J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill wrote:




...and I thought you wanted to middle class to be stronger.

That was an example of hyperbole--exaggerating your suggesting that
student loans and scholarships should be abolished!


The present system does not seem to be working well. Kids are
graduating with huge dept and a Master's Degree in 8th century
Lithuanian Art and the only work they can get is flipping burgers.
Maybe some common sense would help too.

Even where the degree may lead to a useful career, there is no guarantee of
graduating. These debt loads are ridiculous. They're only needed because
these debts drive up the cost of education, in general.

They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

And the question then becomes whether the ones that survive will be the
ones that provide the best educationor the ones that are most

Good luck on coming to a concensus on what "best education" means!


effectively marketed and beancounted.

If you are going to run a college, you can't afford to ignore the
beans--or you won't have a college. Colleges have to pay heating bills
too--and big ones!

The Internet will most-likely result in more education options in the
marketplace. That comes with it's own set of issues, but I anticipate it
could help lower the cost of tuition--maybe even at existing instituitions.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill wrote:


They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

Is that a bad thing? Many students get an education in a specialized
field and never use it. They would be better off going to a trade
school or still flipping burgers, just without the debt. They may
lead happier and more productive lives that way.


I understand your point completely. However, many (most?) people would
prefer a choice. People are free to go to trade-school now if they
prefer. It appears that the path of an HVAC-tech is paved with gold.

On 7/22/12 10:41 PM, Bill wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill wrote:


They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

Is that a bad thing? Many students get an education in a specialized
field and never use it. They would be better off going to a trade
school or still flipping burgers, just without the debt. They may
lead happier and more productive lives that way.


I understand your point completely. However, many (most?) people would
prefer a choice. People are free to go to trade-school now if they
prefer. It appears that the path of an HVAC-tech is paved with gold.




TN started a scholarship from lottery proceeds ironically called the
"Hope Scholarship."
I won't even get into the fact that lotteries never raise any money for
schools, as they always promise to do. The money that does go from the
lottery to schools actually just replaces what used to come out of a
state's general fund, which now gets reallocated to something else. So
not only do the schools no get any extra money, but the government now
gets to waste even more tax payer dollars without any accountability.

The big problem with these scholarships is they end up dumbing down the
entire college education. When this scholarship first came out, students
had to have a certain gpa in high school (which was too low to begin
with) to get the scholarship and had to keep a certain gpa to keep the
scholarship. The first few years saw record numbers of students losing
scholarship aide. So instead of accepting the fact that they probably
set the bar way to low in giving out scholarships, they didn't want the
program to look like a failure and they lowered the gpa needed to keep
the scholarship.

This, along with other misguided educational policies in the US are
resulting in a dumbing down of high school and college degrees to an
eventual point at which a college diploma will be the equivalent of a
1960's high school diploma. At that point, in order for graduates to
compete for good jobs, they will need a masters degree. The masters
degree will be the new college diploma and since everyone is getting
college paid for by someone else, meaning there is no personal sacrifice
or penalty for failure, the bachelors degree will be looked at with no
more esteem than a high school diploma is now.

Meanwhile, in China and India, 14 year-olds are learning calculus and
organic chemistry.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:19:45 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:33:54 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
wrote:

Here's an interesting piece found in the online New York Times equating the business practices at HD to the general decline in craftsmanship in our country:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/bu...y.html?_r=1&hp

Remember that quote in Pogo "we have met the enemy and it is us".

Sometime in about the 60's or 70's, society decided that blue collar
work was not as good as white collar and professions where you did not
do that manual labor. College was more affordable and Dad, who worked
on the line an a factory, was able to send one of his kids off to
college.

Hmm, am I wrong, or did Home Depot become ubiquitous sometime after the '60s
or '70s?

Perhaps college should be made more affordable. Perhaps professors should
actually teach

What do you think they are doing? Times have already changed.

Research. Writing proposals for research.

and student loans should be abolished (or at least greatly
reduced)? Maybe get rid of scholarships, too.

May as well get rid of auto financing while you're at it.
And mortgages too--they are evil!

...and I thought you wanted to middle class to be stronger.

That was an example of hyperbole--exaggerating your suggesting that
student loans and scholarships should be abolished!

Student loans should be abolished because they do exactly the opposite of what
they're intended to do.

Oh, well.

I can't help it if you can't follow along.


If you wanted to improve the economics, you might have colleges screen
students and turn away one they expect might not be as competitive
following graduation. But that would not be very democratic or popular.
However, that is similar to the way things are done in China, I believe.

Following graduation?

I said "screen"! That means before admitting students. Phoenix, the
online university, is an example of a fraud (from what I've heard).

OK, I didn't understand your meaning. I'm certainly not against minimum
standards but be prepared to be called a racist.

I don't put too much credence into stories about Phoenix. I haven't seen much
information that didn't have an obvious axe to grind (i.e. don't know). OTOH,
from what I gather, they do a good job of finding instructors who have
real-world experience. I am more familiar with ITE (I think that's what it's
called) or DeVry. From the people I've seen come out of there, it's a pretty
good technical school.

How about requiring full disclosure; graduation and employment rates (within
the field of study) at the university, college, and department levels? Publish
it in every marketing blurb.

That's a reasonable idea. Be forewarned that those rates are not
automatically available. Graduates don't automatically keep colleges
aware of what they are up to anymore than they keep the address on their
driver's licences current.

The information is fairly easily had, though. Employers go to the college for
transcripts. A followup wouldn't be impossible. Even statistical information
would be useful.

Note that a department have 40 student majors may only graduate 10 students
a year or less.

I can't parse this sentence.

The results may not
statistically significant and angle shooters would appear. For example,
do students receiving "work-study" support count as employed? How about
students who go on to graduate school?

Of course not. They're counted as continuing education, which in itself
causes a problem with the disclosure.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill wrote:




...and I thought you wanted to middle class to be stronger.

That was an example of hyperbole--exaggerating your suggesting that
student loans and scholarships should be abolished!


The present system does not seem to be working well. Kids are
graduating with huge dept and a Master's Degree in 8th century
Lithuanian Art and the only work they can get is flipping burgers.
Maybe some common sense would help too.

Even where the degree may lead to a useful career, there is no guarantee of
graduating. These debt loads are ridiculous. They're only needed because
these debts drive up the cost of education, in general.

They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

Or colleges get leaner and start teaching again.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:57:20 -0400, Bill wrote:

dpb wrote:
On 7/22/2012 9:22 PM, Bill wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

graduating with huge dept and a Master's Degree in 8th century
Lithuanian Art and the only work they can get is flipping burgers.
Maybe some common sense would help too.

Think?????

It's ridiculous--these kids are going through school living better than
I did for probably 10 years after graduating. It's just stupidity and
an absurd level of expectations of "need".

...

They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

In particular the diploma mills would almost all entirely cease to
exist; many exist only to milk that subsidized revenue stream.

The real schools will continue to exist; the numbers of students may
drop some but there are other ways the deserving and dedicated can find
to finance school as well as simply as noted above, dropping the level
of expectation of living standards, etc. You don't _require_ a new
Beemer and a 3-br apt and to spend every break somewhere exotic to get a
degree.

I think that more high school kids make the trip to Florida. It's not
the college student who is working part time at close to minimum wage to
help make ends meet.

T'aint the high school kids at all those keggers.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:17:55 -0400, Bill wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting to
the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer
colleges and fewer college students.

And fewer people who will spend half of their earning career, paying off
student loans.

As has been mentioned, consumers have the ultimate responsbility.

The responsibility is hard to place on the consumer when he doesn't have all
of the information.

Obvously, not all consumers make decisions which are in their long term
best interests. Probably some of their parents didn't either. At least
the USA is a country where people are free to choose.

Whyshould the government be pushing people into bankruptcy, which, doesn't
even help because the government has made sure that student debt can't be
charged off.

On 23 Jul 2012 01:20:18 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 22 Jul 2012 20:43:20 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 22 Jul 2012 10:59:20 GMT, Han wrote:


snip back to what you're responding to...

I don't know how to solve that. Obviously I
would not want to get blamed for somone's inabaility to get
financing because he is from a ghetto background with no track
record ...

Why? Minorities are incapable of working their way up? ...or you
just don't want the *blame*?

Wow, you did get my drift! liberal, but fiscally responsible. And
art for the sake of art is just fine, whether or not dead or almost
dead languages are involved.

Art for art's sake is fine in the open market but with tax dollars,
not so much. Where you choose to spend your money is your decision.
What art you choose, likewise.

I have absolutely no problem with some subsidies for art for art's sake.
The "some" is rather stretchable, of course.

I do, primarily because it's such a personal subject. Let the market decide
what's "art", not politicians with my money.

Governments of all levels
have sponsored artists and engineers to build buildings, parks, bridges,
what have you.

There is a difference between art and capital improvements.

At times they were nice, functional, pretty, whatever
good adjectives you want. Sometimes they built ridiculous things,
sometimes they built ugly and dysfunctional.

Which is why it shouldn't happen.

As far as students studying dead languages, or dead art, I have no
problem as long as they're paying the tab. When they borrow $100K on
their fantasy and then expect me to bail them out, I certainly do have
a problem.

When you invest in startups/entrepreneurs/venture capital firms, you
expect some duds, as well as some really good outcomes. In art I'd
expect the same. (Even to the extent that some "investments" are rigged
by the "judges".)

Government shouldn't be "investing" in *ANY* of that. It can't make rational
decisions. I don't care what *you* invest in. It's your money.

Universities aren't trade schools.

They aren't supposed to be infinite money sinks, either. Like
everything else, they have to provide greater benefit to society than
their cost.

Greater benefit than costs? One would hope that all investments pay off
handsomely, but I'd think that reinvestment would be the best thing that
could happen.

Government making investments that pay off? You mean like Solyndra?

I retired in
large part because of the ridiculous bloated bureaucracy that required
me to spend almost all my time with requirements, certifications and
nonsense reports, rather than the research I was being paid to do.

That's what professors are paid to do, today. It really hasn't
changed in (at least) fifty years, except in magnitude.

Maybe I rose up in the ranks too far, but I have heard the complaint also
from administrative staff, and I have seen the office of the division
head expand like balloons, especially during the last 5-10 years.

Sure but professors are supposed to teach, no?

But
doing away with those things needs to mean that people who commit
fraud get really serious punishment, rather than just being banned for
5 years of receiving federal funds.

We're on the same page, here! Those from E. Anglia should be
banished from all science.

I agree with the idea, just not the specifics here. As in politics, it
is really easy to focus laser-like on out of context statements.

Out of context, my ass. It was clearly conspiracy to fraud. ...at *least*.

Indeed I don't want to be blamed for denying minorities their rights.

But you don't have a problem with actually denying them their rights?

Grin. Rights here can be stretched too. How stringently do you apply
standards of performance, if perhaps the subject student has had
repeatedly bad luck in his family and/or health? I know **** happens,
and sometimes you can wipe it off and go on, and at other times you can't
get rid of the bad luck.

"Repeated bad luck"? LOL! There is no such thing. "Bad luck" is having your
dog eat your homework. Repeated?

How to exactly balance the individual's right to help out of a
previously disadvantaged situation and the right of society for
productively using their resources, is difficult grin.

Easy. Give them help into the water and then make them swim on their
own. The problem with affirmative action is that it hurts both those
who can't make it and the ones who can, as well as those who get
displaced (by those who can't). It's a lose-lose-lose situation.

Surely true in some cases. In others, there is a lack of guidance, help,
supervision, whatever.

*ALL* cases. It's inherent in any discrimination.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:36:11 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:34:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:28:25 -0400, "
wrote:




Let's back up a minute. A lot of the problem is not the teachers. A lot
is parents that think the teachers are baby sitters and surrogate parents.

So there is no reason to pay teachers any more than babysitters, right?

...

Some barely deserve that. Most teachers get a decent wage today. I
was looking at the pays of teachers in Worcester MA just last week.
They ranged from mid 50s to mid 80s in real salary even though
starting scales are less.
http://www.worcesterk12.com/human_re...y_schedule.htm

Not bad for nine month's work and that doesn't include bennies.

Like many professions, some are terrific, others much less so. Hard
to get rid of the bad ones though.

_Unlike_other_professions_, it's hard to get rid of the bad ones. *Unlike*
other professions, their retirement and health benefits are out-of-sight.


That varies immensely from institution to institution. Many offer very
modest benefits.

Nonsense. Why do you think cities are going bankrupt left and right (expect a
slew more next year as it becomes the "norm").

Unfortunately, the trend (for years now) is to hire
adjunct professors instead of tenured faculty and provide them with very
low pay and low benefits.

I worked as an adjunct thirty years ago. The professors aren't teaching
anyway and adjuncts probably do a better job (they generally work in the
industry).

Having no other responsibilities, they do a
LOT of teaching. Unfortunately, that is a very popular business model.
At least, it's not hard to "get rid of the bad ones".

I was referring to K-12. No "adjuncts" allowed. Unions have made sure of
that.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:17:55 -0400, Bill wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting to
the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer
colleges and fewer college students.

And fewer people who will spend half of their earning career, paying off
student loans.

As has been mentioned, consumers have the ultimate responsbility.

The responsibility is hard to place on the consumer when he doesn't have all
of the information.

Gosh, if it's now the consumer's responsibility to decide how to
spend their money, than whose is it?


Obvously, not all consumers make decisions which are in their long term
best interests. Probably some of their parents didn't either. At least
the USA is a country where people are free to choose.

Whyshould the government be pushing people into bankruptcy,

I had not idea the government was pushing people into bankruptcy.
In fact, according to Suzy Orman, federal student loans are not even
discharged in bankruptcy.

which, doesn't
even help because the government has made sure that student debt can't be
charged off.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill wrote:




...and I thought you wanted to middle class to be stronger.

That was an example of hyperbole--exaggerating your suggesting that
student loans and scholarships should be abolished!


The present system does not seem to be working well. Kids are
graduating with huge dept and a Master's Degree in 8th century
Lithuanian Art and the only work they can get is flipping burgers.
Maybe some common sense would help too.

Even where the degree may lead to a useful career, there is no guarantee of
graduating. These debt loads are ridiculous. They're only needed because
these debts drive up the cost of education, in general.

They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

Or colleges get leaner and start teaching again.

Virtually all of my students are finding decent jobs. I'm not sure what
you mean by "colleges getting leaner". What is it you would like to see
less of? I think your views are biased by your experience where and when
you went to school, a time and place which has surely changed.

Maybe you should distinguish between colleges and universities?

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:36:11 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:34:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:28:25 -0400, "
wrote:




Let's back up a minute. A lot of the problem is not the teachers. A lot
is parents that think the teachers are baby sitters and surrogate parents.

So there is no reason to pay teachers any more than babysitters, right?

...

Some barely deserve that. Most teachers get a decent wage today. I
was looking at the pays of teachers in Worcester MA just last week.
They ranged from mid 50s to mid 80s in real salary even though
starting scales are less.
http://www.worcesterk12.com/human_re...y_schedule.htm

Not bad for nine month's work and that doesn't include bennies.

Like many professions, some are terrific, others much less so. Hard
to get rid of the bad ones though.

_Unlike_other_professions_, it's hard to get rid of the bad ones. *Unlike*
other professions, their retirement and health benefits are out-of-sight.


That varies immensely from institution to institution. Many offer very
modest benefits.

Nonsense. Why do you think cities are going bankrupt left and right (expect a
slew more next year as it becomes the "norm").

Unfortunately, the trend (for years now) is to hire
adjunct professors instead of tenured faculty and provide them with very
low pay and low benefits.

I worked as an adjunct thirty years ago. The professors aren't teaching
anyway and adjuncts probably do a better job (they generally work in the
industry).

Having no other responsibilities, they do a
LOT of teaching. Unfortunately, that is a very popular business model.
At least, it's not hard to "get rid of the bad ones".

I was referring to K-12. No "adjuncts" allowed. Unions have made sure of
that.



You made 3 claims. I'm willing to concede the last one. Do you have data
to support your first two: (1) that all colleges give great benefits,
and (2) adjuncts are probably better teachers? Or are those just your
opinions?

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:41:59 -0400, Bill wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill wrote:


They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

Is that a bad thing? Many students get an education in a specialized
field and never use it. They would be better off going to a trade
school or still flipping burgers, just without the debt. They may
lead happier and more productive lives that way.


I understand your point completely. However, many (most?) people would
prefer a choice. People are free to go to trade-school now if they
prefer. It appears that the path of an HVAC-tech is paved with gold.


Take your choice, but just don't complain about student loan debt ten
years after you graduate with a useless degree.

Education is a wonderful thing. The more the better. You do,
however, have to be responsible in your choices. Going to college is
good for many, but it is not always the best path. Some go because
they would rather bee a student than worker, others because parents
think they must go to keep up their status, etc.

That Master's Degree in 8th century Lithuanian art won't allow you to
earn enough to pay the appliance repair guy making triple your wage.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:44:54 -0400, "
They aren't supposed to be infinite money sinks, either. Like everything
else, they have to provide greater benefit to society than their cost.

And then, once in awhile, an extremely rare once instance, you say
something that makes absolute sense.

Easy. Give them help into the water and then make them swim on their own. The
problem with affirmative action is that it hurts both those who can't make it
and the ones who can, as well as those who get displaced (by those who can't).
It's a lose-lose-lose situation.

Of course, inevitably, you revert back to your hammer approach. You're
right in what you say, but the problem with it is that just giving up
on people who have failed creates another disadvantaged group. The
type of group I might add, that affirmative actions tried to eliminate
in the first place.

Your solution while it might fix a problem in one area, creates
another difficult to solve problem in another area.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 16:53:36 -0500, phorbin
wrote:

The stress of that competition weeds out the weaklings and those less
likely to survive the competition in higher education.

I think they probably lose a lot of genius to the meat grinder of that
competition.

Exactly! A BIG +1!

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:37:29 -0400, "
Student loans should be abolished because they do exactly the opposite of what
they're intended to do.

More hammer. Appropriate in some areas, not appropriate in your hammer
everything approach.

Oh, well.

I can't help it if you can't follow along.

He follows along just fine. He's just disappointed in your same
singular sweeping approach to every situation.

In article , says...

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:17:55 -0400, Bill wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting to
the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer
colleges and fewer college students.

And fewer people who will spend half of their earning career, paying off
student loans.

As has been mentioned, consumers have the ultimate responsbility.

The responsibility is hard to place on the consumer when he doesn't have all
of the information.

Gosh, if it's now the consumer's responsibility to decide how to
spend their money, than whose is it?

The government's of course.

Obvously, not all consumers make decisions which are in their long term
best interests. Probably some of their parents didn't either. At least
the USA is a country where people are free to choose.

Whyshould the government be pushing people into bankruptcy,

I had not idea the government was pushing people into bankruptcy.
In fact, according to Suzy Orman, federal student loans are not even
discharged in bankruptcy.

Which doesn't mean that one doesn't end up bankrupt, just that one ends
up bankrupt and with undischargeable debt.

On 23 Jul 2012 01:21:51 GMT, Han wrote:
Every time I see "This Old House" on PBS, with the idiotic "elbow
grease" commercial at the beginning, that point is driven home ...

+1

I was trying to remember what the 'elbow grease' reference was about
and then remember that idiotic part where the truck is backing up with
the barrows of elbow grease in it.

For the life of me, I just can't see how anybody could sign off on a
commercial like that.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:41:59 -0400, Bill wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill wrote:


They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

Is that a bad thing? Many students get an education in a specialized
field and never use it. They would be better off going to a trade
school or still flipping burgers, just without the debt. They may
lead happier and more productive lives that way.


I understand your point completely. However, many (most?) people would
prefer a choice. People are free to go to trade-school now if they
prefer. It appears that the path of an HVAC-tech is paved with gold.


Take your choice, but just don't complain about student loan debt ten
years after you graduate with a useless degree.

Education is a wonderful thing. The more the better. You do,
however, have to be responsible in your choices. Going to college is
good for many, but it is not always the best path. Some go because
they would rather bee a student than worker, others because parents
think they must go to keep up their status, etc.

That Master's Degree in 8th century Lithuanian art won't allow you to
earn enough to pay the appliance repair guy making triple your wage.

Neither will that PhD in aeronautical engineering unless you have the
jog-getting skills to turn it into employment.

Getting a decent job isn't a matter of having a specific piece of paper,
it's a matter of marketing and selling oneself effectively. A lot of
very capable people have no talent at all for marketing.

"Dave" wrote:
For the life of me, I just can't see how anybody could sign off on a
commercial like that
--------------------------------
You and others are commenting on it.

Nuf said.

Lew
..

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:25:49 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Is that a bad thing? Many students get an education in a specialized
field and never use it. They would be better off going to a trade
school or still flipping burgers, just without the debt. They may
lead happier and more productive lives that way.

Yes, actually it is. There's a direct correlation between the
education level of society in general and the quality of that society.

What some are advocating here is the return to the Roman coliseum and
the spectacle it provided. The all encompassing scythe like attitude
of "Letting them sink or swim" is something that hopefully would
change as society continues. It's just too broad an approach.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:52:03 -0400, "
wrote:

"Repeated bad luck"? LOL! There is no such thing. "Bad luck" is having your
dog eat your homework. Repeated?

*ALL* cases. It's inherent in any discrimination.

Same ol, same ol. If it doesn't work, hit it with a hammer and then
throw it away after that.

You my friend, are about as shortsighted as it gets. Hell, why should
I be surprised? Guess I should expect it from you at this point.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:58:54 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:17:55 -0400, Bill wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting to
the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer
colleges and fewer college students.

And fewer people who will spend half of their earning career, paying off
student loans.

As has been mentioned, consumers have the ultimate responsbility.

The responsibility is hard to place on the consumer when he doesn't have all
of the information.

Gosh, if it's now the consumer's responsibility to decide how to
spend their money, than whose is it?

Should I repeat what I said?

Obvously, not all consumers make decisions which are in their long term
best interests. Probably some of their parents didn't either. At least
the USA is a country where people are free to choose.

Whyshould the government be pushing people into bankruptcy,

I had not idea the government was pushing people into bankruptcy.
In fact, according to Suzy Orman, federal student loans are not even
discharged in bankruptcy.

which, doesn't
even help because the government has made sure that student debt can't be
charged off.


I wish you could read.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:18:26 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

On 7/22/12 10:41 PM, Bill wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill wrote:


They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

Is that a bad thing? Many students get an education in a specialized
field and never use it. They would be better off going to a trade
school or still flipping burgers, just without the debt. They may
lead happier and more productive lives that way.


I understand your point completely. However, many (most?) people would
prefer a choice. People are free to go to trade-school now if they
prefer. It appears that the path of an HVAC-tech is paved with gold.




TN started a scholarship from lottery proceeds ironically called the
"Hope Scholarship."

GA has a similar scholarship. It seems to work, though there isn't enough
money to fund it 100% so it's means tested (translation: the middle class gets
screwed).

I won't even get into the fact that lotteries never raise any money for
schools, as they always promise to do. The money that does go from the
lottery to schools actually just replaces what used to come out of a
state's general fund, which now gets reallocated to something else. So
not only do the schools no get any extra money, but the government now
gets to waste even more tax payer dollars without any accountability.

The do raise money, just not enough to fulfill the promises of the
politicians.

The big problem with these scholarships is they end up dumbing down the
entire college education. When this scholarship first came out, students
had to have a certain gpa in high school (which was too low to begin
with) to get the scholarship and had to keep a certain gpa to keep the
scholarship. The first few years saw record numbers of students losing
scholarship aide. So instead of accepting the fact that they probably
set the bar way to low in giving out scholarships, they didn't want the
program to look like a failure and they lowered the gpa needed to keep
the scholarship.

Politicians never worry about unintended consequences.

This, along with other misguided educational policies in the US are
resulting in a dumbing down of high school and college degrees to an
eventual point at which a college diploma will be the equivalent of a
1960's high school diploma. At that point, in order for graduates to
compete for good jobs, they will need a masters degree. The masters
degree will be the new college diploma and since everyone is getting
college paid for by someone else, meaning there is no personal sacrifice
or penalty for failure, the bachelors degree will be looked at with no
more esteem than a high school diploma is now.

$1T is borrowed. True, that's tomorrow's problem not today's sacrifice.

Meanwhile, in China and India, 14 year-olds are learning calculus and
organic chemistry.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill wrote:




...and I thought you wanted to middle class to be stronger.

That was an example of hyperbole--exaggerating your suggesting that
student loans and scholarships should be abolished!


The present system does not seem to be working well. Kids are
graduating with huge dept and a Master's Degree in 8th century
Lithuanian Art and the only work they can get is flipping burgers.
Maybe some common sense would help too.

Even where the degree may lead to a useful career, there is no guarantee of
graduating. These debt loads are ridiculous. They're only needed because
these debts drive up the cost of education, in general.

They do form an interesting part of the supply-demand equation. Cutting
to the chase, if you remove student loans you'll have fewer colleges and
fewer college students.

Or colleges get leaner and start teaching again.

Virtually all of my students are finding decent jobs.

I'd like to see your stats. What college? What degree?

I'm not sure what
you mean by "colleges getting leaner".

If they have less to spend, they either get smaller of leaner. It's not a
difficult concept.

What is it you would like to see less of?

Fancy buildings. Administration. That's for starters.

I think your views are biased by your experience where and when
you went to school, a time and place which has surely changed.

Nonsense.

Maybe you should distinguish between colleges and universities?

Generally yes, though even junior colleges are administration-heavy, now.
Public schools in general are administration-heavy.

OK, let's talk specifics. Where do you teach?

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:28:23 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:44:54 -0400, "
They aren't supposed to be infinite money sinks, either. Like everything
else, they have to provide greater benefit to society than their cost.

And then, once in awhile, an extremely rare once instance, you say
something that makes absolute sense.

You really are a condescending ass. ...and obvious academic.

On 7/23/2012 8:52 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

If they have less to spend, they either get smaller of leaner. It's not a
difficult concept.

Get rid of the NCAA, the totally subverted, abused, misused, newspeak
concept of "student athlete" ... for starters.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:26:30 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:36:11 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:34:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:28:25 -0400, "
wrote:




Let's back up a minute. A lot of the problem is not the teachers. A lot
is parents that think the teachers are baby sitters and surrogate parents.

So there is no reason to pay teachers any more than babysitters, right?

...

Some barely deserve that. Most teachers get a decent wage today. I
was looking at the pays of teachers in Worcester MA just last week.
They ranged from mid 50s to mid 80s in real salary even though
starting scales are less.
http://www.worcesterk12.com/human_re...y_schedule.htm

Not bad for nine month's work and that doesn't include bennies.

Like many professions, some are terrific, others much less so. Hard
to get rid of the bad ones though.

_Unlike_other_professions_, it's hard to get rid of the bad ones. *Unlike*
other professions, their retirement and health benefits are out-of-sight.


That varies immensely from institution to institution. Many offer very
modest benefits.

Nonsense. Why do you think cities are going bankrupt left and right (expect a
slew more next year as it becomes the "norm").

Unfortunately, the trend (for years now) is to hire
adjunct professors instead of tenured faculty and provide them with very
low pay and low benefits.

I worked as an adjunct thirty years ago. The professors aren't teaching
anyway and adjuncts probably do a better job (they generally work in the
industry).

Having no other responsibilities, they do a
LOT of teaching. Unfortunately, that is a very popular business model.
At least, it's not hard to "get rid of the bad ones".

I was referring to K-12. No "adjuncts" allowed. Unions have made sure of
that.



You made 3 claims. I'm willing to concede the last one. Do you have data
to support your first two: (1) that all colleges give great benefits,
and (2) adjuncts are probably better teachers? Or are those just your
opinions?


For an academic your reading skills sure suck.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill wrote:



Virtually all of my students are finding decent jobs.

I'd like to see your stats. What college? What degree?


Good question. I don't think there are really many people out there who
would make Bill's statement. Perhaps it's a matter of defining what the
phrase "decent jobs" means to Bill. Having graduated 4 kids from college, I
know from first hand knowledge that Bill's statement does not represent the
norm. I don't believe it even represents his experience...

--

-Mike-

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/23/2012 8:52 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

If they have less to spend, they either get smaller of leaner. It's
not a difficult concept.

Get rid of the NCAA, the totally subverted, abused, misused, newspeak
concept of "student athlete" ... for starters.

+1

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/22/2012 11:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

Meanwhile, in China and India, 14 year-olds are learning calculus and
organic chemistry.



They do that in the US too.
Check the high school syllabus.


But I have a question for all of you guys.


Do you feel better after venting here?

Richard wrote:
On 7/22/2012 11:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

Meanwhile, in China and India, 14 year-olds are learning calculus and
organic chemistry.



They do that in the US too.
Check the high school syllabus.


But I have a question for all of you guys.


Do you feel better after venting here?

You have to understand Richard - usenet forums exist as a place for people
who really do not understand as much about the topics that they berate, in
attempt to sound like they do. Thank goodness for YouTube and other
internet resouces for those folks to provide links to, so they can at least
look like they are so very knowlegable. So in the end - yup... they get to
feel good about venting about things.

One only has to look at how many topics some here are "expert" in to realize
the real truth...

--

-Mike-

On 7/23/2012 10:41 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Richard wrote:
On 7/22/2012 11:18 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

Meanwhile, in China and India, 14 year-olds are learning calculus and
organic chemistry.



They do that in the US too.
Check the high school syllabus.


But I have a question for all of you guys.


Do you feel better after venting here?

You have to understand Richard - usenet forums exist as a place for people
who really do not understand as much about the topics that they berate, in
attempt to sound like they do. Thank goodness for YouTube and other
internet resouces for those folks to provide links to, so they can at least
look like they are so very knowlegable. So in the end - yup... they get to
feel good about venting about things.

One only has to look at how many topics some here are "expert" in to realize
the real truth...



Thanks, Mike.
I suspect you are right about all that.
At least it certainly seems that way at first blush.

And it was worth a chuckle...

Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill wrote:



Virtually all of my students are finding decent jobs.

I'd like to see your stats. What college? What degree?


Good question. I don't think there are really many people out there who
would make Bill's statement.

All I will say further is that one of our students got a job as a
software developer with Microsoft last year.


Perhaps it's a matter of defining what the
phrase "decent jobs" means to Bill. Having graduated 4 kids from college, I
know from first hand knowledge that Bill's statement does not represent the
norm. I don't believe it even represents his experience...

See last comment.

On 7/22/2012 11:36 PM, Bill wrote:


If you are going to run a college, you can't afford to ignore the
beans--or you won't have a college. Colleges have to pay heating bills
too--and big ones!

My son is going to RPI, the cost is astronomical. Fortunately he
received the RPI award. But it just makes a dent in it.

The president of the university has a chauffeur driven Audi A8... one
for each day of the week. Yes 7 A8's...

The school just built a new stand so she can act like Cesar at the
hockey games... But she doesn't go to them. That took away a lot of
grand stand area for her to entertain.

They built a world class auditorium.

The money that they are being endowed with seems to go more toward the
admin side or to build prestige. On top of that outrageous increases in
tuition, it doubled in the last few years or so before he was of age.

I made a promise to him when he was young.. if he got the grades I would
provide the tuition. I put away a lot of money when he was born, and for
the next few years.

The stock market took it away.. I lost principle as well as the early
gains. I wish I stuck it under the mattress. I won't go back on my word,
but I am in serious trouble for retirement. It's been hard holding a job
lately. More foreigners are getting them, then us citizens.

All this makes for a perfect storm here. I only hope he has a better
life than I, and doesn't have the problems I face now. Unfortunately he
is in comp sci , so he is in the same career.


The Internet will most-likely result in more education options in the
marketplace. That comes with it's own set of issues, but I anticipate it
could help lower the cost of tuition--maybe even at existing instituitions.

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill wrote:



Virtually all of my students are finding decent jobs.

I'd like to see your stats. What college? What degree?


Good question. I don't think there are really many people out there
who would make Bill's statement.

All I will say further is that one of our students got a job as a
software developer with Microsoft last year.


That's a lot different from the statement that you previously made.


Perhaps it's a matter of defining what the
phrase "decent jobs" means to Bill. Having graduated 4 kids from
college, I know from first hand knowledge that Bill's statement does
not represent the norm. I don't believe it even represents his
experience...

See last comment.

See last comment.

--

-Mike-

This, along with other misguided educational policies in the US are
resulting in a dumbing down of high school and college degrees to an
eventual point at which a college diploma will be the equivalent of a
1960's high school diploma. At that point, in order for graduates to
compete for good jobs, they will need a masters degree. The masters
degree will be the new college diploma and since everyone is getting
college paid for by someone else, meaning there is no personal sacrifice
or penalty for failure, the bachelors degree will be looked at with no
more esteem than a high school diploma is now.

That's here NOW! There are certain cultures that don't care for the
bachelors,the 2 you mentioned. They believe that the masters is
important, the baccalaureate is just a step to the masters.
The problem is that the masters doesn't make you smarter. I have seen
quite a few masters who can't put things together. To me programming,
system architecture, etc.. are like furniture or building a building, or
car repair. You need to build the foundation and work from there.
You don't put the top on the building and then build up to it from the
ground...

Yet I see a lot of that from masters.. It's just another piece of paper.
It's the person.. not the degree. I have seen people without degrees
build better than people with. I have seen people with degrees do well.
I have watched many PHds flounder. Absolutely no clue...




Meanwhile, in China and India, 14 year-olds are learning calculus and
organic chemistry.

On 7/23/2012 6:13 PM, Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill wrote:



Virtually all of my students are finding decent jobs.

I'd like to see your stats. What college? What degree?


Good question. I don't think there are really many people out there who
would make Bill's statement.

All I will say further is that one of our students got a job as a
software developer with Microsoft last year.


that means nothing to me. I don't respect MS.
Google +1
MS -10

I respect more of what I see coming out of the open foundation than from
MS.. I don't find MS software that good. Unfortunately Open Foundation
stuff doesn't pay the bills.

You only represented one person.


Perhaps it's a matter of defining what the
phrase "decent jobs" means to Bill. Having graduated 4 kids from
college, I
know from first hand knowledge that Bill's statement does not
represent the
norm. I don't believe it even represents his experience...

See last comment.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:50:42 -0400, tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com
wrote:

On 7/22/2012 11:36 PM, Bill wrote:


If you are going to run a college, you can't afford to ignore the
beans--or you won't have a college. Colleges have to pay heating bills
too--and big ones!

My son is going to RPI, the cost is astronomical. Fortunately he
received the RPI award. But it just makes a dent in it.

The president of the university has a chauffeur driven Audi A8... one
for each day of the week. Yes 7 A8's...

The school just built a new stand so she can act like Cesar at the
hockey games... But she doesn't go to them. That took away a lot of
grand stand area for her to entertain.

They built a world class auditorium.

The money that they are being endowed with seems to go more toward the
admin side or to build prestige. On top of that outrageous increases in
tuition, it doubled in the last few years or so before he was of age.

I made a promise to him when he was young.. if he got the grades I would
provide the tuition. I put away a lot of money when he was born, and for
the next few years.

The stock market took it away.. I lost principle as well as the early
gains. I wish I stuck it under the mattress. I won't go back on my word,
but I am in serious trouble for retirement. It's been hard holding a job
lately. More foreigners are getting them, then us citizens.

All this makes for a perfect storm here. I only hope he has a better
life than I, and doesn't have the problems I face now. Unfortunately he
is in comp sci , so he is in the same career.


And the ONE carreer that contrary to public opinion, will be the
HARDEST to make a living in over the next decade or two in North
America.

You want a GOOD job? Work on something that cannot be shipped
off-shore. Design and build of equipment is gone from the NA market.
Same with consumer goods.
SERVICING big ticket items, like automobiles and homes, will provide
employment for another couple of generations. Same with installing and
repairing the equipment that is required to manufacture what little is
left being manufactured here.

MOST of the millrights and industrial mechanics are reaching
retirement age, and very few new ones have been trained.
Same with Auto Mechanics. Electricians and other building trades are
in the same boat.
Forget tool and die for a few more years - it's all sent offshore
except for the repair and re-work. Appliance repair is going the way
of the TV repairman - as is computer repair. Throw it away - not worth
fixing. Send another job to China, Maylasia, or very soon Africa.
Computer programming? India, China and eastern Europe are eating your
lunch. Same with tech support.

The Internet will most-likely result in more education options in the
marketplace. That comes with it's own set of issues, but I anticipate it
could help lower the cost of tuition--maybe even at existing instituitions.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:59:18 -0400, tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com
wrote:



This, along with other misguided educational policies in the US are
resulting in a dumbing down of high school and college degrees to an
eventual point at which a college diploma will be the equivalent of a
1960's high school diploma. At that point, in order for graduates to
compete for good jobs, they will need a masters degree. The masters
degree will be the new college diploma and since everyone is getting
college paid for by someone else, meaning there is no personal sacrifice
or penalty for failure, the bachelors degree will be looked at with no
more esteem than a high school diploma is now.

That's here NOW! There are certain cultures that don't care for the
bachelors,the 2 you mentioned. They believe that the masters is
important, the baccalaureate is just a step to the masters.
The problem is that the masters doesn't make you smarter. I have seen
quite a few masters who can't put things together. To me programming,
system architecture, etc.. are like furniture or building a building, or
car repair. You need to build the foundation and work from there.
You don't put the top on the building and then build up to it from the
ground...

Yet I see a lot of that from masters.. It's just another piece of paper.
It's the person.. not the degree. I have seen people without degrees
build better than people with. I have seen people with degrees do well.
I have watched many PHds flounder. Absolutely no clue...




Meanwhile, in China and India, 14 year-olds are learning calculus and
organic chemistry.


The most valuable degree you can get is the one from "Hard Knocks
College" - and yet it has become almost obsolete in the job market.