Those are average salaries, not entry level salaries. Public schools generally pay teachers who have been there longer more than new teachers. So the blue hair who taught you Math and who still uses an abacus probably gets paid more than the young Physics teacher who can relate to the kids and is thus able to teach them something.
Of course you have to take in account that those numbers are probably what the annual salary would be if teachers worked 12 months of the year like the rest of the world. They end up having an abnormally large break during the summer months. Thus the problem is not that teachers are not getting paid enough, it is that teachers are not getting enough hours to work.
Military and education costs come out of different pockets. The federal government pays for the military while state governments pay for the education (or at least they are supposed to under the 10th amendment).
Lets, the first 25 of todays results for news searches on George W Bush and John Kerry:
Bush: 17 negative headlines
Kerry: 6 negative headlines
(For the record, I am not reading each and every article, just counting it if the headline appears to be negative. Also, I am also counting headlines that bash both candidates as negative).
Sorry folks, I don't see the 'conservative bias'. Granted one would probably expect a few more negative results with regard to the current president regardless of which party is in office, today Bush had nearly three times as many.
No, I'm not arguing that Google news always has a liberal bias (it uses algorithms, not editors, to decide what to post), just that finding a few conservative-leaning headlines after a few experiments (they only loosely document two, though they claim there were others) is not evidence of a conservative bias.
"You implied pretty directly that I think I am better than other people because of my degree. Ego, self-esteem, etc. being the relevant area of your stupid assumption."
Feelings of superiority do not require you to have a high self esteem as long as you have a low opinion of others. I was actually basing that statement on your stated willingness to look down on other for no other reason than the fact that they must consider the cost of their education.
Well you have already stated your father is a successful lawyer. You clearly did not go to college to directly pursue your career as evidenced by your major. And I don't see what your self-esteem has to do with anything I have said.
"
My point is, how many working Physicists gained useful practicing knowledge exclusively through library study? Many fewer than college trained."
Have you been paying attention? We were not talking about philosophy grads who then go on to be well known philosophy professors, we were talking about philosophy grads who then go on to work in IT or some other field irrelevant to their course of study. I will freely admit that if you want to go into a professional field it helps to have a degree in it.
"He never made the specific claim as you state. "
Sorry, guess again.
And please keep in mind the topic on hand is careers for college grads, not for guys who just finished up their Ph.D.s.
"I never made the stated claim, however, the correlation between high performing Philosophy students and their major cannot be written off as a fluke of chance."
No, and I can find many other reasons why such results were encountered. For instance, business majors do not do as well because students with good academic qualifications are less likely to become business majors.
"You can get started with a simple goggle search."
I did and found results very different from the ones you presented.
"But seeing as how obsessed you are with scoring style points and parroting patronizing nonsense. I'll provide some links for you.
http://www.collegeboard.com/apps/careers/majors/0, 3480,23-119,00.html
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/phi/jobsphm2.htm"
Neither of those contain the requested data. Thanks for nothing. After some extensive browsing, I was able to come up with summaries of studies (though not the actual studies themselves) which still dispute your claims, including:
"Students declaring an intention to go to graduate school in Philosophy score higher on the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) than all but four other major fields (out of fifty recorded by the Educational Testing Service, which runs the Graduate Record Exam)? The only fields that score higher mean scores on the combined Verbal, Quantitative, and Analytical sections of the GRE are (in rank order) Physics and Astronomy, Mathematical Sciences, Materials Engineering, and Chemical Engineering."
Thats a lot more than just Physics and Chemistry majors as you claimed.
"http://thereitis.org/displayarticle637.html
It helps to read the whole article, but note the chart in the middle of the page."
Interestingly, it fails to back up your assertions. Like how philosophy majors do better on the GRE (as a whole, not just verbal) and GMAT than any other major but physics and chemistry. In fact it outright refutes them.
"
While the majority of Philosophy majors go on to teaching, a significant portion engage in professional careers that are neither menial or low-paying."
Again, your stats fail to back up that assertion. Nowhere is salary mentioned there. Nor is whether or not the tasks menial.
Also, please learn how to format your posts. They are a pain in the ass to read.
"Using your patented library approach, you probably understand Kant's ethics as much as I understand the mathematical proofs of General Relativity."
Yes, you can get a good understanding of a mathematical proof of general relativity by studying the matter on your own if you are so inclined. Whats your point?
"Fact: Philosophy majors score higher on the GRE and GMAT than *every other major except Chemistry and Physics*. "
Where do I start...
First of all (and most importantly), the only purpose of taking such tests is to get into graduate school. Not getting a career right out of college as the original poster claimed to have done. Thus they are irrelevant. Bringing them up only shows your ignorance of the subject.
Second, did at some point in your wonderful liberal arts education did you learn the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc? Just because philosophy students do better on the test does not mean their education caused that.
Thirdly, I have not seen such specific data. Citing statistics is appropriate when making claims like this. I have seen data showing philosophy students do well on the LSATs, and surprise philosophy is often taken by pre-law students. I have seen that philosophy students do best majors on the verbal section of the GREs, but not the GREs as a whole. While they do better than most liberal arts students in the quantitative sections, science majors still do better. And I have seen data that shows philosophy majors do better than business students on the GMAT, but similar data shows math majors do even better. In reality those numbers are probably skewed since few non-business students will take the GMAT.
Clearly an education in philosophy has not aided your ability to analyze data.
"Liberal Arts degree holders on average earn less, but are more consistently employed than science majors."
In positions related to their education, or flipping burgers?
And in that time, think of all the money you could have saved skipping college and finding the exact same job after graduating from high school.
And if you really wanted to have a good understanding of Kant's views on morality, you could have easily done what the rest of us do, gone to your favorite library and checked out a book. That would maybe cost you $.65 if you returned it a few days late. Much less than the cost of tuition to your university.
If your organization started hiring guys who wrote these worms, you would be basically putting a bounty on every machine out there. You would be giving the impression to every kid out there that if they can write a worm that does massive damages to other people's machines, they will get a coveted job.
BTW, before claiming that is must be a huge coincidence if the system's reboot procedure and MS's 95 bug happen after the same amount of time, do the math. 49.7 days is about 2^32 milliseconds. In case you are like the submitter of this article and know nothing about computers, that is a very significant number.
Is there any evidence that this was caused by a Windows bug or is this just more/. anti-Windows FUD? None of the articles support such a hypothesis, they seem to put the blame on the integration and maintence of the system, not on the design of the operating system.
And I hardly see how the Windows 95 bug is relevant to this issue as that clearly isn't what caused the shutdown.
Editors please learn how to do your fucking jobs and reject crap like this. Just because it bashes MS doesn't mean its newsworthy.
That is a possible defense if Jar-Jar were the only CGI part of the movie, but in reality nearly the whole thing was CGI and nearly the whole thing was hated. Yes, the writing sucked as well, but one of the big complaints among non-geek critics was its overuse of CGI.
Seriously, show me one movie which relied almost solely on CGI effects as substitutes for live action that has been accepted as a high quality movie (and not just among geeks).
Point taken, but we must keep in mind many of the subtleties of our language are lost when expressed through a written post on/. compared to when they are presented orally or through a formal written work. Add to that, absurdly stupid posts on/. are not uncommon; I've actually seen a number of posts on this very discussion seriously arguing that the telescopes remote location would make maintenance difficult.
My favorite example took place on a Yahoo! discussion board in which someone argued that if technology exists, it will be used no matter what. I countered with what I considered a blatantly sarcastic post about how prominent nuclear weapons were during the Vietnam and Gulf wars. Some other guy (I think he was a Vietnam vet) took serious offense to that and demanded an apology from me, declaring "I was there and I can assure you no nuclear weapons were ever used in Vietnam". It took us several days to settle him down and convince him that I was being sarcastic.
"But I think it's silly to say space based scopes are worthless."
Who said that? What is being questioned about them is when (if ever) they are worth the billions it takes to build and maintain them (and they don't have to be worthless in order for the answer to that question to be 'no'), especially considering other potential areas of research (including Earth based telescopes). Thats clearly a question that needs to be answered when discussing policies referring to funding NASA programs, and throwing around the/. party line of "Its science, give NASA all the money they want" does not satisfy it.
I think the fact that there is more than enough space in either direction to study, along with the fact that a second land based telescope could also be built in another area and still cost less than a space based scope, rendered the issue moot some time ago.
I was not complaining that the Hubble could not see some areas of the sky, rather I was correcting a statement that seemed to suggest the Hubble could just fly around space at the push of a button.
Explosives + Uranium can still be dangerous, even if it cannot be used as a 'true' nuclear weapon. A dirty bomb could cause a number of casualities, along with the panic and economic damages that would result.
But there is still the problem that most likely this thing would be difficult to recover. Its not like jumping into the deep end of the pool and retrieving a plastic toy that sunk down there.
And one couldn't build an Earth based telescope that can point in different directions?
As for the "It can't see portions of the sky" argument; aside from my earlier objection that what is left is not exactly a small area to look at, couldn't one build another somewhere in Greenland or Alaska? The total cost (assuming the Northern telescope could be built for around the same amount) would still be a fraction of the cost as the Hubble, and would still be much easier to maintain.
"but th available sky to look at would be pretty limited, no? Being based in Antartic and all..."
Half the universe (ok, probably less than that) is a pretty big area to study. And I'm sure there would be benefits to having it in a set place as well. You wouldn't have to wait for the damn thing to move into the position you want it in.
"I doubt too it would be easy to maintain in the winter, where there is NO light for 6 months, at minus 60 something Celcius..."
Are you somehow under the impression that the Hubble (or any other hypothetical orbital telescope) is easy to maintain?
Slashdot Mirror
Those are average salaries, not entry level salaries. Public schools generally pay teachers who have been there longer more than new teachers. So the blue hair who taught you Math and who still uses an abacus probably gets paid more than the young Physics teacher who can relate to the kids and is thus able to teach them something.
Of course you have to take in account that those numbers are probably what the annual salary would be if teachers worked 12 months of the year like the rest of the world. They end up having an abnormally large break during the summer months. Thus the problem is not that teachers are not getting paid enough, it is that teachers are not getting enough hours to work.
Military and education costs come out of different pockets. The federal government pays for the military while state governments pay for the education (or at least they are supposed to under the 10th amendment).
All newspapers are not equal. For instance the Washington Times does not have nearly the same readership as the Washington Post.
Bush: 17 negative headlines
Kerry: 6 negative headlines
(For the record, I am not reading each and every article, just counting it if the headline appears to be negative. Also, I am also counting headlines that bash both candidates as negative).
Sorry folks, I don't see the 'conservative bias'. Granted one would probably expect a few more negative results with regard to the current president regardless of which party is in office, today Bush had nearly three times as many.
No, I'm not arguing that Google news always has a liberal bias (it uses algorithms, not editors, to decide what to post), just that finding a few conservative-leaning headlines after a few experiments (they only loosely document two, though they claim there were others) is not evidence of a conservative bias.
QED
Feelings of superiority do not require you to have a high self esteem as long as you have a low opinion of others. I was actually basing that statement on your stated willingness to look down on other for no other reason than the fact that they must consider the cost of their education.
Well you have already stated your father is a successful lawyer. You clearly did not go to college to directly pursue your career as evidenced by your major. And I don't see what your self-esteem has to do with anything I have said.
Don't think you are better than others just because your daddy was rich enough to buy you an education.
Have you been paying attention? We were not talking about philosophy grads who then go on to be well known philosophy professors, we were talking about philosophy grads who then go on to work in IT or some other field irrelevant to their course of study. I will freely admit that if you want to go into a professional field it helps to have a degree in it.
"He never made the specific claim as you state. "
Sorry, guess again.
And please keep in mind the topic on hand is careers for college grads, not for guys who just finished up their Ph.D.s.
"I never made the stated claim, however, the correlation between high performing Philosophy students and their major cannot be written off as a fluke of chance."
No, and I can find many other reasons why such results were encountered. For instance, business majors do not do as well because students with good academic qualifications are less likely to become business majors.
"You can get started with a simple goggle search."
I did and found results very different from the ones you presented.
"But seeing as how obsessed you are with scoring style points and parroting patronizing nonsense. I'll provide some links for you. http://www.collegeboard.com/apps/careers/majors/0, 3480,23-119,00.html
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/phi/jobsphm2.htm"
Neither of those contain the requested data. Thanks for nothing. After some extensive browsing, I was able to come up with summaries of studies (though not the actual studies themselves) which still dispute your claims, including:
Thats a lot more than just Physics and Chemistry majors as you claimed."http://thereitis.org/displayarticle637.html It helps to read the whole article, but note the chart in the middle of the page."
Interestingly, it fails to back up your assertions. Like how philosophy majors do better on the GRE (as a whole, not just verbal) and GMAT than any other major but physics and chemistry. In fact it outright refutes them.
" While the majority of Philosophy majors go on to teaching, a significant portion engage in professional careers that are neither menial or low-paying."
Again, your stats fail to back up that assertion. Nowhere is salary mentioned there. Nor is whether or not the tasks menial.
Also, please learn how to format your posts. They are a pain in the ass to read.
Yes, you can get a good understanding of a mathematical proof of general relativity by studying the matter on your own if you are so inclined. Whats your point?
"Fact: Philosophy majors score higher on the GRE and GMAT than *every other major except Chemistry and Physics*. "
Where do I start...
First of all (and most importantly), the only purpose of taking such tests is to get into graduate school. Not getting a career right out of college as the original poster claimed to have done. Thus they are irrelevant. Bringing them up only shows your ignorance of the subject.
Second, did at some point in your wonderful liberal arts education did you learn the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc? Just because philosophy students do better on the test does not mean their education caused that.
Thirdly, I have not seen such specific data. Citing statistics is appropriate when making claims like this. I have seen data showing philosophy students do well on the LSATs, and surprise philosophy is often taken by pre-law students. I have seen that philosophy students do best majors on the verbal section of the GREs, but not the GREs as a whole. While they do better than most liberal arts students in the quantitative sections, science majors still do better. And I have seen data that shows philosophy majors do better than business students on the GMAT, but similar data shows math majors do even better. In reality those numbers are probably skewed since few non-business students will take the GMAT.
Clearly an education in philosophy has not aided your ability to analyze data.
"Liberal Arts degree holders on average earn less, but are more consistently employed than science majors."
In positions related to their education, or flipping burgers?
And if you really wanted to have a good understanding of Kant's views on morality, you could have easily done what the rest of us do, gone to your favorite library and checked out a book. That would maybe cost you $.65 if you returned it a few days late. Much less than the cost of tuition to your university.
If your organization started hiring guys who wrote these worms, you would be basically putting a bounty on every machine out there. You would be giving the impression to every kid out there that if they can write a worm that does massive damages to other people's machines, they will get a coveted job.
So if someone's house was broken into, would you blame the theif or the guy who didn't buy the high tech security system?
BTW, before claiming that is must be a huge coincidence if the system's reboot procedure and MS's 95 bug happen after the same amount of time, do the math. 49.7 days is about 2^32 milliseconds. In case you are like the submitter of this article and know nothing about computers, that is a very significant number.
And I hardly see how the Windows 95 bug is relevant to this issue as that clearly isn't what caused the shutdown.
Editors please learn how to do your fucking jobs and reject crap like this. Just because it bashes MS doesn't mean its newsworthy.
To say the CGI were not as hated as much as the writing and acting does not say much at all.
Seriously, show me one movie which relied almost solely on CGI effects as substitutes for live action that has been accepted as a high quality movie (and not just among geeks).
My favorite example took place on a Yahoo! discussion board in which someone argued that if technology exists, it will be used no matter what. I countered with what I considered a blatantly sarcastic post about how prominent nuclear weapons were during the Vietnam and Gulf wars. Some other guy (I think he was a Vietnam vet) took serious offense to that and demanded an apology from me, declaring "I was there and I can assure you no nuclear weapons were ever used in Vietnam". It took us several days to settle him down and convince him that I was being sarcastic.
Who said that? What is being questioned about them is when (if ever) they are worth the billions it takes to build and maintain them (and they don't have to be worthless in order for the answer to that question to be 'no'), especially considering other potential areas of research (including Earth based telescopes). Thats clearly a question that needs to be answered when discussing policies referring to funding NASA programs, and throwing around the /. party line of "Its science, give NASA all the money they want" does not satisfy it.
I was not complaining that the Hubble could not see some areas of the sky, rather I was correcting a statement that seemed to suggest the Hubble could just fly around space at the push of a button.
But there is still the problem that most likely this thing would be difficult to recover. Its not like jumping into the deep end of the pool and retrieving a plastic toy that sunk down there.
As for the "It can't see portions of the sky" argument; aside from my earlier objection that what is left is not exactly a small area to look at, couldn't one build another somewhere in Greenland or Alaska? The total cost (assuming the Northern telescope could be built for around the same amount) would still be a fraction of the cost as the Hubble, and would still be much easier to maintain.
I hardly consider orbiting the Earth at a set rate "freedom of movement".
Half the universe (ok, probably less than that) is a pretty big area to study. And I'm sure there would be benefits to having it in a set place as well. You wouldn't have to wait for the damn thing to move into the position you want it in.
"I doubt too it would be easy to maintain in the winter, where there is NO light for 6 months, at minus 60 something Celcius..."
Are you somehow under the impression that the Hubble (or any other hypothetical orbital telescope) is easy to maintain?