Recession. Massive unemployment. Tax increases. Higher health insurance costs. Property values in the toilet. Loans impossible to get for most people. And today the WA Senate announces that they want to force car insurance rates higher, for an auto theft surcharge (makes you wonder who the actual thieves are).
And students who have never had a job or paid taxes -- along with teachers who have never worked in the private sector -- are protesting that we aren't giving them enough free money for college educations most of them probably won't use and don't need.
If you really want a college education, I am highly in favor of it. A college education can be a great way to prepare you for the real world. You know what's another great way of preparing for the real world? Learning how to pay for things yourself, if you really want them.
But I have enough to pay for already without covering your Higher Ed Fantasy Camp.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 04, 2010 09:29 AM | Email ThisI love how they sneak in a blatant lie at the end of the section, that this wiull "ultimately lower insurance costs." Who do they think they are fooling?
Posted by: pudge on March 4, 2010 09:56 AMI'll start with my absolute favorite:
http://twitpic.com/16m4uw
Pure irony. The students who are cutting class to protest budget cuts can't even spell.
And here are the rest:
http://twitpic.com/16m7ar ("Schools not Prisons")
http://twitpic.com/16m9xn ("Fund education, tax the rich!")
http://twitpic.com/16maow (Self-described "radical women")
http://twitpic.com/16mbd3 (The inevitable hippie chicks dancing)
http://twitpic.com/16mg6w (And the inevitable blocking of traffic and access to businesses)
The "who'se" is a great "picture worth a thousand words" shots.
I especially love the greybeard with the "tax the rich" sign. Probably a tenured professor who has never made a dime that wasn't taken directly from the taxpayers (mostly the middle class), and has probably never once thanked them for it.
But the scariest has to be "schools not prisons." How about we just send the criminals to live in the dorms, then?
Bunch of uneducated morons. I have to say though, flaunting their ignorance like that is a pretty good argument that they NEED education. If I had faith that would actually learn the stupidity of their beliefs at the university, I might actually be persuaded!
Getting home-schooled by teabaggers has terrible consequences, yes; but those young folks escaped, and are now trying to get educations.
Learning how to pay for things yourself, if you really want them.
Moral: if you want a free education, choose to be born G.W. Bush. (And a good thing he got all-expenses-paid trips to Yale and Harvard, too: otherwise, he'd have become an ignorant, lazy, incurious drunkard.) If you choose to be born into a poor and violent household, where education is not valued, don't expect us to help you get that biomedical engineering degree. We'd rather die from our cancers than have the likes of you cure us!
Shorter pudge: damned kids, get offa my lawn!!
Posted by: tensor on March 4, 2010 10:06 PMAs a person born to a poor and violent household that really didn't value education (I was the first on either side to graduate high school): my MSEE is proof you're simply an idiot.
I did it the hard way - I earned it. I paid for it. I paid my way through a PRIVATE college. And if kids these days aren't willing to give up the latest MP3 player, or eating out every Friday and Saturday, or buying the latest and greatest laptop, then they're not mature enough to be IN college.
It can be - and is - done without handouts or gifts or family donations. And it's valued that much higher as a result. Too many consider college a time for socialization and "growing as a person", basically an extended party time. Well, tough luck on that; welcome to the real world.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 4, 2010 10:22 PMA couple of those widely known "terrible consequences" of being "homeschooled by teabaggers" are usually that 1. you know spelling and grammar pretty well, and 2. you aren't a self-avowed socialist. So the evidence is against your idiotic assertion that these people were "homeschooled by teabaggers."
Moral: if you want a free education ...
... don't try to force anyone else to pay for it. Simple. Your dishonest attempts to make me say anything other than this are even less convincing than your attempt to say these public school products were "homeschooled by teabaggers."
If you had have a clue you'd realize that home-schooled students tend to outperform public-schooled students by 50-80 points on the SAT, both verbal and math. But that's OK, it doesn't fit in to your hateful, bigoted, prejudicial beliefs.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 4, 2010 11:06 PMMore importantly, we need to introduce education to Milton Friedman's "Shock Doctrine" and let the free market impact it more.
Right now the situation is dire -- rates held low by taxes on the working poor and middle class. Loans made by banks that haunt the student through the beginnings of their careers. Diplomas that are worthless for getting the high income jobs the students paid the money for in the first place.
It comes back the availability of high paying jobs in the private sector. That is what was promised by Democrats. That is what THEY DID NOT DELIVER.
I say, fire the Democrat Bums!
As evidenced by all those signs at the public teabaggings, right?
...for college educations most of them probably won't use and don't need.
I guess all of the research you did for this just wouldn't fit on the page.
If you had have a clue you'd realize that home-schooled students tend to outperform public-schooled students by 50-80 points on the SAT, both verbal and math.
Once you get done showing us the research for this, you can prove a causal connection between SAT scores and educational achievement. Good luck with those.
I did it the hard way - I earned it. I paid for it. I paid my way through a PRIVATE college.
Congratulations. You have since, by your own admission, used that degree to obtain government contracts in at least two different countries. Another triumph of our free-market system!! WOLVERINES!!1!
(Just because expensive educations were wasted on your heroes does not mean investing in education is a waste of money for everyone, you know.)
Posted by: tensor on March 5, 2010 12:53 AMWhat's that got to do with homeschooling? Oh, I see, you're just making things up again. Shocker.
I guess all of the research you did for this just wouldn't fit on the page.
No additional research necessary. MOST people do not need college, and MOST college educations are not used significantly.
Learn about the higher test scores of home schooled children. As far as the suitability of the SAT in predicting collegiate success, here's one such source.
Now where's your source indicating the misspelled sign was from a home schooled student from a conservative home? Or are you just making stuff up?
As far as Government contracts I obtained, can you tell me what those are? Or are you lying again to create some point?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 5, 2010 08:02 AMLearn about the higher test scores of home schooled children. As far as the suitability of the SAT in predicting collegiate success, here's one such source.
Now where's your source indicating the misspelled sign was from a home schooled student from a conservative home? Or are you just making stuff up?
As far as Government contracts I obtained, can you tell me what those are? Or are you lying again to create some point?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 5, 2010 08:20 AMI agree with Shanghai Dan as well (yes...very unusual!) A solid homeschool education is almost always far superior to public school, simply because they tend to follow the classical education model (memorization, analysis, rhetoric), and use direct instruction methods that have been PROVEN to be far superior to "modern" methods. Same reason why charter schools do so well. I know plenty of parents who home school..and theres a good many liberals and progressives amongst them. Most smart, well educated parents are emininently better qualified to teach their kids than the average teacher...unfortunately.
Posted by: Proteus on March 6, 2010 12:16 AMI think we better check for flying pigs! :)
I agree with you on the need for college. Note that trade schools exist in the white collar trades as well! Secretarial schools used to be widely available, bookkeeping is an AAS degree that could be handled by trade schools, etc.
However I think more and more businesses require some sort of college degree because, let's face it: if your secretary can't read or write or do basic math, how good will they be? With a college degree you're at least somewhat assured they can do these basic things, moreso than a high school diploma (witness the need for remedial reading, writing, arithmetic in universities and colleges).
And I agree with you about the classical education model - it worked for hundreds of years. Until a child has the ability to logically reason and a decent amount of life experience about HOW and WHEN to reason, they should be stuck with "just the facts". Rote memorization provides a foundation for reason and logic, which should draw from facts not feelings. Elementary school should be about the basics, and high school begins the transition from facts to application (where reason becomes more and more required).
Too bad that's not in vogue; we're doing a serious disservice to public school students, and thus forcing business to "raise the bar" so they have a better shot at a productive employee.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 6, 2010 08:35 AMNo additional research necessary. MOST people do not need college, and MOST college educations are not used significantly.
Ah, so you either can't do the research, or you won't. Thanks. Define "need" and "used significantly."
Instead of sounding like an incontinent old man who has wandered onto his neighbors' porch, and is now yelling at their grandchildren to get offa "his" lawn, why not make a real case against all public education? Since you don't like research, do what you applauded another commenter for doing: confuse anecdotes with data. Use the example of G.W. Bush, to show how his expensive private education made him a better leader. Once you're done recounting his academic, business, and political careers, you should have laid permanently to rest the dispute over whether or not the invisible hand of the private educational market does the optimal job of allocating scarce higher-educational resources. You're a (g)libertarian, right? Go big, or go Galt!!
Posted by: tensor on March 7, 2010 02:36 PMExcept, of course, there is absolutely no basis for your stupid claim. You're lying, as usual.
Ah, so you either can't do the research, or you won't.
I already told you it isn't necessary ... which is self-evident. Literally, everybody knows that most people do not need college. This is not a matter for which research is helpful.
I'd bet most of the people here have some college education, and I doubt there's more than a small percentage of them NEEDED that college education to do anything they do on a daily basis today. My degree in journalism is useful, but I could do journalism without it, and I do computer programming for a living (and I am very good at it) without any formal education in the field whatsoever. Are you saying I am especially brilliant that I can succeed without formal education in a highly technical and specialized field, where others cannot?
do what you applauded another commenter for doing: confuse anecdotes with data
You're a liar.
You're a (g)libertarian, right? Go big, or go Galt!!
You're confusing libertarian with objectivist.
I'm actually in favor of public education. One of the few social services I think government should provide. Of course, the federal government has no business in it whatsoever (it's blatantly unconstitutional, things like Bush's No Child Left Behind, and pretty much everything Arne Duncan wants to do). But the reasons why -- general education of the populace and so on -- have nothing to do with public funding of colleges or universities, which don't generally educate people at all, but specifically educate them, and mostly in ways that they could learn without anyone spending a hundred thousand dollars (or more).
The antecedent for "[t]his" therefore is "your philosophy".
.. I doubt there's more than a small percentage of them NEEDED that college education to do anything they do on a daily basis today.
Your doubts interest me not in the least; I want consistent definitions of your terms, and data to support them. Computer programming is a notoriously slovenly job (forty years ago, the joke went, "If carpenters built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization", and nothing in the intervening decades has invalidated this); there are no standards for the efficacy of computer programs, as there are for projects in other engineering fields. Yes, one can practice programming without formal license or certification, and the proliferation of "blue screens of death" is mute testimony to the failure of this approach.
I'm actually in favor of public education.
A century ago, conservatives decried public education beyond the eighth grade; why should tax monies be spent on high school education, when most youths would grow up to work on farms, or in factories? Now, it's undergraduate education which should not receive public funds. We liberals overcame conservatives then, and we ignore you now; both results are called progress.
Posted by: tensor on March 7, 2010 03:44 PMYou're a liar.
Try again.
Few who survived that experience would get far in a real college.
Prove it. Or do you admit you're just making things up based upon the bigoted stereotypes you carry in your closed mind?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 8, 2010 07:55 AMAre you saying I am especially brilliant that I can succeed without formal education in a highly technical and specialized field, where others cannot?
You can't work for my employer without an accredited degree. (Even so, most of the problems we encounter are with software. The electrical and mechanical systems give us fewer problems.) I don't know what you mean by "where others cannot", as I work with a large number of software developers.
Since digital computers, their software, and the internet were all products of U.S. federal government spending, do you perform ritual self-abasement after you finish your hacks?
And I agree with you about the classical education model - it worked for hundreds of years. Until a child has the ability to logically reason and a decent amount of life experience about HOW and WHEN to reason, they should be stuck with "just the facts". Rote memorization provides a foundation for reason and logic, which should draw from facts not feelings.
Wow, I'm sorry I missed that! Rarely have I seen such a perfect distillation of elitism! (Not to mention outright, obvious error -- "[r]ote memorization" being the exact polar opposite of question, experiment, and reason.) When do we decide whether or not "a child" shall have the opportunity to pursue science, math, or engineering? Age six? Twelve? Two? If Einstein wasn't talking by the age of five, he can just become a lowly clerk, and be happy with it!
Posted by: tensor on March 8, 2010 04:59 PMIf by "teabagger" you mean someone who participates in Tea Parties ... I attempt to educate you all the time. You seem impervious to knowledge, though.
You can't work for my employer without an accredited degree.
That is beside the point I made. I was talking about EDUCATION, which is not the same as a DEGREE. They are almost completely orthogonal, in fact. It is a given that many jobs value a specific type of piece of paper. But the education you got to get that piece of paper matters little, and even when it does matter, usually only a tiny percentage of it matters, and that tiny percentage could have been gained in a completely different way (such as learning on your own, or an apprenticeship, etc.).
I don't know what you mean by "where others cannot", as I work with a large number of software developers.
I received no formal education for computers or programming (except for in the third grade, when our class went to the computer lab a half dozen times and played Lemonade Stand on an Apple IIe ... that is the total of my formal computer training). The topic of this discussion is not what people do, but whether they can succeed in it without formal education for it.
Virtually no company would turn me down for employment due to the fact that I have no formal education; though some might turn me down if I had no college education at all ... even though the college education I did receive is almost completely unrelated to the job of computer programming. It's a joke. (Of course, many companies are smart enough to waive the college degree requirement for applicants who demonstrate skill and experience and so on, but others still require it even if it is unrelated to the job.)
Since digital computers, their software, and the internet were all products of U.S. federal government spending
False. Stop lying, please. (Even if it were true -- and it's not true in any of those examples, in fact -- it would be irrelevant to any point you're trying to make, since you'd have to argue that federal government spending is a necessary condition for their existence, which is obviously untrue in each example.)
"[r]ote memorization" being the exact polar opposite of question, experiment, and reason
False. Stop lying, please. In fact, rote memorization (for previous generations, and arguably today as well) was a necessary precondition for effective use of the scientific method (let alone for being able to put it in its proper philosophical context): whether it's mathematical equations or chemical formulas, it's a part of the process.
When do we decide whether or not "a child" shall have the opportunity to pursue science, math, or engineering? Age six? Twelve? Two?
Do you think there is a correct answer to that question? (Note: not only did I not have any formal education in computers, but I didn't start doing actual programming -- apart from a short stint of BASIC in the sixth grade -- until after I graduated college. And again: I am very good at it.)
But that's OK, better to attack people who actually succeed (home schoolers) than those who fail, simply based upon your ignorant, bigoted hatred!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 8, 2010 09:15 PM