Hey, I don't need to be told about distance learning. I did my second degree with the Open University, a state run distance learning university in Britain. They used to put out lectures on TV in the middle of the night, on radio, cassette, video tape - now of course all the multi-media stuff is via the internet.
The cost is of course cheaper than a university with a physical campus. Not nearly as cheap as your low-balled estimates, but cheap. And it's really good too. Really good for mature students. But it wouldn't work for the vast majority of young people. They need more connection and personal guidance than distance learning can offer them.
Even more so for those coming from difficult backgrounds. They need a change of scene.
The only thing you're talking about is a degree as a tool for getting a job. Whilst that's that is the limit of your ambition for education you'll never understand the point.
Someone's been drinking the koolaid straight from the pitcher.
That's the kind of lazy non-argument the critical thinking improvement of going to college could have knocked out of you. And hey, look, this is a non-job related discussion. It's about life skills. QED.
Of course. Google themselves aren't making any money out of it - at least directly. There's only punitive damages to be got out of them. Ongoing revenues from companies profiting from Android make far more sense.
But no, that wasn't Ratzo's point. He was perfectly clear with what he said. He was just wrong.
I've been part of the hiring team. If someone has 10 years of experience, I dont give a bean what degree they have, or if they even have one.
You're missing the point. It's irrelevant what you as part of a hiring team think. You didn't work for the degree. The degree isn't yours.
A degree teaches people how to think critically, boosts intelligence, confidence, ability to self-motivate, how to relate to peers, gives an appreciation of a much wider range of what life has to offer. etc. A university education makes a person better.
If you just did it for the sake of the interviewers on your first couple of jobs, then I feel deeply sorry for the shallowness of your experience. And the waste of 3 or 4 years of your life.
The loans SHOULD be given out based on criteria. What major is he/she applying for based on hiring numbers? What is the track record of the student? What is the track record of the studentâ(TM)s family? If itâ(TM)s a student that has mediocre grades, applying for a major in Sociology/English/History, and whoâ(TM)s parents wouldnâ(TM)t be able to support the kid into his mid-20s if need be, then they shouldnâ(TM)t be able to take out $25K+ in loans. All you are you are doing is setting that person up for failure by doing so.
I've got a far better idea. Give them grants for whatever degree they want, provided they are intellectually capable of doing it. Then there's no worry about them defaulting on a grant. And degree subjects should not be decided by the short term requirements of employers. Degrees are for life, they are not instruments for producing this years worker bees.
You think it can't be afforded? The USA is one of the richest countries in the world. How is it that there are other countries that can afford it? It's a just a question of priorities. A question of who the government serves. The US government of course generally serves rich individuals and corporations. There's your problem.
Define "plenty of". There clearly aren't anywhere near enough scholarships to pay for everyone who is willing, able, but couldn't afford to go to university without loan.
So it's a false justification for why it would be OK to scrap loans.
Oh I don't disagree with the observation that student loans have caused fee inflation. It may well have done. I argue with the concept that without student loans fees will be affordable.
I'd love to have inexpensive paths for bright but poor kids to live up to their potential but four years in ivy-covered halls might not be realistic.
Why ever not? I've never particularly understood what service ivy provides in the service of education. But there's no particular reason why one university should be particularly more expensive than another. Their costs are going to be pretty similar. Academic salaries somewhat higher perhaps, but that's only a fraction of university costs. Far better to ration the better universities by merit than by fees.
It seems the GPs challenge to find any examples was not met by you. Vague handwavy promises that if only other people would look they would find is neither here nor there.
If you actually knew what was in each day's log, and that there are things that are as you say, then you'd have provided an example or two. You wouldn't have even have had to look it up.
As it was, all your post reveals is what your personal expectations or assumptions are. It says precisely nothing about what is.
because we oversaturated the market with college educated people, who dont really need that degree for what they do for a living.
A university education isn't for a particular job, it's for life. People aren't commodities in a market. People are more than worker bees.
maybe, just maybe the prices will drop because they will need to admit more people to their schools instead of costs going up. i mean thats simple supply and demand right there
Supply and demand is just one aspect of pricing. At the end of the day, without subsidy, you can't price lower than cost. 3 or 4 years of tuition at university level, with all the buildings, staff, equipment and other things that come into that isn't ever going to be cheap enough for a young person with minimum wage earning parent(s).
I'm all for removing student loans, as long as they are replaced with grants or other ways by which everyone who is willing and capable of being educated at university level is enabled to do so.
You honestly think that you can educate at satisfactory university level for 3 or 4 years, at a price that is affordable to a tee/early 20s with minimum wage earning parent(s)?
Obviously not.
I'm all for getting rid of student loans, providing they are replaced with grants or other means by which people who aren't from privileged backgrounds can get a higher education.
Ron Paul just believes poor people's children don't deserve an education.
Of course there's a distinction between national and local government. But not one that's relevant to the concept of government running higher education. The concept applies no matter what layer of government does it.
I don't get it, is this somehow android's fault, that microsoft is extorting android using patents, this is android's fault?
Of course it's Android's (Google's) fault. They are giving away stuff that doesn't belong to them. Requiring people to pay royalties for things covered under patents isn't extortion.
1) He is giving away his money. When he becomes president he will lower the president's income from the $400,000 it is, to the annual income: ~$39k.
To what purpose? As a saving it's worthless. It amounts to a tenth of a cent per citizen per annum. Is he saying that the salary is irrelevant to getting the best person for the job? In which case why isn't he advocating cutting the multi-million dollar reward packages of business leaders? If average earnings is enough, let them earn average earnings too.
I worked minimum wage for years
Then it can't be so easy to get out of it, or it wouldn't have taken you years. Did you have a family to support? Were you physically or mentally disadvantaged? Maybe, just maybe, there are other people with more responsibilities, more problems, and less ability than you.
He isn't screwing people with minimum money, if he had his way he would abolish the income tax. People work to make a little money, and the government takes a cut of it. Sounds screwy to me
The thing that's screwy is that lower earners pay more tax as a percentage than the rich. As Buffet pointed out he is charged less tax as a percentage than his secretary. You don't have to abolish income tax to help the minimum wage earners, you just have to put the lowest bracket at 0%, and put the top end of that bracket above the minimum wage level. Pay for that showrtfall by making the higher earners pay more.
With lack of critical thinking like that, I don't doubt you went to university because of parental wealth rather than innate ability.
Of course if you want the best and brightest to go to university, you make it so that money isn't an issue for the applicant, and you select on abilty.
Sadly Britain for one also ow has students that leave with large debts. Not as big as America - the vast majority of Universities are public sector, and fees are capped at £9000 per annum.
It's a shame. When I did my degree, 100% of fees were covered by grants, along with some proportion of living expenses, depending on parents means.
And what of the flip side? The people who really achieve in the field they studies at University, but wouldn't have been able to go were it not for student loans. Are they a price worth paying for libertarian ideology?
Because companies change what they can, rather than a fair cost. The answer to that is simple - let the government run the universities too. That's a much better fix than denying most of the young people a higher education as Ron Paul's proposal does.
Sure, when riding without hands, an initial lean causes the handlebars to turn, due to the angle of the steering pivot, and that's what causes the bike to change direction. Then the lean needs to be adjusted to stop the bike from falling over.
Point is it's the steering that changes the direction of a bike, not the leaning. Even when steering is initiated with a lean, it's doing it via the steering. The leaning is primarily to stop the bike from falling over.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I don't need to be told about distance learning. I did my second degree with the Open University, a state run distance learning university in Britain. They used to put out lectures on TV in the middle of the night, on radio, cassette, video tape - now of course all the multi-media stuff is via the internet.
The cost is of course cheaper than a university with a physical campus. Not nearly as cheap as your low-balled estimates, but cheap. And it's really good too. Really good for mature students. But it wouldn't work for the vast majority of young people. They need more connection and personal guidance than distance learning can offer them.
Even more so for those coming from difficult backgrounds. They need a change of scene.
The only thing you're talking about is a degree as a tool for getting a job. Whilst that's that is the limit of your ambition for education you'll never understand the point.
Someone's been drinking the koolaid straight from the pitcher.
That's the kind of lazy non-argument the critical thinking improvement of going to college could have knocked out of you. And hey, look, this is a non-job related discussion. It's about life skills. QED.
Ah, the old: "We need poor uneducated people around to do all the jobs we don't want to do at prices we're willing to pay" argument.
The "haves" argue that the world doesn't work right unless there are enough "have-nots".
At one time it used to be easy. Under apartheid it was easy to identify the people who were destined to be the working class.
Heck your argument is pretty much the same one used by the people who were against abolition of the slave trade.
Of course. Google themselves aren't making any money out of it - at least directly. There's only punitive damages to be got out of them. Ongoing revenues from companies profiting from Android make far more sense.
But no, that wasn't Ratzo's point. He was perfectly clear with what he said. He was just wrong.
I've been part of the hiring team. If someone has 10 years of experience, I dont give a bean what degree they have, or if they even have one.
You're missing the point. It's irrelevant what you as part of a hiring team think. You didn't work for the degree. The degree isn't yours.
A degree teaches people how to think critically, boosts intelligence, confidence, ability to self-motivate, how to relate to peers, gives an appreciation of a much wider range of what life has to offer. etc. A university education makes a person better.
If you just did it for the sake of the interviewers on your first couple of jobs, then I feel deeply sorry for the shallowness of your experience. And the waste of 3 or 4 years of your life.
I couldn't agree more.
The loans SHOULD be given out based on criteria. What major is he/she applying for based on hiring numbers? What is the track record of the student? What is the track record of the studentâ(TM)s family? If itâ(TM)s a student that has mediocre grades, applying for a major in Sociology/English/History, and whoâ(TM)s parents wouldnâ(TM)t be able to support the kid into his mid-20s if need be, then they shouldnâ(TM)t be able to take out $25K+ in loans. All you are you are doing is setting that person up for failure by doing so.
I've got a far better idea. Give them grants for whatever degree they want, provided they are intellectually capable of doing it. Then there's no worry about them defaulting on a grant. And degree subjects should not be decided by the short term requirements of employers. Degrees are for life, they are not instruments for producing this years worker bees.
You think it can't be afforded? The USA is one of the richest countries in the world. How is it that there are other countries that can afford it? It's a just a question of priorities. A question of who the government serves. The US government of course generally serves rich individuals and corporations. There's your problem.
Define "plenty of". There clearly aren't anywhere near enough scholarships to pay for everyone who is willing, able, but couldn't afford to go to university without loan.
So it's a false justification for why it would be OK to scrap loans.
Oh I don't disagree with the observation that student loans have caused fee inflation. It may well have done. I argue with the concept that without student loans fees will be affordable.
I'd love to have inexpensive paths for bright but poor kids to live up to their potential but four years in ivy-covered halls might not be realistic.
Why ever not? I've never particularly understood what service ivy provides in the service of education. But there's no particular reason why one university should be particularly more expensive than another. Their costs are going to be pretty similar. Academic salaries somewhat higher perhaps, but that's only a fraction of university costs. Far better to ration the better universities by merit than by fees.
It seems the GPs challenge to find any examples was not met by you. Vague handwavy promises that if only other people would look they would find is neither here nor there.
If you actually knew what was in each day's log, and that there are things that are as you say, then you'd have provided an example or two. You wouldn't have even have had to look it up.
As it was, all your post reveals is what your personal expectations or assumptions are. It says precisely nothing about what is.
because we oversaturated the market with college educated people, who dont really need that degree for what they do for a living.
A university education isn't for a particular job, it's for life. People aren't commodities in a market. People are more than worker bees.
maybe, just maybe the prices will drop because they will need to admit more people to their schools instead of costs going up. i mean thats simple supply and demand right there
Supply and demand is just one aspect of pricing. At the end of the day, without subsidy, you can't price lower than cost. 3 or 4 years of tuition at university level, with all the buildings, staff, equipment and other things that come into that isn't ever going to be cheap enough for a young person with minimum wage earning parent(s).
I'm all for removing student loans, as long as they are replaced with grants or other ways by which everyone who is willing and capable of being educated at university level is enabled to do so.
You honestly think that you can educate at satisfactory university level for 3 or 4 years, at a price that is affordable to a tee/early 20s with minimum wage earning parent(s)?
Obviously not.
I'm all for getting rid of student loans, providing they are replaced with grants or other means by which people who aren't from privileged backgrounds can get a higher education.
Ron Paul just believes poor people's children don't deserve an education.
Of course there's a distinction between national and local government. But not one that's relevant to the concept of government running higher education. The concept applies no matter what layer of government does it.
You are under the mistaken belief that this is only about one patent. You need to read the rest of the article in the link I gave.
Are you saying Android doesn't have a filesystem?
I don't get it, is this somehow android's fault, that microsoft is extorting android using patents, this is android's fault?
Of course it's Android's (Google's) fault. They are giving away stuff that doesn't belong to them. Requiring people to pay royalties for things covered under patents isn't extortion.
1) He is giving away his money. When he becomes president he will lower the president's income from the $400,000 it is, to the annual income: ~$39k.
To what purpose? As a saving it's worthless. It amounts to a tenth of a cent per citizen per annum. Is he saying that the salary is irrelevant to getting the best person for the job? In which case why isn't he advocating cutting the multi-million dollar reward packages of business leaders? If average earnings is enough, let them earn average earnings too.
I worked minimum wage for years
Then it can't be so easy to get out of it, or it wouldn't have taken you years. Did you have a family to support? Were you physically or mentally disadvantaged? Maybe, just maybe, there are other people with more responsibilities, more problems, and less ability than you.
He isn't screwing people with minimum money, if he had his way he would abolish the income tax. People work to make a little money, and the government takes a cut of it. Sounds screwy to me
The thing that's screwy is that lower earners pay more tax as a percentage than the rich. As Buffet pointed out he is charged less tax as a percentage than his secretary. You don't have to abolish income tax to help the minimum wage earners, you just have to put the lowest bracket at 0%, and put the top end of that bracket above the minimum wage level. Pay for that showrtfall by making the higher earners pay more.
With lack of critical thinking like that, I don't doubt you went to university because of parental wealth rather than innate ability.
Of course if you want the best and brightest to go to university, you make it so that money isn't an issue for the applicant, and you select on abilty.
Sadly Britain for one also ow has students that leave with large debts. Not as big as America - the vast majority of Universities are public sector, and fees are capped at £9000 per annum.
It's a shame. When I did my degree, 100% of fees were covered by grants, along with some proportion of living expenses, depending on parents means.
Sad to see things get worse rather than better.
Education doesn't just benefit the person educated. It benefits society.
And what of the flip side? The people who really achieve in the field they studies at University, but wouldn't have been able to go were it not for student loans. Are they a price worth paying for libertarian ideology?
Can America afford to be less educated?
Subsidies inflate pricing. I agree.
Because companies change what they can, rather than a fair cost. The answer to that is simple - let the government run the universities too. That's a much better fix than denying most of the young people a higher education as Ron Paul's proposal does.
Microsoft's patents are on the devices, not the Android OS.
Wrong.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html
Basil, take it from me, it's always best to wait and think before hitting Submit.
Funnily enough that would be my advice to you Ratzo. Do you feel stupid now?
If companies that use it have to pay for licences it's not free in either sense.
And it's not about hardware, it's about software. It's about Android.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html
Android the free OS. Heh heh!
Sure, when riding without hands, an initial lean causes the handlebars to turn, due to the angle of the steering pivot, and that's what causes the bike to change direction. Then the lean needs to be adjusted to stop the bike from falling over.
Point is it's the steering that changes the direction of a bike, not the leaning. Even when steering is initiated with a lean, it's doing it via the steering. The leaning is primarily to stop the bike from falling over.