Greeks Bearing Gifts....

[tvashtarkatena]

When I think of Friends of the Working Man here, somehow, Jay, your name doesn't seem to come up. Was it the anti union gloating during the Wisconsin affair, or your siding with the auto executives against their own workers that gave that away?

 

Nice try turning this into a pineapple upside down class warfare cake, but the boss's cock is lodged firmly up your ass here, and you're kinda proud of it.

 

Being for the reversal of the current trend of higher education becoming less accessible for everyone, but most particularly the lower class isn't exactly thumbing a nose at the plumber, but nice, no, actually, only a tool would try what you just failed to do, particularly given your dripping contempt for anyone of modest means, working class or no.

 

COllege grads get more dough. College grads are better educated, by, uh, definition. Apologies to that 5% or so that self educates, and I do know some. Going to college means you can get paid for your ideas rather than for your body. People who want to and are willing to work at it should be able to go to college. You've already got yours, brah. Don't be a shithead.

[prole]

It also seems strangely at odds with the historical record. Somehow - entire suites of legislation that I suspect that you find quite appealing - from the enfranchisement of women, to the repeal of prohibition, to the New Deal, to the Civil Rights Act, the Great Society, etc were all passed when the number of college graduates was several times lower than it is today. How is society becoming "progressively more ignorant" while the percentage of people with degrees has been progressively increasing for decades?

 

Hoo-boy, things sure have changed haven't they? I'm surprised you didn't notice some of the key differences between then and now given that you were such a keen promoter of the neoliberal globalization that accounts for many of those differences. Then, university systems and the access to them developed in tandem with a dynamic American capitalism that required educated scientists, engineers and middle managers within a kind of managed capitalism that actually gave a fuck if workers could buy its products. Those workers, though struggles for better wages and benefits and leisure time and the development of a consumer capitalism that catered to them actually did resemble the noble savage you invoke. College actually could be a kind of take it or leave it proposition when labor intensive industries, employing large numbers of people organized to protect wage gains, health and benefits reigned supreme.

 

Now, in the hyper-competitive global economy and the widening gaps between skilled, educated managers, marketers, tech and content providers and the postindustrial, increasingly redundant population of low wage service providers providing services to service providers, college (and you better bet your ass the more the better) is pretty much a must.

 

 

BTW, ranking the end of Prohibition with women's suffrage and Civil Rights? Total douche move, bro...

 

Edited June 24, 2011 by prole

[prole]

And it's funny, looking back now with Germany's success in navigating the new global economy in mind, it appears that none of the above was actually as inevitable as the globo-cheerleaders now make it sound....

[j_b]

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.

[prole]

Market Democracy: No public, no citizenry necessary. Just technocrats and consumers.

[Jim]

I agree that college should be made more affordable and accessible because, in general, it's a good thing.

 

I'm not buying the better education=utopian democracy however. Given that our percentage of the population with a college education has been steadily increasing it of late seems to have a striking correlation (not saying causation!!) with dumb politics.

 

About 38% of the populace now have at least an AA and I bet a higher percentage are infatuated with the Kardishans. Cue fault of corporate media, demagods, globalization.

[rob]

JayB, I'm too lazy to read all your comments, but are you really arguing that the poor don't really need college, anyway? If so, you're a total douche. It's kind of hard to imagine you wouldn't think a college education is a good idea for, well, pretty much anyone.

 

The reason the republicans and the well-to-do don't want free college for everyone is because they know they won't be able to exploit the middle and lower class worker quite as much. It's all about investors, you know -- employees are just chattel. The LAST thing republicans want is any sort of upward mobility.

 

Ironic that their biggest supporters are the very ones stuck under their boot.

 

[rob]

It's the whole "the poor can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps" myth.

[Jim]

Ironic that their biggest supporters are the very ones stuck under their boot.

 

I know. Funny in a ha, ha sort of way.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

The reason the republicans and the well-to-do don't want free college for everyone

 

There is no such thing as "free".

[prole]

I'm not buying the better education=utopian democracy however. Given that our percentage of the population with a college education has been steadily increasing it of late seems to have a striking correlation (not saying causation!!) with dumb politics.

 

Nobody argued that. The shelf-life of any discussion will last longer when words aren't put in people's mouths.

 

But yes of course, content is important. The single minded focus on math and science in primary education and the corporatization of the university system isn't doing us any favors when it comes to the subjects that contribute to a wider field of understanding.

 

U.S. Students Remain Poor at History, Tests Show

By SAM DILLON

 

American students are less proficient in their nation’s history than in any other subject, according to results of a nationwide test released on Tuesday, with most fourth graders unable to say why Abraham Lincoln was an important figure and few high school seniors able to identify China as the North Korean ally that fought American troops during the Korean War.

 

Over all, 20 percent of fourth graders, 17 percent of eighth graders and 12 percent of high school seniors demonstrated proficiency on the exam, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Federal officials said they were encouraged by a slight increase in eighth-grade scores since the last history test, in 2006. But even those gains offered little to celebrate because, for example, fewer than a third of eighth graders could answer even a “seemingly easy question” asking them to identify an important advantage American forces had over the British during the Revolution, the government’s statement on the results said.

 

Diane Ravitch, an education historian who was invited by the national assessment’s governing board to review the results, said she was particularly disturbed by the fact that only 2 percent of 12th graders correctly answered a question concerning Brown v. Board of Education, which she called “very likely the most important decision” of the United States Supreme Court in the past seven decades.

 

Students were given an excerpt including the passage, “We conclude that in the field of public education, separate but equal has no place, separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” and were asked what social problem the 1954 ruling was supposed to correct.

 

“The answer was right in front of them,” Ms. Ravitch said. “This is alarming.”

 

The tests were given last spring to a representative sample of 7,000 fourth graders, 11,800 eighth graders and 12,400 12th graders nationwide. History is one of eight subjects — the others are math, reading, science, writing, civics, geography and economics — covered by the assessment program, which is also known as the Nation’s Report Card. The board that oversees the program defines three achievement levels for each test: “basic” denotes partial mastery of a subject; “proficient” represents solid academic performance and a demonstration of competency over challenging subject matter; and “advanced” means superior performance.

 

If history is American students’ worst subject, economics is their best: 42 percent of high school seniors were deemed proficient in the 2006 economics test, a larger proportion than in any other subject over the last decade. But Jack Buckley, commissioner of the statistical center at the Department of Education that carries out the tests, said on Monday that because the assessments in each subject were prepared and administered independently, it was not really fair to compare results across subjects.

 

On the 2010 history test, the proportion of students scoring at or above proficiency rose among fourth graders to 20 percent from 18 percent in 2006, held at 17 percent among eighth graders, and fell to 12 percent from 13 percent among high school seniors.

 

On the test’s 500-point scale, average fourth- and eighth-grade scores each increased three points since 2006. But officials said only the eighth-grade increase, to 266 in 2010 from 263 in 2006, was statistically significant. Average 12th-grade scores dropped, to 288 in 2010 from 290 in 2006.

 

While changes in the overall averages were microscopic, there was significant upward movement among the lowest-performing students — those in the 10th percentile — in fourth and eighth grades and a narrowing of the racial achievement gap at all levels. On average, for instance, white eighth-grade students scored 274 on the latest test, 21 points higher than Hispanic students and 23 points above black students; in 2006, white students outperformed Hispanic students by 23 points and black students by 29 points.

 

History advocates contend that students’ poor showing on the tests underlines neglect shown to the subject by federal and state policy makers, especially since the 2002 No Child Left Behind act began requiring schools to raise scores in math and reading but in no other subject. The federal accountability law, the advocates say, has given schools and teachers an incentive to spend less time on history and other subjects.

 

“History is very much being shortchanged,” said Linda K. Salvucci, a history professor in San Antonio who is chairwoman-elect of the National Council for History Education.

 

Many teacher-education programs, Ms. Salvucci said, also contribute to the problem by encouraging aspiring teachers to seek certification in social studies, rather than in history. “They think they’ll be more versatile, that they can teach civics, government, whatever,” she said. “But they’re not prepared to teach history.” --from here.

[Jim]

I'm not buying the better education=utopian democracy however. Given that our percentage of the population with a college education has been steadily increasing it of late seems to have a striking correlation (not saying causation!!) with dumb politics.

 

Nobody argued that. The shelf-life of any discussion will last longer when words aren't put in people's mouths.

 

Steady Eddie - I responded to this - which in the context of the discussion seems to imply education = better informed = democracy. Critical thinking applied.

 

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.

[JayB]

JayB, I'm too lazy to read all your comments, but are you really arguing that the poor don't really need college, anyway? If so, you're a total douche. It's kind of hard to imagine you wouldn't think a college education is a good idea for, well, pretty much anyone.

 

The reason the republicans and the well-to-do don't want free college for everyone is because they know they won't be able to exploit the middle and lower class worker quite as much. It's all about investors, you know -- employees are just chattel. The LAST thing republicans want is any sort of upward mobility.

 

Ironic that their biggest supporters are the very ones stuck under their boot.

 

This is kind of an ironic first sentence in the context of this thread - no?

 

I have two basic points. The first is that borrowing more than you can repay is always a bad idea. This is true whether it's to finance a McMansion or a college education. If you've got to borrow to finance your education, it's probably worth trying to figure out whether the career that your education will prepare you for will allow you to repay the loan.

 

The second is that a college education doesn't guarantee a high income. If your primary objective for going to college is to increase your earnings, there are lots of skilled trades that you can get into where you'll earn as much or more than a big chunk of college graduates do without spending as much time or money as going to college requires.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I have two basic points. The first is that borrowing more than you can repay is always a bad idea. This is true whether it's to finance a McMansion or a college education. If you've got to borrow to finance your education, it's probably worth trying to figure out whether the career that your education will prepare you for will allow you to repay the loan.

 

 

No, no, no... the public needs to finance any and all educational choices, irrespective of what tangible benefit such an education may yield, and irrespective of the (rising) cost of the education. Don't address the cost issue at all. Make the rich pay. Great conclusions from our "educated" liberal cohort and their critical/thinking/analytic skills, no?

 

[Jim]

I have two basic points. The first is that borrowing more than you can repay is always a bad idea. This is true whether it's to finance a McMansion or a college education. If you've got to borrow to finance your education, it's probably worth trying to figure out whether the career that your education will prepare you for will allow you to repay the loan.

 

The second is that a college education doesn't guarantee a high income. If your primary objective for going to college is to increase your earnings, there are lots of skilled trades that you can get into where you'll earn as much or more than a big chunk of college graduates do without spending as much time or money as going to college requires.

 

While I think that there should be more done to provide access to kids going the college I would argue just as much for impoved access to technical schools and apprenticeship programs.

 

Shoot - my car mechanic has got to be the most well-read, well-educated person I know. AND he knows how to fix things, which most college grads seem to be afraid of. Plus, he works 4 days a week and likely matches or beats my salary. College is definately not the only alternative and certainly not the only way to develop critical thinking.

[j_b]

I agree that college should be made more affordable and accessible because, in general, it's a good thing.

 

I'm not buying the better education=utopian democracy however. Given that our percentage of the population with a college education has been steadily increasing it of late seems to have a striking correlation (not saying causation!!) with dumb politics.

 

About 38% of the populace now have at least an AA and I bet a higher percentage are infatuated with the Kardishans. Cue fault of corporate media, demagods, globalization.

 

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.

[JosephH]

Higher Ed is under economic and demographic pressures at the moment, but in some respects pales compared to the federally-supported criminal enterprise that is the entire trade school industry. Everyone involved should be in jail.

[Jim]

Agreed - there is a lot of crap going on with low-performing schools having eligibility for the student loan process. But - buyer beware.

[j_b]

I have two basic points. The first is that borrowing more than you can repay is always a bad idea. This is true whether it's to finance a McMansion or a college education. If you've got to borrow to finance your education, it's probably worth trying to figure out whether the career that your education will prepare you for will allow you to repay the loan.

 

The second is that a college education doesn't guarantee a high income. If your primary objective for going to college is to increase your earnings, there are lots of skilled trades that you can get into where you'll earn as much or more than a big chunk of college graduates do without spending as much time or money as going to college requires

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[JosephH]

Agreed - there is a lot of crap going on with low-performing schools having eligibility for the student loan process. But - buyer beware.

Not really a case of buyer beware - every single one of them is simply a federal loan mill. The entire industry is corrupt - farming those loans is essentially an unaddressed part of the student loan scams.

 

Their primary protector in Congress? Boehner.

[j_b]

“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.

Edited June 24, 2011 by j_b

[JayB]

I have two basic points. The first is that borrowing more than you can repay is always a bad idea. This is true whether it's to finance a McMansion or a college education. If you've got to borrow to finance your education, it's probably worth trying to figure out whether the career that your education will prepare you for will allow you to repay the loan.

 

The second is that a college education doesn't guarantee a high income. If your primary objective for going to college is to increase your earnings, there are lots of skilled trades that you can get into where you'll earn as much or more than a big chunk of college graduates do without spending as much time or money as going to college requires

 

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.

 

 

 

 

This is an amusing conversation to have with self-annointed members of the enlightened cognitive elite.

 

My point was that if you want to determine a particular benefit of going to college, you have to compare the people who went to college with the people who are just like them in every other respect - but didn't go to college.

 

How to do that? Find the people who got good grades in high school and then pursued some other kind of career training. Look at how they're doing compared to people who got equally high grades and went to college? Much better way to determine the effect of going to college on health, wealth, etc. Want to get more granular? Compare the jet-engine mechanics to the sociology majors, etc. The differences you find are much more likely to be attributable to having attended college.

 

How is it that I am having to hammer remedial shit like correlation vs causation, confounding variables, etc to highly educated members of the enlightened cognitive elite? I knew this shit in junior high. My high-school graduate grandma could make these distinctions while cooking up an apple-pie and listening to a baseball game on the radio.....

 

 

[JayB]

I have two basic points. The first is that borrowing more than you can repay is always a bad idea. This is true whether it's to finance a McMansion or a college education. If you've got to borrow to finance your education, it's probably worth trying to figure out whether the career that your education will prepare you for will allow you to repay the loan.

 

The second is that a college education doesn't guarantee a high income. If your primary objective for going to college is to increase your earnings, there are lots of skilled trades that you can get into where you'll earn as much or more than a big chunk of college graduates do without spending as much time or money as going to college requires.

 

While I think that there should be more done to provide access to kids going the college I would argue just as much for impoved access to technical schools and apprenticeship programs.

 

Shoot - my car mechanic has got to be the most well-read, well-educated person I know. AND he knows how to fix things, which most college grads seem to be afraid of. Plus, he works 4 days a week and likely matches or beats my salary. College is definately not the only alternative and certainly not the only way to develop critical thinking.

 

Yes.

 

Where is the head slamming into desk emoticon?

 

[prole]

"Hey, I know this guy, he didn't go to college but he's real smart."

 

Apparently, "the math" is unnecessary on this one...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I have two basic points. The first is that borrowing more than you can repay is always a bad idea. This is true whether it's to finance a McMansion or a college education. If you've got to borrow to finance your education, it's probably worth trying to figure out whether the career that your education will prepare you for will allow you to repay the loan.

 

The second is that a college education doesn't guarantee a high income. If your primary objective for going to college is to increase your earnings, there are lots of skilled trades that you can get into where you'll earn as much or more than a big chunk of college graduates do without spending as much time or money as going to college requires.

 

While I think that there should be more done to provide access to kids going the college I would argue just as much for impoved access to technical schools and apprenticeship programs.

 

Shoot - my car mechanic has got to be the most well-read, well-educated person I know. AND he knows how to fix things, which most college grads seem to be afraid of. Plus, he works 4 days a week and likely matches or beats my salary. College is definately not the only alternative and certainly not the only way to develop critical thinking.

 

Yes.

 

Where is the head slamming into desk emoticon?

 

What I love is how a thread about the Greek economy imploding, which in large part is due to excesses in government bloat, morphed into "US education is too expensive", then into "college is good". The next step of course is to make the connection from "college is good" to advocate funding through taxes everyone's college education, and ignore the excesses that this causes (which we already see mentioned in this thread), leading in the worst case to economic collapse - hello Greece! But hey, let's just spew a few banalities about corporate shills, freedumb, etc. and demonize the right-wing to ignore the real questions and problems.