On 22 Jul 2012 20:43:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 22 Jul 2012 10:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> 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.
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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
>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?
>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.
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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-
[email protected]
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-
[email protected]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:33:54 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
>>> <[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.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. Oh, well.
>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? How about turning away those who can't even get there
without dumbing down the entire system? Ramedeal reading in college?
>Maybe students should talk to an advisor (perhaps mom or dad?) before
>they choose a college and a major? All 18 year-olds respect the
>opinions of their parents, don't they? Caveat emptor.
Perhaps require an "employment 101" course. Though, if effective, it would
dry up a lot of departments. The faculty wouldn't allow that to happen.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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-
[email protected]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:25:49 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> 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 Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:36:11 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:34:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:28:25 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]> 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_resources/2007_salary_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.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:27:02 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>I can easily remember seeing this way of thinking 30 years ago, this is
>nothing new, it is just seen more often with more unqualified grads
>available.
Part of the problem is that 30 years ago, people like us with just a
little luck could occasionally find a company where we would work for
our entire lives. That meant benefits, health insurance, sick pay and
everything else that comes with working full time at one place.
That atmosphere of job security doesn't exist these days for the vast
bulk of the working population ~ whatever degree they have. People who
have worked for a number of years at one place are getting laid off
and replaced with contract employees.
It happened to a friend of mine three years ago. (he has a technical
degree) After 20 years working at IBM, he got laid off three years
ago. He's approaching 50 and de's had a terrible time finding another
job. Sure, he's worked in the meantime at places paying 25% of the
salary he used to make, but the security he had has completely
evaporated.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:34:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:28:25 -0400, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> 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_resources/2007_salary_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.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
On 7/24/2012 12:32 PM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 7/23/2012 5:59 PM, tiredofspam 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 think that because damn near every one graduating from HS at least
>> starts college these days that the bachelors degree is so common place
>> that it has little value over a HS diploma.
>>
>> And I totally agree that a masters degree does not make you smarter, not
>> even a doctorate makes you smarter. I will say that both make you more
>> knowledgeable but that has little to do with being smart, something that
>> you are born with.
>
> Someone (T. Huxley) said "Perhaps the most valuable result of all
> education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do,
> when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not; it is the first
> lesson that ought to be learned; and however early a man's training
> begins, it is probably the last lesson that he learns thoroughly."
And all this time I thought that was simply a result of mentally maturing.
On 7/24/2012 10:43 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> But because of the belief that a college degree entitles you to a good
>> paying job, HA HA, every one tries to gets that "expensive" degree
>> and in many cases the cost of the degree eats up any advantage to
>> having the degree.
>
> One of my daughters is the living proof of that. She got her undergraduate
> degree in Psychology at a very good school in PA. Too bad - not a good
> choice of careers if you are thinking about income. She could actually do
> well if she entered the commercial market but like most socially aware young
> people, she wants to "help people". Well - kiss income good by. She went
> on and got her Masters, and her income level has only risen marginally.
> Same issue - you get paid by the things of your heart, or you go commercial
> and get real pay. Who knows where she will evetually end up, but this much
> is really clear - she has more debt from that Masters program than she can
> ever envision her way out of if she stays in her current type of employment.
>
> So - you are absolutely right Leon - that advanced degree can eat up any
> advantage it holds promise to.
>
My son was extremely fortunate. He nor we had any debt as a result of
his education although that masters degree was a costly 1 year. IIRC
his scholarships quit coming after his bachelors degree. We funded 50%
of that 5th year. I'd say that the college and outside business
scholarships paid for 80% of his college education.
"Bill" wrote:
>
> I enjoy being "Bill, the generic academic" on Usenet, and trying to
> help provide insight where I can. However, some have begun to cross
> a line, prompting me from more detailed information about me and my
> school. I would prefer to maintain some privacy, as almost everyone
> here does to some degree. I also feel it would be inappropriate for
> me to share job placement and/or other data about my school, which I
> don't have anyway. The data is not mine to disseminate. I have many
> success stories. I would have to refer you to the registrar's
> office or admissions for more statistics. I think if you contacted
> the department of admissions, at most any school, that they would
> have data to share. Thank you for your understanding!
---------------------------------
What a crock.
Lew
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:10:08 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com>
wrote:
>> The Vietnam was could be avoided if you were in school to be come a
>> teacher. Some of those teachers became administrators. The results
>> of that are showing too.
>>
>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.
>
>Many don't teach their kids manners. Many don't demand grades from their
>kids. There was a woman on TV who was doing her kids homework so that
>the kid could socialize more...
While I did start with teachers, they are only part of the problem.
The spawn of the hippie generation are the parents you speak of.
>
>The other part of the problem with schools is the curiculum has been
>forced to be fair for everyone. Teach everything that doesn't pertain to
>the 3 Rs... The priorities should be what they were long ago.. Reading,
>Writting and Arithmetic.. And Sciences, computers, and social studies..
>period.
>
>You can blame that on the stupid legislators... Most of whom probably
>did poorly in school. Add many stupid requirements in and you have a
>curriculum that can't focus enough of what it should..
>
>Then add stupid admins who are looking for big pay days and ... well
>theses people are clueless for the most part.
>
Yes, it is the generation that let it go to crap. Our parents would
not let that happen.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:28:23 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:44:54 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>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.
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.?
>
> Where is the conflict? Our students (in this area) are finding jobs
> and other good opportunities. I think new graduates, having
> indefinite promise, may have some advantage in the competition for
> jobs.
I guess if you can't see the conflict in what you stated, it's not worth the
effort in pursuing it.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:37:29 -0400, "[email protected]"
>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.
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.
And... half as many basketball stars showing up in the public newspapers for
criminal activities.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:52:47 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 01:37:49 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.html?_r=1&hp
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's an interesting article, but it just causes me to worry a bit more
>>> about our country in general. I've always found it strange that our
>>> "popular culture" gets away with being so much at odds with our nation's
>>> real needs. I guess we have a very successul entertainment industry.
>>
>> The 60s hippies have been in control for some time. What do you expect?
>
>I expect a government "for the people". When I was a little kid I
>expected people to exhibit restraint/discipline and to work hard for
>their own best interests and to share with others in need. I expected
>everyone would want to look out for the environment. I was naive in
>some ways.
I'd say that nothing's changed.
<snipped>
On 7/23/2012 5:59 PM, tiredofspam 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 think that because damn near every one graduating from HS at least
starts college these days that the bachelors degree is so common place
that it has little value over a HS diploma.
And I totally agree that a masters degree does not make you smarter, not
even a doctorate makes you smarter. I will say that both make you more
knowledgeable but that has little to do with being smart, something that
you are born with.
But because of the belief that a college degree entitles you to a good
paying job, HA HA, every one tries to gets that "expensive" degree and
in many cases the cost of the degree eats up any advantage to having the
degree.
Bill wrote:
>
>
> My point was that being trained (via education), and doing something
> with that training is more important than being smart. It didn't "feel
> good" for me to say it, I was just trying to make a point. I hope this
> clears that up.
Yes - thank you for that clarification. I sometimes find it difficult to
understand exactly what you are really trying to say.
>
> There are smart and idle people who don't impress me much.
Preach it Brother!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
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...
On 7/21/2012 9:14 PM, 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.html?_r=1&hp
>
It was outsourced - to China.
On 7/22/2012 8:19 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:13:27 -0400, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> The 60s hippies have been in control for some time. What do you expect?
>>
>
> The Vietnam was could be avoided if you were in school to be come a
> teacher. Some of those teachers became administrators. The results
> of that are showing too.
>
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.
Many don't teach their kids manners. Many don't demand grades from their
kids. There was a woman on TV who was doing her kids homework so that
the kid could socialize more...
The other part of the problem with schools is the curiculum has been
forced to be fair for everyone. Teach everything that doesn't pertain to
the 3 Rs... The priorities should be what they were long ago.. Reading,
Writting and Arithmetic.. And Sciences, computers, and social studies..
period.
You can blame that on the stupid legislators... Most of whom probably
did poorly in school. Add many stupid requirements in and you have a
curriculum that can't focus enough of what it should..
Then add stupid admins who are looking for big pay days and ... well
theses people are clueless for the most part.
On 7/25/2012 11:42 AM, phorbin wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>> Actually, the Chinese have their own Affirmative Action program when it
>> comes to preferential treatment for racial minorities getting into
>> universities.
>
> Given the political core of China this begs the questions, 'But who gets
> preferential treatment and for what reasons?' and, 'What must one be
> and/or surrender to get this kind of preferential treatment?'
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970826&slug=2556773
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> But that would not be very democratic or popular.
> However, that is similar to the way things are done in China, I believe.
The Chinese system of climbing the academic ladder is based on ferocious
mass and massive competition.
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.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
The ones who graduate in rocket science are flipping burgers too you
know.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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 education or the ones that are most
effectively marketed and beancounted.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:17:55 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:41:59 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> T'aint the high school kids at all those keggers.
It is around here.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Actually, the Chinese have their own Affirmative Action program when it
> comes to preferential treatment for racial minorities getting into
> universities.
Given the political core of China this begs the questions, 'But who gets
preferential treatment and for what reasons?' and, 'What must one be
and/or surrender to get this kind of preferential treatment?'
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On 7/25/2012 11:42 AM, phorbin wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> >> Actually, the Chinese have their own Affirmative Action program when it
> >> comes to preferential treatment for racial minorities getting into
> >> universities.
> >
> > Given the political core of China this begs the questions, 'But who gets
> > preferential treatment and for what reasons?' and, 'What must one be
> > and/or surrender to get this kind of preferential treatment?'
>
> http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970826&slug=2556773
That is part of my picture of the issues.
There is also the issue of colonization, the moving Han Chinese into
minority territories/conquered countries to turn the 'indigenous
minorities within China' into minority populations in their homelands.
On 7/24/2012 1:26 PM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 7/24/2012 12:32 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> On 7/23/2012 5:59 PM, tiredofspam 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 think that because damn near every one graduating from HS at least
>>>> starts college these days that the bachelors degree is so common place
>>>> that it has little value over a HS diploma.
>>>>
>>>> And I totally agree that a masters degree does not make you smarter,
>>>> not
>>>> even a doctorate makes you smarter. I will say that both make you more
>>>> knowledgeable but that has little to do with being smart, something
>>>> that
>>>> you are born with.
>>>
>>> Someone (T. Huxley) said "Perhaps the most valuable result of all
>>> education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do,
>>> when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not; it is the first
>>> lesson that ought to be learned; and however early a man's training
>>> begins, it is probably the last lesson that he learns thoroughly."
>>
>> And all this time I thought that was simply a result of mentally
>> maturing.
>>
>
> Not everyone who ages matures.
>
>
Did you mention age? And or don't think that an education makes
"everyone" responsible.
After the schools and colleges finish holding their hands half still
need to have their butts wiped by some on else.
On 7/22/2012 12:37 AM, Bill wrote:
> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.html?_r=1&hp
>>
>>
>
> It's an interesting article, but it just causes me to worry a bit more
> about our country in general. I've always found it strange that our
> "popular culture" gets away with being so much at odds with our nation's
> real needs. I guess we have a very successul entertainment industry.
In order to be at peace with the current cultural state of affairs, you
have to finally accept that the simpleton majority deserve exactly what
they bring upon themselves.
Who are they, you say?
Simply chose to spend a few minutes driving any urban freeway in the
country ... you cant' miss them ... just consider yourself lucky if the
miss you.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
>><[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-crafts
>>>manship-spirit-essay.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 and student loans should be abolished (or at
> least greatly reduced)? Maybe get rid of scholarships, too.
I think we should emphasize ability more. Guess what, I'd like to make
education more affordable. For anyone who can show ability and
dedication to persevere. Invest in talent. Do reward good students,
good teachers and good researchers. But set limits.
>>Technology was starting to boom. Hey kids, become a computer
>>programmer and you'll never have to clean under your fingernails
>>again. Make lots more money than dad ever did down at the mill.
>>
>>Cameras, stereo systems, Pong, and a Commodore 20 became affordable
>>and it was imported, mostly from Japan. Big box store replaced the
>>corner store and offered discounts. We like discounts. Oh, if I send
>>my manufacturing off shore, I can offer discounts and sell cheaper
>>too. Yay, now we get all that new technology cheaper than ever.
>>
>>We want cheap. We demand cheap.
>
> We also demand good, if not cheap. That's something that went missing
> in the '70s and '80s.
We should discourage instant gratification ...
>>Hey, why is that factory torn down and another shopping mall going up?
>>Great, it will have a big store that sells stuff from China.
>>
>>Need a house? 0% down and low interest for the first five years.
>>Sure, you can afford it and can re-finance later.
>
> Money is just about free now. What's that got us?
Bankers are (wrongly, IMO) in it for the profit that loans give NOW.
Somehow a focus on more long term yields, away from short term results,
is needed. People should qualify for the loans they take out. Of course
that gives the problem of the artrist-type with a good idea, but no track
record (just an example). 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 ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 22 Jul 2012 10:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
>>>><[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craf
>>>>>ts manship-spirit-essay.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 and student loans should be abolished (or at
>>> least greatly reduced)? Maybe get rid of scholarships, too.
>>
>>I think we should emphasize ability more.
>
> Absolutely, but what do you do with the Ancient South American
> Languanges department?
>
>>Guess what, I'd like to make
>>education more affordable. For anyone who can show ability and
>>dedication to persevere. Invest in talent. Do reward good students,
>>good teachers and good researchers. But set limits.
>
> OK, mostly. What limits?
>
> Making college more affordable can easily start with getting rid of
> the bloat. Evernotice the construction going on at the major
> universities?
>
>>>>Technology was starting to boom. Hey kids, become a computer
>>>>programmer and you'll never have to clean under your fingernails
>>>>again. Make lots more money than dad ever did down at the mill.
>>>>
>>>>Cameras, stereo systems, Pong, and a Commodore 20 became affordable
>>>>and it was imported, mostly from Japan. Big box store replaced the
>>>>corner store and offered discounts. We like discounts. Oh, if I
>>>>send my manufacturing off shore, I can offer discounts and sell
>>>>cheaper too. Yay, now we get all that new technology cheaper than
>>>>ever.
>>>>
>>>>We want cheap. We demand cheap.
>>>
>>> We also demand good, if not cheap. That's something that went
>>> missing in the '70s and '80s.
>>
>>We should discourage instant gratification ...
>
> OK. I'm all ears.
>
>>>>Hey, why is that factory torn down and another shopping mall going
>>>>up? Great, it will have a big store that sells stuff from China.
>>>>
>>>>Need a house? 0% down and low interest for the first five years.
>>>>Sure, you can afford it and can re-finance later.
>>>
>>> Money is just about free now. What's that got us?
>>
>>Bankers are (wrongly, IMO) in it for the profit that loans give NOW.
>
> Huh! Who wudda thought that bankers were in business to make money.
>
>>Somehow a focus on more long term yields, away from short term
>>results, is needed.
>
> They're still making 30 year mortgages. Isn't that long enough?
> OTOH, Fannie and Freddie are there to take them off their hands -
> instantly (mine didn't even make the first mortgage payment).
>
>>People should qualify for the loans they take out. Of course
>>that gives the problem of the artrist-type with a good idea, but no
>>track record (just an example).
>
> That's not a good thing? I though you _wanted_ people to have to
> qualify for loans? An "artrist-type" can't work their way up?
>
>>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. Universities aren't trade schools. 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. 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.
Indeed I don't want to be blamed for denying minorities their rights.
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>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 22 Jul 2012 20:43:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 22 Jul 2012 10:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> 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. Governments of all levels
have sponsored artists and engineers to build buildings, parks, bridges,
what have you. At times they were nice, functional, pretty, whatever
good adjectives you want. Sometimes they built ridiculous things,
sometimes they built ugly and dysfunctional.
> 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".)
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 shit happens,
and sometimes you can wipe it off and go on, and at other times you can't
get rid of the bad luck.
>>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.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 7/21/2012 9:14 PM, 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/business/what-happened-to-the-crafts
>> manship-spirit-essay.html?_r=1&hp
>
> Every time I see "This Old House" on PBS, with the idiotic "elbow
> grease" commercial at the beginning, that point is driven home ...
+1
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 7/23/2012 8:52 AM, [email protected] 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 7/23/2012 6:13 PM, Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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 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.
>
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:17:55 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
Leon wrote:
>
> But because of the belief that a college degree entitles you to a good
> paying job, HA HA, every one tries to gets that "expensive" degree
> and in many cases the cost of the degree eats up any advantage to
> having the degree.
One of my daughters is the living proof of that. She got her undergraduate
degree in Psychology at a very good school in PA. Too bad - not a good
choice of careers if you are thinking about income. She could actually do
well if she entered the commercial market but like most socially aware young
people, she wants to "help people". Well - kiss income good by. She went
on and got her Masters, and her income level has only risen marginally.
Same issue - you get paid by the things of your heart, or you go commercial
and get real pay. Who knows where she will evetually end up, but this much
is really clear - she has more debt from that Masters program than she can
ever envision her way out of if she stays in her current type of employment.
So - you are absolutely right Leon - that advanced degree can eat up any
advantage it holds promise to.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 01:37:49 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.html?_r=1&hp
>>
>
>It's an interesting article, but it just causes me to worry a bit more
>about our country in general. I've always found it strange that our
>"popular culture" gets away with being so much at odds with our nation's
>real needs. I guess we have a very successul entertainment industry.
The 60s hippies have been in control for some time. What do you expect?
>How will our nation cope with an apparently declining middle class?
>Thinking it through, there is plenty to be concerned about.
The middle class can't exist in the US without the entrepreneur class. You
know, those people who "didn't do it themselves".
>As I've said here before, to me it seems that the major political
>parties stand by their interests selfishly. This just seems to add more
>fuel to the problem above. For instance, wealthy people may not wish to
>help pay for better public schools.
They certainly don't want to pay for worse ones. ...and that's what we're
getting. Most I know on the right are quite at ease with the idea of "charter
schools" and they aren't free.
>I've written this message at least 3 times so far, so I'm going to have
>to finish for now and move on, and maybe come back if I'm somehow
>persuaded. In the meantime, Go USA! : )
John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
> Home Depot has come to the realization that things need to be
> simplified, or dumbed down, or that contractors need to be
> available, or they'll lose sales...
>
Yeah - but it makes perfect sense. The big box stores made somethings
available to people who in prior times, did not have access to those types
of efforts. Plumbing, electrical work, flooring work, etc. used to be out
of the reach of a much larger percentage of our population than they are
now. I'm not so sure that the article was on target. I don't see any
correlation between the big box stores and any (possible) decline in
craftsmanship or skilled workers. In fact - quite the opposite. I see they
fostered an environment where more people can now do more for themselves
than what used to be the case.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> I will say: If I was hurt in an auto accident, I would rather a dumb
> but "trained" emergency technician find me than a smart street walker.
>
A totally irrelevant statement. One might just as well say that if I were
injured in an auto accident I'd rather be treated by a dumb but trained
emergency technician, than by a passing biker who delights in seeing the
misery of others. But then, I guess it must have felt good to say that...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 23 Jul 2012 01:20:18 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 22 Jul 2012 20:43:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 22 Jul 2012 10:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> 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 shit 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 23 Jul 2012 01:21:51 GMT, Han <[email protected]> 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.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
"Swingman" wrote:
> You sure about that? Have you not seen the concern over rampant
rise in
> cheating in the past two decades in school and colleges? Perhaps
> he's only proven that he can lie, cheat and steal the basis of that
> degree, and/or that his parents are wealthy enough to insure that he
> gets an increased opportunity.
-----------------------------------
My thermodynamics prof had an interesting approach.
He taught an understanding of the material and how to solve problems
using the learned material.
Come exam time, they would be open book and he would leave the room.
His comment, if you want to use the formulas in the book rather than
develop your own, be my guest.
If you make a mistake using a book formula, don't expect any partial
credit.
He was not there to teach how to use calculators.
He gave a lot of partial credit.
Used that approach a few years later to pass the State of Ohio
Professional Engineer's exam.
That was a time when personal computers a calculators were still wet
dreams, the "Slip Stick" was king.
My how times have changed.
Lew
On 7/25/2012 12:18 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:06:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> The graduate has proven that he could get a degree. He too can still be
>> the clown that walks in with a degree. And the guy that walks in and
>> says that he can do it has at least a 50/50 chance of being able to do
>> it. Almost with certainty a fresh graduate with no work history will
>> still have to be taught, by the employer.
>
> Sorry, I have to agree with Mike here. (Both of them could be clowns)
> The graduate at a minimum, has essentially demonstrated that he *can*
> learn and *can* be taught. He's proven that he has learned the basics
> ~ at least one would hope so if he was hired into a profession that
> the got a degree for.
>
> We're talking about all things being equal. And at that comparison,
> the school accredited person should win out every time.
>
To be honest if the person doing the hiring has any experience at all he
can look at the prospect, resume and or application and tell with
pretty good certainty if the applicant is a clown or not.
I am not saying that the grad should not have the advantage of getting
in the door, only that he should not initially get paid more than the
same guy being hired that has 20 years experience.
I am of the school that until you prove yourself to me you don't deserve
more up front fresh out of school with a degree and no work experience.
And during hard economic times I believe this is proving to be true.
My son earns a decent living, good enough that his first house purchase
in November of 2010 will hopefully be paid for next year. Single.
6 weeks after his twenty third birthday he went to work for a big 4
accounting firm, one that offered him the job about 18 months prior. He
started with a group of new employees getting the same pay. The fact
that he got his bachelors degree and graduated summa cum laude, one year
later got his masters degree, and then passed all 4 of his CPA exams
prior to turning 23 did not give him a pay advantage. And with that
fact I told him up front that a degree guarantees nothing, to him or his
employer. It only gets your foot in the door. What you do after you
get in will dictate what salary you will earn. He had no problems
starting at the same salary as the other new hires. He has been there 2
years this October and has already gotten a 10% and an 18% pay raise, so
how that he has proven himself he is making about 30% more now than he
was in Oct 2010.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:06:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>The graduate has proven that he could get a degree. He too can still be
>the clown that walks in with a degree. And the guy that walks in and
>says that he can do it has at least a 50/50 chance of being able to do
>it. Almost with certainty a fresh graduate with no work history will
>still have to be taught, by the employer.
Sorry, I have to agree with Mike here. (Both of them could be clowns)
The graduate at a minimum, has essentially demonstrated that he *can*
learn and *can* be taught. He's proven that he has learned the basics
~ at least one would hope so if he was hired into a profession that
the got a degree for.
We're talking about all things being equal. And at that comparison,
the school accredited person should win out every time.
Swingman wrote:
> You sure about that? Have you not seen the concern over rampant rise in
> cheating in the past two decades in school and colleges? Perhaps he's
> only proven that he can lie, cheat and steal the basis of that degree,
> and/or that his parents are wealthy enough to insure that he gets an
> increased opportunity.
>
> We see frequent examples of well educated folks, politicians, corporate
> executives, et al, lying about their military service, and CEO's padding
> their resumes with fictitious education achievement, and one is to
> assume that they were somehow shining examples of honesty when it came
> to getting through a degree program?
>
> Not bloody likely ...
>
Especially in accounting!
On 7/25/2012 12:18 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:06:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> The graduate at a minimum, has essentially demonstrated that he *can*
> learn and *can* be taught. He's proven that he has learned the basics
> ~ at least one would hope so if he was hired into a profession that
> the got a degree for.
You sure about that? Have you not seen the concern over rampant rise in
cheating in the past two decades in school and colleges? Perhaps he's
only proven that he can lie, cheat and steal the basis of that degree,
and/or that his parents are wealthy enough to insure that he gets an
increased opportunity.
We see frequent examples of well educated folks, politicians, corporate
executives, et al, lying about their military service, and CEO's padding
their resumes with fictitious education achievement, and one is to
assume that they were somehow shining examples of honesty when it came
to getting through a degree program?
Not bloody likely ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.?
>
> Where is the conflict? Our students (in this area) are finding jobs and
> other good opportunities. I think new graduates, having indefinite
> promise, may have some advantage in the competition for jobs.
I read recently that the 2012 graduates are doing better in the current job
market than the 2011 graduates as they are more visible than last year's
graduates whom have been sidelined either out of work or in menial jobs...
Law school grads are pretty much screwed regardless of which year they got
out... very poor hiring rates due to the over-capacity in the industry. In
theory that may drive salaries and billing rates down... Probably take
another year or two to tell what really happens.
John
"Gramp's shop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.html?_r=1&hp
By coincidence, I sent that link to Doug Stowe for his Wisdom of the Hands
blog.... http://wisdomofhands.blogspot.com/ It fits right in with what he's
been fighting for years! His opening sentence:
Home Depot has come to the realization that things need to be
simplified, or dumbed down, or that contractors need to be available,
or they'll lose sales...
John
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:10:08 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>On 7/22/2012 8:19 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:13:27 -0400, "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The 60s hippies have been in control for some time. What do you expect?
>>>
>>
>> The Vietnam was could be avoided if you were in school to be come a
>> teacher. Some of those teachers became administrators. The results
>> of that are showing too.
>>
>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?
<...>
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:33:54 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
>>>>> <[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.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.
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:12:03 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 7/25/2012 11:42 AM, phorbin wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>
>>> Actually, the Chinese have their own Affirmative Action program when it
>>> comes to preferential treatment for racial minorities getting into
>>> universities.
>>
>> Given the political core of China this begs the questions, 'But who gets
>> preferential treatment and for what reasons?' and, 'What must one be
>> and/or surrender to get this kind of preferential treatment?'
>
>http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970826&slug=2556773
I'm gonna throw up...
Some day, humans will realize that they're all part of the same race:
human.
--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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 Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:41:59 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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 Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:15:15 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>You sure about that? Have you not seen the concern over rampant rise in
>cheating in the past two decades in school and colleges? Perhaps he's
>only proven that he can lie, cheat and steal the basis of that degree,
>and/or that his parents are wealthy enough to insure that he gets an
>increased opportunity.
Nice try. You could equally state that the person with all that
experience has been skating through doing the minimum needed to get
by. We're not discussing someone trying to game the system.
Did you not see the "all things being equal" statement? You like to
accuse people of cutting the important text. You've just been found
guilty of doing the same thing.
One could also say that the guy with all that experience should have
studied and gone to school instead of spending his time tinkering and
playing with some technology.
That's what *I* should have done, something I've always regretted. The
experience and skills you're talking about are, no were, from several
decades ago. It's unfortunate, but it's not part of this era.
The best one could hope for from a college or university graduate now
is that while they are learning, they've also been tinkering and
getting some practical experience with the technology.
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:14:53 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>I am not saying that the grad should not have the advantage of getting
>in the door, only that he should not initially get paid more than the
>same guy being hired that has 20 years experience.
Unfortunately, the big thing these days are credentials, not
experience, at least in most cases. Not saying it's right, just that's
way it is.
When I was 18, I could go out and get a new full time job almost every
week. Those times are gone.
Hiring managers are being given specs to fill. Whether they also
consider other factors, well that's up to them.
>years this October and has already gotten a 10% and an 18% pay raise, so
>how that he has proven himself he is making about 30% more now than he
>was in Oct 2010.
So, when is he sending you on that month long overseas holiday? :)
Leon wrote:
>
> My son did not have to have a masters degree however he was expected
> to have his CPA license withing 3~4 years of being hired or hit the
> road.
No - but he was expected to have a certain level of knowledge. Not
necessarily experience. They paid him for the knowledge that he had gained
from his Bachelor's degreee and expected continuted development from him.
What is the difference between that and all of the other arguments you've
made against the value of a college degree?
> This license is required to do public accounting and working
> for a public accounting firm sorta limits your progress with out that
> license. I suggested he not work for the first time since HS during
> the summer between getting his masters and starting full time with
> the company he is with now. Get those CPA exams behind you.
But Leon - that would be simply accomplishing the academic requirements -
wouldn't it? To your previous arguments, that would not prove that he has
real world capable experiences - would it? So why is that more valuable
than the degrees that you've been arguing against?
>
> Exactly and the kids graduating from college are having difficult
> times finding jobs. The degrees are not trumping proven work
> experience.
Nor is proven work experience trumping college degrees. We're seeing an
economic impact - not a reflection of the value of degrees. While there are
a lot of people out of work with degrees - there are a shit pot more out of
work without degrees.
> I mentioned this before but the local office my son
> works for recruits mainly from 3 colleges. His college has the least
> appeal of the 3 on a resume, generally speaking. For this particular
> job they were looking equally as hard at work history. The vast
> majority of students at his college had jobs.
So - what kind of jobs? Sure - I bet a good many had some work/study stuff
behind them... but that is a common part of that college degree that is
purported to be so meaningless.
> That cannot be said of
> the other 2 colleges. It was said that the UofH students already had
> the basics down for simply doing what is expected on a job, this had
> to be taught to the other new hires.
This would indeed be a real problem these days...
>
> LOL, He owes me nothing although I often introduce him as "my
> retirement plan investment.
One can only hope - as it should be!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 7/25/2012 8:06 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:14:53 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> I am not saying that the grad should not have the advantage of getting
>> in the door, only that he should not initially get paid more than the
>> same guy being hired that has 20 years experience.
>
> Unfortunately, the big thing these days are credentials, not
> experience, at least in most cases. Not saying it's right, just that's
> way it is.
And I understand that but as you suggested and in my way of thinking
that is not right.
My son did not have to have a masters degree however he was expected to
have his CPA license withing 3~4 years of being hired or hit the road.
This license is required to do public accounting and working for a
public accounting firm sorta limits your progress with out that license.
I suggested he not work for the first time since HS during the summer
between getting his masters and starting full time with the company he
is with now. Get those CPA exams behind you. Some of his work weeks
during "busy season" are in excess of 80 hours, not much time left for
studying. ;~) Fortunately after busy season and during the summer his
hours fall back to around 35 hours per week on occasion.
>
> When I was 18, I could go out and get a new full time job almost every
> week. Those times are gone.
Exactly and the kids graduating from college are having difficult times
finding jobs. The degrees are not trumping proven work experience. I
mentioned this before but the local office my son works for recruits
mainly from 3 colleges. His college has the least appeal of the 3 on a
resume, generally speaking. For this particular job they were looking
equally as hard at work history. The vast majority of students at his
college had jobs. That cannot be said of the other 2 colleges. It was
said that the UofH students already had the basics down for simply doing
what is expected on a job, this had to be taught to the other new hires.
This is not to say that the other colleges do not do a stellar job at
education but the students of those colleges are more privileged "these
days" and do not necessarily have to work while in school and don't have
the essential work skills.
My son absolutely did not have to work as much as he did, I covered his
car insurance, education expenses not covered by the scholarships, and
books as long as he kept his grades high enough to keep his scholarships
in tact.
> Hiring managers are being given specs to fill. Whether they also
> consider other factors, well that's up to them.
>
>> years this October and has already gotten a 10% and an 18% pay raise, so
>> how that he has proven himself he is making about 30% more now than he
>> was in Oct 2010.
>
> So, when is he sending you on that month long overseas holiday? :)
LOL, He owes me nothing although I often introduce him as "my
retirement plan investment.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 16:53:36 -0500, phorbin <[email protected]>
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!
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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.html?_r=1&hp
>
It's an interesting article, but it just causes me to worry a bit more
about our country in general. I've always found it strange that our
"popular culture" gets away with being so much at odds with our nation's
real needs. I guess we have a very successul entertainment industry.
How will our nation cope with an apparently declining middle class?
Thinking it through, there is plenty to be concerned about.
As I've said here before, to me it seems that the major political
parties stand by their interests selfishly. This just seems to add more
fuel to the problem above. For instance, wealthy people may not wish to
help pay for better public schools.
I've written this message at least 3 times so far, so I'm going to have
to finish for now and move on, and maybe come back if I'm somehow
persuaded. In the meantime, Go USA! : )
Bill
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
>> <[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.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.
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!
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.
Maybe students should talk to an advisor (perhaps mom or dad?) before
they choose a college and a major? All 18 year-olds respect the
opinions of their parents, don't they? Caveat emptor.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:43:18 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>One of my daughters is the living proof of that. She got her undergraduate
>degree in Psychology at a very good school in PA. Too bad - not a good
>choice of careers if you are thinking about income. She could actually do
>well if she entered the commercial market but like most socially aware young
>people, she wants to "help people". Well - kiss income good by. She went
>on and got her Masters, and her income level has only risen marginally.
>Same issue - you get paid by the things of your heart, or you go commercial
>and get real pay. Who knows where she will evetually end up, but this much
>is really clear - she has more debt from that Masters program than she can
>ever envision her way out of if she stays in her current type of employment.
>
>So - you are absolutely right Leon - that advanced degree can eat up any
>advantage it holds promise to.
Depends on your view of money. If she is happy with her life and
career with low income as opposed to being a shrink with big bucks and
sad life, she made the right choice.
My guess is that at some point she will trade helping people for a
better life of her own if she gets tired of carrying that student
debt.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Depends on your view of money. If she is happy with her life and
> career with low income as opposed to being a shrink with big bucks and
> sad life, she made the right choice.
Or - she could be a shrink with big bucks and a happy life...
>
> My guess is that at some point she will trade helping people for a
> better life of her own if she gets tired of carrying that student
> debt.
That's my guess as well.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 01:37:49 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.html?_r=1&hp
>>>
>>
>> It's an interesting article, but it just causes me to worry a bit more
>> about our country in general. I've always found it strange that our
>> "popular culture" gets away with being so much at odds with our nation's
>> real needs. I guess we have a very successul entertainment industry.
>
> The 60s hippies have been in control for some time. What do you expect?
I expect a government "for the people". When I was a little kid I
expected people to exhibit restraint/discipline and to work hard for
their own best interests and to share with others in need. I expected
everyone would want to look out for the environment. I was naive in
some ways.
>
>> How will our nation cope with an apparently declining middle class?
>> Thinking it through, there is plenty to be concerned about.
>
> The middle class can't exist in the US without the entrepreneur class. You
> know, those people who "didn't do it themselves".
>
>> As I've said here before, to me it seems that the major political
>> parties stand by their interests selfishly. This just seems to add more
>> fuel to the problem above. For instance, wealthy people may not wish to
>> help pay for better public schools.
>
> They certainly don't want to pay for worse ones. ...and that's what we're
> getting. Most I know on the right are quite at ease with the idea of "charter
> schools" and they aren't free.
>
>> I've written this message at least 3 times so far, so I'm going to have
>> to finish for now and move on, and maybe come back if I'm somehow
>> persuaded. In the meantime, Go USA! : )
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:33:54 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
>>>> <[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.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!
Oh, well.
>
>> 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).
How about turning away those who can't even get there
> without dumbing down the entire system? Ramedeal reading in college?
>
>> Maybe students should talk to an advisor (perhaps mom or dad?) before
>> they choose a college and a major? All 18 year-olds respect the
>> opinions of their parents, don't they? Caveat emptor.
>
> Perhaps require an "employment 101" course. Though, if effective, it would
> dry up a lot of departments. The faculty wouldn't allow that to happen.
>
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:33:54 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.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. Note that a department have 40 student
majors may only graduate 10 students a year or less. 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?
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:34:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:28:25 -0400, "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> 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_resources/2007_salary_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. 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. 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".
On 7/22/2012 9:22 PM, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> 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.
--
dpb wrote:
> On 7/22/2012 9:22 PM, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> 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.
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.
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.
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:17:55 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
>
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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?
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:36:11 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:34:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:28:25 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>>> <[email protected]> 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_resources/2007_salary_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?
Mike Marlow wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
tiredofspam 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 think there is some truth to that, in which case academia helps
perform the screening. People reveal something of their general
determination. Most (students) also probably learn how to be better
communicators.
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.
>>
>>
>
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.?
Where is the conflict? Our students (in this area) are finding jobs and
other good opportunities. I think new graduates, having indefinite
promise, may have some advantage in the competition for jobs.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
tiredofspam wrote:
> On 7/23/2012 6:13 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.
Yes. I presumed that you might believe that if MS would hire one of our
students, that other companies might hire some of the others. Not every
student will move accross the country for a job. In my experience (whose
years are in the double-digits), good students in computer science find
jobs.
I enjoy being "Bill, the generic academic" on Usenet, and trying to help
provide insight where I can. However, some have begun to cross a line,
prompting me from more detailed information about me and my school. I
would prefer to maintain some privacy, as almost everyone here does to
some degree. I also feel it would be inappropriate for me to share job
placement and/or other data about my school, which I don't have anyway.
The data is not mine to disseminate. I have many success stories. I
would have to refer you to the registrar's office or admissions for more
statistics. I think if you contacted the department of admissions, at
most any school, that they would have data to share. Thank you for your
understanding!
The discussion has been interesting. I am always interested in looking
for ways to help students. I think that helping them select
forward-looking majors and minors gets them off to a good start! I agree
that a trade school may be a better investment for many than a 4-year
education. As I've commented earlier, it's the consumers choice (of how
and where to spend).
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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.?
>>
>> Where is the conflict? Our students (in this area) are finding jobs
>> and other good opportunities. I think new graduates, having
>> indefinite promise, may have some advantage in the competition for
>> jobs.
>
> I guess if you can't see the conflict in what you stated, it's not worth the
> effort in pursuing it.
No, I didn't provide proof" for my claim. But I don't think I
ontradicted it either. Sorry and best regards! -Bill
Leon wrote:
> On 7/23/2012 5:59 PM, tiredofspam 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 think that because damn near every one graduating from HS at least
> starts college these days that the bachelors degree is so common place
> that it has little value over a HS diploma.
>
> And I totally agree that a masters degree does not make you smarter, not
> even a doctorate makes you smarter. I will say that both make you more
> knowledgeable but that has little to do with being smart, something that
> you are born with.
Someone (T. Huxley) said "Perhaps the most valuable result of all
education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do,
when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not; it is the first
lesson that ought to be learned; and however early a man's training
begins, it is probably the last lesson that he learns thoroughly."
Someone else (A. Einstein, by one source) said "Education is what
remains after you have forgetten everything you learned in school."
I will say: If I was hurt in an auto accident, I would rather a dumb but
"trained" emergency technician find me than a smart street walker.
Bill
>
>
> But because of the belief that a college degree entitles you to a good
> paying job, HA HA, every one tries to gets that "expensive" degree and
> in many cases the cost of the degree eats up any advantage to having the
> degree.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> I will say: If I was hurt in an auto accident, I would rather a dumb
>> but "trained" emergency technician find me than a smart street walker.
>>
>
> A totally irrelevant statement. One might just as well say that if I were
> injured in an auto accident I'd rather be treated by a dumb but trained
> emergency technician, than by a passing biker who delights in seeing the
> misery of others. But then, I guess it must have felt good to say that...
>
My point was that being trained (via education), and doing something
with that training is more important than being smart. It didn't "feel
good" for me to say it, I was just trying to make a point. I hope this
clears that up.
There are smart and idle people who don't impress me much.
Of course, some of them would say that's not their job.
One's viewpoint is somewhat a matter of religion, I think.
It's not unlike the road to becominging craftman--even a hobbiest
craftsman...
Leon wrote:
> On 7/24/2012 12:32 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 7/23/2012 5:59 PM, tiredofspam 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 think that because damn near every one graduating from HS at least
>>> starts college these days that the bachelors degree is so common place
>>> that it has little value over a HS diploma.
>>>
>>> And I totally agree that a masters degree does not make you smarter, not
>>> even a doctorate makes you smarter. I will say that both make you more
>>> knowledgeable but that has little to do with being smart, something that
>>> you are born with.
>>
>> Someone (T. Huxley) said "Perhaps the most valuable result of all
>> education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do,
>> when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not; it is the first
>> lesson that ought to be learned; and however early a man's training
>> begins, it is probably the last lesson that he learns thoroughly."
>
> And all this time I thought that was simply a result of mentally maturing.
>
Not everyone who ages matures.
Leon wrote:
> On 7/24/2012 12:32 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Someone (T. Huxley) said "Perhaps the most valuable result of all
>> education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do,
>> when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not;
>
> And all this time I thought that was simply a result of mentally maturing.
>
Unfortunately, not everyone who ages mentally matures. Some are really
stubborn! ;)
Leon wrote:
> Did you mention age? And or don't think that an education makes
> "everyone" responsible.
No, I agree. Some people "fight" the educational process tooth and nail.
>
> After the schools and colleges finish holding their hands half still
> need to have their butts wiped by some on else.
Most of the ones that remain in the analytical sciences are probably in
the other half.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:13:27 -0400, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>The 60s hippies have been in control for some time. What do you expect?
>
The Vietnam was could be avoided if you were in school to be come a
teacher. Some of those teachers became administrators. The results
of that are showing too.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:53:11 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Yes, actually it is. There's a direct correlation between the
>education level of society in general and the quality of that society.
But it has to be balanced education. You have to be able to
contribute to society to make it better.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:52:03 -0400, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> 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 Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
<[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.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.
Technology was starting to boom. Hey kids, become a computer
programmer and you'll never have to clean under your fingernails
again. Make lots more money than dad ever did down at the mill.
Cameras, stereo systems, Pong, and a Commodore 20 became affordable
and it was imported, mostly from Japan. Big box store replaced the
corner store and offered discounts. We like discounts. Oh, if I send
my manufacturing off shore, I can offer discounts and sell cheaper
too. Yay, now we get all that new technology cheaper than ever.
We want cheap. We demand cheap.
Hey, why is that factory torn down and another shopping mall going up?
Great, it will have a big store that sells stuff from China.
Need a house? 0% down and low interest for the first five years.
Sure, you can afford it and can re-finance later.
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 7/23/2012 7:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>
I know. I worked for a company that was an early adopter of Indian
labor. Back in 1986 they started.. I saw the writing on the wall.
Its getting very hard to get a job as an American in the computer field.
I have been the only American on my last 3 teams. Very large teams.
I feel like a foreigner in my own country.
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.
On 7/23/2012 6:38 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> 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.
>
Exactly!
My son works for one of the Big 4 accounting firms. The local office
recruits directly from UofH, Texas A&M, and UT. The latter are the
much more prestigious of the 3. He went to UofH. Today the recruiters
look more favorable at the recruits from the UofH because 95% of them
work and go to school. They have more street smarts so to speak, they
have the advantage of knowing what is expected in the real world.
On 7/24/2012 8:51 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 7/23/2012 6:38 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Exactly!
>
> My son works for one of the Big 4 accounting firms. The local office
> recruits directly from UofH, Texas A&M, and UT. The latter are the
> much more prestigious of the 3. He went to UofH. Today the recruiters
> look more favorable at the recruits from the UofH because 95% of them
> work and go to school. They have more street smarts so to speak, they
> have the advantage of knowing what is expected in the real world.
Not much has changed, depending upon the department, at UofH. Dad got
his BS, and Masters in Geophysics there, working his way through; and my
oldest sister likewise. My youngest went to summer school there in the
last few years and found it much tougher than the small liberal arts
university she attended full time in AR.
Parents in those days, at least around here, were not predisposed to pay
for college at all. If you went, you mostly worked while attending.
I went to A&M because it was a state supported agricultural/engineering
college and therefore inexpensive ... my first year, room and board,
tuition, books, and laundry left me with $40 change to last the year
after taking the $1000 I saved up from working in jr high, high school,
and the summer before. As an Aggie Fish in the Corps, which was
mandatory the first two years, it was pretty damned tough to spend the
forty bucks in any event.
Just try that today ...
(Mom took pity and sent me a check for $5 in April of the second
semester, bless her little pea picking heart) :)
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Better off to give the menial jobs to the other countries rather than
the high tech jobs. Code writers are a dime a dozen these days with
most of the kids with a grade eight education. If we could ship our
ditches to those countries we could have them hand dig our trenches
too.
MS robs thee young kids of their higher education by taunting them with
high paying money. At thirty years old when they can't write code for
80 hours per week they toss them back on the job market with no
education tickets and nobody wants a burned out code writer with grade
12.
--------
"tiredofspam" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I know. I worked for a company that was an early adopter of Indian
labor. Back in 1986 they started.. I saw the writing on the wall.
Its getting very hard to get a job as an American in the computer
field.
I have been the only American on my last 3 teams. Very large teams.
I feel like a foreigner in my own country.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:18:26 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 7/22/12 10:41 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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 00:58:54 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:17:55 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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 Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:52:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Yes, actually it is. There's a direct correlation between the
>>education level of society in general and the quality of that society.
>But it has to be balanced education. You have to be able to
>contribute to society to make it better.
Of course. I can't argue with that.
>
> 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 Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:44:54 -0400, "[email protected]"
>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 7/23/2012 8:52 AM, [email protected] 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 Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
><[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.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 and student loans should be abolished (or at least greatly
reduced)? Maybe get rid of scholarships, too.
>Technology was starting to boom. Hey kids, become a computer
>programmer and you'll never have to clean under your fingernails
>again. Make lots more money than dad ever did down at the mill.
>
>Cameras, stereo systems, Pong, and a Commodore 20 became affordable
>and it was imported, mostly from Japan. Big box store replaced the
>corner store and offered discounts. We like discounts. Oh, if I send
>my manufacturing off shore, I can offer discounts and sell cheaper
>too. Yay, now we get all that new technology cheaper than ever.
>
>We want cheap. We demand cheap.
We also demand good, if not cheap. That's something that went missing in the
'70s and '80s.
>Hey, why is that factory torn down and another shopping mall going up?
>Great, it will have a big store that sells stuff from China.
>
>Need a house? 0% down and low interest for the first five years.
>Sure, you can afford it and can re-finance later.
Money is just about free now. What's that got us?
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:44:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
Some truth to that, but the engineer may at least be able to get a job
at the Jiffy Lube while the art guy would not know which end of the
mop to used if offered a janitor's job.
Leon wrote:
>
> BS! I will admit starting out that a person with an education should
> be considered for the job over some one starting out that does not
> have as much education but deserving a good paying job, no way, not
> until he proves himself.
>
>
BS? Come on Leon - the guy that graduated has already proven himself to
some degree, over the clown that has done nothing more than walk in and try
to tell you that he "can do it". He has already invested in learning - just
like your son did. He has already passed some level of accredation of that
learning effort. And you are trying to say that someone just walking in
with no such credentials is the equal to that? Bullshit! So - in terms of
pay - he does not deserve some level of pay that reflects this? You want to
pay him as a rank amature with no knowledge at all? I'm not saying - nor
have I said, that he deserves great levels of pay, but he has in fact
already proven himself to be worth more than the guy with no knowledge that
is simply "interested" in this kind of work.
>>
>> I have seen though, more of what I think you are getting at. Over
>> the past 10 years or so (or so...), I have seen more kids coming out
>> of colleges thinking they are more than what they really are,
>> because they hold that degree. In a word - they don't know what
>> they don't know.
>
> I can easily remember seeing this way of thinking 30 years ago, this
> is nothing new, it is just seen more often with more unqualified grads
> available.
>
>
It actually is something new. The cries from the under-educated are the
same, but that's only because they resent the knowledge these kids actually
do come out with. Now note - that is different from their social
expectations. 30 years ago the school of hard knocks was still the banter
of those who did not have that degree. But... where would we have been in
the space race, or the cold war or in any of our technological
developements, had it not been for those educations? Pick your favorite -
Albert Einstein - no degree? School of hard knocks? Kerrnigan and Ritchie?
No degrees? School of hard knocks? The list goes on and on. To derride an
education is purely ludicrous! Those who most decry the people around them
are those who most are threatened by what those people really are.
>
> Now we agree. ;~)
Of course - in the end, we always agree!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Leon wrote:
>
> I never ever understood, even during the 90's, how any one graduating
> from college thought that they earned the right to a good paying job
> just because they had a college diploma.
It has always made some sense to me. The guy that went to college usually
learned and came out with a required level of knowledge - albeit sans
experience, on day one. He was qualified to start at a higher level of
performance than those without that degree. That is and always has been
worth something. It should be. Not to say that the same level of knowledge
could not have been developed via the school of hard knocks, but that route
takes a lot more years to navigate. If a person can come out of school with
a level of knowledge and capability that is higher than that of a person
just starting out - they are worth more money. Pretty simple.
I have seen though, more of what I think you are getting at. Over the past
10 years or so (or so...), I have seen more kids coming out of colleges
thinking they are more than what they really are, because they hold that
degree. In a word - they don't know what they don't know. What always
pissed me off was not so much that aspect of it, as it was the aspect that
reflects the general social environment today. It seems that the idea of
still having to earn your strips (even if you start at a good job and a good
rate of pay) has gone away. They feel today like they can do things more
the way they want to, than the way that the company dictates. Soft and
fuzzy work standards, and that kind of thing. They worry more about how
they "feel", than what they have to produce for the task ahead of them.
They think their opinions should count long before they've proven themselves
to even have a credible opinion. They've been give such a soft and cushy
life with crap like no-child-left-behind (which creates false senses of
worth and accomplishment), philosophies that decry any critique of what they
do (gee - you might actually really only be a marginal performer...), and
all that crap, that they overrate themselves today. Was a time when you
knew you were junior and you knew you had to work to advance yourself. Too
many handouts today.
These guys do have knowledge and they did learn very valuable things in
college. They just don't realize that what they learned represents a
beginning and not an end.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 7/24/2012 10:37 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> I never ever understood, even during the 90's, how any one graduating
>> from college thought that they earned the right to a good paying job
>> just because they had a college diploma.
>
> It has always made some sense to me. The guy that went to college usually
> learned and came out with a required level of knowledge - albeit sans
> experience, on day one. He was qualified to start at a higher level of
> performance than those without that degree. That is and always has been
> worth something. It should be.
BS! I will admit starting out that a person with an education should
be considered for the job over some one starting out that does not have
as much education but deserving a good paying job, no way, not until he
proves himself.
Not to say that the same level of knowledge
> could not have been developed via the school of hard knocks, but that route
> takes a lot more years to navigate. If a person can come out of school with
> a level of knowledge and capability that is higher than that of a person
> just starting out - they are worth more money. Pretty simple.
Pretty much what I stated above....
>
> I have seen though, more of what I think you are getting at. Over the past
> 10 years or so (or so...), I have seen more kids coming out of colleges
> thinking they are more than what they really are, because they hold that
> degree. In a word - they don't know what they don't know.
I can easily remember seeing this way of thinking 30 years ago, this is
nothing new, it is just seen more often with more unqualified grads
available.
What always
> pissed me off was not so much that aspect of it, as it was the aspect that
> reflects the general social environment today. It seems that the idea of
> still having to earn your strips (even if you start at a good job and a good
> rate of pay) has gone away. They feel today like they can do things more
> the way they want to, than the way that the company dictates. Soft and
> fuzzy work standards, and that kind of thing. They worry more about how
> they "feel", than what they have to produce for the task ahead of them.
> They think their opinions should count long before they've proven themselves
> to even have a credible opinion. They've been give such a soft and cushy
> life with crap like no-child-left-behind (which creates false senses of
> worth and accomplishment), philosophies that decry any critique of what they
> do (gee - you might actually really only be a marginal performer...), and
> all that crap, that they overrate themselves today. Was a time when you
> knew you were junior and you knew you had to work to advance yourself. Too
> many handouts today.
>
> These guys do have knowledge and they did learn very valuable things in
> college. They just don't realize that what they learned represents a
> beginning and not an end.
Now we agree. ;~)
On 7/23/2012 9:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:44:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Some truth to that, but the engineer may at least be able to get a job
> at the Jiffy Lube while the art guy would not know which end of the
> mop to used if offered a janitor's job.
>
A little truth to that, you simply don't go for a vocation that is not
necessary. My son is in a relative secure and growing industry, thank
you Enron. He is a financial statement auditor of public companies.
I never ever understood, even during the 90's, how any one graduating
from college thought that they earned the right to a good paying job
just because they had a college diploma.
My son had his first good paying job offered to him 5 months before he
got his bachelors degree, 20 months before getting his masters and he
even passed all 4 of his CPA exams between the masters degree and going
to work for that company.
There was no marketing at all unless demonstrating that you can work and
go to school at the same time is considered marketing yourself.
On 7/23/2012 9:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:38:55 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>> 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...
>
>
>>>>
>> 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.
>
> In today's job market, you have to be able to check off the
> appropriate boxes. I know a fellow that is presently out of work and
> is having a hard time finding new work for that reason.
>
> He can out engineer most engineers in his field, but he does not have
> the piece of paper that says so. Years ago, you could get an
> interview and explain that to the guy doing the hiring. Now you fill
> out a form on a web page and come up short. In his mid-fifties, it
> will be tough for him.
>
I think you can thank the excess number of lawyers for the fact that one
the average Joe cannot find find a good job with out that college
degree. It only makes sense with cover your bases by hiring those with
a degree vs those with out a degree to help limit your liability should
something go wrong and you end up in court.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:38:55 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>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.
Not to small businesses, and by that, I mean from my size (1) to maybe
20 employees. I love people who can think on their feet helping me
with tasks I can't do alone any more. I try to hire minorities, too.
By that I mean single white guys like me. We're the last minority.
--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus
On 7/24/2012 1:46 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> BS! I will admit starting out that a person with an education should
>> be considered for the job over some one starting out that does not
>> have as much education but deserving a good paying job, no way, not
>> until he proves himself.
>>
>>
>
> BS? Come on Leon - the guy that graduated has already proven himself to
> some degree, over the clown that has done nothing more than walk in and try
> to tell you that he "can do it".
The graduate has proven that he could get a degree. He too can still be
the clown that walks in with a degree. And the guy that walks in and
says that he can do it has at least a 50/50 chance of being able to do
it. Almost with certainty a fresh graduate with no work history will
still have to be taught, by the employer.
He has already invested in learning - just
> like your son did. He has already passed some level of accredation of that
> learning effort. And you are trying to say that someone just walking in
> with no such credentials is the equal to that?
I agreed with your statement,
Not to say that the same level of knowledge could not have been
developed via the school of hard knocks, but that route
takes a lot more years to navigate.
And with more years of actual real world experience my money is on the
one that has really proven himself, year after year, not some one that
has a certificate indicating that he has passed "x" amount of courses.
Bullshit! So - in terms of
> pay - he does not deserve some level of pay that reflects this? You want to
> pay him as a rank amature with no knowledge at all? I'm not saying - nor
> have I said, that he deserves great levels of pay, but he has in fact
> already proven himself to be worth more than the guy with no knowledge that
> is simply "interested" in this kind of work.
If the college graduate has passed his courses but has not work
experience to go along with it it means little to me if I have a guy
that has been doing the same thing year after year.
A college degree simply should help you get your foot in the door, more
pay for the same job?? That kinda sounds like a man and woman doing the
exact same job but he gets paid more because he is the man.
>
>>>
>>> I have seen though, more of what I think you are getting at. Over
>>> the past 10 years or so (or so...), I have seen more kids coming out
>>> of colleges thinking they are more than what they really are,
>>> because they hold that degree. In a word - they don't know what
>>> they don't know.
>>
>> I can easily remember seeing this way of thinking 30 years ago, this
>> is nothing new, it is just seen more often with more unqualified grads
>> available.
>>
>>
>
> It actually is something new. The cries from the under-educated are the
> same, but that's only because they resent the knowledge these kids actually
> do come out with.
I am talking about college graduates 30 years ago thinking they know it
all and deserve more. I hired them, I fired them. And my favorite line
from them was, " I studied that in class", which always trumped the
actual correct answer, in their minds. Asked the right question the
right way they could answer correctly. Change the color of the balloons
that the clown is holding and the odds of getting a correct answer drops
by 50%.
Now I am not saying that all college grads are not smart, I am saying
that the number of the smart and qualified is not increasing at the
same rate of degrees being passed out.
On 7/24/12 8:25 AM, Leon wrote:
> I never ever understood, even during the 90's, how any one graduating
> from college thought that they earned the right to a good paying job
> just because they had a college diploma.
>
Welcome to the Occupy Movement. Except now, they are covered in
colorful tattoos, faces look like tackle boxes, dread-locked hair, guys
are wearing kilts, can't take the slightest admonish without some sort
of reward for motivation..... and they wonder why no one will hire them.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 7/24/12 1:12 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 7/24/2012 9:39 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 7/24/12 8:25 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> I never ever understood, even during the 90's, how any one graduating
>>> from college thought that they earned the right to a good paying job
>>> just because they had a college diploma.
>>>
>>
>> Welcome to the Occupy Movement. Except now, they are covered in
>> colorful tattoos, faces look like tackle boxes, dread-locked hair, guys
>> are wearing kilts, can't take the slightest admonish without some sort
>> of reward for motivation..... and they wonder why no one will hire them.
>>
>>
>
>
> Well to be truthful, the first time I heard the comment of earning the
> right to a good job it came from my BIL, he is pushing 70 and never
> really had a decent paying job. This "right to a good job thinking" is
> not a new way of thinking.
No, not new. There have always been socialists. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:59:09 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 7/23/2012 8:52 AM, [email protected] 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.
My neighbor's son was a principal (now an admin) when the school
system started having money troubles. He unilaterally closed the
school sports division, offering to maintain it if the athletes'
parents covered the costs. The State immediately jumped in and told
him it was unlawful to stop the sports program and to refer to his
documentation from the state. Sure enough, it was there. They school
would just have to dump a few -teachers- to be able to afford it, but
sports stayed!
The country is being run by damned speaking weasels (attorneys, for
those of you in Rio Linda) and Unions. It's going to shit. <sigh>
--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:38:55 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>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...
>>>
> 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.
In today's job market, you have to be able to check off the
appropriate boxes. I know a fellow that is presently out of work and
is having a hard time finding new work for that reason.
He can out engineer most engineers in his field, but he does not have
the piece of paper that says so. Years ago, you could get an
interview and explain that to the guy doing the hiring. Now you fill
out a form on a web page and come up short. In his mid-fifties, it
will be tough for him.
On 7/24/2012 9:39 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 7/24/12 8:25 AM, Leon wrote:
>> I never ever understood, even during the 90's, how any one graduating
>> from college thought that they earned the right to a good paying job
>> just because they had a college diploma.
>>
>
> Welcome to the Occupy Movement. Except now, they are covered in
> colorful tattoos, faces look like tackle boxes, dread-locked hair, guys
> are wearing kilts, can't take the slightest admonish without some sort
> of reward for motivation..... and they wonder why no one will hire them.
>
>
Well to be truthful, the first time I heard the comment of earning the
right to a good job it came from my BIL, he is pushing 70 and never
really had a decent paying job. This "right to a good job thinking" is
not a new way of thinking.
On 7/22/2012 4:53 PM, phorbin wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>> But that would not be very democratic or popular.
>> However, that is similar to the way things are done in China, I believe.
>
> The Chinese system of climbing the academic ladder is based on ferocious
> mass and massive competition.
>
> 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.
Actually, the Chinese have their own Affirmative Action program when it
comes to preferential treatment for racial minorities getting into
universities.
--
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:36:11 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:34:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:28:25 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>>>> <[email protected]> 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_resources/2007_salary_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.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:22:33 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>dpb wrote:
>> On 7/22/2012 9:22 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:24:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> 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 22 Jul 2012 10:59:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
>>><[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-crafts
>>>>manship-spirit-essay.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 and student loans should be abolished (or at
>> least greatly reduced)? Maybe get rid of scholarships, too.
>
>I think we should emphasize ability more.
Absolutely, but what do you do with the Ancient South American Languanges
department?
>Guess what, I'd like to make
>education more affordable. For anyone who can show ability and
>dedication to persevere. Invest in talent. Do reward good students,
>good teachers and good researchers. But set limits.
OK, mostly. What limits?
Making college more affordable can easily start with getting rid of the bloat.
Evernotice the construction going on at the major universities?
>>>Technology was starting to boom. Hey kids, become a computer
>>>programmer and you'll never have to clean under your fingernails
>>>again. Make lots more money than dad ever did down at the mill.
>>>
>>>Cameras, stereo systems, Pong, and a Commodore 20 became affordable
>>>and it was imported, mostly from Japan. Big box store replaced the
>>>corner store and offered discounts. We like discounts. Oh, if I send
>>>my manufacturing off shore, I can offer discounts and sell cheaper
>>>too. Yay, now we get all that new technology cheaper than ever.
>>>
>>>We want cheap. We demand cheap.
>>
>> We also demand good, if not cheap. That's something that went missing
>> in the '70s and '80s.
>
>We should discourage instant gratification ...
OK. I'm all ears.
>>>Hey, why is that factory torn down and another shopping mall going up?
>>>Great, it will have a big store that sells stuff from China.
>>>
>>>Need a house? 0% down and low interest for the first five years.
>>>Sure, you can afford it and can re-finance later.
>>
>> Money is just about free now. What's that got us?
>
>Bankers are (wrongly, IMO) in it for the profit that loans give NOW.
Huh! Who wudda thought that bankers were in business to make money.
>Somehow a focus on more long term yields, away from short term results,
>is needed.
They're still making 30 year mortgages. Isn't that long enough? OTOH, Fannie
and Freddie are there to take them off their hands - instantly (mine didn't
even make the first mortgage payment).
>People should qualify for the loans they take out. Of course
>that gives the problem of the artrist-type with a good idea, but no track
>record (just an example).
That's not a good thing? I though you _wanted_ people to have to qualify for
loans? An "artrist-type" can't work their way up?
>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*?
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:19:45 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:24:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:33:54 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:31:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "Gramp's shop"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.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 18:28:25 -0400, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> 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_resources/2007_salary_schedule.htm
Like many professions, some are terrific, others much less so. Hard
to get rid of the bad ones though.
On 7/21/2012 9:14 PM, 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/business/what-happened-to-the-craftsmanship-spirit-essay.html?_r=1&hp
Every time I see "This Old House" on PBS, with the idiotic "elbow
grease" commercial at the beginning, that point is driven home ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 7/22/2012 5:59 AM, Han wrote:
> Of course
> that gives the problem of the artrist-type with a good idea, but no track
> record (just an example). 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 ...
>
Cream rises to the top. Our nation has amply proved that higher
education for the mediocre simply fosters further mediocrity.
Besides, you have to be careful how you spend other peoples money ... if
it hadn't been for the .001% wealthy and powerful at the time, you would
have never hear d of either Da Vinci or Michelangelo.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop