why NOT go to college?

[534634634265]

http://www.berea.edu/
:):):):):):)
ok, so i understand your poor, and your family is poor, and everyone you know is poor. but heres the kicker, THIS SCHOOL IS FREE. i don't expect you'll all get in, but those that do ITS FREE!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
ok, im done.

[Dr Mindbender]

yep, all i need is someone to pay my plane fare and immigration expenses to the states.

Shit. :crying:

[Bud Struggle]

I'm going to donate to the college if they check out (which I'm sure they will.) It looks pretty decent.

[534634634265]

they aren't just decent they're fucking amazing.
the only thing i could see someone *****ing about is the fact that its a "christian" college.:rolleyes:
:bored: ZOMFG TEH EVIL CHRISTIANS WANT YOU TO HAVE FREE EDUCATIONZ:bored:
(this is my sarcastic face)

[Plagueround]

http://www.berea.edu/
:):):):):):)
ok, so i understand your poor, and your family is poor, and everyone you know is poor. but heres the kicker, THIS SCHOOL IS FREE. i don't expect you'll all get in, but those that do ITS FREE!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
ok, im done.

While I do commend an institution for providing free higher education, it appears admission is widely reserved for those from the area. I also have this feeling when they say they admit "academically promising" students, they're probably looking for people with a background in Christian activity...do you think they would be willing to extend an invitation to someone who isn't a Christian? I'd be intrigued to see what it takes to get into the school.

On a side note, why are you devoting so much time to antagonizing people on this forum for not attending college? College is not the magical gateway to a better life people make it out to be...I know plenty of poor people with a myriad of degrees.

[Holden Caulfield]

I'm going to donate to the college if they check out (which I'm sure they will.) It looks pretty decent.

donate to the board, or me personally, both are equally good causes:laugh:

[534634634265]

While I do commend an institution for providing free higher education, it appears admission is widely reserved for those from the area. I also have this feeling when they say they admit "academically promising" students, they're probably looking for people with a background in Christian activity...do you think they would be willing to extend an invitation to someone who isn't a Christian? I'd be intrigued to see what it takes to get into the school.

On a side note, why are you devoting so much time to antagonizing people on this forum for not attending college? College is not the magical gateway to a better life people make it out to be...I know plenty of poor people with a myriad of degrees.

they save a small percentage of their availability for locals because the school is in a horribly bumfuck part of the states. also, your religious background has little to do with acceptance. i've had a few friends get accepted, and it seems its really about whether or not you can convince them you want they education they can offer. they welcome all creeds and colors without discrimination.
i don't devote time to antagonizing the uneducated, i've just noticed people state that they aren't able to go to college but would if they could. i'm simply trying to show then they can. i've gotten an associates degree from a community college which cost me as much as one semester at the local 4 year university. i don't think you have to go to a 4 year school, but you should NEVER stop learning if you are able to.

[Bud Struggle]

An interesting book: How to Go To College Almost For Free.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0060937653/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

[shorelinetrance]

they save a small percentage of their availability for locals because the school is in a horribly bumfuck part of the states. also, your religious background has little to do with acceptance. i've had a few friends get accepted, and it seems its really about whether or not you can convince them you want they education they can offer. they welcome all creeds and colors without discrimination.
i don't devote time to antagonizing the uneducated, i've just noticed people state that they aren't able to go to college but would if they could. i'm simply trying to show then they can. i've gotten an associates degree from a community college which cost me as much as one semester at the local 4 year university. i don't think you have to go to a 4 year school, but you should NEVER stop learning if you are able to.

learning isn't limited to academia you chimp.

[534634634265]

An interesting book: How to Go To College Almost For Free.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0060937653/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
but i have to buy the book don't i?:)
you can also buy books on how to get free money from the government, and how to build a spaceship in your backyard. lots of "authors" with advice they want to share.:rolleyes:



EDIT: also, apply to predominately black colleges for a minority scholarship if your white. its not a joke, they give them.

[shorelinetrance]

but i have to buy the book don't i?:)
you can also buy books on how to get free money from the government, and how to build a spaceship in your backyard. lots of "authors" with advice they want to share.:rolleyes:

that's the catch i think :laugh:

how to get into college for free...plus how much this book costs.

hahaha

[Bud Struggle]

but i have to buy the book don't i?:)
you can also buy books on how to get free money from the government, and how to build a spaceship in your backyard. lots of "authors" with advice they want to share.:rolleyes:

EDIT: also, apply to predominately black colleges for a minority scholarship if your white. its not a joke, they give them.

Hey, if a $20 book can make you $90,000 it may be worth it.

Also, from what I understand, if you take a science degee (chemistry, physics,) the US government will give you grants (free money) to get those degrees because they want to increase the number of scientist in America.

No such luck for History, Poly Sci, or English majors.

[shorelinetrance]

Also, from what I understand, if you take a science degee (chemistry, physics,) the US government will give you grants (free money) to get those degrees because they want to increase the number of scientist in America.

No such luck for History, Poly Sci, or English majors.

That's because america values a degree on how much profit it will potentially create for the capital, pretty pathetic.

[Bud Struggle]

That's because america values a degree on how much profit it will potentially create for the capital, pretty pathetic.

Don't you think there are enough unemployed Poly Sci majors in this world?

(Of course that's from me who has an AB degree in Classics and a MA in Philosophy.:rolleyes::lol:)

[Dr Mindbender]

An interesting book: How to Go To College Almost For Free.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0060937653/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books


Ironically, the book isnt for free! :laugh:

[shorelinetrance]

Don't you think there are enough unemployed Poly Sci majors in this world?

(Of course that's from me who has an AB degree in Classics and a MA in Philosophy.:rolleyes::lol:)

i'd rather be unemployed and happy with a degree i was passionate about, than wealthy and unhappy with a degree i only obtained to make profit for myself. :D

but good point about the poly sci majors, hahaha.

[Socialist18]

On a side note, why are you devoting so much time to antagonizing people on this forum for not attending college? College is not the magical gateway to a better life people make it out to be...I know plenty of poor people with a myriad of degrees.
True, all the friends of my youth went to UNI and today they don't have a job any better or more appealing than any job I, a degree less person, have had.

UNI doesn't always equal a nice job.:cool:

[Bud Struggle]

UNI doesn't always equal a nice job.:cool:

It does if you study science or math or engineering. The fluffy stuff--:rolleyes:

[politics student]

It does if you study science or math or engineering. The fluffy stuff--:rolleyes:

Hate to break it to you but jobs in those fields are limited in the UK so if you want a good job you have to migrate down under, to the USA or Canada. Got to love the brain drain.

Would really help if we created jobs for so many of these students who educate at that level in each field.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It does if you study science or math or engineering. The fluffy stuff--:rolleyes:
Bullshit. There are no jobs in science, very few in math. With engineering it depends on what type. No jobs in mechanical engineering.

[Bud Struggle]

Bullshit. There are no jobs in science, very few in math. With engineering it depends on what type. No jobs in mechanical engineering.

Maybe, don't know personally--but in the USA--they pay for science education. On the other hand I started a chemical business (science) and My AB is in Classics.

[politics student]

Maybe, don't know personally--but in the USA--they pay for science education. On the other hand I started a chemical business (science) and My AB is in Classics.

One of the issues Europe has is we lose science, maths and engineers to the USA as we struggle to provide enough jobs and keep them high paying.

There is limited jobs here so they migrate. State planning would be a nice way to sort out this mess.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Maybe, don't know personally--but in the USA--they pay for science education. On the other hand I started a chemical business (science) and My AB is in Classics.
In the USA they pay for all education. But I have a feeling you're confusing science with engineering. A "chemical business" would be more chemical engineering than science, which would mainly concern research (hence the lack of jobs). Jobs in chemical engineering are relatively numerous, and for this reason many science students will try to get into chemical engineering through their science courses.

And regarding starting your business, if you have enough capital you don't really need the appropriate education.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

One of the issues Europe has is we lose science, maths and engineers to the USA as we struggle to provide enough jobs and keep them high paying.

There is limited jobs here so they migrate. State planning would be a nice way to sort out this mess.
What you are suggesting would only create a mess where there is currently no mess at all. So we're losing scientists to the US. Basically they're moving from here, where there is not a major demand for them, to the USA, where there is a greater demand (note: in light of the quoted post TomK may be right about science jobs in the US, I was speaking from a European perspective). That is not a particularly bad thing, unless you consider the US having scientists to be a bad thing which would be weird. What you seem to be suggesting is that the State spend millions of euro of taxpayers' money to pay scientists to stay here and perform work fo which there is no real demand, just so that they don't travel to the US to perform work for which there is proper demand. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Socialist18]

It does if you study science or math or engineering. The fluffy stuff--:rolleyes:

Maybe it could be a guarantee of a job depending on what you study but in general I don't think it does.

[politics student]

Maybe it could be a guarantee of a job depending on what you study but in general I don't think it does.

Now you need experience and the degree.... I feel sorry for those who think they will walk into a good job.

Advice from my politics lecturer, line up a career path other wise you will end up teaching. She had a masters in international relations.

[Socialist18]

When I was young I wanted to become a Doctor, I didn't have the money to go to UNI so I just got over it. Thats the way it is today for a lot of people, they could theoretically become anything they want but due to financial circumstances they remain working class on minimum wage. I think if you are poor and you plan on going to UNI you should at least study something that offers a pretty good chance at getting a job afterward otherwise its just a waste of time and money you didn't really have.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It does if you study science or math or engineering. The fluffy stuff--:rolleyes:


Tom the dingbat strikes again. This attitude has flooded the market with Math/science/engineering grads, which means that there aren't too many jobs for folk with these degrees. Of course there is the problem of outsourcing, where graduates in India have the same know how, but take a wage that's 5 times lower. Individual solutions to collective problems, never the answer!

[politics student]

When I was young I wanted to become a Doctor, I didn't have the money to go to UNI so I just got over it. Thats the way it is today for a lot of people, they could theoretically become anything they want but due to financial circumstances they remain working class on minimum wage. I think if you are poor and you plan on going to UNI you should at least study something that offers a pretty good chance at getting a job afterward otherwise its just a waste of time and money you didn't really have.

Personally I am studying politics and international relations I will get into nearly £30,000 worth of debt (around $60,000) but I plan to use what I learn to benefit my fellow humans by becoming heavily politically involved maybe in trade unions or lobby/pressure groups and of course which ever UK communist party I decide to join.

My earnings do not matter much to me, I want to improve myself and will happily take a low paying job over a high paying job if the low paying job gives me the satisfaction I require.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Tom the dingbat strikes again. This attitude has flooded the market with Math/science/engineering grads, which means that there aren't too many jobs for folk with these degrees. Of course there is the problem of outsourcing, where graduates in India have the same know how, but take a wage that's 5 times lower. Individual solutions to collective problems, never the answer!

Try Business. :cool:

[Socialist18]

My earnings do not matter much to me, I want to improve myself and will happily take a low paying job over a high paying job if the low paying job gives me the satisfaction I require.
Cool.:cool:

[Bud Struggle]

And regarding starting your business, if you have enough capital you don't really need the appropriate education.

The start up costs was about $200. and the use of a bay in my garage. All the science I needed to start the business was given to me first in some books and then on the internet for free.

I now employ about 140 people in this little venture.

To build a successful business takes a lot more balls than it does capital.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Same as my petit-bourgeois bosses (re. # of employees) :p

[Bud Struggle]

Tom the dingbat strikes again. This attitude has flooded the market with Math/science/engineering grads, which means that there aren't too many jobs for folk with these degrees. Of course there is the problem of outsourcing, where graduates in India have the same know how, but take a wage that's 5 times lower. Individual solutions to collective problems, never the answer!

Not my atitude--it's just how things seem to be. I'm sure my chemical business would be a lot larger if I actually knew what I was doing when I first started--thankfully I was successful enough in the first two years to be able to hire the scientific help I needed.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^ Same as my petit-bourgeois bosses (re. # of employees) :p

Again--I employ people here, and it's a relatively new venture. It has little or nothing to do with how I earn my daily bread.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Not my atitude--it's just how things seem to be. I'm sure my chemical business would be a lot larger if I actually knew what I was doing when I first started--thankfully I was successful enough in the first two years to be able to hire the scientific help I needed.

Your view of "how things seem to be" is an attitude ya nit. Everyone else thought that this seemed so too Abra cadabra, now the market is flooded with science grads and there are no jobs for them.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The start up costs was about $200. and the use of a bay in my garage. All the science I needed to start the business was given to me first in some books and then on the internet for free.

I now employ about 140 people in this little venture.

To build a successful business takes a lot more balls than it does capital.


I hope your workers go on strike, put those balls of yours in a financial vise.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Too bad he lives in the Deep South, where anti-union laws prevail. :(

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

^^^ Too bad he lives in the Deep South, where anti-union laws prevail. :(

Meh, pro or anti union laws only matter so much. In many ways right to work helps to keep unions as a fighting force. No dues check off nonsense.

[Bud Struggle]

I hope your workers go on strike, put those balls of yours in a financial vise.

As I noted elsewhere, I'm trying to install a Soviet style management style in my plant. It works mostly OK--but with some issues. Different departments of the business are progressing at different paces. On division decided that "no boss" means "big party" which is slowing everything down for the whole process. I'm at a stalemate with the workers who want me to take more control--and me, who wants the WORKERS TO TAKE CONTROL.

The opposite of what Marx would expect--to be sure.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^ Too bad he lives in the Deep South, where anti-union laws prevail. :(

It is a right-to work state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is a right-to work state.

Sounds like another misnomer, just like the emotional "death tax."

[534634634265]

how did my precious education thread get on this garbage about working in Tomk's factory?!:mad:
(tom if you ever need a graphic designer to revamp your image, just send me a pm:)) can we please get back to the topic of how to help the lower class get into college without ending in a lifetime of debt?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

how did my precious education thread get on this garbage about working in Tomk's factory?!:mad:
(tom if you ever need a graphic designer to revamp your image, just send me a pm:)) can we please get back to the topic of how to help the lower class get into college without ending in a lifetime of debt?

Collective organizing, student strikes, coordinated campaigns against student lenders. This isn't really that complicated, its doing the actual legwork that's hard.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

As I noted elsewhere, I'm trying to install a Soviet style management style in my plant. It works mostly OK--but with some issues. Different departments of the business are progressing at different paces. On division decided that "no boss" means "big party" which is slowing everything down for the whole process. I'm at a stalemate with the workers who want me to take more control--and me, who wants the WORKERS TO TAKE CONTROL.

The opposite of what Marx would expect--to be sure.

I somehow doubt the veracity of this, but meh.

Since you still own the company and receive the vast majority of the benifits why wouldn't the workers want you to do more work? You're giving them the responsibility to make the company profitable, but none of the perks. I would definitely go with the "no boss=party" crew. You've gotta be mentally deficient. Which really comes as no surprise considering your Catholicism and like of Georgetown. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[dirtycommiebastard]

As I noted elsewhere, I'm trying to install a Soviet style management style in my plant. It works mostly OK--but with some issues. Different departments of the business are progressing at different paces. On division decided that "no boss" means "big party" which is slowing everything down for the whole process. I'm at a stalemate with the workers who want me to take more control--and me, who wants the WORKERS TO TAKE CONTROL.

The opposite of what Marx would expect--to be sure.

If I was a worker in your business and had MORE responsibility put on my shoulders with no extra benefit, why the hell would I do it? Workers will only be able to take control production when they realize they can, and it will benefit them more than working under a boss. :)

But Kudos for the effort you cappie son-of-a-gun.

By the way, what kind of business do you actually own/run?

[Bud Struggle]

If I was a worker in your business and had MORE responsibility put on my shoulders with no extra benefit, why the hell would I do it? Workers will only be able to take control production when they realize they can, and it will benefit them more than working under a boss. :)

But Kudos for the effort you cappie son-of-a-gun.

By the way, what kind of business do you actually own/run?

There are DEFINITELY extra benefits. I had set a standard of the first three months on the year--and profits over that would go directly to the workers. Every cent. 1/2 in cash patments, 1/4 in a scholarshop fund and 1/4 in a worker discretionary fund.

[Bud Struggle]

Anyway, back on track: Here's an interesting article about the disadvantages of going to the "better"colleges from the American Scholar.

It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League dees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house...


...The world that produced John Kerry and George Bush is indeed giving us our next generation of leaders. The kid who’s loading up on AP courses junior year or editing three campus publications while double-majoring, the kid whom everyone wants at their college or law school but no one wants in their classroom, the kid who doesn’t have a minute to breathe, let alone think, will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government. She will have many achievements but little experience, great success but no vision. The disadvantage of an elite education is that it’s given us the elite we have, and the elite we’re going to have.

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-deresiewicz.html

[534634634265]

AHHHH!!!
i want the uneducated masses to go to school! Tom, your factory sounds rather swell though... seriously though, you offer a scholarship fund? how much does that pay out on an individual basis? how much could a student expect to receive from that fund? is it equally divided between all applicants, or is there a certain number of scholarships awarded to a set number of people?

[534634634265]

thanks for bringing things back Tom.
i've got a link too. it seems that while schools continue to ask for more money every year, the available funds for a poor to middle class student is basically withering on the vine.

http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/189547.html

[Bud Struggle]

thanks for bringing things back Tom.
i've got a link too. it seems that while schools continue to ask for more money every year, the available funds for a poor to middle class student is basically withering on the vine.

http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/189547.html

OK, well I understand this, but then the competition to get into schools is fiercer than ever--if people can't afford to go to college--then who is it that's going?

They can't all be rich kids.

When I went to college 20 years ago, there were plenty of rich kids--but also plenty of poor kids like me that had jobs and had saved money and whose parents helped and had scholarships.

[534634634265]

OK, well I understand this, but then the competition to get into schools is fiercer than ever--if people can't afford to go to college--then who is it that's going?

They can't all be rich kids.

When I went to college 20 years ago, there were plenty of rich kids--but also plenty of poor kids like me that had jobs and had saved money and whose parents helped and had scholarships.

now now tom, i don't claim its ONLY the rich who are going, and i've even given an example of a way to get a free college education. my complaint is that while the modern world expects a college education, less and less are going to be able to receive it. most schools offer reserved acceptance for locals, be they rich or poor. the majority of money a college makes is off of grants, endowments, and tuitonal costs. this is nominally acceptable as there are operational costs involved with running such a facility. however, the college in my hometown turns a PROFIT and spends that money on its sporting teams, and its stadium. NOT on its aging facilities, or on increasing its merit-based scholarships. No, its not only the rich who are going to college, but its becoming increasingly more difficult to go without being rich.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

There are DEFINITELY extra benefits. I had set a standard of the first three months on the year--and profits over that would go directly to the workers. Every cent. 1/2 in cash patments, 1/4 in a scholarshop fund and 1/4 in a worker discretionary fund.

So only half were going to them, and only for three months. Again, you're a dumbass.

[534634634265]

So only half were going to them, and only for three months. Again, you're a dumbass.
no you tard.:mad:
he uses the first three months to establish what the baseline is, then the rest goes to his employees.
how does this guy et my goat so effectively!? him and that Al8 tool seem beyond thinking.

[Bud Struggle]

So only half were going to them, and only for three months. Again, you're a dumbass.

I started the "Soviet" program it three months ago--a little after I started reading and posting on RevLeft. I had other stuff before, but this is the program run my the workers. I didn't really know about all this Communist stuff before. I was Capitalist. Now I'm a dues paying, card carrying member of the Communist Party (USA). I'm growing and learning.

The program is divided with 1/2 cash payments to the workers, 1/4 in schlorship fund and 1/4 worker discretionary fund because that's the way the workers "soviet" voted it be spent.

If you want to call anyone a dumbass--it's the workers, thats what they voted for.

.

[Bud Struggle]

now now tom, i don't claim its ONLY the rich who are going, and i've even given an example of a way to get a free college education. my complaint is that while the modern world expects a college education, less and less are going to be able to receive it. most schools offer reserved acceptance for locals, be they rich or poor. the majority of money a college makes is off of grants, endowments, and tuitonal costs. this is nominally acceptable as there are operational costs involved with running such a facility. however, the college in my hometown turns a PROFIT and spends that money on its sporting teams, and its stadium. NOT on its aging facilities, or on increasing its merit-based scholarships. No, its not only the rich who are going to college, but its becoming increasingly more difficult to go without being rich.

I guess is that the sports team MAKES money for the school not the other way round. And as for not increasing the schlorships--a college will only do that if there is a need, if you college is doing just fine with a good enrollment--why bother?

Personally, I think there is way too much "college" education and not enough vocational training like one would recieve in a Community College.

There's a shortage of nurses, and lots of other technical personel, I think more money should be spent by the government to further those kinds of studies than produce another history or poly sci major. If kids want to do that kind of stuff--they need to find a way to pay for it on their own.

The government should support what's best for society.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

no you tard.:mad:
he uses the first three months to establish what the baseline is, then the rest goes to his employees.
how does this guy et my goat so effectively!? him and that Al8 tool seem beyond thinking.

Then his business is no longer his, it has become a workers cooperative. He may as well make it legally a collective, if he's giving all the profits back to the workers.

I get your goat becuase you are not down for the class war, and have sympathies for exploitative pricks, but pretend to be a socialist. Again, pick a side already.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

no you tard.:mad:
he uses the first three months to establish what the baseline is, then the rest goes to his employees.
how does this guy et my goat so effectively!? him and that Al8 tool seem beyond thinking.
crackedlogic, many on the "hard" left are so consumed by their own attitude problems that they do not want to even consider constructive solutions. I think you are a lot like I was a few months ago. I started thinking about ways in which the state and private businessmen could work together to help the workers. I wanted solutions which could work, which had a realistic chance of improving the lot of workers. It was about here where I started feeling rather isolated from the far left. This was due in large part to people like this Ghost chap who tend to react in a very hostile manner to any suggestion which is in any way conciliatory with the prevailing political and economic system. These people think that if a solution to a problem does not involve hanging the bosses in the streets then it is not a solution at all. They are only interested in unrealistic answers to very real problems and for this reason their contribution to social progress is at naught because, guess what, the bosses aren't going to be hanging in the streets any time soon.

I have great respect for your ability to analyse the situation critically and constructively. If you apply yourself to trying to better society, even if only in your own small way, you can do much much more than Joe Hill's Ghost ever will because you are free of the thought barriers that bind him so tightly. My only advice to you is not to be intimidated by narrow-minded extremists; screaming the loudest does not make you right, as I'm sure you know.

[Bud Struggle]

no you tard.:mad:
he uses the first three months to establish what the baseline is, then the rest goes to his employees.
how does this guy et my goat so effectively!? him and that Al8 tool seem beyond thinking.

The great lesson that Joe teaches us is that only way the Communists are going to be able to have a Revolution--is if Capitalist organize and run if for them.

And in a way, that's what I'm doing (for a slight fee, of course! :))

Really, to be effective in any endeavor is to think through and think around a problem. I want to build a "better" business--and I have no problem using Communist ideas--IF THEY WORK. I'm not going to be much interested in them if they don't. I'm not doctrinaire--either in my Capitalism or my Communism.

On the other hand I'm a Catholic--and that means I have a moral obligation to do the best I can to help as many people as I can. Every man is my brother. In the end, I want my workers to make more money, and that''s all fine--but more importantly, I want them to see what work is, how it can be a means of education and enrichment and enlightenment.

It's a beautiful world if we can we can do well by doing good. :)

[Publius]

Anyway, back on track: Here's an interesting article about the disadvantages of going to the "better"colleges from the American Scholar.

It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League dees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house...


...The world that produced John Kerry and George Bush is indeed giving us our next generation of leaders. The kid who’s loading up on AP courses junior year or editing three campus publications while double-majoring, the kid whom everyone wants at their college or law school but no one wants in their classroom, the kid who doesn’t have a minute to breathe, let alone think, will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government. She will have many achievements but little experience, great success but no vision. The disadvantage of an elite education is that it’s given us the elite we have, and the elite we’re going to have.

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-deresiewicz.html





That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

I would give anything to be going to better school than I'm going to now but, alas, I slacked off in high school so I have to go 3rd tier school because that's the level of school where I can get a free ride.

In fact the main reason I'd rather go to a much better school is BECAUSE I have to deal with so many "normal" people at my school. The education I receive is just fine, probably not much off what I'd get at a 'better' school (though it's certainly valued much less) but the interaction with students is much worse because frankly most other students are dumb, even in the Honors program.

[Bud Struggle]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

I would give anything to be going to better school than I'm going to now but, alas, I slacked off in high school so I have to go 3rd tier school because that's the level of school where I can get a free ride.

In fact the main reason I'd rather go to a much better school is BECAUSE I have to deal with so many "normal" people at my school. The education I receive is just fine, probably not much off what I'd get at a 'better' school (though it's certainly valued much less) but the interaction with students is much worse because frankly most other students are dumb, even in the Honors program.

I get the point. I went to a better school--and to a large extent it was about getting the best marks in accounting and economics so you could get a first rate job at Bear Sterns. That's all.

The learning didn't matter, the lessons of the past didn't matter only financial success matters. Business leaders is what the better schools are trying to produce--in droves.

Two further points--the better schools should try to do something much more productive than producing great businessmen--they should on occasion produce a Emerson or an Adams or a Burke or a Disrali. Something that haven't done lately. Just gray men in gray suits making business deals.

And that's our future with Communism--the homogenization of the world. everyone equal. And that's why I'm not a fan.

[IcarusAngel]

I have friends at Standford, Princeton, and so on. My dad is a graduate of Stanford and did some important work at a certain computer chip company. You can automatically tell the benefits of their education and their learning experience in just a few moments comparisons.

I've compared the coursework of some state Universities here, and the main University, where I attend, and that of other Ivy League schools and there just is no comparison in terms of not only completeness, but efficiency and effectiveness of teachings. There's a big difference between having a seemingly random set of redundant coursework, and coursework designed to economize your learning and understanding of concepts.

Even for engineering and mathematicial courses, not just social science courses, Ivy League schools are a lot better. You're taught by people who know how to explain the material. Read a math book written by a graduate at MIT, and one written by someone written at some idiot college, and you'll often find that not only is the guy's from MIT more complete, but will often be even easier to understand. Thomas' Calculus and Strang's Calculus come to mind.

The fact is even though professors from third-tier Universities are more "available," they usually just aren't as good of teachers in my experience. There's actually a book called "How to Get An Ivy League Education at a State University" although I doubt its usefulness.

Imagine being taught in linguistics by Noam Chomsky, and all the things you could learn and be inspired by, and who better to teach you something than the creator of modern linguistics, and being taught by one at the University of Utah (or wherever). Imagine learning mathematics from a Fields Medalist, or a state college graduate.

However, in today's "Bush economy," I consider myself lucky to be in any University at all.

[Bud Struggle]

No question IA, it's easy to see that these schools have brighter kids and better course work, but are they turning out better people?

Everybody's just smarter.

Better leaders, better people, or just elite corporate jerks that can make a smarter deal then anyone else. The question isn't if he schools are better--the question is, is what they are producing better?

Bush went to Yale
Kerry went to Yale
Gore went to Harvard
Obama went to Harvard
McCain went to Annapolis
Though Clinton did go to Georgetown.;):cool:

And what have you got?

[shorelinetrance]

Anyway, back on track: Here's an interesting article about the disadvantages of going to the "better"colleges from the American Scholar.

It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League dees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house...


...The world that produced John Kerry and George Bush is indeed giving us our next generation of leaders. The kid who’s loading up on AP courses junior year or editing three campus publications while double-majoring, the kid whom everyone wants at their college or law school but no one wants in their classroom, the kid who doesn’t have a minute to breathe, let alone think, will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government. She will have many achievements but little experience, great success but no vision. The disadvantage of an elite education is that it’s given us the elite we have, and the elite we’re going to have.

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-deresiewicz.html





Tomk, that's a great article.

I just wanted to say thank you for the link, a very good read indeed, here is my favorite quote from it.

"But being an intellectual is not the same as being smart. Being an intellectual means more than doing your homework."

:cool:

[Lost In Translation]

Bush went to Yale
Kerry went to Yale
Gore went to Harvard
Obama went to Harvard
McCain went to Annapolis
Though Clinton did go to Georgetown.;):cool:

And what have you got?

I thought Clinton went to Yale's law school after his undergrad?

[Bud Struggle]

I thought Clinton went to Yale's law school after his undergrad?

That too! :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I started the "Soviet" program it three months ago--a little after I started reading and posting on RevLeft. I had other stuff before, but this is the program run my the workers. I didn't really know about all this Communist stuff before. I was Capitalist. Now I'm a dues paying, card carrying member of the Communist Party (USA). I'm growing and learning.

The program is divided with 1/2 cash payments to the workers, 1/4 in schlorship fund and 1/4 worker discretionary fund because that's the way the workers "soviet" voted it be spent.

If you want to call anyone a dumbass--it's the workers, thats what they voted for.

.

TomK has got a REALLY good point there. Workers have to achieve a certain level of consciousness before they can see through the fog. Comrade MarxSchmarx made a rather valid "anti-democracy" comment in my "Program of a New Type" thread.

[Publius]

I have friends at Standford, Princeton, and so on. My dad is a graduate of Stanford and did some important work at a certain computer chip company. You can automatically tell the benefits of their education and their learning experience in just a few moments comparisons.

I've compared the coursework of some state Universities here, and the main University, where I attend, and that of other Ivy League schools and there just is no comparison in terms of not only completeness, but efficiency and effectiveness of teachings. There's a big difference between having a seemingly random set of redundant coursework, and coursework designed to economize your learning and understanding of concepts.

Sure, but I receive what I would consider good and rigorous teaching in some classes. Naturally the intro classes are a breeze, but that's the case everywhere.

I think a lot depends on the major, as well.



The fact is even though professors from third-tier Universities are more "available," they usually just aren't as good of teachers in my experience. There's actually a book called "How to Get An Ivy League Education at a State University" although I doubt its usefulness.

Well, you have to also consider that being a great scholar and being a great teacher don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Some lower level schools focus less on research and more on teaching, for example, which no doubt skews things.

That said, the truly great scholars are good at both, eg. Steven Pinker, Paul Churchland, etc.



Imagine being taught in linguistics by Noam Chomsky, and all the things you could learn and be inspired by, and who better to teach you something than the creator of modern linguistics, and being taught by one at the University of Utah (or wherever). Imagine learning mathematics from a Fields Medalist, or a state college graduate.

That's true, but even at third tier universities like mine nearly every professor comes from a top school. That's just how things work.

I mean, the philosophy department is Chicago, Berkley, UCLA, etc. My Into to Psych professor was Harvard, literature, Duke I've had intro professors who were fellows at the Institute for Advanced Study, etc.

I use RateMyProfessor a lot and don't look for the "easiest" teachers but the best. I'm extremely happy with the teaching I've received, in most classes.



However, in today's "Bush economy," I consider myself lucky to be in any University at all.

I'm lucky because the area I'm studying (philosophy of neuroscience and neurophilosophy) is great at the school I'm, even though it's weak overall. So the fact that I'm getting a Neuroscience/Philosophy degree, with the professors I'll be getting it from, should hopefully cover up the lack of name recognition of the school, because Grad schools know the field enough to know that my school has good professors in this one area.

Or at least that's what I'm hoping for.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK has got a REALLY good point there. Workers have to achieve a certain level of consciousness before they can see through the fog. Comrade MarxSchmarx made a rather valid "anti-democracy" comment in my "Program of a New Type" thread.

Jake: a heads up or a link to MarxSchmarx's post and the location of your thread would be helpful.

Thanks.

[Publius]

IA: Since you seem to be interested in linguistics, you might be interested in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpFIUsWpobw

I don't know how far your interests venture into philosophy of language, as opposed to the more analytic and theoretical aspects of linguistics, but you might want to watch this.

I don't really know how Professor Gauker's views would fit within the context of Chomskyian linguistics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

TomK:



Actually, I'm coming from a North American perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

Swiss population: 7.6 million
Area: 15,940 sq mi

At least 10 US states are capable of implementing Swiss democracy for starters, based on area - 30 based on population.

Why do you suppose this hasn't happened yet in "liberal" states or provinces like Maine, Minnesota, BC, or Hawaii?

Of course, if by "Swiss democracy" you mean the referenda system, this has failed miserably in, most notoriously, California with things like Prop. 13, the "three strikes law", and the abolition of affirmative action. Elsewhere, just think of all the anti-gay marriage referenda that are routinely ratified by "direct democracy". Why do you suppose this particular approach to democracy has yielded some of the most reactionary legislation ever in North America?

[Bud Struggle]

Why do you suppose this hasn't happened yet in "liberal" states or provinces like Maine, Minnesota, BC, or Hawaii?

Of course, if by "Swiss democracy" you mean the referenda system, this has failed miserably in, most notoriously, California with things like Prop. 13, the "three strikes law", and the abolition of affirmative action. Elsewhere, just think of all the anti-gay marriage referenda that are routinely ratified by "direct democracy". Why do you suppose this particular approach to democracy has yielded some of the most reactionary legislation ever in North America?

The answer is that people are basically conservative if not reactionary in their beliefs--why else would you need a "vanguard"?

FWIW: right now in my little "Soviet" system people trust me more than they do their fellow workers. It's an issue I have to overcome, but it's problematical in the whole scheme of things.

My issue here is Communism "unnatural" to the human enviorns or is corporate pariarchy so imbued into the populace that they don't know any better?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Corporate patriarchy didn't exist under feudalism. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

^^^ Corporate patriarchy didn't exist under feudalism. ;)

No, but feudal patrarchy did--not much difference on a lot of ways. The question is why people like patriarchy more than total freedom? The further you get into the psychology of Communism the more problems you run into.

I'm not saying these things are insurmountable--but they are problematic.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The answer is that people are basically conservative if not reactionary in their beliefs--why else would you need a "vanguard"?

FWIW: right now in my little "Soviet" system people trust me more than they do their fellow workers. It's an issue I have to overcome, but it's problematical in the whole scheme of things.

My issue here is Communism "unnatural" to the human enviorns or is corporate pariarchy so imbued into the populace that they don't know any better?
Direct democracy is a bad idea for a number of reasons. One is that it allows for a dictatorship of the majority and individual rights tend to be considered secondary to the moral beliefs of the majority of voters. The second is that people are far too easily misinformed, though this tends to happen in relation to some issues more than others.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No, but feudal patrarchy did--not much difference on a lot of ways. The question is why people like patriarchy more than total freedom? The further you get into the psychology of Communism the more problems you run into.

I'm not saying these things are insurmountable--but they are problematic.
I don't think they like patriarchy specifically. Patriarchy is a gender-weighted term with its own historical baggage. This has nothing to do with male dominance (or is there a gender-neutral definition of patriarchy which I am missing?). What the workers prefer, what everyone prefers, is a hierarchal structure, a chain of command. The same is to be said for democracy, representative democracy is a far superior system to direct democracy because some people are better at ruling than others, not necessarily because they are born leaders but simply because they want to lead and dedicate their lives to it. I think that in order for any large organization or institution to function there must always be those above to command and those below to obey. This is not to suggest that some must be "superior" to others - those who command and those who obey could (and should) be considered equal in status but different in specialization. It is also important to put limits on the extent to which those in command can actually command. Hierarchy is great for efficiency and functionality but there must be checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of power, which is why most representative democracies also have constitutions limiting the power of the state.

[Bud Struggle]

Direct democracy is a bad idea for a number of reasons. One is that it allows for a dictatorship of the majority and individual rights tend to be considered secondary to the moral beliefs of the majority of voters. The second is that people are far too easily misinformed, though this tends to happen in relation to some issues more than others.

Ok, so then what am I doing wrong? Five departments each electing a council (soviet) of five representitives--they each electing a representitive to a head council (supreme soviet.)

Everybody's quite happy when things go well--but if there's trouble they run to me. One department isn't doing their part--it's the council's job to recommend some solution. If people need to be fired--they need to do it, but they keep running to me to do the nasty stuff.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Ok, so then what am I doing wrong? Five departments each electing a council (soviet) of five representitives--they each electing a representitive to a head council (supreme soviet.)

Everybody's quite happy when things go well--but if there's trouble they run to me. One department isn't doing their part--it's the council's job to recommend some solution. If people need to be fired--they need to do it, but they keep running to me to do the nasty stuff.
Maybe what you're doing wrong is trying to brush off all your responsibilities and duties onto the workers and yet retaining the financial and personal status of the Almighty Boss. You're trying to reduce your contribution to the success of your company to zero and have the workers do it all themselves and yet you still profit from their labour, and on a personal and social level you can still claim the credit for the success of your company. You hired these people, and now that they are no longer of any use to you, instead of firing themselves, you want their friends and colleagues to do it for you.

You are the boss; these people work for you. They come and dedicate their labour to keep your business running. They came to work for you on the premise that they would be the worker and you the boss, and I'm sure that's the premise on which their salaries were negotiated. Well I hate to break it to you but the boss has responsibilities as well. Of course they're going to come to you when it is time for the boss to step forward and fulfil his duties.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Ok, so then what am I doing wrong? Five departments each electing a council (soviet) of five representitives--they each electing a representitive to a head council (supreme soviet.)

Everybody's quite happy when things go well--but if there's trouble they run to me. One department isn't doing their part--it's the council's job to recommend some solution. If people need to be fired--they need to do it, but they keep running to me to do the nasty stuff.

Getting workers to fire and rat on one another. That's a really low move. Please, go into a spider hole and never come out. Stay there so long you go blind from lack of light.

[pusher robot]

Getting workers to fire and rat on one another. That's a really low move. Please, go into a spider hole and never come out. Stay there so long you go blind from lack of light.

Jesus H. Christ, who pissed your corn flakes?

[Lost In Translation]

Getting workers to fire and rat on one another. That's a really low move. Please, go into a spider hole and never come out. Stay there so long you go blind from lack of light.
No, seriously. Though TomK is a capitalist through and through, at least he's giving some power to the workers (actually, a lot of power). You have to respect that. By his standards, it's a big step away from his comfort zone (that being capitalism).

Btw, Tom, what kind of business do you run?

[shorelinetrance]

No, seriously. Though TomK is a capitalist through and through, at least he's giving some power to the workers (actually, a lot of power). You have to respect that. By his standards, it's a big step away from his comfort zone (that being capitalism)

because we all know throwing scraps at the working class is overall helping the class struggle.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, because Engels threw scraps at the working class, too. :rolleyes:

[Lost In Translation]

because we all know throwing scraps at the working class is overall helping the class struggle.
But TomK is a capitalist (sorry if i put it too bluntly, Tom). You expect him to give the factory to the workers?

[shorelinetrance]

But TomK is a capitalist (sorry if i put it too bluntly, Tom). You expect him to give the factory to the workers?

no but giving him a pat on the back is completely ridiculous.

[Lost In Translation]

no but giving him a pat on the back is completely ridiculous.
I feel nice today. Plus, it's better than all the usual capitalist crap we see in our everyday lives.