Ok, despite you just insulting me, I'm going to try to seriously answer.
First, I was under the impression we were talking mainly about liberal arts. Not fine arts, not math/physics/science/accounting for the most part. In the cases of lit, philosophy, history, unless you're really going to generate new academic content, it's not progressive. That said, I'll freely admit you have a point regarding advanced math and science.
Second, guaranteed loans. Uh, these are guaranteed for the schools. Not the students. In other words, they (schools) get paid whether the person who takes them out to pay for the degree finds the degree economically benefical or not. If it's not clear what the problem with that system is, it's that it encourages universities to charge a lot for financial black-hole degrees.
Now, regarding another of your questions, specifically "Why can't a person learn about programming, advanced mathematics, advanced physics, etc... at the library or taking a night class?", I think I can reasonably respond that LOTS of people have had success learning programming on the job, or with curated enrichment at the direction of a manager, mentor, etc., as I've done for others and have had done for me. Maybe that could also work for math and science - I can't say for sure because I don't know, but in at least one of those cases, I have solid proof that people can excel without being in the 4-year system.
No you continue to create a false dichotomy that "4 year uni is the only way" when there are other options for peer/mentor study. Just because 4 year uni is crowding the market due to guaranteed loans doesn't mean other options don't work.
Do 4 year degrees in history require making discoveries? I think we're talking about very different parts of the population of history students. I responded directly to the statement "Unless of course, you think that only the wealthy should be able to learn anything about art history...", which is a long, long way from saying there are plenty of less costly ways to learn about art history. It's the "anything" that's key there. "Anything" is a world away from "original research".
And as that's happening, the social democracy shows its weak point: virulent anti-immigration sentiment. They're perfectly happy to take care of their own, as long as it's just "their own".
Maybe the Germans have collectively decided that the cost of the education is trivial compared to the long term gains of keeping some highly educated people around, or having its own citizens be educated.
I think part of that collective attitude is also that Germans do not have much tolerance for people and subcultures which are belligerent to the idea of education. It is much easier to have a socialist system when you don't have radically different values in different subcultures within your society.
Most liberal arts studies are not progressive once you've completed Composition 1 & 2. At that point there is very little that is not based primarily on study of a specific area (i.e. Existential Philosophers, Renaissance Art, Modern American Literature) that typically doesn't have more than two semesters of study at the undergrad level (i.e. there is really no such thing as a English Lit 4, it is just a matter of adding fungible study areas).
Applied fields like medicine, science, engineering, accounting, and the fine and performing arts are very different, and tend to be more progressive. But I thought it was somewhat clear that we are talking about the "enrichment" areas of study in this thread.
Fair enough - and you definitely didn't create that dichotomy (I shouldn't have said that), but the prevailing view, as I see it, is that education is seen as a thing segregated to professional educators in a classroom situation, and that universities or technical for-profit schools have status as recognized educational authorities, and to some extent your post feeds that view.
Lots of expensive for-profit technical schools and 4-year universities take money from students and offer little in return. Even an art history degree, if it isn't rigorous, has little intrinsic value.
I think part of the issue is the specific mindset that locks people in to giving money to colleges DESPITE the ridiculous costs. Next, asking better questions about why it's so expensive is a good place to start: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
Why is a university the only way to learn about art history or philosophy? Go to the library. Take a night class. Enrichment doesn't require 4 years in an accredited institution. You're creating a false dichotomy. I've been studying music (performance and theory) with a private teacher for 7 years. I don't have a degree, but I have about the equivalent of a degree in music. I'm not looking to USE that for a job, so a lack of accreditation is fine. I also paid a fraction what I would have for a music degree, and got a self-paced, customized curriculum.
Statistics show that concealed carry license holders are less likely to be involved in crime and violent crime than the general population. Concealed carry holders generally have to pass a criminal background check, and in many states get certified training. It's not unreasonable to think a plane full of CCWs is safer than a plane not full of them. You're the one making an unsubstantiated claim:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324
I was right all the time from day one. But no matter where I go, these morons I'm surrounded by just don't see it, and give me crap work to do when I should be running things MY way.
Agreed. I can't play Wii when not using "game mode" to reduce delay on my TV, or record & monitor multitrack audio above a 6-8 ms delay. No way would I trust a surgery to anything more than 10ms in case something unexpected happened during surgery.
I had the sense that the Chinese students at my college formed a group in which a few males learned English and effectively segregated their female members away from interacting with the American students (no idea if this is common). so, for them, not really a matter of cannot learn the language, but more like "don't want to integrate, especially to allow the females to integrate". It worked OK until a professor required an oral presentation, which I'm certain was at least somewhat intentionally done to deny the Chinese students an easy "A".
I disagree that the threat to the economy is a lack of CS education. I'd argue it's a lack of finance and business management graduates who are trained to think more than 4 quarters ahead. Short-term thinking is the problem in US businesses today. A lack of highly trained CS grads is arguably a symptom of that problem, but is not any kind of root cause.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, despite you just insulting me, I'm going to try to seriously answer.
First, I was under the impression we were talking mainly about liberal arts. Not fine arts, not math/physics/science/accounting for the most part. In the cases of lit, philosophy, history, unless you're really going to generate new academic content, it's not progressive. That said, I'll freely admit you have a point regarding advanced math and science.
Second, guaranteed loans. Uh, these are guaranteed for the schools. Not the students. In other words, they (schools) get paid whether the person who takes them out to pay for the degree finds the degree economically benefical or not. If it's not clear what the problem with that system is, it's that it encourages universities to charge a lot for financial black-hole degrees.
Now, regarding another of your questions, specifically "Why can't a person learn about programming, advanced mathematics, advanced physics, etc... at the library or taking a night class?", I think I can reasonably respond that LOTS of people have had success learning programming on the job, or with curated enrichment at the direction of a manager, mentor, etc., as I've done for others and have had done for me. Maybe that could also work for math and science - I can't say for sure because I don't know, but in at least one of those cases, I have solid proof that people can excel without being in the 4-year system.
You want personal sovereignty. Why not give the voucher to home schooling parents, which in effects subsidizes the stay-home parent?
No you continue to create a false dichotomy that "4 year uni is the only way" when there are other options for peer/mentor study. Just because 4 year uni is crowding the market due to guaranteed loans doesn't mean other options don't work.
Do 4 year degrees in history require making discoveries? I think we're talking about very different parts of the population of history students. I responded directly to the statement "Unless of course, you think that only the wealthy should be able to learn anything about art history...", which is a long, long way from saying there are plenty of less costly ways to learn about art history. It's the "anything" that's key there. "Anything" is a world away from "original research".
Exactly! The notion of the social democracy is great until it encounters real diversity.
And as that's happening, the social democracy shows its weak point: virulent anti-immigration sentiment. They're perfectly happy to take care of their own, as long as it's just "their own".
As it turns out, I was a lit major. I know of this subject first hand.
Maybe the Germans have collectively decided that the cost of the education is trivial compared to the long term gains of keeping some highly educated people around, or having its own citizens be educated.
I think part of that collective attitude is also that Germans do not have much tolerance for people and subcultures which are belligerent to the idea of education. It is much easier to have a socialist system when you don't have radically different values in different subcultures within your society.
Most liberal arts studies are not progressive once you've completed Composition 1 & 2. At that point there is very little that is not based primarily on study of a specific area (i.e. Existential Philosophers, Renaissance Art, Modern American Literature) that typically doesn't have more than two semesters of study at the undergrad level (i.e. there is really no such thing as a English Lit 4, it is just a matter of adding fungible study areas).
Applied fields like medicine, science, engineering, accounting, and the fine and performing arts are very different, and tend to be more progressive. But I thought it was somewhat clear that we are talking about the "enrichment" areas of study in this thread.
You cannot learn everything "on the fly" from Wikipedia or skimming through popular science books.
Which is why I specifically suggested private lessons and referenced my 7 years of study, or night classes, in addition to self-directed study.
And your comment should not have been modded flamebait!
I honestly don't mean to create that dichotomy
Fair enough - and you definitely didn't create that dichotomy (I shouldn't have said that), but the prevailing view, as I see it, is that education is seen as a thing segregated to professional educators in a classroom situation, and that universities or technical for-profit schools have status as recognized educational authorities, and to some extent your post feeds that view.
Lots of expensive for-profit technical schools and 4-year universities take money from students and offer little in return. Even an art history degree, if it isn't rigorous, has little intrinsic value.
I think part of the issue is the specific mindset that locks people in to giving money to colleges DESPITE the ridiculous costs. Next, asking better questions about why it's so expensive is a good place to start: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
Why is a university the only way to learn about art history or philosophy? Go to the library. Take a night class. Enrichment doesn't require 4 years in an accredited institution. You're creating a false dichotomy. I've been studying music (performance and theory) with a private teacher for 7 years. I don't have a degree, but I have about the equivalent of a degree in music. I'm not looking to USE that for a job, so a lack of accreditation is fine. I also paid a fraction what I would have for a music degree, and got a self-paced, customized curriculum.
You left out an option: I'm knowingly mocking myself for being an arrogant jerk.
Statistics show that concealed carry license holders are less likely to be involved in crime and violent crime than the general population. Concealed carry holders generally have to pass a criminal background check, and in many states get certified training. It's not unreasonable to think a plane full of CCWs is safer than a plane not full of them. You're the one making an unsubstantiated claim: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324
...is you have to work a 140 hour week assembling it first.
What asshole modded this "funny"?
I was right all the time from day one. But no matter where I go, these morons I'm surrounded by just don't see it, and give me crap work to do when I should be running things MY way.
They got a name for the people in the world
I want a name for 3PO
The closest we got is Honda's bot
They call him Asimo
Should be an interesting bioengineering project for instruments like saxophone, which transmit sound to the inner ears through teeth and bone.
Agreed. I can't play Wii when not using "game mode" to reduce delay on my TV, or record & monitor multitrack audio above a 6-8 ms delay. No way would I trust a surgery to anything more than 10ms in case something unexpected happened during surgery.
I had the sense that the Chinese students at my college formed a group in which a few males learned English and effectively segregated their female members away from interacting with the American students (no idea if this is common). so, for them, not really a matter of cannot learn the language, but more like "don't want to integrate, especially to allow the females to integrate". It worked OK until a professor required an oral presentation, which I'm certain was at least somewhat intentionally done to deny the Chinese students an easy "A".
only you know the trewth.
FTFY.
I disagree that the threat to the economy is a lack of CS education. I'd argue it's a lack of finance and business management graduates who are trained to think more than 4 quarters ahead. Short-term thinking is the problem in US businesses today. A lack of highly trained CS grads is arguably a symptom of that problem, but is not any kind of root cause.
However, you cannot commit suicide by asteroid strike.
You could if you control the asteroid defense system, and intentionally cause it to fail.