j_b

Sorry for introducing some relevant data:

No shit. JayB illustrates a specific point A with a graph. Bullshit. JayB dropped a graph that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and made a snarky remark without attempting to tell us what it meant in context. Your failure to understand the argument isn't my problem. I love how prole essentially made exactly the same points I did in a couple posts above (except for trade schools), yet jim doesn't have any problem with it. Too funny. The dude seems to be developing a phobia.

something is clearly affecting your reading ability, but it isn't just today. you mean that you don't see how the well being of the middle class and the ability to secure funds to pay for school is related to the number of people who get college education? hmmm, I am not sure how I can help and whether it is worth my while to try. trades school in the US are pretty much exclusively post-high school education whereas many aren't in Europe. So being aware of it helps compare the data with a little more understanding. Or at least, it ought to be clarified. well, thank you. But, is that all the comments you had? or do you consider your post a demonstration of anything beside your shortcomings?

I know you are dense but please pay attention: how would the US compare if the middle class hadn't gone into debt to pay for education over the last 30 years? how will the US compare now that edu costs have gone through the roof, the middle class is disappearing before our very eyes, and you keep spending all the money on wars and tax cuts for the uber rich and corporations (sucker)? and when you consider that in many countries education costs are much lower? (if you need a clue compare health care, and see how many people go without health care in the US versus other industrialized nations) If the above applies to the middle class, what does it mean for low income families?

just dumping data as you usually do is meaningless. Your new plot like the previous ones isn't addressing the increasing disparity in access to higher education between low and high income families that was discussed. The advantage in educated population we had relative to other nations is not only long gone, but is likely bound to get worse now that the middle class is broke, can't borrow anymore (which as you know helped many over the last few decades to get a college education) and now that your types refuse to fund public education appropriately. I am not very familiar with trade schools but I suspect that a greater fraction of the pop in Europe goes to trade schools than in the US and I don't think trade schools are post high school edu in Europe. As I already said, trade schools can be a reasonable option if they lead to stable and living wage work, which is increasingly doubtful in the little paradise you guys created.

awwwww, Attila couldn't locate his sense of humor. Poor thing.

how does it deal with work accidents? I hate the idea of mandatory testing especially since it doesn't show whether someone is stoned.

The examples you picked of the reasons why people don't make it to college were more revealing of your intent than the point you actually stated. You attempted to push the blame on destructive behaviors and poor parenting rather than on the socio-economic conditions that prevent students from being prepared for and access a college education.

Yes. Where is the head slamming into desk emoticon? head slamming for turning the trivial into the general case? sheesh!

says JayB who regularly appears to think he is writing a memento for the Pompadour's salon conversations. sounds good. How do you think you'll get the statistically significant samples of equivalent students with the same teachers, same mode of learning, in schools of equivalent means, etc.. to do what you suggest? why do you think it isn't done? Much of science, especially social sciences, isn't done on the basis of fully controlled experiments. Nonetheless, the income factor as a barrier to education has been well established. knowing that correlation isn't causation doesn't mean there isn't sufficient evidence to show that income is a major factor in access to higher education as has been shown in this thread. Regressives have specialized in trying to muddy the waters by claiming that correlation isn't causation over many issues despite overwhelming evidence than in such cases causation is well established.

hmmm, don't you think MJ is the cause of a significant number of accidents?

I hope so, but I doubt that is the way the fed level bill would be understood by Paul and his minions. I haven't read either bills so my remark was more to suggest that legalizing MJ shouldn't imply that consuming it should be free of all constraints.

decriminalization is a really good idea that is long overdue but like for all substances subject to abuse that have negative societal impact, marijuana should at the minimum be regulated.

“While for-profits [colleges] educate less than 10 percent of students, those colleges’ students received close to a quarter of Pell Grant and federal-student-loan dollars in 2008,” the loan default rate of for-profit college students is also disproportionately high. Most students at for-profit colleges come from low income families.

You also implied the 70% without a 4-year college degree were not diligent enough, hard-working enough, gratification delaying enough, ... because they'd rather engage in crack smoking, robbing convenience stores, ... all of this because you deny that income is a major factor in enabling access to higher education. Nobody claimed that that a college edu "garanteed" higher income, yet all stats show that most people with college degrees earn higher income. Borrowing too much is a bad idea, nothing new here, but you also deny that people had to borrow because of decreasing real earning and increasing costs.

You are making the same mistake as JayB. Yes, our educational system is far from perfect. Yes, our corporate media suck by and large. Yes, many factors come into play, etc which why I said that ON AVERAGE a better educated person is better equipped to assess and digest information. It's basic logic. Try it once in a while.

beeootiful! It looks like a long day out ...

an informed public is absolutely necessary to a stable democracy. It takes a first class 'obfuscator' (and demagogue) to suggest that, on average, people who didn't finish high school are as able to digest and critically assess information as the more educated public.

No worries folks. Eventually, JayB will be done with listing all the problems in our educational system in order to dismiss the wild idea that socio-economic condition is a strong determinant of access and success in education.

wow! I am impressed with your demonstration. Should critical thinking suggest to you that the economic conditions that lead to poor child development are the same that lead to decreased access to higher education?

unfortunately his regurgitation of neolib think tanks talking points about education not being necessary is indicative of the types of jobs they expect will be made available.

No, I think his claim is they didn't get a four degree because of bad parenting and access counts for nothing.

so your claim is that ~70% of Americans without a college education engage in "smoking crack, knocking-off liquor stores, not taking care of themselves, etc", which would explain why they never got a 4 year degree? the key point of what you are saying is they got some education beyond high school. I am not opposed to having other tracks than 4-year college but it doesn't affect the conclusion that education leads to better outcomes.

which shouldn't be too difficult since no moron follows you around smearing your person at every turn. Insults take various form: for example they can be crude or not. Your not being crude doesn't mean you don't use insults and personal attacks. Commenting in this fashion without providing a demonstration of your claims once in a while is acceptable in my book but doing it at what seems every single appearance of yours on this board puts you in the same category as KKK.

more passive aggressive behavior from you, but of course no specifics per usual. Jim seems more the openly aggressive type. More action, less talk...that kind of thing. not from my perspective since I have been the recipient of countless personal attacks below the belt from him mostly without any explanation. He seems to be playing the same game Attila plays.