Most discussions about failure in education fails to note the student's own failure to DO THE WORK.
In our test-focused schooling regime, I've found that being good at taking tests is much more valuable than knowing the material.
And I sure as shit did not "DO THE WORK" when I was in school. I showed up on test days, and the rest of the time was spent smiting my brain with various substances.
But where to PhDs in history / classics get their money?
Many such people wind up as attorneys.
Are they really paid more than people who just have an undergrad degree?
I'm sure they are, on average. Most people with the persistence and ability to earn a PhD are the type of people who can achieve success. Note, I'm not saying that the PhD is earning them the extra cash. I'm saying that the type of person who has earned a PhD is the type of person who would have been successful, even without the sheepskin.
Your fiancee doesn't have to be a sculpture curator. University isn't a vocational program.
My wife was a religious studies major and now she's a banker. Employers want smart people. There are lots of such people outside of the "useful" majors, and employers know that.
The majority of liberal arts programs would fall into that category.
If you get good grades, you can do very well with a liberal arts major.
My wife majored in Religious Studies at a state school. It doesn't get much more liberal artsy than that. But she graduated with some ridiculous GPA and became an analyst with a large, national bank.
She's done very well for herself there, and that's with a major that you would have definitely laughed at.
I don't recall ever seeing a job posting with an "associate's degree or higher" listed as a requirement. I agree that starting off in CC can be a great way to save money, though.
We have an entire industry built around this box-checking requirement. Does anyone else think that's a huge waste to time and money?
I've found that it's mostly large companies that insist on a bachelor's degree. Small and mid-sized companies will usually look past a lack of a university degree if the candidate's experience is a fit.
So your HR people systematically screen out good people based on useless qualifications.
Probably the only thing dumber than allowing HR to dictate a job's requirements is letting some random slashdot commenter dictate them. Even if the commenter is the single best PHP Engineer in his world.
I think screening for a bachelor's can be useful, depending on the position. But I agree, HR shouldn't be able to force this on the hiring manager!
Man the last 2 years of a 4 year degree costs me as much as a decent sports car, and my salary hike after cutting taxes off for it would be... enough to pay it off in a decade. By then, the sheer volume of experience I have makes up for the gap, and my degree is so old it's worthless in the job market.
I think there's a bit of a "bubble" in higher education. I use the air quotes, because I'm not sure that it can burst like the housing market (or dot-com stocks, etc.), but it has many of the same components:
Lots of hype. (People who go to college make $BIGNUM more than people who did not, over the course of a lifetime! But did you ever stop to think that the type of person who goes to college is probably the type of person who would have been successful anyway, even had he or she not gone to college?)
Most students pay for university with other people's money, so they are insulated from its true cost. Similar to the housing market, where people get ever larger mortgages, but who cares? it's the bank's money, anyway.
Government is pumping a ton of money into the market for higher education. See Sallie Mae.
Loans at artificially-low interest rates. Sound like FHA loans?
Payments are low (interest only, or even zero) at the beginning, but they go up at a later date. Sound like one of those clever mortgage products that were designed to allow unqualified people to qualify for loans that they can't afford.
The fact that consumers are not exposed directly to the cost, and everyone is encouraged to go, is driving up prices like crazy. But by the time you graduate with $100k in debt and have given up the opportunity cost of working for 4 years (another $120k-$200k, give or take), you've plowed a ton of money into that sheepskin! Hope you plan on getting one seriously kick-ass job when you graduate! By the way, if you fail to graduate, you still have to pay your loans back, but you won't even have that diploma. Ouch.
Personally, I worked my way through state school (this was quite a few years ago), waiting tables and doing freelance programming work. It was a valuable experience, but I'm not sure how feasible it is anymore, given the "bubble".
I'm old enough to remember the sci-fi promise that more and more automation would allow humans more leisure time without sacrificing the necessities and comforts they were accustomed to. But that hasn't really come to pass, even with machines taking over human jobs.
The technology has changed, but the economic model has not. You're still selling your time, not your output. Your rate per period (hourly or yearly) is dictated by the labor market (supply and demand for people who do what you do).
Would you really want a world where increased productivity meant decreased working for the same output? Do you think you'd still have your smartphone, your big TV and game console, your sophisticated automobile, the Internet, all that stuff that you take for granted, if we had simply chosen to increase leisure time instead of increasing productivity? Think of how cheap they are, too. Things like the iPad were sci-fi not long ago, but now you can waltz into your local apple store and buy one for a few hundred bucks. If waltzing isn't your thing, you can order one online for the same price, and it will be in your hands in a few days. You sound like you're old enough to step back and realize just how amazing that is.
Also, we're whining right now about unemployment that is 8.something%, but that's actually not too bad in historical terms. We're actually not doing too badly keeping folks employed, if you think about it.
And so now Paul Krugman is telling us that we're doomed because an army of attorneys don't need to read documents anymore. This comes across to me the same way Tom Friedman's World is Flat did a few years back. High speed communications and combined with cheap overseas labor was going to make American workers obsolete. Anyone who has ever worked on a "flat world" project knew Friedman was full of shit, and Krugman is also full of shit, at least for the foreseeable future.
Oh sure, computers are great at finding a needle in a haystack. Hell, Google can find a needle in all of the world's hay, and in just a few hundred milliseconds. But you still have to know what the needle is.
Present day, computers suck at figuring out what the needle is. A human, you can instruct to, "Find me something useful for [whatever]. Use your experience to know what would be useful." Computer stink at that. A computer can search all correspondence between the CEO and the CFO about shell companies, even if the keywords "shell company" aren't used, the computer can infer from the context. But you can't just tell a computer, "Look at all of the email and find what's relevant to the case."
I've always been a fan of letting computers do what they're good at, and letting humans do what we're good at. Let's not get confused that a machine is always better than a human or vice versa. We each have our own comparative advantage.
So members of group 3 would be faithful, as long as they were locked in a room and never allowed contact with other humans.
I would think of group 3 as more of a spectrum of propensities to cheat, not a constant propensity. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear when I subdivided the group.
Your logic is the same as "security through obscurity"... and neither works.
I'm not even sure of the practical value of that old statement. Is a password "security" or "security through obscurity"? I guess it all depends on how much effort it would take me to obtain your password. Is port knocking security through obscurity? Most claim that it is, but how is it different from a password?
The notion of security as a binary condition of a system (secure vs insecure) is ludicrous. Any security can be subverted, given sufficient resources. Should we then conclude that no system can be "secure"?
Of course not. Security, in my mind, is better framed as an economics problem (which might be my economics background rearing its ugly head). What is the value of the resource being secured? What resources would be required to subvert the security mechanisms? If the resources required to break the security mechanism far enough exceed the value of the secured resource, I believe we can call the resource "secure". Otherwise, no. And since "security through obscurity" can still add meaningfully to the cost of accessing the secured resource, we must conclude that security through obscurity works, as long as we recognize its limitations.
"People who would cheat" are going to cheat no matter what. Doesn't matter if it's facebook, the telephone, or the supermarket check out line that facilitated that communication.
I haven't done any scientific studies on this, but my gut tells me that bucket 3 is pretty large. What good does it do to give up on its members? Why not make an attempt to uncover and understand situations that trigger our human frailties and make an effort to avoid them? Can you really not see any value in trying to help morally ambiguous people to do the right thing, even if it isn't always the person's natural inclination?
Stop trying to give people outs... you either respect the person you're with enough not to treat them like shit, or you don't.
I'm not trying to give people outs--just trying to describe human nature. While I agree that cheating is wrong, is it really so useful to thump our chests and wag our fingers and scream that which is obvious?
To illustrate my point, I have never cheated on my wife, and I don't believe that I ever will. That being said, there are 2 women from my past that I absolutely will not friend on Facebook. I'm sure nothing would happen even if I did reconnect with them, but why play with fire?
That's why, in my mind, it's worth suspending judgment for a bit and just trying to understand human frailties. We can't, by force of sheer will, make ourselves into perfect creatures. Better to understand ourselves and try to work within our nature.
Shouldn't people at some point stop blaming outside influences for their own failings ?
I don't think you can quite ignore outside influences, either.
For the sake of argument, let's divide the set of married people into three buckets: 1) those who definitely will not cheat, 2) those who definitely will cheat, and 3) those who might cheat.
For starters, let's not concern ourselves with the first and second buckets. Their fates are already sealed. Instead, let's divide bucket 3 into two groups: Group 3.1) those who might cheat, but don't, and group 3.2) those who might cheat, and do.
It is my opinion, that sites like facebook alter the ratio between groups 3.1 and 3.2 by creating opportunities that didn't exist before. We're human. We want what's in front of us. We're opportunists.
I agree that the Facebooks of the world can't turn good people bad, but you've got to admit, they sure have the potential to induce questionable people to do the wrong thing instead of the right thing.
I thought it was the homosexuals that were a threat to my marriage?
Does anyone make the argument that gay marriage threatens some individual's hetero marriage? I've only heard the claim that it threatens the institution of marriage.
I don't happen to agree with the premise, but that doesn't give license to put words into peoples mouthes.
I guess my point is that such contact does not create the urge to cheat. It merely facilitates an existing urge. So I'm still leaning towards facebook, like a car, just being a tool that facilitates cheating.
I think you're severely underestimating the potential damage of this mere "facilitation". We're only human. We want what's in front of us. We're opportunists. Facebook opens up way more opportunities than were open pre-Facebook.
I can name several exes and former hookups that I would never have been in touch with now, yet I see their daily updates on their lives via Facebook. It's all fun and games as long as you know your own limitations and human frailties. How funny is it to peek in to their lives and say, "Yup! Dodged a bullet with that one, didn't I."
There are two exes, however, that I would never friend under any circumstances. It's not that I don't trust myself--it's that I don't want to have to trust myself. Sometimes it's better just to let sleeping dogs lie.
The government does not have to provide a public park, but if it provides a public park, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
I agree. See US Constitution, Amendment 1.
The government does not have to provide a public wifi, but if it provides a public wifi, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
Yeah, if you don't like your political party not being allowed to protest in a free public park, you can ask for your money back.
You're joking, right?
Americans have a right to protest based on our Constitutional rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. Public WiFi is always provided on a "No Warranty, No Guarantee, No Commitment, Use At Your Own Risk" basis.
You simply can't compare the two. You have no Constitutional right to robust, unfiltered, free wireless Internet access.
If they were blocking it for employees, that would be one thing. They were blocking the site on the guest network for the capitol, which is intended for public use.
If you don't like the free wireless Internet service, I think you should ask for your money back. In fact, this block is such an egregious affront to freedom-loving Americans, I think you should be entitled to double your money back.
Any argument would probably depend on what a normal person thought "lifetime" means in this context, and how you paid for the service (do you buy the box, or buy the subscription, or both?).
IANAL.
Why? "Lifetime" is defined in the contract as the life of the TiVO hardware. Who gives a shit what a reasonable person thought "lifetime" meant?
I haven't read their US contract, and certainly not their UK contract, but it probably gives them some type of way out. Maybe they owe remaining users a some money. Maybe not. Anyhow, that's what "lifetime" means in this context.
Depending on your usage, you may be able to save via a pay-as-you-go plan. I don't know your usage, so I wouldn't be able to say one way or the other. Prices for these plans are typically in the $0.08-0.10 per minute/text range.
I do not want a touchscreen phone unless it also has some sort of physical keyboard. I often dial my phone without looking at it. I can do this because I can feel the keys. How do those smartphones with keyboards lock the keyboard?
There are several smartphones with physical keyboards, but I would not be inclined to promise that you could dial one without looking at it. If I want to dial my phone without looking at it, I use voice commands.
You mention several pretty good prepaid deals. How much does that go up when you add a second phone to the account?
I don't know if any multi-line prepaid accounts. They are still, typically, a bit cheaper than postpaid multi-line plans. Take your plan for instance:
My current plan is $49.95 + $9.95 (plus all of the various taxes and fees that they never mention in the adds). That is really more than I am happy with.
For what you're paying right now, if you went prepaid, you could basically get unlimited talk/text. Worth it? It depends. On the one hand, you'd need to buy your own phone. On the other hand, you'd have no contract.
Will I be able to get that Android phone for free (with contract) and without having to pay extra for a data plan?
Probably not. I don't think any US carriers offer free data, but there are definitely some halfway-decent deals out there. If you tell me what your budget is, I can probably tell you if you can get 2 Android devices. Point is probably moot, though, as it sounds like you just signed a new 2-year commitment.:)
By the way, you should definitely consider going prepaid if you use feature (dumb) phones and have light usage. There are some great deals out there right now in prepaid.
What I'm really excited about is that the prepaid carriers are starting to offer low-end and mid-range Android devices. Check out Virgin Mobile which has a $150 android device and $40/mo for data, texting, and 1200 minutes of talk. Not bad. Boost has unlimited everything on an Android device for $50, but that rate goes down by $5/mo every 6 months until it gets to $35/mo. I think these deals are only going to get better over the next few years.
I was really tempted to get a smartphone, but none of them were clamshell design. I like being able to close my phone so that none of the buttons are exposed (except the volume), that way I don't have to worry about pocket dialing someone.
That's not really a concern anymore. Most modern smartphones cannot be unlocked in a pocket or purse. Unlocking a touchscreen phone generally involves pressing a button to activate the screen, followed by swiping a target with your finger.
Slashdot Mirror
Most discussions about failure in education fails to note the student's own failure to DO THE WORK.
In our test-focused schooling regime, I've found that being good at taking tests is much more valuable than knowing the material.
And I sure as shit did not "DO THE WORK" when I was in school. I showed up on test days, and the rest of the time was spent smiting my brain with various substances.
But where to PhDs in history / classics get their money?
Many such people wind up as attorneys.
Are they really paid more than people who just have an undergrad degree?
I'm sure they are, on average. Most people with the persistence and ability to earn a PhD are the type of people who can achieve success. Note, I'm not saying that the PhD is earning them the extra cash. I'm saying that the type of person who has earned a PhD is the type of person who would have been successful, even without the sheepskin.
Your fiancee doesn't have to be a sculpture curator. University isn't a vocational program.
My wife was a religious studies major and now she's a banker. Employers want smart people. There are lots of such people outside of the "useful" majors, and employers know that.
The majority of liberal arts programs would fall into that category.
If you get good grades, you can do very well with a liberal arts major.
My wife majored in Religious Studies at a state school. It doesn't get much more liberal artsy than that. But she graduated with some ridiculous GPA and became an analyst with a large, national bank.
She's done very well for herself there, and that's with a major that you would have definitely laughed at.
I don't recall ever seeing a job posting with an "associate's degree or higher" listed as a requirement. I agree that starting off in CC can be a great way to save money, though.
We have an entire industry built around this box-checking requirement. Does anyone else think that's a huge waste to time and money?
I've found that it's mostly large companies that insist on a bachelor's degree. Small and mid-sized companies will usually look past a lack of a university degree if the candidate's experience is a fit.
So your HR people systematically screen out good people based on useless qualifications.
Probably the only thing dumber than allowing HR to dictate a job's requirements is letting some random slashdot commenter dictate them. Even if the commenter is the single best PHP Engineer in his world.
I think screening for a bachelor's can be useful, depending on the position. But I agree, HR shouldn't be able to force this on the hiring manager!
Man the last 2 years of a 4 year degree costs me as much as a decent sports car, and my salary hike after cutting taxes off for it would be... enough to pay it off in a decade. By then, the sheer volume of experience I have makes up for the gap, and my degree is so old it's worthless in the job market.
I think there's a bit of a "bubble" in higher education. I use the air quotes, because I'm not sure that it can burst like the housing market (or dot-com stocks, etc.), but it has many of the same components:
The fact that consumers are not exposed directly to the cost, and everyone is encouraged to go, is driving up prices like crazy. But by the time you graduate with $100k in debt and have given up the opportunity cost of working for 4 years (another $120k-$200k, give or take), you've plowed a ton of money into that sheepskin! Hope you plan on getting one seriously kick-ass job when you graduate! By the way, if you fail to graduate, you still have to pay your loans back, but you won't even have that diploma. Ouch.
Personally, I worked my way through state school (this was quite a few years ago), waiting tables and doing freelance programming work. It was a valuable experience, but I'm not sure how feasible it is anymore, given the "bubble".
I'm old enough to remember the sci-fi promise that more and more automation would allow humans more leisure time without sacrificing the necessities and comforts they were accustomed to. But that hasn't really come to pass, even with machines taking over human jobs.
The technology has changed, but the economic model has not. You're still selling your time, not your output. Your rate per period (hourly or yearly) is dictated by the labor market (supply and demand for people who do what you do).
Would you really want a world where increased productivity meant decreased working for the same output? Do you think you'd still have your smartphone, your big TV and game console, your sophisticated automobile, the Internet, all that stuff that you take for granted, if we had simply chosen to increase leisure time instead of increasing productivity? Think of how cheap they are, too. Things like the iPad were sci-fi not long ago, but now you can waltz into your local apple store and buy one for a few hundred bucks. If waltzing isn't your thing, you can order one online for the same price, and it will be in your hands in a few days. You sound like you're old enough to step back and realize just how amazing that is.
Also, we're whining right now about unemployment that is 8.something%, but that's actually not too bad in historical terms. We're actually not doing too badly keeping folks employed, if you think about it.
And so now Paul Krugman is telling us that we're doomed because an army of attorneys don't need to read documents anymore. This comes across to me the same way Tom Friedman's World is Flat did a few years back. High speed communications and combined with cheap overseas labor was going to make American workers obsolete. Anyone who has ever worked on a "flat world" project knew Friedman was full of shit, and Krugman is also full of shit, at least for the foreseeable future.
Oh sure, computers are great at finding a needle in a haystack. Hell, Google can find a needle in all of the world's hay, and in just a few hundred milliseconds. But you still have to know what the needle is.
Present day, computers suck at figuring out what the needle is. A human, you can instruct to, "Find me something useful for [whatever]. Use your experience to know what would be useful." Computer stink at that. A computer can search all correspondence between the CEO and the CFO about shell companies, even if the keywords "shell company" aren't used, the computer can infer from the context. But you can't just tell a computer, "Look at all of the email and find what's relevant to the case."
I've always been a fan of letting computers do what they're good at, and letting humans do what we're good at. Let's not get confused that a machine is always better than a human or vice versa. We each have our own comparative advantage.
So members of group 3 would be faithful, as long as they were locked in a room and never allowed contact with other humans.
I would think of group 3 as more of a spectrum of propensities to cheat, not a constant propensity. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear when I subdivided the group.
Your logic is the same as "security through obscurity" ... and neither works.
I'm not even sure of the practical value of that old statement. Is a password "security" or "security through obscurity"? I guess it all depends on how much effort it would take me to obtain your password. Is port knocking security through obscurity? Most claim that it is, but how is it different from a password?
The notion of security as a binary condition of a system (secure vs insecure) is ludicrous. Any security can be subverted, given sufficient resources. Should we then conclude that no system can be "secure"?
Of course not. Security, in my mind, is better framed as an economics problem (which might be my economics background rearing its ugly head). What is the value of the resource being secured? What resources would be required to subvert the security mechanisms? If the resources required to break the security mechanism far enough exceed the value of the secured resource, I believe we can call the resource "secure". Otherwise, no. And since "security through obscurity" can still add meaningfully to the cost of accessing the secured resource, we must conclude that security through obscurity works, as long as we recognize its limitations.
"People who would cheat" are going to cheat no matter what. Doesn't matter if it's facebook, the telephone, or the supermarket check out line that facilitated that communication.
I haven't done any scientific studies on this, but my gut tells me that bucket 3 is pretty large. What good does it do to give up on its members? Why not make an attempt to uncover and understand situations that trigger our human frailties and make an effort to avoid them? Can you really not see any value in trying to help morally ambiguous people to do the right thing, even if it isn't always the person's natural inclination?
Stop trying to give people outs... you either respect the person you're with enough not to treat them like shit, or you don't.
I'm not trying to give people outs--just trying to describe human nature. While I agree that cheating is wrong, is it really so useful to thump our chests and wag our fingers and scream that which is obvious?
To illustrate my point, I have never cheated on my wife, and I don't believe that I ever will. That being said, there are 2 women from my past that I absolutely will not friend on Facebook. I'm sure nothing would happen even if I did reconnect with them, but why play with fire?
That's why, in my mind, it's worth suspending judgment for a bit and just trying to understand human frailties. We can't, by force of sheer will, make ourselves into perfect creatures. Better to understand ourselves and try to work within our nature.
So you are going to blame the site, not the person?
No. There's a difference between describing human behavior and rationalizing it.
Shouldn't people at some point stop blaming outside influences for their own failings ?
I don't think you can quite ignore outside influences, either.
For the sake of argument, let's divide the set of married people into three buckets: 1) those who definitely will not cheat, 2) those who definitely will cheat, and 3) those who might cheat.
For starters, let's not concern ourselves with the first and second buckets. Their fates are already sealed. Instead, let's divide bucket 3 into two groups: Group 3.1) those who might cheat, but don't, and group 3.2) those who might cheat, and do.
It is my opinion, that sites like facebook alter the ratio between groups 3.1 and 3.2 by creating opportunities that didn't exist before. We're human. We want what's in front of us. We're opportunists.
I agree that the Facebooks of the world can't turn good people bad, but you've got to admit, they sure have the potential to induce questionable people to do the wrong thing instead of the right thing.
I thought it was the homosexuals that were a threat to my marriage?
Does anyone make the argument that gay marriage threatens some individual's hetero marriage? I've only heard the claim that it threatens the institution of marriage.
I don't happen to agree with the premise, but that doesn't give license to put words into peoples mouthes.
I guess my point is that such contact does not create the urge to cheat. It merely facilitates an existing urge. So I'm still leaning towards facebook, like a car, just being a tool that facilitates cheating.
I think you're severely underestimating the potential damage of this mere "facilitation". We're only human. We want what's in front of us. We're opportunists. Facebook opens up way more opportunities than were open pre-Facebook.
I can name several exes and former hookups that I would never have been in touch with now, yet I see their daily updates on their lives via Facebook. It's all fun and games as long as you know your own limitations and human frailties. How funny is it to peek in to their lives and say, "Yup! Dodged a bullet with that one, didn't I."
There are two exes, however, that I would never friend under any circumstances. It's not that I don't trust myself--it's that I don't want to have to trust myself. Sometimes it's better just to let sleeping dogs lie.
The government does not have to provide a public park, but if it provides a public park, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
I agree. See US Constitution, Amendment 1.
The government does not have to provide a public wifi, but if it provides a public wifi, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
[Citation needed]
Yeah, if you don't like your political party not being allowed to protest in a free public park, you can ask for your money back.
You're joking, right?
Americans have a right to protest based on our Constitutional rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. Public WiFi is always provided on a "No Warranty, No Guarantee, No Commitment, Use At Your Own Risk" basis.
You simply can't compare the two. You have no Constitutional right to robust, unfiltered, free wireless Internet access.
If they were blocking it for employees, that would be one thing. They were blocking the site on the guest network for the capitol, which is intended for public use.
If you don't like the free wireless Internet service, I think you should ask for your money back. In fact, this block is such an egregious affront to freedom-loving Americans, I think you should be entitled to double your money back.
Who even cares if one particular employer blocks one particular website? They're not your damn ISP.
It's not like the entire state of Wisconsin was blocked from accessing it. Load it up on your phone and quit'cher bitchin'.
People do it for the e-pene.
I had to google e-pene and I got Epene stationary company of China.
They're doing it for the stationary?
Jesus Christ. And I'm probably older than you.
Any argument would probably depend on what a normal person thought "lifetime" means in this context, and how you paid for the service (do you buy the box, or buy the subscription, or both?).
IANAL.
Why? "Lifetime" is defined in the contract as the life of the TiVO hardware. Who gives a shit what a reasonable person thought "lifetime" meant?
I haven't read their US contract, and certainly not their UK contract, but it probably gives them some type of way out. Maybe they owe remaining users a some money.
Maybe not. Anyhow, that's what "lifetime" means in this context.
Only a fool ever paid for the lifetime service with Tivo, they could and had a history of screwing over people that paid for lifetime subscriptions.
I'm not aware of this storied history of their screwing lifetime subscription holders. The break-even point is usually a few years or so.
Seems like a good deal to me.
Depending on your usage, you may be able to save via a pay-as-you-go plan. I don't know your usage, so I wouldn't be able to say one way or the other. Prices for these plans are typically in the $0.08-0.10 per minute/text range.
Check T-Mo if you're interested. They are decent.
I do not want a touchscreen phone unless it also has some sort of physical keyboard. I often dial my phone without looking at it. I can do this because I can feel the keys. How do those smartphones with keyboards lock the keyboard?
There are several smartphones with physical keyboards, but I would not be inclined to promise that you could dial one without looking at it. If I want to dial my phone without looking at it, I use voice commands.
You mention several pretty good prepaid deals. How much does that go up when you add a second phone to the account?
I don't know if any multi-line prepaid accounts. They are still, typically, a bit cheaper than postpaid multi-line plans. Take your plan for instance:
My current plan is $49.95 + $9.95 (plus all of the various taxes and fees that they never mention in the adds). That is really more than I am happy with.
For what you're paying right now, if you went prepaid, you could basically get unlimited talk/text. Worth it? It depends. On the one hand, you'd need to buy your own phone. On the other hand, you'd have no contract.
Will I be able to get that Android phone for free (with contract) and without having to pay extra for a data plan?
Probably not. I don't think any US carriers offer free data, but there are definitely some halfway-decent deals out there. If you tell me what your budget is, I can probably tell you if you can get 2 Android devices. Point is probably moot, though, as it sounds like you just signed a new 2-year commitment. :)
By the way, you should definitely consider going prepaid if you use feature (dumb) phones and have light usage. There are some great deals out there right now in prepaid.
What I'm really excited about is that the prepaid carriers are starting to offer low-end and mid-range Android devices. Check out Virgin Mobile which has a $150 android device and $40/mo for data, texting, and 1200 minutes of talk. Not bad. Boost has unlimited everything on an Android device for $50, but that rate goes down by $5/mo every 6 months until it gets to $35/mo. I think these deals are only going to get better over the next few years.
I was really tempted to get a smartphone, but none of them were clamshell design. I like being able to close my phone so that none of the buttons are exposed (except the volume), that way I don't have to worry about pocket dialing someone.
That's not really a concern anymore. Most modern smartphones cannot be unlocked in a pocket or purse. Unlocking a touchscreen phone generally involves pressing a button to activate the screen, followed by swiping a target with your finger.