludgeon it to 'death' with a stickybat. :D
Don't worry, that wouldn't get through Ide's thick ass head, either.
Sounds about right, although Breton could do with a little additional learning in the field of spelling. "Sunne"? Even for the 1600s, that's got to be bullshit.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2014, 12:41:51 PM
Rephrasing to satisfy your computer mind. Please rate how useful the specific content of your history degree has been in your professional development. :grr:
You mean other than the programming classes electives? I will say that there are only a couple of CS classes that I didn't take that would have been more useful to my professional development than the History classes that I did take.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 01:11:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2014, 12:42:00 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 11:47:29 AM
First, computer science != IT.
Explain.
Computer science is the study of the theory of computation. It's heavily mathematical. In industry, computer science grads typically take jobs as software engineers. IT is the architecture and management of computing systems. There may be some programming involved, but the primary responsibility is to the systems. Sometimes referred to as systems engineers[1].
It also frequently involves scope. At companies like Google, where the systems are the product (essentially), the people who architect and maintain them are not IT. At companies like Coca-Cola, where the systems are there to support the core business, they are IT.
[1] Thus causing no end of headaches for me, since I was a different kind of systems engineer.
:yes: This is why I'm working as hard as I can to distance myself from IT- refusing to take the information systems concentration in my major (I'm not ignoring IS completely, just minimizing it), watching the market for software development and research much more closely, etc. I'd much rather make something from nothing than tend to somebody else's baby.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 14, 2014, 10:50:28 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 01:11:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2014, 12:42:00 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 14, 2014, 11:47:29 AM
First, computer science != IT.
Explain.
Computer science is the study of the theory of computation. It's heavily mathematical. In industry, computer science grads typically take jobs as software engineers. IT is the architecture and management of computing systems. There may be some programming involved, but the primary responsibility is to the systems. Sometimes referred to as systems engineers[1].
It also frequently involves scope. At companies like Google, where the systems are the product (essentially), the people who architect and maintain them are not IT. At companies like Coca-Cola, where the systems are there to support the core business, they are IT.
[1] Thus causing no end of headaches for me, since I was a different kind of systems engineer.
:yes: This is why I'm working as hard as I can to distance myself from IT- refusing to take the information systems concentration in my major (I'm not ignoring IS completely, just minimizing it), watching the market for software development and research much more closely, etc. I'd much rather make something from nothing than tend to somebody else's baby.
Those IT tenders are becoming employed.
The money where I am is in automation (no more pesky systems admins), virtualization, and next generation data center (infrastructure as a service).
Here ya go, Ide. Some excellent whacking material for you.
QuoteProfessors on food stamps: The shocking true story of academia in 2014
Forget minimum wage, some adjunct professors say they're making 50 cents an hour. Wait till you read these stories
Matt Saccaro, salon.com
You've probably heard the old stereotypes about professors in their ivory tower lecturing about Kafka while clad in a tweed jacket. But for many professors today, the reality is quite different: being so poorly paid and treated, that they're more likely to be found bargain-hunting at day-old bread stores. This is academia in 2014.
"The most shocking thing is that many of us don't even earn the federal minimum wage," said Miranda Merklein, an adjunct professor from Santa Fe who started teaching in 2008. "Our students didn't know that professors with PhDs aren't even earning as much as an entry-level fast food worker. We're not calling for the $15 minimum wage. We don't even make minimum wage. And we have no benefits and no job security."
Over three quarters of college professors are adjunct. Legally, adjunct positions are part-time, at-will employment. Universities pay adjunct professors by the course, anywhere between $1,000 to $5,000. So if a professor teaches three courses in both the fall and spring semesters at a rate of $3000 per course, they'll make $18,000 dollars. The average full-time barista makes the same yearly wage. However, a full-time adjunct works more than 40 hours a week. They're not paid for most of those hours.
"If it's a three credit course, you're paid for your time in the classroom only," said Merklein. "So everything else you do is by donation. If you hold office hours, those you're doing for free. Your grading you do for free. ... Anything we do with the student where we sit down and explain what happened when the student was absent, that's also free labor. Some would call it wage theft because these are things we have to do in order to keep our jobs. We have to do things we're not getting paid for. It's not optional."
Merklein was far from the only professor with this problem.
"It can be a tremendous amount of work," said Alex Kudera. Kudera started teaching in 1996 and is the author of a novel about adjunct professorship, "Fight For Your Long Day." "When I was an adjunct, I didn't have a social life. It's basically just work all the time. You plan your weekend around the fact that you're going to be doing work Saturday and Sunday — typically grading papers, which is emotionally exhausting. The grading can be tedious but at least it's a private thing. It's basically 5-10 hours a day for every day of the week."
One professor from Indiana who spoke to Salon preferred to remain anonymous. "At some point early in my adjunct career, I broke down my pay hourly. I figured out that I was making under minimum wage and then I stopped thinking about it," he said. "I can't speak for everyone, but I essentially design my own courses. And sometimes I don't find out how many courses I'm going to be teaching until maybe Thursday and they start Monday. ... So I have to develop a course, and it's been the case where one summer I taught English 102 where the course was literally dropped in my lap three days before it started and I had to develop it entirely from scratch. It didn't even have a text book. That was three 16-hour days in a row developing a syllabus. ... You're expected to be in contact with students constantly. You have to be available to them all the time. You're expected to respond to emails generally within 24 hours. I'm always on-call. And it's one of my favorite parts of my job, I don't regret it, but if you factored those on-call hours in, that'd be the end of it. I'd be making 50 cents an hour."
Being financially secure and teaching at an institute of higher education are almost mutually exclusive, even among professors who are able to teach the maximum amount of courses each semester. Thus, more than half of adjunct professors in the United States seek a second job. Not all professors can find additional employment. An advanced degree slams most doors shut and opens a handful by the narrowest crack.
Nathaniel Oliver taught as an adjunct for four years in Alabama. He received $12,000 a year during his time teaching.
"You fall in this trap where you may be working for less than you would be at a place that pays minimum wage yet you can't get the minimum wage jobs because of your education," Oliver said.
Academia's tower might be ivory but it casts an obsidian shadow. Oliver was one of many professors trapped in the oxymoronic life of pedantic destitution. Some professors in his situation became homeless. Oliver was "fortunate" enough to only require food stamps, a fact of life for many adjuncts.
"It's completely insane," he said. "And this isn't happening just to me. More and more people are doing it."
"We have food stamps," said the anonymous adjunct from Indiana. "We wouldn't be able to survive without them."
"Many professors are on food stamps and they go to food donation centers. They donate plasma. And that's a pretty regular occurrence," Merklein told Salon.
Life isn't much easier for those lucky enough to find another income stream. Many are reduced to menial service jobs and other forms of first-world deprivation.
"I ended up applying for a job in a donut shop recently," said an Ohio professor who requested to go by a pseudonym. Professor Doe taught for over two decades. Many years he only made $9600. Resorting to a food service job was the only way he could afford to live, but it came with more than its expected share of humiliation.
"One of the managers there is one of the students I had a year ago who was one of the very worst writers I've ever had. What are we really saying here? What's going on in the work world? Something does not seem quite right. I'm not asking to be rich. I'm not asking to be famous. I just want to pay my bills."
Life became even more harrowing for adjuncts after the Affordable Care Act when universities slashed hours and health insurance coverage became even more difficult to obtain.
"They're no better off than people who work at Walmart," said Gordon Haber, a 15-year adjunct professor and author of "Adjunctivitis."
Perhaps not surprisingly, other professors echoed this sentiment.
"There's this idea that faculty are cheap, renewable labor. There's the idea that student are customers or clients," said Joseph Fruscione, a former adjunct of 15 years. "And there are some cases where if a student is displeased with a grade, there's the notion where they're paying for this, so they deserve an A or a B because of all this tuition."
"The Walmart metaphor is vivid," Kudera said. "There are these random schools where they're just being terrible. But as some of the schools it seems like there's some enlightened schools and it doesn't seem like every single person who speaks up loses their classes. It varies school to school. They're well aware some of their adjuncts may not afford toothpaste at the end of the month or whatever those kinds of tragedies may be." He suggested looking at the hashtag #badmin to see transgressions and complaints documented in real time.
Robert Baum, a former adjunct and now a dean, was able to provide insights from both sides of the problem.
"That pressure [to make money] has been on higher education forever," he said. "A lot of the time when I was an adjunct, things were very black and what I'm finding is that the graying is happening a lot. I'm losing track of the black and white." Still, Baum noted that the current system was hardly ideal, and that change was necessary. "The Walmart model is based on the idea of putting the burden on taking care of the worker on either the state or on the worker's credit card or on the worker's family. And that is no different than what I've experienced across my adjunct life. No different. Zero difference."
Ana Fores Tamayo, an adjunct who claims she was blacklisted over her activism, agreed with the latter parts of Baum's assessment.
"Walmart and the compartmentalized way of treating faculty is the going rate. The way administration turns around and says, for instance, where I was teaching it was probably about 65% adjunct faculty. But the way they fix their numbers, it makes it looks as if it's less when they show their books because the way they divide it and the way they play with their numbers it shows that it's less."
"As soon as they hear about you organizing, they go on the defensive," Merklein said. "For instance, at my community college, I am being intimidated constantly and threatened in various ways, hypothetically usually. They don't like to say something that's an outright direct threat. ... They get really freaked out when they see pamphlets around the adjunct faculty office and everyone's wearing buttons regardless of what professional organization or union it is. They will then go on the offensive. They will usually contact their attorney who is there to protect the school as a business and to act in an anti-labor capacity."
The most telling phrase in Merklein's words are "the school as a business." Colleges across the country have transitioned from bastions of intellectual enlightenment to resort hotels prizing amenities above academics. Case in point: The ludicrously extravagant gyms in America's larger universities are home to rock climbing walls, corkscrew tracks, rooftop gardens, and a lazy river. Schools have billions to invest in housing and other on-campus projects. Schools have millions (or in some cases "mere" hundreds of thousands) to pay administrators. Yet schools can't find the money to hire more full-time professors. If one follows the money, it's clear that colleges view education as tertiary. The rigor of a university's courses doesn't attract the awe of doe-eyed high school seniors. Lavish dorms and other luxuries do.
Despite such execrable circumstances, professors trek onward and try to educate students as best they can. But how good can education provided by overworked, underpaid adjuncts be? The professors Salon spoke to had varying opinions.
Benay Blend has taught for over 30 years. For 10 of those years, she worked in a bookstore for $7.50 an hour because she needed the extra income.
"I don't want to fall into the trap that the media use that using adjunct labor means poor education," Blend said. "I have a PhD. I've published probably more than full-time people where I teach. I've been teaching for 30 years. I'm a good teacher."
"On the whole, teaching quality by adjuncts is excellent," said Kane Faucher, a six-year adjunct. "But many are not available for mentoring and consultation because they have to string together so many courses just to reach or possibly exceed the poverty line. This means our resources are stretched too thinly as a matter of financial survival, and there are many adjuncts who do not even have access to a proper office, which means they work out of coffee shops and cars."
The anonymous adjunct professor from Indiana expressed a similar sentiment.
"I definitely don't want to go down the road of 'Adjunct professors, because of the way we're handled, are not able to be effective teachers.' I think some of us are more effective teachers than people who get paid a lot more than we do. Some of us aren't for really good reasons which have to do with not having the resources. I mean if you're working at three different colleges, how can you possibly be there?"
Ann Kottner, an adjunct professor and activist, agreed.
"The real problem with the adjunct market right now is that it cheats students of the really outstanding educations they should be getting," she said. "They're paying a lot of money for these educations and they're not getting them. And it's not because they have bad instructors, it's because their instructors are not supported to do the kind of work they can do."
The situation reached such a flashpoint that Kottner and several colleagues (some of which spoke to Salon for this article) penned a petition to the US Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division. The petition calls for "an investigation into the labor practices of our colleges and universities in the employment of contingent faculty." Ana Foryes Tamayo has a petition as well, this one to the US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. They both have over 8,000 signatories.
When asked about the petition's impact, Kottner said it was "just one tactic in the whole sheath of a rising adjunct response to contingency." Other tools included unionization, which is difficult in many states. Kottner said the most powerful force was information. "I think our biggest weapon now is basically making the public aware of what their tuition dollars are not paying for, and that is professor salaries and professor security."
When asked if there was any hope about the future, no consensus was reached among the adjuncts Salon spoke with. Some believed things would never change. Others thought the tide would turn if enough people knew how far the professoriat had fallen.
So why are these people doing this?
Loans for everybody.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
So why are these people doing this?
Stupidity. I have spent three semesters as an adjunct professor, and knew exactly what I was getting into from the start. There is nothing mysterious here. This is like people complaining that they don't get enough for the bottles they pick up to earn their living. The pay for an adjunct teaching job isn't outstanding, but it's not bad. Sixteen weeks of three lectures, an hour of office time, and maybe three or four hours of grading per week isn't too hard a way to earn $3600 or so.
And I love whining like: "If it's a three credit course, you're paid for your time in the classroom only....
So everything else you do is by donation. If you hold office hours, those
you're doing for free. Your grading you
do for free. ... Anything we do with the student where we sit down and explain what happened when the student was absent, that's also
free labor. Some would call it wage theft because these are things we have to do in order to keep our jobs. We have to do things we're not getting paid for.
It's not optional." Morons like this shouldn't be allowed to teach. You do all of those other things, for pay, because
that's what the contract you agreed to requires.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
So why are these people doing this?
One of the researchers who used to work for my company taught one class on the side. That is basically what the "adjunct" designation is for: experts in a field who want to teach classes on the side or as a break from their regular jobs. It is not supposed to be a primary job you live off of.
:hmm:
Here's what wiki had to say about adjunct professors.
QuoteIn past decades, adjunct professors helped universities & colleges expand the range of their course offerings to prospective and existing students; For instance, a computer professional would be hired to teach a single course on mainframe computing; or, a business professional would be hired to teach a course on marketing or sales. In this respect, "adjuncts" can also be a way to inform the predominantly theoretical (and therefore, somewhat limited) focus of traditional, full-time academics, with the more pragmatic perspective of those who actually practice the discipline in "the real world".
Since the 1980s and '90's, however, colleges & universities have increasingly utilized adjuncts and full-time lecturers to teach core undergraduate curriculum (e.g., introductory-math, or, freshman-level English composition). Due to the steeply lower salaries adjunct professors command, many North American universities have significantly reduced their hiring of tenure-track (i.e., full-time, career) faculty, in favor of recruiting more adjuncts (and/or lecturers) as part-time, contract/temporary workers. As of 2007, such "contingent faculty" (non-tenure-track faculty) made up more than half of all faculty positions in the United States. Some college English departments are now staffed by a majority of adjunct teachers, instead of tenure-track professors. A 2014 Congressional review found that although only "an estimated 18.5 percent of college professors worked as part-time faculty members" in 1969, as of 2011 contingent faculty made up "75.5 percent of the college teaching workforce, or more than 1.3 million people." In 2014, a national news story described the situation of adjuncts as "Juggling multiple part-time jobs, earning little-to-no benefits, depending on public assistance: This is the financial reality for many adjunct professors across the nation."
Dont see why its so surprising; just like every other industry in the predatory economy and its reliance on part-time, no-frills-or-benefits temps.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
So why are these people doing this?
Because they can't get full time work as professors?
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2014, 11:33:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
So why are these people doing this?
Because they can't get full time work as professors?
It seems like they would be better off trying something else then.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2014, 11:35:14 AMIt seems like they would be better off trying something else then.
Yeah for sure. Though no harm in drawing attention to the issues surrounding your chosen profession.
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2014, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2014, 11:35:14 AMIt seems like they would be better off trying something else then.
Yeah for sure. Though no harm in drawing attention to the issues surrounding your chosen profession.
Sure enough. At the same time though, it does come off somewhat as a whine about how they aren't able to earn a living by doing what they want to do.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2014, 11:46:46 AMSure enough. At the same time though, it does come off somewhat as a whine about how they aren't able to earn a living by doing what they want to do.
For sure.
It used to be that academia was a way to respect and a comfortable living. I think that dream is still being sold to people, so it's worth pointing out that it's not reality so fewer people are suckered into it.
I think it's also legitimate to point out how underpaid they are and how the education business is set up; it might influence how things go. It may be that "underpaid, near starving adjuncts teach all your courses" becomes less of a marketable proposition for the universities if it becomes widely known.
One of my cousins got a PhD in Anthropology. One could argue that was a stupid move. She heard that many times when getting the PhD.
But once she got it, what is she to do? Pushing 30 having only gone to school (aside from working on random projects no one besides academics would really care about), but highly skilled in anthropology....It is exceedingly difficult to get tenure track positions.
It turns out she was extremely fortunate to get money to get a post doc research position. But otherwise, being an adjunct professor at least brings in some money.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2014, 11:35:14 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2014, 11:33:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
So why are these people doing this?
Because they can't get full time work as professors?
It seems like they would be better off trying something else then.
Maybe they could become robots and build cars!
Anyway, no time to read long article, but I'm aware the adjunct apocalypse. Just like I deserve doc review, that's what would-be parasites who couldn't hack the scam get--the nourishment of the droplets that drip down, while the big leeches feed on the main vein.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2014, 02:35:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2014, 11:35:14 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2014, 11:33:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
So why are these people doing this?
Because they can't get full time work as professors?
It seems like they would be better off trying something else then.
Maybe they could become robots and build cars!
I forgot to add to my post, as I knew you'd be silly, that I find it rather hard to believe that these smart individuals have absolutely nothing else that they can find to do as a better paid job.
Maybe they could turn their Lander University degrees into Stanford ones.
(Made under the assumption that garbon knows I'm mainly teasing him, for though he is a class enemy, he is also... my friend. :cry: )
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2014, 02:40:41 PM
Maybe they could turn their Lander University degrees into Stanford ones.
:yawn:
Btw, did you know that most people that have my job did not go to Stanford? :o
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2014, 02:41:35 PM
he is also... my friend. :cry: )
Remind me, when did I sign up for that? Was I drunk? :angry:
You're like an adorable porcupine.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2014, 02:43:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2014, 02:40:41 PM
Maybe they could turn their Lander University degrees into Stanford ones.
:yawn:
Btw, did you know that most people that have my job did not go to Stanford? :o
No, many are not continent-spanning travelers. They went to schools for local yokels like Harvard, Yale, and NYU. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2014, 02:50:45 PM
You're like an adorable porcupine.
I suppose I can live with that.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2014, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2014, 02:43:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2014, 02:40:41 PM
Maybe they could turn their Lander University degrees into Stanford ones.
:yawn:
Btw, did you know that most people that have my job did not go to Stanford? :o
No, many are not continent-spanning travelers. They went to schools for local yokels like Harvard, Yale, and NYU. :P
My immediate colleague (who used to travel a bit before she decided to have kids) went to Baruch which is part of New York City College. She also does have a masters on top of that - which I do not.
Besides, with the current regime at my company, I don't even get to travel as far as the exotic lands of NJ. :weep:
'Tis a land of milk and blueberries.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2014, 03:40:31 PM
'Tis a land of milk and blueberries.
That might just be Jersey City.
:mad:
QuoteHighly Educated, Unemployed and Tumbling Down the Ladder
By Martha C. White
NBC News
In the upside-down, topsy-turvy world of jobs these days, even an advanced degree can't protect some Americans from tumbling down the economic ladder.
The conventional wisdom that more education bears fruit in the labor market gets turned on its head when it comes to unemployment. For people with masters and even doctoral degrees, long-term unemployment is especially insidious. At best, these formerly high-earning professionals face the prospect of a years-long climb back to their former level of income and stature, while they delay retirement to rebuild their decimated nest eggs.
Others won't be that lucky. Debt, foreclosure and evaporated savings push them out of the middle class, and some just keep falling.
"Most of these people in this long-term unemployed category are experiencing downward financial mobility," said Carl Van Horn, distinguished professor of Public Policy and director of the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University.
Nearly half of the long-term unemployed in a Rutgers survey published last month estimate it will take up to a decade to rebuild their finances. More than 20 percent say it will take more than a decade, or that they'll never recover. The highly educated are "actually in worse shape because they had farther to fall and had greater financial liability," Van Horn said.
42 and Living With Roommates
"I've had to seriously downgrade my living situation," said Alex Gomez, a 42-year-old with a master's degree in entrepreneurship. Gomez lost his last full-time job in 2009 and has been looking for work since a short-term contract position ended in 2012.
Gomez's home was foreclosed on, so the Tampa resident lives with three roommates in a college neighborhood. He drained his 401(k) trying to save his house, and he has around $150,000 in student loans. His mother is tapping her 401(k) to pay his rent. Gomez subsists on that and about $200 a month in food stamps.
"I have been applying and looking for pretty much anything at this stage," he said. Although he's looking for work in engineering or data management, "I applied to a supermarket as a deli clerk because I used to be a deli clerk as a teenager," he said. He was told he was overqualified and turned down.
"Even though jobs have been slowly recovering, these are mostly low-pay, low-wage jobs," said Ofer Sharone, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management and founder of the Institute for Career Transitions, a platform that helps the older professional unemployed reenter the work force. "We don't have enough jobs that require those levels of education right now."
In a survey of 800 jobless professionals conducted by the Institute for Career Transitions, about 10 percent of the short-term unemployed had doctoral, law or MBA degrees. Among the pool of long-term unemployed, more than 18 percent held such degrees.
"I've seen clients who had to downsize, sell their homes, move into a smaller apartment, take in boarders... it changes everything," said David Blustein, a professor at Boston College's Lynch School of Education. "The financial consequences of long-term unemployment are hugely significant and very painful."
Wiped Out by Student Loans
Student loans are an especially thorny issue. The U.S. Government Accountability Office finds that 3 percent of households headed by someone age 65 and older carry student loan debt, and the amount of outstanding federal student debt carried by this age group shot up from $2.8 billion in 2005 to $18.2 billion last year.
"The reality is a lot of people have gone back to school later in life, gotten MBAs or other degrees later in life, and the student loans are still there," Blustein said.
"Financially, I've been sort of wiped out," said Brian Maimone, an equity researcher in New York who, despite his MBA, has been unable to find work since being laid off five years ago. "I'm at a point now where I'm working at a car wash on weekends for cash flow purposes. Any job is a real job as far as I'm concerned," he said. "Anything that could be liquidated has already been liquidated."
Reclaiming professional and financial stability is a long journey. "If you've been out of work for a year or longer, your road back is not a one shot deal," said Joe Carbone, president and CEO of job training and education provider the WorkPlace Inc. "You have to look at it from the standpoint of two or three years."
"For those individuals who have very advanced degrees and a good length of experience, it does become more difficult," said Patricia Malone, executive director of the Corporate Education and Training program at Stony Brook University, which trains out-of-work professionals in project management. "They are competing against people who are 10 years younger," she said. "It takes longer."
Wayne Little can attest to this. An MBA who worked in sales at IBM for more than three decades, the 60-year-old has been looking for work after being laid off more than two years ago.
Little said he has sent out "well over 1,000" resumes and regularly logs five to six hours a day working on his job search. "I hadn't looked for a job for 30 years," Little said. "The world has changed... I was not prepared for the new world of searching for jobs."
Little's family is leaning on his wife's income, but with three kids around college age, he has tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, and he estimates about half of his 401(k) has been drained to pay basic expenses. Little said keeping their heads above water means cutting out "frills," middle-class niceties most Americans take for granted, until they're gone.
"The front walk is falling apart... Some of the things in the house we'd normally take care of, we're not." Little's car has well over 200,000 miles on it; his wife's has 150,000. They don't spend money on entertainment or gifts anymore. Maintenance around the house has been deferred, he said.
"We're not desperate, but we will be," he said. "I've looked at jobs that pay half of what I was making at IBM and I would've taken them in a second."
"I was making six figures at one point, and now I'm making $13 an hour temping," :lol: said Lisa Casino-Schuetz, a single mother with a master's degree who has taken a string of low-paying jobs to provide for her two college-aged kids.
The Psychological Toll
"In a nutshell, it's devastating," Blustein said. "The psychological consequences are enormous... As people have to take lower level positions, it does confront their own sense of worth in a pretty negative way."
Even working, Casino-Schuetz makes so little that she rents out a room in her house to a boarder for $500 a month. Her home and a condo she owns are both in foreclosure, and she has had her electricity shut off in the past.
The elimination of emergency extended unemployment last year made things worse, since long-term jobless professionals have to start liquidating their assets sooner.
"Across the board, the people who exhaust long-term benefits get a lot poorer," said Josh Bivens, director of research and policy at the Economic Policy Institute. New EPI research finds that only about a quarter of jobless Americans are drawing unemployment payments, down from a high of about two-thirds in the immediate aftermath of the recession.
Without unemployment benefits, the long-term unemployed must draw down their assets, which presents its own set of serious consequences. Once that money is gone, these families have no financial security today or for retirement.
"Some of them will never get back into the work force," Van Horn said. "Those people... especially folks in their mid-50s and up, they're going to be in very bad shape financially because they can't even take Social Security already," he said. What's more, the benefits they eventually will be able to draw will be less than if they had worked through retirement without interruption.
"You'll basically have more low-income older Americans," he said, who will rely more on safety net programs like food stamps and heating assistance.
"Right now, retirement's out of the picture," Maimone said. "I probably won't retire. I probably will be working until the end the way things look now."
And?
That's just not cunty enough of a cunty response, Cunterson McCuntie. Needs more cunt.
That doesn't seem like an answer to my question. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 11:39:05 AM
And?
And the shareholders lived happily ever after.
There. There's you fucking answer. Cunt.
I mean your articles starts with detailing the tale of a guy who took out 150k in loans to get a masters in entrepreneurship. Hardly a compelling example.
That said I agree that society shouldn't be setup so that you are just one and done.
How compassionate of you.
Well I think I have to rephrase my earlier question. Why did you post that article?
Because it's the student debt/bash higher education thread.
I'm not going to ask why you posted a cunty question, because we know the answer to that.
Doesn't it get tiresome to be so negative all the time?
You tell me, kitten. You're a bigger bitch than Martinus. I know it's the gay schtick, but even you have to put down the cunt mantle every now and then, if only to find your car keys.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 11:48:04 AM
I mean your articles starts with detailing the tale of a guy who took out 150k in loans to get a masters in entrepreneurship. Hardly a compelling example.
For his thesis, did he have to run a lemonade stand? :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 12:19:23 PM
You tell me, kitten. You're a bigger bitch than Martinus. I know it's the gay schtick, but even you have to put down the cunt mantle every now and then, if only to find your car keys.
I don't know what you are talking about. People find my laughter infectious.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 12:28:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 11:48:04 AM
I mean your articles starts with detailing the tale of a guy who took out 150k in loans to get a masters in entrepreneurship. Hardly a compelling example.
For his thesis, did he have to run a lemonade stand? :hmm:
Well clearly he didn't learn any entrepreneurial skills. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2014, 12:28:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 11:48:04 AM
I mean your articles starts with detailing the tale of a guy who took out 150k in loans to get a masters in entrepreneurship. Hardly a compelling example.
For his thesis, did he have to run a lemonade stand? :hmm:
Oh look, now Jewbacca gets to swing on in and pile on the unemployed.
I was raised Presbyterian, tyvm.
How bout that Christian compassion, huh? Whacky, whacky stuff.
I have compassion so I'd prefer people not be swindled by dubious degree programs.
Dubious? Forbes thinks otherwise:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgedeeb/2013/10/16/out-with-mbas-in-with-masters-in-entrepreneurship/
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 01:12:20 PM
Dubious? Forbes thinks otherwise:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgedeeb/2013/10/16/out-with-mbas-in-with-masters-in-entrepreneurship/
But what about Alex Gomez? :(
Also does that blurb really suggest that it is a good degree to get or rather than people think if they get one they will "get to be the man" rather than "work for the man"?
the vast majority of my class seem lazy or naive with job-hunting. the opportunity to interview for the top firms in the region has come and gone, and only four classmates applied to those positions. at one firm, only two applied. while the middle/bottom third are destined to work in small little firms, very few in the top third appear to have done much (if any) research. it's kind of weird.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 01:19:20 PM
Also does that blurb really suggest that it is a good degree to get or rather than people think if they get one they will "get to be the man" rather than "work for the man"?
What do you care, they're getting the end result you want: unemployed debt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 01:31:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 01:19:20 PM
Also does that blurb really suggest that it is a good degree to get or rather than people think if they get one they will "get to be the man" rather than "work for the man"?
What do you care, they're getting the end result you want: unemployed debt.
Why would I want that? If there was less of that maybe you'd stop moaning all the time.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
Why would I want that?
Because you're a cunt.
QuoteIf there was less of that maybe you'd stop moaning all the time.
My moaning is me doing my part for this new economy. You want this kind of economy, it comes with the unemployment rate. That's the price you pay for voting GOP.
Actually I doubt I get anything with my votes. Not a single GOP candidate I've ever voted for, for any position, has ever been elected.
also, gomez received his masters from university of south florida, which appears to have a pretty mediocre business program. connections obtained by going to elite schools and the school's reputation both go a long way to making the degree worthwhile. it's not the only factor, since individual drive and ability are huge factor. but those who get accepted into elite schools tend to (on average) have more drive, ability, etc.
why fault the school for providing a tool rather than the individual for failing to use that tool?
Quote from: LaCroix on October 12, 2014, 01:54:38 PM
why fault the school for providing a tool rather than the individual for failing to use that tool?
It's rather predatory on the part of a school to be offering up a tool at a price that most can't afford. Though I guess maybe that is on the source of the loans.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 01:50:12 PM
Actually I doubt I get anything with my votes. Not a single GOP candidate I've ever voted for, for any position, has ever been elected.
We need more people like you in this country. :hug:
I voted for Dubya. :moon:
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 02:05:48 PMIt's rather predatory on the part of a school to be offering up a tool at a price that most can't afford. Though I guess maybe that is on the source of the loans.
sure, if universities could offer degrees for substantially lower tuition without diminishing the quality of education. i don't know all the factors that go into tuition costs, though. but also, there's some level of risk to higher education, and it's up to the individual to mitigate as much of that risk as he can.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 11:44:12 AM
And the shareholders lived happily ever after.
There. There's you fucking answer. Cunt.
I thought MBAs were the cause of all our problems and we were supposed to hope for their destruction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2014, 02:49:19 PM
I thought MBAs were the cause of all our problems and we were supposed to hope for their destruction.
Mere foot soldiers.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 12, 2014, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 02:05:48 PMIt's rather predatory on the part of a school to be offering up a tool at a price that most can't afford. Though I guess maybe that is on the source of the loans.
sure, if universities could offer degrees for substantially lower tuition without diminishing the quality of education. i don't know all the factors that go into tuition costs, though. but also, there's some level of risk to higher education, and it's up to the individual to mitigate as much of that risk as he can.
Sure. Though if we except for the moment the premise that many students are now carrying debts that are negatively affecting their standards of living - and that many of those students will never effectively service all of their debt, one could begin to wonder if this isn't a situation that needs an overseer. While society can easily blame one individual for poor choices, when that same poor choice is replicated by several thousands - you have to wonder if that's a choice we should allow people to be making.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 04:13:27 PM
Sure. Though if we except for the moment the premise that many students are now carrying debts that are negatively affecting their standards of living - and that many of those students will never effectively service all of their debt, one could begin to wonder if this isn't a situation that needs an overseer. While society can easily blame one individual for poor choices, when that same poor choice is replicated by several thousands - you have to wonder if that's a choice we should allow people to be making.
Unfortunately, too many people went back to school at once to increase their employment chances after 2008 during the period when government subsidies for higher ed drop resulting in skyrocketing tuition rates at the precisely the same time businesses and government decided not to hire anybody anymore.
But it's a lot easier to blame the poor fucks that were stupid enough to go back to college figuring that would increase their value than the economy that doesn't offer enough jobs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 04:22:15 PM
But it's a lot easier to blame the poor fucks that were stupid enough to go back to college figuring that would increase their value than the economy that doesn't offer enough jobs.
Well if you don't have money, probably not a good idea to take more than 100k in loans.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 04:13:27 PMSure. Though if we except for the moment the premise that many students are now carrying debts that are negatively affecting their standards of living - and that many of those students will never effectively service all of their debt, one could begin to wonder if this isn't a situation that needs an overseer. While society can easily blame one individual for poor choices, when that same poor choice is replicated by several thousands - you have to wonder if that's a choice we should allow people to be making.
i don't know how it would be regulated. banning higher education to those with poor high school grades (or whatever other factor) would be awful, IMO. while some people lose out, some others are given opportunities they never would have had if they hadn't gone to college or entered a graduate/professional program.
also, who knows, maybe things aren't as bad as the articles say. anecdotal stories aside, today's 150k in debt poor unemployed post-graduate might be much better off thanks to his degree twenty years down the road.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 04:22:15 PM
But it's a lot easier to blame the poor fucks that were stupid enough to go back to college figuring that would increase their value than the economy that doesn't offer enough jobs.
Well if you don't have money, probably not a good idea to take more than 100k in loans.
What about when they do have the money, like a lot of these professionals did that were dealing with their loans just fine until they lost their jobs, homes and retirements? Not all of these filthy useless assfucks are taking out 150K in graduate student loans AFTER they're unemployed.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 12, 2014, 04:52:19 PM
also, who knows, maybe things aren't as bad as the articles say. anecdotal stories aside, today's 150k in debt poor unemployed post-graduate might be much better off thanks to his degree twenty years down the road.
And what of the ones that will be dead twenty years down the road?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 04:59:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 04:22:15 PM
But it's a lot easier to blame the poor fucks that were stupid enough to go back to college figuring that would increase their value than the economy that doesn't offer enough jobs.
Well if you don't have money, probably not a good idea to take more than 100k in loans.
What about when they do have the money, like a lot of these professionals did that were dealing with their loans just fine until they lost their jobs, homes and retirements? Not all of these filthy useless assfucks are taking out 150K in graduate student loans AFTER they're unemployed.
They should taken a better assessment of the state of their finances and potential risks?
To tackle one of the other anecdotes from that article...it seems working for 30 years at one of the major blue chip tech firms doesn't do much for that retirement nest egg.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 01:19:20 PM
Also does that blurb really suggest that it is a good degree to get or rather than people think if they get one they will "get to be the man" rather than "work for the man"?
People who start their own businesses don't need expensive degrees to prove to the boss that they have what it takes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 05:00:33 PMAnd what of the ones that will be dead twenty years down the road?
oh well -- success isn't guaranteed. he was born in the US and managed to reach higher education, so he had the opportunity. a lot of factors go into poor decision making, and the blame isn't always on the individual. but it's not always on the school, either, or society. there are 300 million people in this country, and there are going to be those who simply overload on debt and fail to find employment.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 05:40:12 PM
They should taken a better assessment of the state of their finances and potential risks?
Unless one works for the government, there's always the chance one is going to lose their job. So don't buy a house, don't buy a car, don't get married and have kids, don't get that degree management says you need if you want to aspire to leadership positions.
In short, be you. Gotcha.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 12, 2014, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 05:00:33 PMAnd what of the ones that will be dead twenty years down the road?
oh well -- success isn't guaranteed. he was born in the US and managed to reach higher education, so he had the opportunity. a lot of factors go into poor decision making, and the blame isn't always on the individual. but it's not always on the school, either, or society. there are 300 million people in this country, and there are going to be those who simply overload on debt and fail to find employment.
Oh well. Win some, lose some. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2014, 07:23:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2014, 05:40:12 PM
They should taken a better assessment of the state of their finances and potential risks?
Unless one works for the government, there's always the chance one is going to lose their job. So don't buy a house, don't buy a car, don't get married and have kids, don't get that degree management says you need if you want to aspire to leadership positions.
In short, be you. Gotcha.
:huh:
The first thing I did out of college (right after graduation) was buy a brand new car.
Well then, good for you that you took that assessment of the state of your finances and potential risks. You were one of the lucky ones.
One for Ide to file, under "H" for "Hater".
Quote
Opinions
Washington Post
Thinking too highly of higher ed
By Peter Thiel November 21 at 8:11 PM
Peter Thiel, an investor and entrepreneur, is author of "Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future."
Perhaps the least controversial thing that President Obama ever said was that "in the coming decades, a high school diploma is not going to be enough. Folks need a college degree." This vision is commonplace, but it implies a bleak future where everyone must work harder just to stay in place, and it's just not true. Nothing forces us to funnel students into a tournament that bankrupts the losers and turns the winners into conformists. But that's what will happen until we start questioning whether college is our only option.
Is higher education an investment? Everyone knows that college graduates earn more than those without degrees. Maybe that earning power comes from learning valuable skills, networking with smart people or obtaining a recognized credential. Well, maybe — it's hard to say exactly, since "college" bundles so many different things into one arbitrary package. And if all the most ambitious kids in our society go to college just because it's the conventional thing to do, then what happens on campus might not matter, anyway. The same kids would probably enjoy a wage premium even if they spent four years in the Peace Corps instead.
Or is college mostly about consumption? One look at a college brochure suggests that college students consume much more avidly than they invest. That's why schools compete to attract student-consumers by furnishing a lively singles scene with plenty of time and space to party in glamorous surroundings. Or is college really insurance? Parents who despair of all the partying reassure themselves that college doesn't have to guarantee a bright future so long as it wards off career disaster — sort of how nobody expects to make money buying car insurance.
But what if higher education is really just the final stage of a competitive tournament? From grades and test results through the U.S. News & World Report rankings of the colleges themselves, higher education sorts us all into a hierarchy. Kids at the top enjoy prestige because they've defeated everybody else in a competition to reach the schools that proudly exclude the most people. All the hard work at Harvard is done by the admissions officers who anoint an already-proven hypercompetitive elite. If that weren't true — if superior instruction could explain the value of college — then why not franchise the Ivy League? Why not let more students benefit? It will never happen because the top U.S. colleges draw their mystique from zero-sum competition.
This tournament is obviously bad for the losers, who end up shut out of a self-satisfied "meritocratic" elite. But it's bad for the winners, too, because it trains them to compete on old career tracks such as management consulting and investment banking instead of doing something new. And it's worst of all for society at large because our economy stagnates when its leaders jockey to collect rents from old industries instead of working to create new ones that could raise the standard of living for everyone.
Today that's the tournament-style economy we have. Median household wages are actually lower than they were in 1989 (adjusted for inflation), so Americans have flocked to the few things that seem to promise an escape from stagnation. In the 2000s, that was real estate. Was housing an investment? A way to consume bigger houses? Or was it a kind of middle-class insurance policy when everything else looked broken? Nobody thought very hard about it because everybody believed that house prices would always go up.
Now education has taken the place of housing. If a college degree always means higher wages, then everyone should get a college degree: That's the conventional wisdom encapsulated by Obama. But how can everyone win a zero-sum tournament? No single path can work for everyone, and the promise of such an easy path is a sign of a bubble.
Of course, you can't become successful just by dropping out of college. But you can't become successful just by going to college, either, or by following any formula. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg aren't famous because of the similar ways in which they left school. We know their names because of what each of them did differently from everybody else.
Learning from dropouts doesn't require closing colleges but rather questioning them carefully. Higher education holds itself out as a kind of universal church, outside of which there is no salvation. Critics are cast as heretics or schismatics endangering the flock. But our greatest danger comes from the herd instinct that drives us to competition and crowds out difference.
A Reformation is coming, and its message will be the same as it was 500 years ago: Don't outsource your future to a big institution. You need to figure it out for yourself.
Hitler figured things out for himself.
We went to a food truck event by the river (the day I posted the picture). One of the trucks was a coffee trailer. Essentially they had a barista machine in a trailer. Running it was a sorta cute girl, and on the window was a flyer that claimed it was a TMCC Young Entrepreneur Business. That's a community college here. So I asked the girl about it, and she said she had graduated from the college and then started this business. I asked her if she had student loans. She said yes.
So basically, she went through four years of school in order to become a barista in a trailer.
Some posters would kill to be a barrister in a trailer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2014, 05:13:05 PM
Quote
Learning from dropouts doesn't require closing colleges but rather questioning them carefully. Higher education holds itself out as a kind of universal church, outside of which there is no salvation. Critics are cast as heretics or schismatics endangering the flock. But our greatest danger comes from the herd instinct that drives us to competition and crowds out difference.
A Reformation is coming, and its message will be the same as it was 500 years ago: Don't outsource your future to a big institution. You need to figure it out for yourself.
I recommend we start by expelling the Bush clan and burning text books. :pope:
What a great piece, except where he doesn't propose the obvious solution: central planning of America's educational resources.
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2014, 06:21:01 PM
Some posters would kill to be a barrister in a trailer.
Kill is too strong, but I have a trailer, and I didn't get to spend any time in it at all last summer... :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 22, 2014, 06:13:31 PM
So basically, she went through four years of school in order to become a barista in a trailer.
I sure hope it was two years if it was a Community College.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2014, 12:51:14 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 22, 2014, 06:13:31 PM
So basically, she went through four years of school in order to become a barista in a trailer.
I sure hope it was two years if it was a Community College.
Don't spoil the anecdote with facts.
Word from our very own Federal Reserve! If you aren't rich by 35, you never will be. Your professional life is basically set by 40. If you haven't made it by then, you won't. You can actually expect to see your income fall after 45 if you haven't struck it rich.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/if-youre-going-to-get-rich-do-it-by-age-35-it-will-probably-be-your-last-chance/ar-AA9iPEp?srcref=rss
QuoteIf You're Going to Get Rich, Better Do It by Age 35
Millennials aren't given a lot of credit. They tweet too much. They Facebook too much. They've all moved back home with their parents and would rather spend time polishing their selfies than their resumes. Still, it turns out they've been doing one useful thing all along: building up permanent income potential.
According to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, most people establish their lifetime earning power within the first ten years of their career. After age 35, income growth pretty much flattens, so if you haven't struck it rich by then, it's probably never going to happen.
"Across the board, the bulk of earnings growth happens during the first decade," wrote authors Fatih Guvenen, Fatih Karahan, Serdar Ozkan and Jae Song. "...[And] with the exception of those in the top 10% of the LE (life earnings) distribution, all groups experience negative growth from ages 45 to 55."
The revelation is part of a major study that the authors undertook into the earnings of American men, analyzing data from approximately five million workers spread out over a period of 40 years. (They did not, it appears, include women in the data points.)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the authors found that results vary widely depending on how much money you make. In fact, wealth is an overwhelming determinate in how much you can expect to continue earning.
The Rich
The wealthy are the exception to aging out at 35. Starting in the top 10%, those in this group continue to increase their average earning power past their mid-30's. After age 45, only the top 2% of earners can expect to make more money.
From age 25 to 55, workers in the top 90th percentile increase their earning power by 127%. In the 95th percentile that number swells to 230%.
By the top 99th percentile (the epithetical 1%), a worker will generally increase his earning power 1,450% over a 30-year career.
The Rest
The median worker has an income growth of 38% over his career, virtually all of which will come before age 35. Starting at age 45, that will probably even slip a little.
For workers on the bottom 20% of the spectrum the numbers are considerably worse. Over a lifetime, they actually lose earning power and can retire making less than the day they started.
The good news for middle class workers is that they have a lot less to fear from sudden changes to income, or "shocks." The less you earn the more likely it is that sudden swings will be positive, or at least short lived.
"Positive shocks," the authors wrote, "to high-earnings individuals are quite transitory, whereas negative shocks are very persistent; the opposite is true for low-earnings individuals.
"It seems that the higher an individual's current earnings, the more room he has to fall and the less room he has to move up," the authors wrote.
This is economist for, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall." The wealthy experience more and worse income dips because they have more to lose, while the poor and middle class have more to gain and less ground to recover in case things go badly. Cold comfort sure, but it's better than nothing.
Combined with their findings on age, the authors found that "the lower 95 percentiles and the top 5 percentiles display patterns with age and recent earnings that are the opposite of each other." We live in different worlds.
Read More:Widening Income Gap Is Risk To U.S. Financial System, Experts Say
All of this matters, because understanding lifetime earning is a major determinant for financial decisions. A worker who has better times ahead will feel in a good position to take out a mortgage, while someone with more to fear might begin hoarding his nuts. Getting that call right can mean the difference between a comfortable retirement and an underwater three-bedroom.
This is also a dire warning sign for Millennials.
As a generation that came of age during the Great Recession, many, if not most, of Millennials got out of school and took whatever jobs they could get. Cohort-wide, they suffered a 9% loss to their income, considerably more for some. Although economists have long warned that it would take years for this generation to catch up, and this paper suggests that that might never happen.
The earnings hangover from a recession can last for years. Unfortunately for Millennials, by the time their incomes rebound to historic norms, it may simply be too late. For a 34-year-old who's finally caught up, it's not merely that he's lost all of the money he would have made in the previous ten years. He's also probably about one year away from peaking out altogether. That lost ground will never come back.
So for all of the young workers out there, now is the time to push for more. Establish your earning power early . . . while you still have the chance.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 16, 2015, 11:49:46 AM
Word from our very own Federal Reserve! If you aren't rich by 35, you never will be. Your professional life is basically set by 40. If you haven't made it by then, you won't. You can actually expect to see your income fall after 45 if you haven't struck it rich.
I'm 62 so I guess I'm way past getting rich. :( But at least getting near retirement, though it's a marker I never thought about reaching but I'm glad that I planned for it anyway.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 16, 2015, 11:49:46 AM
Your professional life is basically set by 40. If you haven't made it by then, you won't. You can actually expect to see your income fall after 45 if you haven't struck it rich.
They don't mention what happens when it's all taken away by 45. Berkut giving you shit for bitching about it is not much of a consolation prize.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2015, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 16, 2015, 11:49:46 AM
Your professional life is basically set by 40. If you haven't made it by then, you won't. You can actually expect to see your income fall after 45 if you haven't struck it rich.
They don't mention what happens when it's all taken away by 45. Berkut giving you shit for bitching about it is not much of a consolation prize.
Well then you just have to go big and long.
Huh. My income quintupled in the years between 27 and 32.
Honestly though I think it's a risk-taking thing. If you haven't taken risks by 40 you probably won't. But there's nothing actually stopping a 45 year old from it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 16, 2015, 06:13:37 PM
Huh. My income quintupled in the years between 27 and 32.
Honestly though I think it's a risk-taking thing. If you haven't taken risks by 40 you probably won't. But there's nothing actually stopping a 45 year old from it.
It is easier to take risks when young, unattached and with little in the way of financial obligations. By the time people hit their 40s there will likely be a large number of reasons why taking a risk makes very little sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2015, 06:17:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 16, 2015, 06:13:37 PM
Huh. My income quintupled in the years between 27 and 32.
Honestly though I think it's a risk-taking thing. If you haven't taken risks by 40 you probably won't. But there's nothing actually stopping a 45 year old from it.
It is easier to take risks when young, unattached and with little in the way of financial obligations. By the time people hit their 40s there will likely be a large number of reasons why taking a risk makes very little sense.
I hope that's what it is because I'm taking risks right now and I'd hate for that to be for naught because I'm 40.
Quote from: Jacob on February 16, 2015, 06:23:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2015, 06:17:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 16, 2015, 06:13:37 PM
Huh. My income quintupled in the years between 27 and 32.
Honestly though I think it's a risk-taking thing. If you haven't taken risks by 40 you probably won't. But there's nothing actually stopping a 45 year old from it.
It is easier to take risks when young, unattached and with little in the way of financial obligations. By the time people hit their 40s there will likely be a large number of reasons why taking a risk makes very little sense.
I hope that's what it is because I'm taking risks right now and I'd hate for that to be for naught because I'm 40.
Being 40 doesn't mean you can't take risks. But I do take issue with MiM's assertion there is nothing actually stopping any 45 year old from risk taking. A lot of 45 year olds will be at jobs or in careers which, while they may not make them rich, will at least provide a living.
There are certainly reasons they would be less likely to do so at 45. I mean you'd presumably have had time by then to accumulate them. You'd have more to lose.
Wealth and success is all a matter of risk taking. It's a sure thing, as long as you take the risk--that's why they call it "risk"!
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2015, 06:56:54 PM
Being 40 doesn't mean you can't take risks. But I do take issue with MiM's assertion there is nothing actually stopping any 45 year old from risk taking. A lot of 45 year olds will be at jobs or in careers which, while they may not make them rich, will at least provide a living.
Yeah I know, that was a little tongue in cheek.
Quote from: Jacob on February 16, 2015, 07:57:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2015, 06:56:54 PM
Being 40 doesn't mean you can't take risks. But I do take issue with MiM's assertion there is nothing actually stopping any 45 year old from risk taking. A lot of 45 year olds will be at jobs or in careers which, while they may not make them rich, will at least provide a living.
Yeah I know, that was a little tongue in cheek.
:Embarrass:
Here's a triple play for all you Languishites: a Liberal Arts death, and one embodying Southern gentility...filled with dirty filthy whore coozes to boot! Something for everybody!
QuoteSweet Briar College to close because of financial challenges
By Nick Anderson and Susan Svrluga March 3 at 7:00 PM
Grade Point
Washington Post
For more than a century, Sweet Briar College has offered women a liberal arts education in a pastoral setting near Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains. Equestrian programs, a tight-knit residential community and, lately, an engineering science degree, have been its hallmarks.
On Tuesday, the college's leadership abruptly announced its closure to stunned and tearful audiences of faculty and students. Officials cited "insurmountable financial challenges," saying the 700-student college, founded in 1901, would shut down permanently in August. An $84 million endowment, officials said, was not enough to offset ebbing demand for their school in a tumultuous market.
"It's so sad," to think of a place that feels like a second home not existing any more, said Katie Craig, president of the student government. All around campus students were wandering, in shock, on the phone with their parents and friends, she said, wondering if all the things they worked so hard to achieve were for nothing.
Emotions were very high for alumnae who joined in on a conference call about the closure Tuesday evening, said Julia Patt, a 2009 graduate who lives in Chestertown, Md. She said people were shocked and kept asking if there wasn't something they could do other than shut down.
Patt said students and graduates have a powerful bond to Sweet Briar. "To have it taken away, there really are not words for it," she said. "I hope other institutions that come to a similar place might see some options. It doesn't have to be like this for everyone."
The closure of the college in Amherst County, north of Lynchburg, continues a painful era of retrenchment for single-sex higher education and is a sign of the perils facing small liberal arts schools of all types.
Fifty years ago, there were 230 women's colleges in the United States, according to the Women's College Coalition. Now, after decades of shutdowns, mergers and coed conversions, there are little more than 40. Some women's colleges remain among the most durable brands in higher education, including Smith, Wellesley, Barnard, Bryn Mawr and historically black Spelman. But others, like Sweet Briar, have faced an increasing financial squeeze and have scrambled to attract new students.
In late 2013, Jo Ellen Parker, then-president of Sweet Briar, said the college was seeking to cut costs and sharpen its focus. The school had excised its volleyball team and classes in Italian and German. Parker said the school planned to highlight what makes it distinctive, including programs that aimed to help women move into careers in science, technology and engineering.
But enrollment continued to slide. In 2010, the college had 760 students. Last fall, it reported 700. It charges about $47,000 a year in tuition, fees, room and board. But to attract students, the college had been forced to discount tuition by an average of about 60 percent, officials said, leaving it in precarious financial shape.
The college's board of directors, in an emergency meeting in Washington, voted unanimously Saturday to close as of Aug. 25, said college President James F. Jones Jr.
"This is a sad day for the entire Sweet Briar College community," Paul G. Rice, the board chairman, said in a statement. "The board closely examined the college's financial situation and weighed it against our obligations to current and prospective students, parents, faculty and staff, alumnae, donors and friends. We voted to act now to cease academic operations responsibly, allowing us to place students at other academic institutions, to assist faculty and staff with the transition and to conduct a more orderly winding down of academic operations."
Jones was blunt about the challenges the school faced: "The declining number of students choosing to attend small, rural, private liberal arts colleges and even fewer young women willing to consider a single-sex education."
Variations on this view, sometimes in cities and suburbs, have aired over the years as many women's colleges have transitioned to admitting men, including Goucher in Baltimore County and Hood in Frederick. Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg went coed in 2007, under the name Randolph College.
Coed schools have not been immune from pressure. Virginia Intermont College in Bristol announced its closure last year, and other institutions around the country in recent years have closed or merged. Demand for higher education in some regions has slackened as the economy has improved and as the number of graduates from high schools has dropped or leveled off.
Some women's colleges, however, are thriving. Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, said key to the success of her Catholic women's college in Northeast has been the expansion of coeducational graduate programs and an intensive recruiting drive in urban neighborhoods.
That has netted many young women from low-income backgrounds, she said, especially from black and Hispanic families. "This idea that young women don't want to go to women's colleges," McGuire said, is "an artifact" of an era when those colleges were perceived to be mainly targeting upper-class white women.
"There are a lot of women's colleges that are doing fine," said Marilyn Hammond, interim president of the Women's College Coalition. "To say it's a sector issue would not be correct."
At Sweet Briar, the news roiled campus at midday Tuesday. Jones and Rice said faculty were told first, then students.
"That was, as one would expect, very emotional," Jones said. He said his wife is a Sweet Briar alumna. Many of the students were in tears, he said. "They love this place as much as she did. It's very much understandable — grief about losing something that you hold incredibly important down to the core of your being."
Phyllis Jordan, a communications consultant who lives in the District and graduated from Sweet Briar in 1980, said the news stunned her Tuesday.
"I knew that Sweet Briar was in trouble and having tough times. But I had no idea this was the solution they were going to come up with," said Jordan, a former Washington Post editor who is active on the school's alumnae board.
There was an immediate outpouring on social media, of shock and dismay and love for the school. "First thought: I'm going to reunion this year if I have to pitch a tent on the Quad," one alumna wrote.
"There are few things in my life that have caught me more off-guard or been more devastating," one alumna tweeted. "I can't stop crying."
Some current students sounded lost — worried about transferring credits, where they would be next year, what to do. Sweet Briar officials said they would help students transfer, possibly to Hollins University or Mary Baldwin College — two women's schools in Virginia — or elsewhere.
Throughout Virginia, people were talking about the loss of part of the state's history, a school known for its southern charm, its gentility, its early adoption of an engineering degree, its equestrian program. Students and alumnae of other women's colleges reacted with sympathy, as well.
But Sweet Briar's Web site crashed mid-afternoon, leaving error codes and blank spaces where there had been happy images of busy campus life.
I like how that article notes co-ed conversions as a negative.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 08:25:13 AM
I like how that article notes co-ed conversions as a negative.
Well it does kind of eliminate the whole "what makes it distinctive" motif.
Quote"There are a lot of women's colleges that are doing fine," said Marilyn Hammond, interim president of the Women's College Coalition. "To say it's a sector issue would not be correct."
Well there are 40 left out of 230. Not to point out the obvious here....
QuoteWell it does kind of eliminate the whole "what makes it distinctive" motif.
Well it is a niche market now where as before it was a mass market. These things happen.
QuoteThat has netted many young women from low-income backgrounds, she said, especially from black and Hispanic families. "This idea that young women don't want to go to women's colleges," McGuire said, is "an artifact" of an era when those colleges were perceived to be mainly targeting upper-class white women.
Probably not an option for small colleges who charge over $40,000 a year. Just a hunch.
I am surprised that it was Sweetbriar that closed - it has a pretty good rep locally, but I can see how they have priced themselves out of the market. The big surprises were that
(1) the board didn't try harder to explore alternatives (instead, meeting in an "emergency session") and
(2) that the vote to close the school, and close immediately, was unanimous.
Those facts tell me that there's a lot more to this story that we don't know yet.
QuoteFor more than a century, Sweet Briar College has offered... a liberal arts education...
On Tuesday, the college's leadership abruptly announced its closure
Well, I got what I needed out of the article.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 04, 2015, 09:15:51 PM
QuoteFor more than a century, Sweet Briar College has offered... a liberal arts education...
On Tuesday, the college's leadership abruptly announced its closure
Well, I got what I needed out of the article.
Still wallowing in the self-loathing, eh? Well, as long as you are enjoying it, who's to blame you? :lol:
Yeah, I don't get the Sweet Briar hate...after all, they don't have a law school.
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2015, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 04, 2015, 09:15:51 PM
QuoteFor more than a century, Sweet Briar College has offered... a liberal arts education...
On Tuesday, the college's leadership abruptly announced its closure
Well, I got what I needed out of the article.
Still wallowing in the self-loathing, eh? Well, as long as you are enjoying it, who's to blame you? :lol:
I don't self-loathe.
Here's a priceless one for all the higher-ed haters:
QuoteI was a professor at four universities. I still couldn't make ends meet.
One former adjunct describes a system that's untenable.
WashingtonPost.com
by Tanya Paperny March 6 at 6:00 AM
Tanya Paperny is the writer and editor at Bellwether Education Partners.
Last week was the first ever National Adjunct Walkout Day, a grassroots protest to push for fair pay and better working conditions. Protests and teach-ins took place on as many as 100 campuses nationwide, prompting at least one university to create a task force to address labor concerns. It's little wonder that a national movement has sprung up around the adjunct system, which offers little or no job security or access to benefits and significantly lower wages than regular faculty. I sympathize — I was an adjunct, and I could only tolerate the stress and exhaustion for two years.
I taught as many as five classes each semester at four campuses in D.C. and Maryland, crisscrossing town by bike and public transportation during work days that sometimes lasted 13 hours. I never knew what my employment would look like the following term and constantly applied for part- and full-time teaching positions in case I didn't get rehired. Many of the courses I taught—composition, professional writing and journalism—were required for undergraduate or graduate students, yet those programs ran almost entirely on the backs of adjuncts.
There were things about the work I loved. One student wrote an excellent research paper on creative arts therapy as a healing tool for depression sufferers; the paper landed her a fellowship working with cancer patients. When I saw students nodding their heads during lessons on essay structure or avoiding wordiness, I felt reenergized. In fact, engaging students was a challenge I loved. The working conditions were what drained me completely.
For one thing, there was the pay. I earned between $2,700 to $4,196 per course, which is generally better than the national adjunct pay average of $2,700. But my employers capped courses for adjuncts, meaning I couldn't teach more than two classes per semester at all but one of the schools. Fewer course offerings during the summer limited most of my course assignments and earnings to the fall and spring. In fall of 2012, I earned $13,600 before tax. The following spring, I made $14,100. One of my employers offered only two pay periods per semester for adjuncts, meaning I went three months without pay from that job. All told, I made between $27,700 and $35,000 a year from teaching. This is not an insignificant sum of money for many people, but was less than I was paid at my first job out of college, even though I have a terminal degree in my field.
And the schedule was untenable. In spring of 2013, I started my Thursdays at 8 a.m. in College Park, Md., taught at 4 p.m. at American University in Washington, D.C., and ended the day in D.C. with a Trinity Washington University class that wrapped up at 9 p.m. Some days I spent almost three hours commuting. Weekends were for grading papers.
I couldn't keep up this circus for more than two years, though many of my peers have been doing it much longer. At some point, I realized there was no ladder out of adjunct purgatory, no full-time positions within my reach. Nobody, especially none of my supervisors, wanted to admit this. (To be fair, not all administrators realize the employment status of adjuncts on their campus — many of these hiring decisions are made at the department level.)
Ann Pauley, Trinity's Vice President for Institutional Advancement, wrote to me in an e-mail: "The majority of Trinity's adjuncts are employed full-time in their professions," meaning they have other jobs that provide their primary income. But according to national figures from the American Association of University Professors, this is not the norm: The majority of contingent faculty don't have careers outside of academia.
Anne McLeer, Director of Research & Strategic Planning at SEIU Local 500, says: "There's no question there's a role for adjunct faculty and professionals with outside experience coming in to teach a class or two. But the problem is a disproportionate number of classes, especially in the humanities, being taught by adjuncts who don't have any job security or opportunity to advance up the levels." This was certainly my experience. A 2013 survey of George Mason University's contingent faculty revealed that roughly half were financially dependent upon their adjunct earnings. I supplemented my teaching income with freelance writing and a part-time remote job, but that money only added up to the equivalent of one course.
Why are universities relying so heavily on this type of labor? According to Marisa Allison, co-author of the George Mason University survey, administrative bloat is at least partly to blame. "The university is the only space where you've seen an increase in middle management, in jobs that were never there before," she says. "That is definitely a culprit." In places like Virginia, sharp cuts in state funding for higher education are also leading universities to curb costs. Others point to rising executive compensation, especially for campus presidents.
And there are the graduate programs, which keep churning out people with MAs or PhDs, even though there aren't enough positions for these graduates to move into. For many of us, our graduate programs didn't tell us that teaching in academia was no longer a guaranteed — or even sane — route on which to rely.
Many adjuncts love their jobs and want to make it work. Take Mitchell Tropin, who has been teaching at Trinity and four other universities since 2008 after a career in journalism. Despite the lack of promotion opportunities or formal job security, he says he feels respected and valued by his Trinity supervisors. He finds being an adjunct sustainable only because he has already paid off his mortgage and his kids are all adults. But he understands how younger people can't make do.
After a year-long job search, I'm now an in-house writing coach and editor at a nonprofit education consulting firm. I'm compensated and treated very well, given access to a full slate of benefits, and I get to do what I love: help people become better writers. My teaching experience helped qualify me for this job, but that doesn't mean I'd ever wish the adjunct hustle upon anyone else. Nor do I ever—not even for a second—miss my old life.
The system is not incapable of change. The majority of adjuncts in the D.C. area — including those at Howard University, George Washington University, Georgetown University, American University and the University of the District of Columbia — are now represented by SEIU Local 500 and have access to collective bargaining, a channel to air grievances and negotiate for improved wages and other benefits. Union contracts have as much as tripled pay for some at George Washington University and won year-long contracts for Montgomery College adjuncts, says McLeer. SEIU has initiated activities to form a union at Trinity, and the administration has stated their relative neutrality. A letter from President Patricia McGuire in September of last year stated that "adjuncts are free to express their opinions without fear of retribution." Unionization isn't a silver bullet—it's going to take a lot to reform how universities structure their spending—but mobilizing those still doing the tough job I used to do will result in real — albeit slow — changes.
QuoteMany of the courses I taught—composition, professional writing and journalism
:lol:
So, it seems to me like this kind went something like this:
1. Traditionally, classes at universities and colleges are taught by full pr part time professors who are employees of the school in question.
2. In some cases, it was seen as desirable to have classes taught by non-employees, for a variety of good reasons - a way to get outside experts involved, or visiting faculty from other schools. But this was seen as desirable not as a way of saving money, but as a way of having a more diverse pool of potential instructors. But overall, the vast majority of classes are taught by traditional full time professors/instructors.
3. Schools realize that the per course cost of an adjunct is a tiny fraction of what it costs to have a full time professor teach the class, so more and more and more classes are not just being allowed to be taught by an adjunct, but rather they MUST be taught by an adjunct, because the school isn't going to hire enough actual full time employees to teach their classes - instead, they just offer the classes as adjunct.
This results in a situation where there simply is not as many actual full time positions available as one would expect, since schools will just decide that paying an adjunct to teach the class is so much cheaper than paying an employee. And now it is getting to the point where actually teaching a lot of classes has become the job of "mercenaries" who go about form school to school looking for what work they can scrape up, rather than actual faculty with an investment in the school itself (and the schools investment in them). This seems, to me, to be a pretty terrible model as it is being used.
Yep. Unintended consequences at work.
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2015, 01:13:58 PM
This results in a situation where there simply is not as many actual full time positions available as one would expect, since schools will just decide that paying an adjunct to teach the class is so much cheaper than paying an employee. And now it is getting to the point where actually teaching a lot of classes has become the job of "mercenaries" who go about form school to school looking for what work they can scrape up, rather than actual faculty with an investment in the school itself (and the schools investment in them). This seems, to me, to be a pretty terrible model as it is being used.
I think you will find this comment on the strike now going on at a number of Canadian Universities of interest.
QuoteWhat's happening at U of T and York is symptomatic of a larger problem across Canada. Underpaid part-time staff teach a majority of undergraduates in Canada. For example, at U of T contract faculty and teaching assistants do 60 per cent of the teaching but make up 3.5 per cent of the budget. This is not an isolated problem. According to one study, the number of contract faculty in Ontario increased 87 per cent in between 2000 and 2014.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-u-of-t-york-strikes-are-more-than-labour-disputes/article23279298/
bumping for Yi
There unquestionably is a glut of people willing to take shit wages in order to teach. In part, i am sure, that is a result of the poor employment prospects of many recent college graduates (not having degrees that employers are looking for), and in part because these prospective professors didn't think their career choices through very well (much like the lawyers now working as clerks or poorly-paid research assistants).
Both elements of the glut will alleviate themselves over time. Kinda sucks for the people caught up in the system right now, but there are always people in this position; you can't save everyone from the consequences of their own poor decisions.
The strikes might work to cut down the number of temp positions the colleges are willing to fund, by increasing wages for those lucky enough to get the remaining jobs, but strikes have never really been successful in a glutted labor market. When workers care more about having a job than how much they get paid for it, labor doesn't have much leverage.
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2015, 01:13:58 PM
So, it seems to me like this kind went something like this:
1. Traditionally, classes at universities and colleges are taught by full pr part time professors who are employees of the school in question.
2. In some cases, it was seen as desirable to have classes taught by non-employees, for a variety of good reasons - a way to get outside experts involved, or visiting faculty from other schools. But this was seen as desirable not as a way of saving money, but as a way of having a more diverse pool of potential instructors. But overall, the vast majority of classes are taught by traditional full time professors/instructors.
3. Schools realize that the per course cost of an adjunct is a tiny fraction of what it costs to have a full time professor teach the class, so more and more and more classes are not just being allowed to be taught by an adjunct, but rather they MUST be taught by an adjunct, because the school isn't going to hire enough actual full time employees to teach their classes - instead, they just offer the classes as adjunct.
This results in a situation where there simply is not as many actual full time positions available as one would expect, since schools will just decide that paying an adjunct to teach the class is so much cheaper than paying an employee. And now it is getting to the point where actually teaching a lot of classes has become the job of "mercenaries" who go about form school to school looking for what work they can scrape up, rather than actual faculty with an investment in the school itself (and the schools investment in them). This seems, to me, to be a pretty terrible model as it is being used.
The flip side is that college costs are exploding and have been for some time. That isn't because of direct teaching costs of course, but if you remove a source of discount teachers the problem is only going to get worse.
It actually doesn't seem so odd to me that many college teachers could have worse employment prospects than primary or secondary teachers. Sure they require more expertise in specific fields, but they don't need other skills. I'd put up with more crap and less pay to teach in college versus teaching first grade, for instance.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2015, 08:29:08 AM
It actually doesn't seem so odd to me that many college teachers could have worse employment prospects than primary or secondary teachers. Sure they require more expertise in specific fields, but they don't need other skills. I'd put up with more crap and less pay to teach in college versus teaching first grade, for instance.
The parents are older and more resigned to their children's failure at that point.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2015, 08:29:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2015, 01:13:58 PM
So, it seems to me like this kind went something like this:
1. Traditionally, classes at universities and colleges are taught by full pr part time professors who are employees of the school in question.
2. In some cases, it was seen as desirable to have classes taught by non-employees, for a variety of good reasons - a way to get outside experts involved, or visiting faculty from other schools. But this was seen as desirable not as a way of saving money, but as a way of having a more diverse pool of potential instructors. But overall, the vast majority of classes are taught by traditional full time professors/instructors.
3. Schools realize that the per course cost of an adjunct is a tiny fraction of what it costs to have a full time professor teach the class, so more and more and more classes are not just being allowed to be taught by an adjunct, but rather they MUST be taught by an adjunct, because the school isn't going to hire enough actual full time employees to teach their classes - instead, they just offer the classes as adjunct.
This results in a situation where there simply is not as many actual full time positions available as one would expect, since schools will just decide that paying an adjunct to teach the class is so much cheaper than paying an employee. And now it is getting to the point where actually teaching a lot of classes has become the job of "mercenaries" who go about form school to school looking for what work they can scrape up, rather than actual faculty with an investment in the school itself (and the schools investment in them). This seems, to me, to be a pretty terrible model as it is being used.
The flip side is that college costs are exploding and have been for some time. That isn't because of direct teaching costs of course, but if you remove a source of discount teachers the problem is only going to get worse.
Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.
This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.
The fact that salaries for teaching staff has NOT gone up suggests exactly the opposite of your conclusion. If nothing else, it would be better if all that extra money being sucked in went to better salaries for staff rather than ever more elaborate and fancy facilities.
All I know is that I teach one course a semester and also work full time for the university (thus getting benefits, etc. from them). Those other adjuncts are doing it wrong.
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2015, 09:19:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2015, 08:29:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2015, 01:13:58 PM
So, it seems to me like this kind went something like this:
1. Traditionally, classes at universities and colleges are taught by full pr part time professors who are employees of the school in question.
2. In some cases, it was seen as desirable to have classes taught by non-employees, for a variety of good reasons - a way to get outside experts involved, or visiting faculty from other schools. But this was seen as desirable not as a way of saving money, but as a way of having a more diverse pool of potential instructors. But overall, the vast majority of classes are taught by traditional full time professors/instructors.
3. Schools realize that the per course cost of an adjunct is a tiny fraction of what it costs to have a full time professor teach the class, so more and more and more classes are not just being allowed to be taught by an adjunct, but rather they MUST be taught by an adjunct, because the school isn't going to hire enough actual full time employees to teach their classes - instead, they just offer the classes as adjunct.
This results in a situation where there simply is not as many actual full time positions available as one would expect, since schools will just decide that paying an adjunct to teach the class is so much cheaper than paying an employee. And now it is getting to the point where actually teaching a lot of classes has become the job of "mercenaries" who go about form school to school looking for what work they can scrape up, rather than actual faculty with an investment in the school itself (and the schools investment in them). This seems, to me, to be a pretty terrible model as it is being used.
The flip side is that college costs are exploding and have been for some time. That isn't because of direct teaching costs of course, but if you remove a source of discount teachers the problem is only going to get worse.
Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.
This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.
The fact that salaries for teaching staff has NOT gone up suggests exactly the opposite of your conclusion. If nothing else, it would be better if all that extra money being sucked in went to better salaries for staff rather than ever more elaborate and fancy facilities.
Go back and read my post. I said the cost of teachers was not the source of the problem, and you tell me I'm wrong because the source of the problem is something other than the cost of teachers. :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2015, 09:19:35 PM
Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.
This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.
I don't think it's that basic, and I think you're getting the economics of it wrong. If increases in subsidies are responsible for higher college costs, then student debt levels wouldn't be increasing. They would be decreasing. Students would be taking their share in subsidies.
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2015, 10:41:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2015, 09:19:35 PM
Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.
This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.
I don't think it's that basic, and I think you're getting the economics of it wrong. If increases in subsidies are responsible for higher college costs, then student debt levels wouldn't be increasing. They would be decreasing. Students would be taking their share in subsidies.
The government guaranteeing loans is a subsidy - I am not talking about just grants.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2015, 10:02:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2015, 09:19:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 03, 2015, 08:29:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2015, 01:13:58 PM
So, it seems to me like this kind went something like this:
1. Traditionally, classes at universities and colleges are taught by full pr part time professors who are employees of the school in question.
2. In some cases, it was seen as desirable to have classes taught by non-employees, for a variety of good reasons - a way to get outside experts involved, or visiting faculty from other schools. But this was seen as desirable not as a way of saving money, but as a way of having a more diverse pool of potential instructors. But overall, the vast majority of classes are taught by traditional full time professors/instructors.
3. Schools realize that the per course cost of an adjunct is a tiny fraction of what it costs to have a full time professor teach the class, so more and more and more classes are not just being allowed to be taught by an adjunct, but rather they MUST be taught by an adjunct, because the school isn't going to hire enough actual full time employees to teach their classes - instead, they just offer the classes as adjunct.
This results in a situation where there simply is not as many actual full time positions available as one would expect, since schools will just decide that paying an adjunct to teach the class is so much cheaper than paying an employee. And now it is getting to the point where actually teaching a lot of classes has become the job of "mercenaries" who go about form school to school looking for what work they can scrape up, rather than actual faculty with an investment in the school itself (and the schools investment in them). This seems, to me, to be a pretty terrible model as it is being used.
The flip side is that college costs are exploding and have been for some time. That isn't because of direct teaching costs of course, but if you remove a source of discount teachers the problem is only going to get worse.
Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.
This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.
The fact that salaries for teaching staff has NOT gone up suggests exactly the opposite of your conclusion. If nothing else, it would be better if all that extra money being sucked in went to better salaries for staff rather than ever more elaborate and fancy facilities.
Go back and read my post. I said the cost of teachers was not the source of the problem, and you tell me I'm wrong because the source of the problem is something other than the cost of teachers. :hmm:
No, I am telling you that the reason that the cost of higher education is going up so fast is because the pool of available money for it has gone up and hence colleges are icnreasing their costs so they can get more of it - therefore, the limiting factor is not costs, so increasing faculty salaries won't have a significant effect.
Right now, the consumer has this practically unlimited pool of money to tap into to go to college. The colleges, nominally mostly not for profit, want as much of that money as they can get, so they increase spending on fancy new buildings, stadiums, labs, all the "bling" that attracts more students, because students are mostly kind of stupid and make choices on what they can see, rather than on whether or not the college hires the best instructors and pays them well.
That is what is driving costs. Increasing faculty salaries would not make college more expensive, it would just make colleges spend their giant piles of federal cash differently.
Quote from: PDH on April 03, 2015, 09:35:48 PM
All I know is that I teach one course a semester and also work full time for the university (thus getting benefits, etc. from them). Those other adjuncts are doing it wrong.
Young people make me sick. They don't pay me enough for two classes.
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2015, 10:50:50 PM
No, I am telling you that the reason that the cost of higher education is going up so fast is because the pool of available money for it has gone up and hence colleges are icnreasing their costs so they can get more of it - therefore, the limiting factor is not costs, so increasing faculty salaries won't have a significant effect.
Right now, the consumer has this practically unlimited pool of money to tap into to go to college. The colleges, nominally mostly not for profit, want as much of that money as they can get, so they increase spending on fancy new buildings, stadiums, labs, all the "bling" that attracts more students, because students are mostly kind of stupid and make choices on what they can see, rather than on whether or not the college hires the best instructors and pays them well.
That is what is driving costs. Increasing faculty salaries would not make college more expensive, it would just make colleges spend their giant piles of federal cash differently.
I am, missing the incentive for "colleges" (whatever that means in terms of decision-makers) to simply "want as much of that money as they can get." Is this colleges decision-maker just some kind of kleptomaniac that wants to get money for the sake of money? Since most of these colleges guys are non-profit (as you note), they can't be trying to increase profit, so what good do they gain from simply having more money?
The answer, I think, is that you have the priorities of college decision-makers exactly reversed. They aren't increasing facilities so they can soak up more money, they are soaking up more money in order to increase facilities. The real fact of the matter is that the number of students reaching college age is going down, so competition for the best of those students is increasing. At the same time, you have more and more students basing their college decisions on scores in the various "best colleges" compendia on the web, and so schools are changing their spending patterns to maximize their scores on those. That mostly means technology and facilities (especially sports facilities). Faculty quality rarely comes into play, so faculty salaries have grown much more slowly than overall spending.
I don't believe that there has been any significant increase in the "the pool of available money for" college education. The increasing spending for university education is coming from debt, not from a larger pool of available money.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2015, 01:41:37 PM
I don't believe that there has been any significant increase in the "the pool of available money for" college education. The increasing spending for university education is coming from debt, not from a larger pool of available money.
Well, yeah. The pool of available money comes in the form of debt.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 04, 2015, 02:28:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2015, 01:41:37 PM
I don't believe that there has been any significant increase in the "the pool of available money for" college education. The increasing spending for university education is coming from debt, not from a larger pool of available money.
Well, yeah. The pool of available money comes in the form of debt.
:huh: Money that must be borrowed is the opposite of "available money."
Money that can be used is available.
Semantic discussions are so much fun. I have no idea why we haven't had a new member other than celedhring in like ten years.
That said, grumbler has a semi-intelligible point, in that the grotesque decadence of colleges is driven in part by competition with other colleges and in part by megalomaniacal empire building on the part of administrators.
That said, the fact is that the government's student loan policy fuels this destruction of wealth.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 04, 2015, 11:00:35 PM
Semantic discussions are so much fun. I have no idea why we haven't had a new member other than celedhring in like ten years.
That said, grumbler has a semi-intelligible point, in that the grotesque decadence of colleges is driven in part by competition with other colleges and in part by megalomaniacal empire building on the part of administrators.
That said, the fact is that the government's student loan policy fuels this destruction of wealth.
I agree that the ready availability of loans fuels the problem, but those loans have been available for decades. The growth in education costs haven't tracked with loan availability - in fact, Federal loan terms have gotten worse as costs have grown.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2015, 10:57:27 PM
Money that can be used is available.
Then there has been, since 1965, a practically infinite amount of "money available." That doesn't explain the more recent vast increase in tuition costs.
I don't think there's a single cause, but the increased demand which has been enabled by student loans is almost certainly part of it.
Apparently Stanford's acceptance has dropped to 5%! :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2015, 04:40:06 AM
Apparently Stanford's acceptance has dropped to 5%! :mellow:
Why are people not accepting Stanford? Too gay?
Too Californian :weep:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2015, 12:05:31 AM
I don't think there's a single cause, but the increased demand which has been enabled by student loans is almost certainly part of it.
I think that the increased demand is a result of increased costs, not a cause of increased costs.
If you look at the statistics, you will see that, from 1960 through 1985, about 50% of US high school graduates attended some college. In 1985, that number started to climb to about two-thirds, a point it reached in around 2000, and where the number has remained since.
If student loans caused this, then we would expect to see the numbers change radically when the 1965 federal law establishing the student loan program was established, but we don't. Similarly, we would expect to see major changes in the law around 1985 and 200, the two (very rough) inflection points. there are no such changes.
Tuition costs start to escalate in 1980 (averaging 17% increase between 1980 and 1985), but really escalate starting in about 1990 (averaging 34% increase between 1990 and 1995) and kind of bounce around in the 20-30% range until the end of the naughties, when it declined to under 20% 2010-2015. I don't see any correlation with student loan terms.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-17/washington-may-not-want-to-get-out-of-student-debt (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-19/student-debt-accounts-nearly-half-us-government-assets)
Quote
Student debt now comprises 45 percent of federally owned financial assets. Of course, that doesn't include assets owned by the Federal Reserve, and it doesn't include real assets like land. Still, it's a startling figure.
This trend worries me. Why? Because when the government owns student loans, it has every incentive not to fix the country's student-debt problem.
Consider the sheer size of the revenue that the government earns from student-loan interest payments. In 2013, it was $51 billion -- almost 2 percent of total federal revenue for that year. That's more than two-thirds of the lifetime cost of the entire F-22 fighter jet program!
With that kind of money on the table, it's going to be hard to get the government to take strong action for debt relief. A whole generation of millennials has been economically scarred by the financial crisis -- they borrowed to pay for school just like their older siblings did, but the capricious power of the business cycle left them with fewer jobs and lower wages even as they were saddled with record amounts of debt. It's no wonder that delinquency rates on student loans havesoared.
One way to bring that unlucky generation some relief would be to permit student debt to be expunged in bankruptcy. Democrats in the Senate are trying to allow that. But with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, this probably won't happen.
Instead, what we've gotten is President Barack Obama's "Student Aid Bill of Rights." The list of "rights" emphasizes students' right to go to college, to take out loans and to pay those loans back quickly and easily. In other words, it's exactly what you'd expect from a government interested in maximizing the revenue it collects from indebted college graduates.
If you think this sounds unencouraging, you're not alone.
So what would happen if the Senate Democrats' plan were to become law? Well, a lot of young people would file for bankruptcy. The federal government would lose some of its revenue, but not so much that it would appreciably change the long-term ratio of debt to gross domestic product. The gap would be made up with future tax hikes and/or cuts in spending. Those future taxes would be paid by successful millennials and their descendants, letting unsuccessful millennials off the hook. So it would have a redistributive effect, part of which would go toward canceling out bad macroeconomic luck.
Quote from: citizen k on April 19, 2015, 12:26:39 PM
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-17/washington-may-not-want-to-get-out-of-student-debt (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-19/student-debt-accounts-nearly-half-us-government-assets)
Wow.
Since there's no specific thread on economics it was either here or the sovereign debt bubble thread:
Quote
The Essence Of Modern Economics: Garbage In, Garbage Out
Submitted by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,
"On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine the wrong figures, will the right answers come out? ...I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." – Charles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher.
Crunching Data to Fix Prices
The fundamental problem facing today's economy is the flagrant contempt by governments the world over for the free exchange of goods and services and private stewardship of property. Perhaps it is power and control governments are after. Maybe they believe they are improving the economy and making the world a better place for all.
No one really knows for sure. But what is lucidly clear is the muddled disorder modern day economic policies have wrought upon us. You can hardly enter into a transaction without a cluster of intervention mucking with the price of payment.
Taxes, tariffs, wage laws, and subsidies. These all impact prices. But the main culprit affecting prices and trade are central bank interventions into money and credit markets. Relentless actions to control the economy by manipulating money and credit stand the price of everything else on end.
Certainly, government intervention into the U.S. economy is much looser than a Soviet style command and control system. But it does share a common refrain. Price fixing is central to its operation.
The Soviets, armed with their Five-Year Plans and the Theory of Productive Forces, deliberately directed how much wheat should be planted and how much a potato should cost. Conversely, the U.S. approach is mostly hidden from the short sighted view of the average lay person. The Federal Reserve allows the government to bypass the nuisance of tinkering with individual prices...though they still do it through subsidies and appropriations.
In short, the Federal Reserve, an unelected board of appointments, crunches economic data each month and draws a conclusion as to what price to fix the economy's most important commodity – its money. By doing so all other prices in the economy must change – and distort – to adjust to the Fed's market intervention.
Guided By Garbage
The Fed believes that by fixing the price of money artificially low, they'll increase something they call 'aggregate demand.' The thesis is that cheap credit will compel individuals and businesses to borrow more and consume more. Before you know it, the good times will be here again. Profits will increase. Jobs will be created. Wages will rise. A new cycle of expansion will take root. Sounds great, doesn't it?
In practice, however, the results are destructive. While cheap credit may have a stimulative influence on an economy with moderate debt levels, once an economy has reached total debt saturation, where the economy can no longer support its debt overhang, the cheap credit trick no longer works to stimulate the economy. Like applying additional fertilizer to an already overstimulated crop field, the marginal return of each unit of additional credit in terms of new growth diminishes to nothing. In fact, the additional credit, and its counterpart debt, actually strangles future growth.
The experience following the Great Recession is that the abundance of cheap credit floods not into the economy, but into asset prices...grossly distorting them in the process. The simple fact is solving the problem of too much debt by pushing more debt doesn't solve the problem at all. It makes it worse.
What's more, the approach of using data to identify apparent aggregate demand insufficiencies and perceived supply gluts is flawed. Unemployment. Gross domestic product. Price inflation. These data points are all fabricated up and fudged out to the government number crunchers liking.
For each headline number there are a list of footnotes and qualifiers. Hedonic price adjustments. Price deflators. Seasonal adjustments. Discouraged worker disappearances. These subjective adjustments greatly affect the results. So what good are they?
Computer programmers are familiar with the term garbage in garbage out. Meaning, computer outputs are only as good as the data that are input. If garbage data is input the resulting outputs are garbage. The point is the radical monetary policy interventions being employed by the Fed to somehow improve the economy are being guided by garbage.
Garbage In Garbage Out Economics
The classical economists recognized that economics, as a field of study, is not a stationary system to be engineered and improved upon. Rather they understood it is a natural and dynamic system that can flourish when given the proper conditions. Generally, these conditions include private property rights, a stable money supply, and minimal government interference including free trade, low taxes, and balanced budgets.
Thus the goal of economists should not be to influence the economy by policies of market intervention. The goal should be to get out of the way; to minimize market hindrances and promote policies that allow the economy to function most efficiently.
No doubt, the present price fixing system of garbage in garbage out economics has reached a critical mass of absurdity...
Quote"In determining whether it will be appropriate to raise the target range at its next meeting, the Committee will assess progress–both realized and expected–toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation," reads the recent FOMC statement.
"This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen some further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term."
Pure garbage indeed.
Dude throws away most of his credibility when he calls price deflators and seasonal adjustment subjective.
I don't understand. What is the alternative to the Federal Reserve controling interest rate and money supply? If not the Federal Reserve, how can these be determined?
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2015, 09:19:57 PM
I don't understand. What is the alternative to the Federal Reserve controling interest rate and money supply? If not the Federal Reserve, how can these be determined?
I didn't see any call to abolish the Fed. More like an attempted critique of Fed policies and methodologies.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2015, 09:19:57 PMIf not the Federal Reserve, how can these be determined?
Presumably that would lead to interest rates reflecting solely the risk inherent in the loans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2015, 09:02:23 PM
Dude throws away most of his credibility when he calls price deflators and seasonal adjustment subjective.
Also when he refers to open market or quantitative operations as price fixing.
Quote
Peter Schiff On QE's Creeping Communism: Washington Joins Tokyo On The Road To Leningrad
Most economists and investors readily acknowledge that the current period of central bank activism, characterized by extended bouts of quantitative easing and zero percent interest rates, is a newly-blazed trail in economic history. And while these policies strike some as counterintuitive, open-ended, and unimaginably expensive, most express comfort that our extremely educated, data-dependent, central bankers have a pretty good idea as to where the trail is going and how to keep the wagons together during the journey.
But as it turns out, there really isn't much need for guesswork. As the United States enters its eighth year of zero percent interest rates, we should all be looking at a conveniently available tour guide along the path of perpetual easing. Japan has been doing what we are doing now for at least 15 years longer. Unfortunately, no one seems to care, or be surprised, that they are just as incapable as we have been in finding a workable exit. When Virgil guided Dante through Hell, he at least knew how to get out. Japan doesn't have a clue.
Despite its much longer experience with monetary stimulus, Japan's economy remains listless and has continuously flirted with recession. In spite of this failure, Japanese leaders, especially Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (and his ally at the Bank of Japan (BoJ), Haruhiko Kuroda), have recently doubled down on all prior bets. This has meant that the Japanese stimulus is now taking on some ominous dimensions that have yet to be seen here in the U.S. In particular, the Bank of Japan is considering using its Quantitative Easing budget to buy large quantities of shares of publicly traded Japanese corporations.
So for those who remain in doubt, Japan is telling us where this giant monetary experiment leads to: Debt, stagnation and nationalization of industry. This is not a destination that any of us, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, should be happy about.
The gospel that unites central bankers around the world is that the cure for economic contraction is the creation of demand. Traditionally, they believed that this could be accomplished by simply lowering interest rates, which would then spur borrowing, spending and investment. But when that proved insufficient to pull Japan out of its recession in the early 1990s, the concept of Quantitative Easing (QE) was born. By actively entering the bond market through purchases of longer-dated securities, QE was able to lower interest rates across the entire duration spectrum, an outcome that conventional monetary policy could not do.
But since that time, the QE in Japan has been virtually permanent. Unfortunately, Japan's economy has been unable to recover anything resembling its former economic health. The experiment has been going on so long that the BoJ already owns more than 30% of outstanding government debt securities. It has also increased its monthly QE expenditures to the point where it now exceeds the Japanese government's new issuance of debt. (Like most artificial stimulants, QE programs need to get continually larger in order to produce any desirable effects). This has left the BoJ in dire need of something else to buy. Inevitably, it cast its eyes on the Japanese stock market.
In 2010 the BoJ began buying positions in Japanese equity Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). These securities, which track the underlying performance of the broader Japanese stock market, are one step removed from ownership of companies themselves. After five years of the policy, the BoJ now owns more than half the entire nation's ETF market. But that hasn't stopped it from expanding the program. In 2014, it tripled its ETF purchases to $3 trillion yen per year ($25 billion), and the program may be tripled again in the near term. In just another example of how QE is a boon to the financial services industry, Japanese investment firms are currently issuing new ETFs just to give the BoJ something to buy.
However, these purchases have not proven to be particularly effective in doing much of anything, except possibly pushing up ETF share prices. But even that has been a mixed blessing. ETFs are supposed to be the cart that is pulled along by stocks (which function as horses). But trying to move the market by buying ETFs creates a whole other level of potential price distortions. It also tends to limit the impact to those holders of financial assets, rather than the broader economy. For this reason the BoJ is now contemplating the more direct action of buying shares in individual Japanese companies.
Such purchases would allow the Japanese government to accumulate sizable voting interests in some of Japan's biggest companies. Equity ownership would then allow, according to an economist quoted in Bloomberg, the Abe administration to demand that Japanese corporations adhere to the government's priorities for wage increases and heightened corporate spending. The same economist suggested, this "micro" stimulus provided by government controlled corporations may be more effective in spurring the economy than "macro" purchases of government bonds.
These possibilities should horrify anyone who still retains any faith in free markets. The more than four trillion dollars of government bonds purchased through the Federal Reserve's QE program since 2008 now sit on account at the Fed. Although these purchases may have distorted the bond market, created false signals to the economy, and may loom as a danger for the future (when the bonds need to be sold), they are primarily a means of debt monetization, whereby the government sells debt to itself. But purchases of equities would involve a stealth nationalization of industry, and would represent a hard turn towards communism.
Many American observers will take comfort in their belief that the United States has already concluded its QE experiment and that we are heading in the opposite direction, toward an era of monetary tightening. This greatly misjudges the current situation.
The U.S. economy is slowing remarkably, and despite the continuous assertions by the Fed that rate hikes are likely in the very near future, I believe we are stuck just as firmly in the stimulus trap as Japan. The main difference between the U.S. and Japan is that Japan began this "experiment" from a much stronger economic position. Japan was a creditor nation, with ample domestic savings and large trade surpluses. In contrast, the U.S. started as the world's largest debtor nation, with minimal savings, and enormous trade deficits. So if Japan, with its superior economic position, could not extricate itself from this trap, what hope does the United States have?
If the Fed is unable to raise rates from zero, it will also be have no ability to cut them to fight the next recession. So the next time an economic downturn occurs (one may already be underway), the Fed will have to immediately launch the next round of QE. When QE4 proves just as ineffective as the last three rounds to create real economic growth, the Fed may have to consider the radical ideas now being contemplated by the Bank of Japan.
So this is the endgame of QE: Exploding debt, financial distortion, prolonged stagnation, recurring recession, and the eventual government takeover of industry and the economy. This appears to be the preferred alternative of politicians and bankers who simply refuse to let the free markets function the way they are supposed to.
If interest rates were never manipulated by central banks and QE had never been invented, the markets could have purged themselves years ago of the speculative bubbles and mal-investments. Sure we could have had a deeper recession, but it also could have been much shorter, and it could have been followed by a far more robust and sustainable recovery.
Instead Washington has joined Tokyo on the road to Leningrad.
Is this more garbage in?
Some interesting observations, but dude seems to have forgotten about the lessons of the Great Depression, which everyone agrees was prolonged (and deepened?) by contractionary monetary policy.
Quote
21 Shocking Facts About The Explosive Growth Of Poverty In America
Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
What you are about to see is more evidence that the growth of poverty in the United States is wildly out of control. It turns out that there is a tremendous amount of suffering in "the wealthiest nation on the planet", and it is getting worse with each passing year. During this election season, politicians of all stripes are running around telling all of us how great we are, but is that really true?
As you will see below, poverty is reaching unprecedented levels in this country, and the middle class is steadily dying. There aren't enough good jobs to go around, dependence on the government has never been greater, and it is our children that are being hit the hardest. If we have this many people living on the edge of despair now, while times are "good", what are things going to look like when our economy really starts falling apart? The following are 21 facts about the explosive growth of poverty in America that will blow your mind...
#1 The U.S. Census Bureau says that nearly 47 million Americans are living in poverty right now.
#2 Other numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau are also very disturbing. For example, in 2007 about one out of every eight children in America was on food stamps. Today, that number is one out of every five.
#3 According to Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer, the authors of a new book entitled "$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America", there are 1.5 million "ultrapoor" households in the United States that live on less than two dollars a day. That number has doubled since 1996.
#4 46 million Americans use food banks each year, and lines start forming at some U.S. food banks as early as 6:30 in the morning because people want to get something before the food supplies run out.
#5 The number of homeless children in the U.S. has increased by 60 percent over the past six years.
#6 According to Poverty USA, 1.6 million American children slept in a homeless shelter or some other form of emergency housing last year.
#7 Police in New York City have identified 80 separate homeless encampments in the city, and the homeless crisis there has gotten so bad that it is being described as an "epidemic".
#8 If you can believe it, more than half of all students in our public schools are poor enough to qualify for school lunch subsidies.
#9 According to a Census Bureau report that was released a while back, 65 percent of all children in the U.S. are living in a home that receives some form of aid from the federal government.
#10 According to a report that was published by UNICEF, almost one-third of all children in this country "live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median income".
#11 When it comes to child poverty, the United States ranks 36th out of the 41 "wealthy nations" that UNICEF looked at.
#12 The number of Americans that are living in concentrated areas of high poverty has doubled since the year 2000.
#13 An astounding 45 percent of all African-American children in the United States live in areas of "concentrated poverty".
#14 40.9 percent of all children in the United States that are being raised by a single parent are living in poverty.
#15 An astounding 48.8 percent of all 25-year-old Americans still live at home with their parents.
#16 There are simply not enough good jobs to go around anymore. It may be hard to believe, but 51 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.
#17 There are 7.9 million working age Americans that are "officially unemployed" right now and another 94.7 million working age Americans that are considered to be "not in the labor force". When you add those two numbers together, you get a grand total of 102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.
#18 Owning a home has traditionally been a signal that you belong to the middle class. That is why it is so alarming that the rate of homeownership in the United States has been falling for eight years in a row.
#19 According to a recent Pew survey, approximately 70 percent of all Americans believe that "debt is a necessity in their lives".
#20 At this point, 25 percent of all Americans have a negative net worth. That means that the value of what they owe is greater than the value of everything that they own.
#21 The top 0.1 percent of all American families have about as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of all American families combined.
It would be one thing if economic conditions were getting better and poverty was in decline. At least then we could be talking about the improvement we were making. But despite the fact that we are stealing more than a hundred million dollars from future generations of Americans every single hour of every single day, poverty just continues to grow like an aggressive form of cancer.
I wish articles like this one would mention that the requirements for obtaining food stamps have been lowered.
Quote
Why Are Half Of All 25-Year-Olds Living With Their Parents? The Federal Reserve Answers
Back in 1999, a quarter of all 25-year-olds lived with their parents. By 2013 this number has doubled, and currently half of young adults live in their parents home.
While the troubling implications for the economy from this startling increase are self-evident, and have been extensively discussed both here and elsewhere (and are among the key factors pushing both the US and global economy into secular stagnation), a just as important question is why are increasingly more young adults still living at home.
While we admit there is something morbidly grotesque in none other than the Fed taking an active interest in this most devastating development (for the simple reason that it has been the Fed's own policies that have unleashed not only the $1.3 trillion wave of student debt but an army of Millennials in their parents' basement), it is the Fed itself that has been the latest to attempt an answer.
Here is the Fed's response to "Why Are More Young Adults Still Living at Home?"
Economist Maria Canon and Regional Economist Charles Gascon noted that many factors have been suggested for why young adults return to or continue living at home, including significant student debt, weak job prospects and an uncertain housing market. The table below breaks down the percentage of 25-year-olds who were living at home for the period 2012-2013 in each state in the Federal Reserve's Eighth District as well as in the country as a whole.
Labor Market and Higher Education
One potential reason for the increase in young adults living with their parents is the labor market. The authors highlighted research showing that individuals at the beginning of their careers often need more time to transition into the labor market. This is reflected in the unemployment rates of those between 21 and 27, which are often higher than for other age groups.
Earning a college degree can help with labor market outcomes, as young adults with a college degree are more likely to live independently. However, additional research has shown that the underemployment rate for recent graduates was about 40 percent during the Great Recession. Canon and Gascon noted: "An implication is that a significant portion of recent graduates were earning lower wages than what they should have been, given their education."
Also affecting many young adults is that they started their post-education careers during a recession. Canon and Gascon discussed a study noting that those entering the job market during a recession pay a price for about a decade. They wrote: "That's because they start work for lower-paying employers and slowly work their way up toward better-paying jobs."
Housing Market
The nation's recovery may also play a role in young adults remaining at home. As the economy has grown, so have house prices. Canon and Gascon pointed out that national house prices have increased 21 percent since 2012, and rental prices have grown even faster in many areas. They wrote: "Because most youth would be first-time homebuyers, they have no housing equity to regain from the rebound in house prices after the housing crash."
In the Eighth District, housing generally remains more affordable. The authors noted that the median house costs 3.3 times the median household income nationally, but less than 3 times the median household income in most District states.
Student Debt
According to a 2014 survey, more than half of first-time homebuyers said student loan debt was delaying saving for a down payment for a house. A 2015 report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that a $10,000 increase in a student's average debt increases the probability of living with parents or other family members by the age of 25 by about 2 percentage points.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser5%2Fimageroot%2F2015%2F10%2Fgame%2520of%2520loans_0.jpg&hash=7f1eb0d21a47d786ef4be46111c1e32f27610278)
To all the 25-year olds out there reading this from their parents' basement, all we can add is that these are actually all correct. There is just one thing left to add: for all of the above you can thank, who else, the Fed for blowing the biggest debt-funded asset bubble in history.
I see citizen K is again posting a bunch of slightly-tinfoily articles without actually linking to show where they are coming from...
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2015, 04:08:01 PM
I see citizen K is again posting a bunch of slightly-tinfoily articles without actually linking to show where they are coming from...
Zerohedge is my goto place for doom & gloom.
This just means the multi-generation home is coming back :wub:
Quote from: citizen k on November 04, 2015, 04:16:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2015, 04:08:01 PM
I see citizen K is again posting a bunch of slightly-tinfoily articles without actually linking to show where they are coming from...
Zerohedge is my goto place for doom & gloom.
Yeah I'm kinda surprised it wasn't obvious. You don't really have to link ZH, since it's instantly recognizable. :P
Just as a PSA - use of the term "mal-investment" is a tip-off that the writer adheres to the Austrian school (Ludwig von Mises etch).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2015, 05:41:53 PM
Just as a PSA - use of the term "mal-investment" is a tip-off that the writer adheres to the Austrian school (Ludwig von Mises etch).
Eh, that term pops up constantly in Economist articles on the Chinese economy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2015, 05:51:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2015, 05:41:53 PM
Just as a PSA - use of the term "mal-investment" is a tip-off that the writer adheres to the Austrian school (Ludwig von Mises etch).
Eh, that term pops up constantly in Economist articles on the Chinese economy.
I'm not an adherent to the Austrian school myself, but it has some interesting insights. Malinvestment (which is a term I hadn't heard of before) sounds like one of them.
Not an Austrian, but you have to a bit of an ideologue to hold that paying people to dig holes and then fill them back in is not malinvestment.
It's skirting the edge of silliness to use that as a litmus test of anything. That doesn't mean zero hedge writers aren't mostly kooks. They are. They also sometimes break important financial news.
Austrian theory is that state intervention in the economy causes distortions and mixed signals and results in "mal-investment." How does one recognize mal-investment? It is investment that should not be made but is made because the market is subject to distortions due to state intervention.
It's a classic question-begging exercise.
Most bodies of economic theory suffer from either (1) being incoherent as a matter of theory or (2) inconsistent with the empirical data. For example, old-fashioned Cowles Commission Keynesianism focused on generating elaborate models to fit the empirical data but was attacked for its lack of firm theoretical foundation. Real business cycle is elegant and rigorous as theory but can't explain the data.
Austrian theory is notable for suffering from both flaws at once.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2015, 06:07:46 PM
Austrian theory is that state intervention in the economy causes distortions and mixed signals and results in "mal-investment." How does one recognize mal-investment? It is investment that should not be made but is made because the market is subject to distortions due to state intervention.
It's a classic question-begging exercise.
Well no. Bridges to nowhere and trillion dollar airports with no passengers are not poor investments because of circular logic.
I see no reason that malinvestment should refer only to the state. I think it's pretty clear it happens even more in the private sector.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2015, 06:11:23 PM
Well no. Bridges to nowhere and trillion dollar airports with no passengers are not poor investments because of circular logic.
True but not relevant to the point.
Projects like the La Mancha airport or bridges to nowhere don't get built because long-term interest rates are 75 basis points lower than they "should be". They get built because of some combination of incompetence and corruption. You don't need an elaborate economic theory to explain this.
There is a more coherent theory of unstable investment booms out there - Hyman Minsky's. But his theory is not Austrian "mal-investment". It's that the boom period in an economic cycle creates feedback loops that encourage ever more leveraged financial structures and risk-taking - that ultimately prove un-sustainable and collapse. The collapse effectively "strands" the underlying assets (they can no longer be financed on the contracted terms), and the accompanying recessionary collapse of demand may make some of them appear to be surplus. Not surprisingly, I think there is a lot to that idea. But it is quite different from the Austrian focus on the nature of the investment itself and avoids the question begging nature of that theory.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2015, 06:16:13 PM
I see no reason that malinvestment should refer only to the state. I think it's pretty clear it happens even more in the private sector.
Let's be more precise about terms.
Everyone would agree that private actors make mistakes, i.e. bad investments. Happens all the time both big and small. The Edsel. The ET Atari game.
That's not what Austrians are referring to as "malinvestment". Malinvestment refers to a structural phenomenon - that investments that otherwise might be or seem economically rational are in reality not rational because of "distortions" that arise due to the government's control over monetary policy. That concept of malinvestment is IMO the economic theory equivalent of phlogiston - its a plug-in to cover up a dogma masquerading as scientific theory.
That's not how the Economist is using the term.
Ok, so...a developer builds 400 condos in a town with a population of 2500. Malinvestment, or no?
I would say yes, but it sounds like it must have some sort of Austrian agitprop behind it in order to qualify.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2015, 06:40:06 PM
Ok, so...a developer builds 400 condos in a town with a population of 2500. Malinvestment, or no?
It this a real example?
It would depend on the circumstances. If the town is a growing frontier town, it might be perfectly rational.
If not, it is a stupid decision
Either way, it isn't what Peter Schiff is taking about.
Based on a real one.
Anyway, Peter Schiff is just trying to sell gold coins. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2015, 06:40:06 PM
Ok, so...a developer builds 400 condos in a town with a population of 2500. Malinvestment, or no?
I would say yes, but it sounds like it must have some sort of Austrian agitprop behind it in order to qualify.
If the town in question is Fort McMurray at the beginning of the last oil boom it is the best investment one could make - other than being able to time the stock market perfectly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2015, 12:00:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2015, 09:02:23 PM
Dude throws away most of his credibility when he calls price deflators and seasonal adjustment subjective.
Also when he refers to open market or quantitative operations as price fixing.
Well, he
did title it "Garbage In, Garbage Out," so it's not like you weren't
warned...
QuoteStudents across US to march over debt, free public college
Thousands expected to attend Thursday events taking place at colleges and universities from Los Angeles to New York
November 12, 2015 7:20AM ET
Students were set to walk out of classrooms across the United States on Thursday to protest ballooning student loan debt for higher education and rally for tuition-free public colleges and a minimum wage hike for campus workers.
Saddled with debt that can sometimes run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, many college graduates have struggled to make payments amid an ailing economy and job market.
The demonstrations are planned just two days after thousands of fast-food workers took to the streets in a nationwide day of action pushing for a $15-an-hour minimum wage and union rights for the industry.
Events for Thursday's protests, dubbed the Million Student March, have been planned at colleges and universities from Los Angeles to New York. Thousands of people signed up to attend on Facebook groups, though it remained to be seen how many would ultimately participate.
"Education should be free. The United States is the richest country in the world, yet students have to take on crippling debt in order to get a college education," the movement's organizers said in a statement on their website.
Organizers are demanding tuition-free public colleges, a cancellation of all student debt and a $15-an-hour minimum wage for campus workers.
The total volume of outstanding U.S. student loan debt has more than doubled to $1.2 trillion, according to the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, compared with less than $600 billion in 2006.
The bureau said there are some 8 million private and federal loan borrowers in default, representing more than $110 billion, while millions more are finding it difficult to keep up with repayments.
Dealing with swiftly mounting student loan debt has been a focus of candidates vying for the White House in 2016.
Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders has vowed to make tuition free at public universities and colleges, and has pledged to cut interest rates for student loans.
His rival Hillary Clinton has said she would increase access to tuition grants, let graduates refinance loans at lower interest rates and streamline income-based repayment plans.
Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio is the most prominent Republican candidate to lay out a concrete proposal, saying he would establish an income-based repayment system for federal student loans, and would simplify the application process for federal aid.
"This is clearly an urgent crisis, but establishment politicians from both parties are failing to take action," the student debt group said in its statement.
Reuters
Middle-aged flat sharing on the rise, excuse Daily Fail link. Thank gawd I started on the property ladder when I was about 12.
QuoteTessa, 49, shares the flat with three other professionals - one man and two women, aged 52, 45 and 32. They all earn good salaries, but can't afford to buy, or even rent, alone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3314369/Middle-aged-having-share-flat-strangers-s-symptom-bonkers-property-market-high-earning-professional-women-living-like-students. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3314369/Middle-aged-having-share-flat-strangers-s-symptom-bonkers-property-market-high-earning-professional-women-living-like-students.)html
Quote from: Savonarola on November 12, 2015, 10:28:09 AM
QuoteStudents across US to march over debt, free public college
Thousands expected to attend Thursday events taking place at colleges and universities from Los Angeles to New York
November 12, 2015 7:20AM ET
Students were set to walk out of classrooms across the United States on Thursday to protest ballooning student loan debt for higher education and rally for tuition-free public colleges and a minimum wage hike for campus workers.
Saddled with debt that can sometimes run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, many college graduates have struggled to make payments amid an ailing economy and job market.
The demonstrations are planned just two days after thousands of fast-food workers took to the streets in a nationwide day of action pushing for a $15-an-hour minimum wage and union rights for the industry.
Events for Thursday's protests, dubbed the Million Student March, have been planned at colleges and universities from Los Angeles to New York. Thousands of people signed up to attend on Facebook groups, though it remained to be seen how many would ultimately participate.
"Education should be free. The United States is the richest country in the world, yet students have to take on crippling debt in order to get a college education," the movement's organizers said in a statement on their website.
Organizers are demanding tuition-free public colleges, a cancellation of all student debt and a $15-an-hour minimum wage for campus workers.
The total volume of outstanding U.S. student loan debt has more than doubled to $1.2 trillion, according to the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, compared with less than $600 billion in 2006.
The bureau said there are some 8 million private and federal loan borrowers in default, representing more than $110 billion, while millions more are finding it difficult to keep up with repayments.
Dealing with swiftly mounting student loan debt has been a focus of candidates vying for the White House in 2016.
Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders has vowed to make tuition free at public universities and colleges, and has pledged to cut interest rates for student loans.
His rival Hillary Clinton has said she would increase access to tuition grants, let graduates refinance loans at lower interest rates and streamline income-based repayment plans.
Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio is the most prominent Republican candidate to lay out a concrete proposal, saying he would establish an income-based repayment system for federal student loans, and would simplify the application process for federal aid.
"This is clearly an urgent crisis, but establishment politicians from both parties are failing to take action," the student debt group said in its statement.
Reuters
In Sweden education is "free". It means that in many cases it's so bad that people wouldn't pay for it with their own money.
When Sweden discussed starting to charge foreign students there were people protesting "no, if we do this they won't come!", without taking a moment to let the full implication of what they were saying sink in.
I am generally sympathetic to the idea of the government supported (not "free") college education. But there would have to be standards/rules to it...not just a free ride to drunken frat parties and law degrees. Which is probably what those demanding it would want.
There would have to some kind of limit/guidelines and what type of degrees are supported (so we don't have University of Example pumping out nothing but sociology degrees), and perhaps even grade/academic requirements to qualify. And definitely degree plans, to avoid "professional college students" being subsidized.
Hell, you could even make them do some kind of community/public service...along the same lines that gets us military folk a free education.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/16/uks-social-mobility-problem-holding-back-thatcher-generation-says-report
QuoteUK's social mobility problem holding back Thatcher generation, says report
Commission says those born in the 1980s are the first to not start their careers with higher incomes than their parents
The generation that grew up under Margaret Thatcher were the first to start with lower incomes than their parents and have endured an increasingly divided Britain, according to the government's social mobility commission.
Its annual "state of the nation" report published on Wednesday morning found that "Britain has a deep social mobility problem which is getting worse for an entire generation of young people".
According to the commission, established by David Cameron as prime minister, those born in the 1980s are the first cohort since the second world war to not start their careers with higher incomes than their parents and immediate predecessors.
"The rungs on the social mobility ladder are growing further apart," said Alan Milburn, the former Labour minister who heads the commission. "It is becoming harder for this generation of struggling families to move up.
"The impact is not just felt by the poorest in society but is also holding back whole tranches of middle- as well as low-income families – these treadmill families are running harder and harder but are standing still."
Milburn drew parallels with the worst-off areas in the country also voting most strongly for Britain to leave the EU.
"The public mood is sour and decision-makers have been far too slow to respond," Milburn said, calling for fundamental reforms to education, an active labour market and policies to aid regional economies.
He said Britain's social mobility problem should be "the holy grail of public policy".
He attacked the government's plans to open more grammar schools in England, saying it would not solve the problem of getting the best teachers into the schools that need them most.
The report concludes that expectations earlier in the 20th century that each generation would be better off than the last have not been borne out.
The barriers to social mobility include an "unfair" education system, unaffordable housing and a two-tier labour market divided between a prosperous middle class and those below on it on low-paid, intermittent or insecure employment.
The commission also found that home ownership was in sharp decline among the young as house prices rise, with the proportion of those under 44 owning their own home having fallen by 17% in the space of 10 years.
Susan Kramer, the Liberal Democrats shadow Treasury minister, said the report was "shocking" in its implications for young people's life chances.
"We cannot go on reducing spending on the things young people need without doing serious damage to our society," she said.
"Yet instead of supporting the next generation, the government's priority is bringing back the deeply divisive 11-plus [grammar school exams], while failing to invest in housing, education and sustainable jobs of the future."
Nobody cares, man.
Clearly I did. :o
I blame the EU!
Millennials deserve better. :(
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2016, 12:28:43 PM
Millennials deserve better. :(
If you grew up in the 80s I think you are too old to be a Millennial.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2016, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2016, 12:28:43 PM
Millennials deserve better. :(
If you grew up in the 80s I think you are too old to be a Millennial.
Few people born in the 80s grew up in the 80s.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2016, 04:26:39 PM
Gen X sucks. Just look at them.
I know, right? Flannel's been out for years.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2016, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2016, 12:28:43 PM
Millennials deserve better. :(
If you grew up in the 80s I think you are too old to be a Millennial.
Millennial cut off is being born in the early 80's, but they keep changing their minds. Though ouT my life I've been referred to, in turn, as gen x, gen y, and millennial.
And I don't know why seedy hates millenianls so, they're kindred hipster spirits. Over educated underpayed and cynical to boot!
Quote from: HVC on November 17, 2016, 05:00:55 PM
And I don't know why seedy hates millenianls so, they're kindred hipster spirits. Over educated underpayed and cynical to boot!
Because he doesn't fit into skinny jeans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2016, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 17, 2016, 05:00:55 PM
And I don't know why seedy hates millenianls so, they're kindred hipster spirits. Over educated underpayed and cynical to boot!
Because he doesn't fit into skinny jeans.
Millennials don't read.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2016, 05:13:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2016, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 17, 2016, 05:00:55 PM
And I don't know why seedy hates millenianls so, they're kindred hipster spirits. Over educated underpayed and cynical to boot!
Because he doesn't fit into skinny jeans.
Millennials don't read.
They read. They just read crappy young adult fiction
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2016, 05:13:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2016, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 17, 2016, 05:00:55 PM
And I don't know why seedy hates millenianls so, they're kindred hipster spirits. Over educated underpayed and cynical to boot!
Because he doesn't fit into skinny jeans.
Millennials don't read.
Pretty sure I've spent a pretty penny on books in my short lifetime. :hmm:
I don't consider you a Millennial. You're wise beyond your years. As opposed to Marti, who's just a bitchy old queen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2016, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 17, 2016, 05:00:55 PM
And I don't know why seedy hates millenianls so, they're kindred hipster spirits. Over educated underpayed and cynical to boot!
Because he doesn't fit into skinny jeans.
:)
Stupid skinny jeans bullshit. :mad: YOURE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO BEND
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2016, 05:23:04 PM
Stupid skinny jeans bullshit. :mad: YOURE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO BEND
:yes:
Pop, lock and drop it.
I kept about 4 or 5 pairs of original 501s, from waaay back in The Daytm.
When I was moving, Mom wanted to know why a box was labeled "Cancer Jeans".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2016, 05:30:07 PM
I kept about 4 or 5 pairs of original 501s, from waaay back in The Daytm.
When I was moving, Mom wanted to know why a box was labeled "Cancer Jeans".
:lol:
I wear track suits
I bet you do, Paulie. Probably points with your pinky finger, too. EXCOOSE ME EXCOOSE ME
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-25-2015/tM7PBz.gif)
https://youtu.be/27h2CtLsdc0?t=1m6s
EXCOOSE ME
U.S. to Forgive at Least $108 Billion in Student Debt in Coming Years
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-forgive-at-least-108-billion-in-student-debt-in-coming-years-1480501802?emailToken=JRrzdvl%2BZHuUi9wwaswhkUZtcq5NBeiTSVLJITXDJg3IuXXOvaf4n/VwjdqzpWKoQwN74ZUf83MzSDvNxWZnVtPUmrg6mlChen9S64DJ2BeQfx2HzBbXJbNM7vM%3D (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-forgive-at-least-108-billion-in-student-debt-in-coming-years-1480501802?emailToken=JRrzdvl%2BZHuUi9wwaswhkUZtcq5NBeiTSVLJITXDJg3IuXXOvaf4n/VwjdqzpWKoQwN74ZUf83MzSDvNxWZnVtPUmrg6mlChen9S64DJ2BeQfx2HzBbXJbNM7vM%3D)
That's just money. Can student whining ever be forgiven?
A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money.
Maybe it was a mistake to pay off my student loans early. :(
Yeah once we start doing something like this we might as well just give a 100 billion to the Universities and bypass the middle man.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 30, 2016, 04:17:12 PM
U.S. to Forgive at Least $108 Billion in Student Debt in Coming Years
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-forgive-at-least-108-billion-in-student-debt-in-coming-years-1480501802?emailToken=JRrzdvl%2BZHuUi9wwaswhkUZtcq5NBeiTSVLJITXDJg3IuXXOvaf4n/VwjdqzpWKoQwN74ZUf83MzSDvNxWZnVtPUmrg6mlChen9S64DJ2BeQfx2HzBbXJbNM7vM%3D (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-forgive-at-least-108-billion-in-student-debt-in-coming-years-1480501802?emailToken=JRrzdvl%2BZHuUi9wwaswhkUZtcq5NBeiTSVLJITXDJg3IuXXOvaf4n/VwjdqzpWKoQwN74ZUf83MzSDvNxWZnVtPUmrg6mlChen9S64DJ2BeQfx2HzBbXJbNM7vM%3D)
QuoteGrowing evidence, however, suggests many of the most hard-pressed borrowers—college dropouts who owe less than $10,000—aren't taking advantage of the programs and instead workers with graduate degrees, including some doctors and lawyers who don't necessarily need the help, are.
The Wall Street Journal, apparently still full of hack partistans who, in fact, are probably too intelligent to be this retarded by accident. Maybe they should compare the average 4L salary to the average grad's debt.
Fun fact: BigLaw hires, i.e. the actual success stories, are not eligible for IBR/IDR.
Grouping doctors and lawyers makes sense in the context of a country song written in 1978. It does not make sense in a policy discussion in 2016. But, of course, this is the exact kind of bullshit that I'd expect, because I've seen it before: when they took away bankruptcy protections for student borrowers back in the mid-1990s.
The rationale for that change? A tiny number of doctors--maybe literally in the double-digits--strategically defaulted on their debts early in their careers. Obviously, the only possible solution (the only solution that would make lenders money and make the pain caucus happy) was to remove basic debtor protections to millions of graduates with tenuous finances. (Then in the mid-oughts, they made private loans nondischargeable, too, which is insane.)
Meanwhile, as for grouping doctors and lawyers together with generic "graduate degree holders," Jesus Christ,
that's idiotic. I don't know exactly what a first-year at the big history firms make, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a ton. Even M.A. holders in STEM fields can have a very hard time.
If they wanted to attack the "worst" part of the program, "worst" in the sense it's a massive giveaway to people who (usually) don't need it, then the focus should probably be on PSLF and PSLF alone. Anybody who manages to get a federal government job is already lucky, and forgiving their loans tax-free (therefore either basically destroying the borrower financially after years of struggle, or--more likely--forcing the borrower to invoke the insolvency provisions of the IRC, which I'm sure is a pretty big pain in the ass) is an enormous windfall. Yet even then, folks working at charities, or for state governments, really are often underpaid--not necessarily in comparison to the private sector, which pays jack shit too, but in absolute terms, or at least in comparison to their educational investment.
Anyway, one thing I'll agree with is that without IBR/IDR, the hilarious brokenness of the student loan system would be a lot more apparent, in the sense that something like 50-75% of all borrowers would almost instantaneously default.
I have very little student debt left so I don't see a problem at all.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 30, 2016, 04:17:12 PM
U.S. to Forgive at Least $108 Billion in Student Debt in Coming Years
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-forgive-at-least-108-billion-in-student-debt-in-coming-years-1480501802?emailToken=JRrzdvl%2BZHuUi9wwaswhkUZtcq5NBeiTSVLJITXDJg3IuXXOvaf4n/VwjdqzpWKoQwN74ZUf83MzSDvNxWZnVtPUmrg6mlChen9S64DJ2BeQfx2HzBbXJbNM7vM%3D (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-forgive-at-least-108-billion-in-student-debt-in-coming-years-1480501802?emailToken=JRrzdvl%2BZHuUi9wwaswhkUZtcq5NBeiTSVLJITXDJg3IuXXOvaf4n/VwjdqzpWKoQwN74ZUf83MzSDvNxWZnVtPUmrg6mlChen9S64DJ2BeQfx2HzBbXJbNM7vM%3D)
I don't qualify for IBR. :(
I've thought about refinancing with a private lender, but Fed loans have protections that private loans don't.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2016, 05:19:50 PM
The Wall Street Journal, apparently still full of hack partistans who, in fact, are probably too intelligent to be this retarded by accident.
I often get the feeling that some time ago, Republicans (the sane ones, not just the alt-right shit), made a logical mistake and got married to it. Noting that sometimes the best policy is the one that's seemingly cruel, they then reversed the logic and assumed that every cruel decision must be the right one.
I have two loans. One is a very low interest Fed Loan. The other is a border-line usurious private one which I would like to get refinanced.
But I am too damn proud to take advantage of this. Any money I borrow I will pay back. No welcher here.
I put hundred dollar bills on my bed and roll naked on them.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2016, 08:23:13 PM
I have two loans. One is a very low interest Fed Loan. The other is a border-line usurious private one which I would like to get refinanced.
But I am too damn proud to take advantage of this. Any money I borrow I will pay back. No welcher here.
I'm sure Osiris will take that into account when he weighs your heart against the Feather of Truth. :P
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2016, 08:22:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2016, 05:19:50 PM
The Wall Street Journal, apparently still full of hack partistans who, in fact, are probably too intelligent to be this retarded by accident.
I often get the feeling that some time ago, Republicans (the sane ones, not just the alt-right shit), made a logical mistake and got married to it. Noting that sometimes the best policy is the one that's seemingly cruel, they then reversed the logic and assumed that every cruel decision must be the right one.
It's not just cruelty. It's also no good: getting rid of IBR/IDR does not mean that suddenly a ton of loans start getting repaid by individuals, rather than by taxpayers. It means that a ton of loans stop being paid period. Even bringing back debtor's prisons doesn't make money magically appear in debtors' pockets.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2016, 05:19:50 PM
Meanwhile, as for grouping doctors and lawyers together with generic "graduate degree holders," Jesus Christ, that's idiotic. I don't know exactly what a first-year at the big history firms make, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a ton. Even M.A. holders in STEM fields can have a very hard time.
IIRC, my brother-in-law's first year at what is now known as DLA Piper right out of (a public) law school was ~$120K, circa 2002. Of course, that came with the insane expectation of about 2,500 billable hours :bleeding:
QuoteAnybody who manages to get a federal government job is already lucky,
Fuck those people. Anything any of those people ever say that can be even remotely considered as "conservative" is automatically dismissed as bullshit, because they're the biggest fucking welfare queens of all. Yeah, you know who you are.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2016, 08:22:18 PM
I often get the feeling that some time ago, Republicans (the sane ones, not just the alt-right shit), made a logical mistake and got married to it. Noting that sometimes the best policy is the one that's seemingly cruel, they then reversed the logic and assumed that every cruel decision must be the right one.
Funny how they didn't become "cruel" until they got into bed with the megachurches.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2016, 08:28:13 PM
I put hundred dollar bills on my bed and roll naked on them.
Bank notes are dirty, and it is bad manners to damage them.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 30, 2016, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2016, 08:28:13 PM
I put hundred dollar bills on my bed and roll naked on them.
Bank notes are dirty, and it is bad manners to damage them.
Let your freak flag fly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2016, 09:44:30 PM
Fuck those people. Anything any of those people ever say that can be even remotely considered as "conservative" is automatically dismissed as bullshit, because they're the biggest fucking welfare queens of all. Yeah, you know who you are.
:ultra:
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2016, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2016, 09:44:30 PM
Fuck those people. Anything any of those people ever say that can be even remotely considered as "conservative" is automatically dismissed as bullshit, because they're the biggest fucking welfare queens of all. Yeah, you know who you are.
:ultra:
OK, Mr. Not Appearing In This Country.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2016, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2016, 09:44:30 PM
Fuck those people. Anything any of those people ever say that can be even remotely considered as "conservative" is automatically dismissed as bullshit, because they're the biggest fucking welfare queens of all. Yeah, you know who you are.
:ultra:
I don't know where the welfare queen part comes from. Last night I worked until midnight. Same thing happened last week. Next week I am supposed to work on a Saturday. Lots of people work on Sundays. All without overtime payment or even time-off in lieu.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2016, 10:55:09 PM
OK, Mr. Not Appearing In This Country.
Still applies in Canada though - BB's got it pretty cushy.
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2016, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2016, 10:55:09 PM
OK, Mr. Not Appearing In This Country.
Still applies in Canada though - BB's got it pretty cushy.
And I never denied it. :cool:
I was :ultra: at the part that I can't be a conservative while being a government worker.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 30, 2016, 10:31:04 PM
Bank notes are dirty, and it is bad manners to damage them.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2016, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2016, 10:55:09 PM
OK, Mr. Not Appearing In This Country.
Still applies in Canada though - BB's got it pretty cushy.
Everything's cushy in Canada. BFD.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2016, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2016, 10:55:09 PM
OK, Mr. Not Appearing In This Country.
Still applies in Canada though - BB's got it pretty cushy.
And I never denied it. :cool:
I was :ultra: at the part that I can't be a conservative while being a government worker.
Fuck off.
Social Security Checks Are Being Garnished for Unpaid Student Debt
http://www.wsj.com/articles/social-security-checks-are-being-reduced-for-unpaid-student-debt-1482253337?emailToken=JRrzdfF5ZXyVitM9Zswn01YpZ61NEOKCW0nWMGGPMUjBv3/O5Ou7yuA/itqxria1SEpn7N0IqmA4X3jMhnJjXcPUgKJinVqiZzxRo5vYlFTXah6BwRXRJrU%3D (http://www.wsj.com/articles/social-security-checks-are-being-reduced-for-unpaid-student-debt-1482253337?emailToken=JRrzdfF5ZXyVitM9Zswn01YpZ61NEOKCW0nWMGGPMUjBv3/O5Ou7yuA/itqxria1SEpn7N0IqmA4X3jMhnJjXcPUgKJinVqiZzxRo5vYlFTXah6BwRXRJrU%3D)
The government has collected about $1.1 billion from Social Security recipients of all ages to go toward unpaid student loans since 2001, including $171 million last year. Most affected recipients in fiscal year 2015—114,000—were age 50 or older and receiving disability benefits, with the typical borrower losing about $140 a month. About 38,000 were above age 64.
LOL suck it, Boomers. That's what you get for skipping class to go to that anti-war march.
My mom has her SSA garnished for this reason. Because that BA in Education from THE Ohio State University was so goddamn valuable.
But think about this---back then, all you had to do to earn enough money for tuition was work your summer break at the soda jerk counter or the local record store. Now extrapolate that into the future, where student loans are actually a significant, often the most significant portion of a person's negative net worth.
When I was working for a medical office there were some PAs (physician's assistants) who owed so much in tuition loans they had to cut their hours back or sometimes work for free because they had to stay under a certain income for their student loan payments to stay low enough to allow them to live. That is a self-perpetuating problem. Can't pay off your loans because you can't make enough money...can't make enough money because your loan payments will starve you.
For Young Entrepreneurs, College Debts Can Snuff Out Start-Up Hopes
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/business/smallbusiness/for-young-entrepreneurs-college-debts-can-snuff-out-start-up-hopes.html
:(
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/12/business/12EBIZ4/12EBIZ4-master768.jpg)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/12/business/12EBIZ3/12EBIZ3-master675.jpg)