Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 26th, 2012 #101
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,495
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Student Loan Debt Reaches $1 Trillion

Written by Brian Koenig

Friday, 23 March 2012

Constitutionalists and free-market economists claim that the idea that every high school graduate is entitled to a government-subsidized loan to attend a $30,000-a-year university is fiscally maniacal. But unfortunately, it’s also a fiscal reality that has propelled college graduates into financial Armageddon.

Indeed, U.S. student-debt outstanding exceeded $1 trillion last year — according to new estimates released by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — potentially leading to further delays in home-buying and, in turn, an extended impasse on the housing recovery. CFPB student loan ombudsman Rohit Chopra, for instance, asserts that "first-time home-buyers are a substantial part of the housing market," and "instead of saving for a down payment, these borrowers are sending big payments every month."

Bankruptcy attorneys are observing firsthand the calamitous rise in student loan debt, as a recent survey conducted by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys found that 81 percent of bankruptcy lawyers disclosed that the number of prospective clients holding such debt has inflated "significantly" or "somewhat" in the last three to four years.

The student debt debacle, which some experts are labeling the "next debt bomb," involves a coterie of malefactors. On the surface, the culprits entail a stale economy, rising interest rates, and persistently high unemployment. Moreover, CFPB officials contend that such debt is rising because young Americans are returning to college simply to avoid the anemic labor market. These seem to be the logical — and more politically safe — explanations.

But despite what Washington’s entitlement-touting bureaucrats attest, that’s not the end of the story. It encompasses a much more complex plotline.

Predictably, government deserves much of the blame, as its intervention in the higher-education market has spawned a seemingly irreversible distortion that has led to increased tuition costs, and consequently, a monumental rise in student loan debt.

Liberal professors and Occupy Wall Street protesters neglect to realize that their entitlement-based ideology — which affirms that "every American is entitled to a Harvard degree" — is the transgressor.

Similar to the third-party-payer system that is now rattling the fiscal status of American healthcare, the federal government has bolstered its authority in subsidizing tuition costs, as students accumulate bulky government loans to finance their education. This reformed system distorts the high school graduate’s motive to pursue the most competitively-priced schools, prompting many students to select institutions charging $40,000 a year for tuition.

Naturally, this allows colleges and universities to balloon their tuition rates, and thanks to the political meddling that has severely deformed the education market, these institutions get away with it.

As Chopra seemed to indicate, America’s entitlement ideology has left unemployed college graduates in financial turmoil: "Young consumers are shouldering much of the punishment in the form of substantial student-loan bills for doing exactly what they were told would be the key to a better life."

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is the prime example of such advocacy, as he incessantly rails against those who believe doling out $40,000 a year for higher education is not always the favorable choice. "Don’t just go to one that has the highest price," Mitt Romney recently told a student at a town hall meeting. "Go to one that has a little lower price where you can get a good education. And, hopefully, you’ll find that. And don’t expect the government to forgive the debt that you take on."

Krugman was aghast. "Wow. So much for America’s tradition of providing student aid," he wrote in a March 8 article. "And Mr. Romney’s remarks were even more callous and destructive than you may be aware, given what’s been happening lately to American higher education."

"For the past couple of generations, choosing a less expensive school has generally meant going to a public university rather than a private university," Krugman continued. "But these days, public higher education is very much under siege, facing even harsher budget cuts than the rest of the public sector."

"One result has been soaring fees. Inflation-adjusted tuition at public four-year colleges has risen by more than 70 percent over the past decade. So good luck on finding that college ‘that has a little lower price.’"

Well in that case, let’s add up the variables: Government-subsidized loans have caused tuition costs to soar and imprudent government spenders have prompted widespread budget deficits. It appears that Mr. Krugman debunked his own entitlement ideology without even knowing it.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...hes-1-trillion
 
Old April 5th, 2012 #102
Cliff Chambers
Junior Member
 
Cliff Chambers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 156
Cliff Chambers
Default

This thread is nothing but truth. I pay my enemies to attend a school, doing numerous step-by-step classes (and some general ed bullshit, wtf? lol) and I'm really starting to feel this is pointless. Listen, on the job training should be where it's at. Why do I need 5 years to learn about shit I'll just forget in 10 years? Grats bro, you're now in debt until your 40s. And I can't even back out, I'd have to pay every grant and everything back. It's miserable, torturous, and ultimately pointless. And more grant cuts means I'll owe more. Government will never win on this, they realize it, but I'm sure they'll do whatever it takes to squeeze every last penny out of the me as possible. Real.
__________________
Please euthanize the negro at birth.
 
Old April 15th, 2012 #103
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Walter E. Kurtz
Default Jew Kunstler says: Millenials Should Repudiate Student Loans

Strange Jubilee

By James Howard Kunstler
on April 9, 2012 9:26 AM





Is there a Baby Boomer so dim in this land of rackets and swindles who thinks that he or she will escape the wrath of the Millennials rising? The developing story is so obvious that only an academic economist could fail to notice. Here's how it will go: some months from now, as the financial unwind worsens, and the mirage of gainful employment shimmers away to nothing, and the technocrats of Europe meet nervously by some Swiss lakeside (and are seen glumly shaking their heads), and Romney and Obama try to out-do each other peddling miracle cures for the tanking national self-esteem - a dangerous meme will go forth across the internet, and this meme will say: Millennials, renounce your college loans and set yourselves free!

And then something truly marvelous will happen. They will at once disempower the swindling generation of their fathers, teachers, loan officers, and overlords and quite possibly bring on, at long last, the epochal collision of pervasive American control fraud with the hard hand of reality.

I think this will happen, and I would venture even to set the meme loose here and now and watch it go viral. The college loan racket has been an even more cynical enterprise than the mortgage racket was because so many people who ought to have known better, people of supposed intelligence such as college deans, cabinet secretaries, and think-tank Yodas, all colluded to support the false promise that the gigantic cargo cult of higher ed would keep churning out fresh careers forever - when the truth was that the entire groaning vessel of hopes and dreams was already under water and sinking into the eternal darkness.

And is there a Millennial so dim who believes that the promised package of lifetime goodies once called "a job with benefits" waits like a liveried servant to conduct them without friction through the ceremonies of career and family according to premises and promises of an obsolete American Dream? Dreams do die hard. As dreams go it was a pretty good one while it lasted, but like all dreams, it has vanished in the mists of a new morning leaving the dreamers half-sick, anxious, and drained. They have nothing to lose but their fears of the re-po man and the simulated dudgeon of telephone robot debt-collectors.

This idea should catch on as the election season heats up. Like the anti-war youth of August, 1968, burning their draft cards in the streets of Chicago, the Millennials should flock to Charlotte and Tampa this summer and fill the parking lots (there are no streets in these places) with the smoke of their burning loan contracts - and then proceed with the loud repudiation of party politics in its two current useless, lying, craven, feckless factions. The effrontery of these rogues, promising a hundred years of shale gas, and jobs, jobs, jobs, and a personal relationship with Jesus! Send them packing into the bowels of history, then go home and make it work locally, where it will have to happen in any case because the arc of events has a velocity of its own now and that is our certain destination.

The colleges themselves will, of course, implode shortly, along with everything else currently organized on the super-gigantic scale. They are no more prepared for what is about to happen to them than the chiselers in government, banking, medicine, and global corporate enterprise. We will wonder in retrospect how they ever managed to winkle 50-grand a year for their absurd promises, and how we permitted young people with undeveloped powers of judgment to sign their financial lives away on terms even more stringent than their parents' mortgages. When the universities do go down, tossing their employees overboard in the process, it will be interesting to see the former faculty chairpersons and distinguished professors of econometric modeling learn how to plant kale and care for chickens side-by-side with their formerly-indentured students. I can imagine a period of turmoil in America even harsher than, say, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s in China where officials, professors, and authorities of all kinds were paraded through the angry mobs wearing dunce caps. Weird things happen history.

The college loan money will not be paid back anyway, so Millennial youth ought to seize the golden opportunity to make the deliberate point that the years of swindling are officially over now. This strange jubilee could, and should, change everything.
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.
 
Old April 23rd, 2012 #104
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old April 25th, 2012 #105
confederate
Senior Member
 
confederate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: knee deep and surrounded
Posts: 1,764
confederate
Default Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-...lectual-idiots

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots?

As far back as I can remember, the overarching message of the American social atmosphere has been one of idolization. Oh to one day join the ranks of the “professional class”; that 5% to 10% of our culture which enjoys unparalleled respect and an assumed position of knowledge, so much so that they are rarely even required to qualify themselves to anyone besides their own compatriots. The goal of every person I knew during my formative years with a desire to succeed was to one day hold in their hands an official looking embossed document announcing their ascension to the ranks of the intellectually anointed. I was never so keen on the idea…

The dangers of academic deification are numerous. Those who dominate the educational language of the times determine the moral compass (or lack of compass) of the curriculum. They control who is accepted and who is rejected, not by measure of intelligence or skill, but by their willingness to conform to the establishment ideal. They construct a kind of automaton class, which has been taught not to learn independently, but to parrot propaganda without question. Simultaneously, those of us who do not “make the grade” are relegated to the role of obliged worshippers; accepting the claims of the professional class as gospel regardless of how incorrect they happen to be. To put it simply; the whole thing is disgustingly inbred.

Elitism has always lent itself to morbid forms of educational molestation. This is nothing new, especially within their own limited circles. However, to have such perversions of logic and reason gutting the minds of entire generations across endless stretches of our country without any counterbalance is a far more heinous state of affairs in the long run. Ultimately, this highway can only lead to a deterioration of our future, and the death of reason itself.

Recently, I attended a discussion panel on Constitutionalism at a university in Helena, the capital of Montana, and admittedly, was not expecting much insight. (At the moment of arrival I noticed the buildings had been plastered with Kony 2012 posters. The campus seemed to be completely unaware that the YouTube film is a George Soros funded ‘Wag the Dog’ farce.) Even in a fiercely independent region such as the Northern Rockies, the collectivist hardline reigns supreme on most college campuses. Sadly, very few actual students attended the discussion, and the audience was predominantly made up of local political players, retired legislators, and faculty. Surprisingly, Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers was invited to participate in the discussion, obviously to add at least some semblance of balance or “debate” to an otherwise one-sided affair. The mix was like oil and water.

The overall tone was weighted with legal drudgery. Many of the speakers were focused intently on secondary details and banal explorations into individual Constitutional cases without any regard for the bigger picture. When confronted with questions on the indefinite detainment provisions of the NDAA, government surveillance, or executive ordered assassinations of U.S. citizens, the panelists responded with lukewarm apathy. The solutions we discuss regularly within the Liberty Movement, such as state nullification based on the 10th Amendment, assertions of local political control through Constitutional Sheriffs, and even civil disobedience, were treated with indignant responses and general confusion.

A consistent theme arose from the academics present, trying to run damage control on Rhodes’ points on federal encroachment and ultimate tyranny. Their position? Defiance is unacceptable (or at least, not politically correct…). Americans have NO recourse against a centralized government. Not through their state and local representatives, and not through concerted confrontation. In fact, to even suggest that states act on their own accord without permission is an outlandish idea. In the end, the only outlet for the public is….to vote.

No one seemed to be able to address the fact that both major parties supported the exact same unconstitutional policies, thus making national level elections an act of pure futility. The point was brushed aside…

Sickly shades of socialism hung heavy in the room. One speaker even suggested that the states could not possibly survive financially without centralized aid. He was apparently too ignorant to understand that the federal government itself is bankrupt, incapable of producing true savings, and printing fiat Ad Nauseum just to stay afloat. Every 30 seconds I heard a statement that made me cringe.

Universities are today’s centers of connection. They are one of the last vestiges of American tribalism and community in an age of self isolation and artificial technological cultism. Adults do not meet face to face much anymore to share knowledge, or discuss the troubles of the day. The academic world provides such opportunity, but at a terrible price. To connect with the world, students must comply. To be taken seriously, they must adopt, consciously or unconsciously, the robes of the state. They must abandon the passions of rebellion and become indifferent to the truth. All actions and ideas must be embraced by the group, or cast aside. They must live a life of dependency, breeding a culture of fear, for that which others to keep for us, they can easily take away.

How could anyone possibly sustain themselves on a diet of congealing fantasy, and personal inadequacy? The intellectual life bears other fruits as well. Where it lacks in substance, it makes up for in ego, proving that being educated is not necessarily the same as being intelligent. The following is a list of common character traits visible in the average intellectual idiot, a breed that poisons the American well, and is quickly eroding away any chance of Constitutional revival…

1) An Obsession With The Appearance Of Objectivity

I say “appearance” of objectivity because the intellectual idiot does indeed take sides on a regular basis, and the side he takes invariably benefits the establishment. He would never admit to this, though, because he believes it gives him more credibility to at least be thought of as standing outside an issue looking in. It is not uncommon to find Intellectual Idiots being contrary regardless of your view, even if they would normally agree. They often try to approach debate with the façade of detachment, as if they do not care one way or the other. The costume soon wears away, however, when they are faced with an opponent that is not impressed with their educational status. I have seen lawyers, doctors, engineers, and even politicians devolve into sniveling toddlers when they are derailed by an argument beyond their ability to tap-dance around. Their middle of the road persona evaporates, and the real person erupts like an ugly pustule…

2) Clings To Labels And Status

Like anyone else, Intellectual Idiots cradle a philosophy they believe in, or are told to believe in. But unlike most of us, they see themselves above the scrutiny of those who do not pursue a similar academic path (i.e. only a lawyer should be allowed to debate another lawyer). The reality is, anyone is privy to the information a proponent of the professional class knows. With the advent of the internet, it is easier than ever to educate one’s self on multiple subjects without aid if that person has the determination to do so. Reputation is not earned by shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for university approval. A Masters Degree or Ph.D is not a get out of logic free card. In fact, because the Intellectual Idiot often uses his position to avoid true opposition, he tends to become lazy and even more incapable of defending his methodologies when the time comes.

3) Predominantly Collectivist

The curriculum of the average college is partly to blame for this, and because the Intellectual Idiot is so desperate for acceptance and accolades, they can’t help but fall into the trap. Collectivism is marked by a distinct attachment to the state as the source of life. All social and all individual crises thus become a matter of government purview. Individual self reliance is a terrifying notion to them. In fact, many Intellectual Idiots have lived on the dole since they were born, moving from their family’s money, to state money through grants and loans. It is not unheard of for these people to become career students, avoiding work for years, and then moving on to a bureaucratic job when the free money runs out. They cannot fathom why anyone would rebel against the system, because they are a part of a select group which has always benefited from it. How could the federal government be bad when it has paid their way for half of their existence?

4) Disconnection From Reality

The Intellectual Idiot is not necessarily afraid to acknowledge that the system is troubled. For them, the federal government is not infallible, even if their favorite party is in office, but, it IS unapproachable. Academics revel in the disastrous nature of government. They see political and social catastrophe as a sort of mental gameplay. An exercise in theoretical structures. For them, America is not a country built on an enduring set of principles, but a petri dish; an ongoing anthropological experiment that they can watch through a microscope at their leisure. The idea that the disasters they view from the safety of their sub-cultural bubble might one day come to haunt them is a distant one.

5) Abhors Those Who Step Out Of Bounds

Have you ever entertained a view that went against the grain of the mainstream only to be met with accusations of extremism and sneers befitting a leper? You were probably talking to an intellectual idiot. The rules, no matter how distasteful or meaningless, hold special power for these people. They make the system what it is, and when the system is your great provider, you might lean towards defending it, even in the wake of oligarchy and abuse. This penchant for overt structure for the sake of centralization is especially damaging to our Constitutional rights, because alternative solutions are never treated as viable. During the panel discussion in Helena, pro-collectivists consistently tried to redirect the conversation away from the 10th Amendment as a method to counter federal overreach. They did this by bringing up abuses of the states, including slavery and segregation, as if that somehow negated the nightmare of the NDAA.

Ironically, they saw the use of violence by the federal government to push states to recognize civil liberties as perfectly practical. But, the use of force by states to protect the same civil liberties from Washington D.C.? That would be lunacy…

6) Believes Academia To Be Free From Bias

The Intellectual Idiot assimilates every bit of information he is given at the university level without a second look. He simply assumes it is all true, and if something appears mismatched, it is only because he does not yet fully grasp it. Very rarely will he go beyond designated source materials to get a different opinion. This habit is the root of his idiocy. Being that most universities draw from the same exact materials, and peer reviewed papers are usually tested by those with the exact same underlying educational backgrounds, I can’t see how it is possible for much variety of thought to form. Whether intentional or not, severe bias cannot be avoided in this kind of environment without considerable strength of heart.

The shock that these people express when faced with Liberty Movement philosophies is quite real. They have spent the very focus of their future life within the confines of a miniscule spectrum of truth; like seeing technicolor for the first time after a long limited existence in black and white.

It’s hard to say when it all really began, but for decades, Americans have been progressively tuned like pliable radio antenna to the song of the elitist intellectual. Many of us want to be him. Others want to follow him, straight to oblivion if need be, as long as they don’t have to blaze their own trail. This is not to say all professionals are a danger to the Republic. Some are fantastic proponents of freedom. But, without a drastic reversal in current educational trends, I see little hope of Constitutional guardians becoming a mainstay of U.S. campuses in the near term.

With mashed potato minds fresh from the psychological Cuisinart of public schools, the next generation in line to inherit the most fantastically schizophrenic nation in history will be like candy for social engineers; utterly unequipped for the mission. Strangely, the drastic financial slide the elites have also triggered might hold the key to our salvation. The next batch of would be statist citizens may find themselves so poor that higher educational brainwashing will be impossible to afford, giving them precious time to think for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. As they say, in all things, there is a silver lining…
__________________
"OY,VEY ALREADY!!"

Dr. William Pierce
 
Old April 26th, 2012 #106
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,495
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Half of College Grads Find Either No Work or No Degree-Related Work
Written by Bob Adelmann

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

More than half of college students graduating this June can expect to find either no work, or work that doesn’t utilize their freshly minted skills, according to the Associated Press.

Of the 1.5 million bachelor’s degree holders under age 25, more are likely to be employed as waiters, waitresses, bartenders, or food-service helpers than as engineers, chemists, physicists, or mathematicians. More of them are working in office-related jobs such as receptionists or payroll clerks that in all computer-related jobs put together. Said the AP:

[O]nly three of the 30 occupations with the largest projected number of job openings by 2020 will require a bachelor's degree or higher to fill the position — teachers, college professors and accountants. Most job openings are in professions such as retail sales, fast food and truck driving, jobs which aren't easily replaced by computers…

College graduates who majored in zoology, anthropology, philosophy, art history and humanities were among the least likely to find jobs appropriate to their education level; those with nursing, teaching, accounting or computer science degrees were among the most likely.

Michael Bledsoe, 23, graduated in 2010 with a degree in creative writing and now works as a "barista" or coffee server in a Seattle, Washington, coffeehouse. When he first graduated, he sent out three or four résumés every day, but those who responded said he lacked any real-world experience and some questioned the practical value of his degree. Bledsoe said, “I don’t even know what I’m looking for. There isn’t much out there.”

Cameron Bawden, 22, who expects to graduate from the University of Nevada-Las Vegas in December, has a much more realistic view of the world that awaits: “It’s kind of scary … there are so few jobs.” So he has been busy building his résumé by working on the Las Vegas strip as a food runner as well as doing a marketing internship with a local airline.

But for 24-year-old Kelman Edwards, who just graduated with a degree in biology, the only job he could find was in construction. He said, “I thought my having a biology degree was a gold ticket for me getting into places, but every other job wants you to have previous history. Everyone is telling you, ‘Go to college,’ but when you graduate, it’s kind of an empty cliff.”

Edwards is not alone. A study done by The Chronicle of Higher Education illustrates the world he and his graduate classmates are facing:
482,000 customer service representatives hold at least a bachelor’s degree, along with
317,000 waiters and waitresses
141,000 receptionists
107,000 janitors (5,000 hold PhDs or other doctorates)
85,000 truck drivers
80,000 bartenders
63,000 food preparation workers
62,000 landscapers
59,000 construction workers
49,000 postal workers
37,000 hotel and motel desk clerks, and
18,000 parking lot attendants

The real world that graduates are facing has been predicted for years: more expensive higher-cost education touted as the ticket to high-level work confronted with a shrinking economy where such positions are increasingly hard to find.

Most of them bought into the promise that a higher education was the key to getting a “good job” and a chance to live the “American Dream.” But it hasn’t worked out. Michael, writing at his blog, said:

They have been told not to worry about how much it costs and that there is plenty of financial aid (mostly made up of loans) available. Now our economy is facing the biggest student loan debt bubble in the history of the world, and when our new college graduates enter the “real world” they are finding out that the good jobs they were promised are very few and far between.

For those considering taking on the debt obligations for a college degree, there are numerous options and alternatives, at much lower cost. World Net Daily managing editor David Kupelian explains:

New options abound. The Internet — as revolutionary today as the Gutenberg printing press was five centuries ago — offers endless opportunities for learning, including taking college courses from home. Trade schools, distance learning, community college, going into business, apprenticeships, internship and a hundred other opportunities beckon.

One young man made some good decisions based upon his view of the real world. When he was 18, Will Adelmann (grandson of the writer) signed up at College Plus to get his degree in history. He knew at the time that his career goal was to be a college history professor. He also knew about the excessively high costs of obtaining a degree on a campus, so he is getting his degree online and taking the CLEP (College Level Examination Program) tests to prove his competency. He started in May of 2011 and expects to complete his study and receive his degree from Thomas Edison State College in New Jersey by next summer. In two and a half years, at a total cost of less than $20,000, Will, age 20, will have accomplished more than most his age and done it sooner and more cheaply. Along the way he is adding to his bonafides by working a summer job with a local landscaping company where he was just promoted to team leader over men twice his age.

The combination of bad decisions by uninformed (or misinformed) parents about the benefits of a traditional college education, poor timing, easy government money, and poor planning have doomed many of today’s graduates to a much different work and life experience than they expected. Many are burdened with debt they cannot escape through bankruptcy and consequently will have years to regret their attempt to enjoy the American Dream through higher education. The real world is turning out to be far different from the dream.

http://thenewamerican.com/culture/ed...e-related-work
 
Old April 26th, 2012 #107
Fred
Commie Killer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,546
Fred
Default

The type of degree you get makes all the difference. A friend of mines son just graduated with a bachelors of science ME. He was hired before he finished his senior year. He is making some pretty impressive coin for rookie. I took computer science and electrical engineering. Never had trouble getting a job.

If you take journalism or other liberal arts you may be disappointed.

Last edited by Fred; April 26th, 2012 at 07:33 PM.
 
Old May 12th, 2012 #108
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,495
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred View Post
The type of degree you get makes all the difference. A friend of mines son just graduated with a bachelors of science ME. He was hired before he finished his senior year. He is making some pretty impressive coin for rookie. I took computer science and electrical engineering. Never had trouble getting a job.

If you take journalism or other liberal arts you may be disappointed.
There's nothing wrong with real liberal arts, the problem is that you can't get that in US colleges because the communists have taken over and politicized everything. Of course I overdraw, but what I say is basically true. Now...if you want real liberal arts learning, you can get that privately and for free online, and places like, well, this here - VNNF. If you want education that will help you make money and get a job, then you need to study up on where the degree you're pondering obtaining actually gets you in the real world. The blank or blind assumption that any degree is valuable was never really true and is less true today than it ever was. A degree is a hazy thing; a debt is all too real.

Pre-think what you're doing so you can avoid mistakes. Learn from others. You are not so different from them as you are tempted to think.
 
Old May 12th, 2012 #109
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,495
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Higher Education and the Stratified Society

by William L. Anderson

In a recent column, Paul Krugman called for more federal aid to college students because students are finding it hard to pay tuition. At the same time, he bemoaned the fact that many college graduates today cannot find jobs at all:

You’ve probably heard lots about how workers with college degrees are faring better in this slump than those with only a high school education, which is true. But the story is far less encouraging if you focus not on middle-aged Americans with degrees but on recent graduates. Unemployment among recent graduates has soared; so has part-time work, presumably reflecting the inability of graduates to find full-time jobs. Perhaps most telling, earnings have plunged even among those graduates working full time – a sign that many have been forced to take jobs that make no use of their education.

College graduates, then, are taking it on the chin thanks to the weak economy. And research tells us that the price isn’t temporary: students who graduate into a bad economy never recover the lost ground. Instead, their earnings are depressed for life.

While I doubt that Krugman would be able to appreciate the irony of his statements – that taxpayers should be forced to pony up to finance sending more young people to college even though they cannot find work afterwards – there is a larger economic lesson here that most people don’t understand. Higher education in modern times has been a massive malinvestment that cannot be sustained.

I say this as a college professor (and I suspect I will get a few thousand emails pointing out that fact) whose livelihood depends upon more and more students showing up on campus each year, but I also am an economist and an Austrian economist at that. While I find myself to be part of a Grand Malinvestment, nonetheless I made the choice to be part of it and if I am caught up in a greater liquidation down the road, I bear the consequences of my choosing.

Several months ago I was having some work done on my car, and as I watched the mechanic do work on my auto’s tailpipe, I realized that the economy needed a lot more people like him than people like me In fact, as Austrians point out, government intervention has created a number of huge structures of malinvestment in the economy, which means that there also is an imbalance of workers in various occupations. Austrians note that an economy is a complex structure in which the choices by consumers for consumption goods will determine what factors of production should be used in production and where they should go.

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory holds that when governments through central banks attempt to expand credit and force down interest rates below market levels, the new money created by the monetary and banking system tends to go into lines of production that cannot be sustained. Sooner or later, these malinvestments are exposed and a crisis ensues and these worthless "investments" must be liquidated or directed to other uses compatible with the choices and time preferences of consumers.

What does that mean regarding higher education, and why do I mention a stratified society? After all, according to Krugman and others, sending more young people to college means that they can find higher-paying jobs, so college always should be a good deal for society, right? Not right.

When one says that college graduates go into higher-paying work than people who just finish high school, what is meant is that the factors needed for the particular work require someone with certain credentials, and the payment to these factors is higher than are payments to factors of labor without such credentials. Now, in a free-market economy consumer choice ultimately would decide the value of factors of production, including labor services.

Instead, however, it is the "credentials" of the laborer that decide the value of the labor in the modern, government-regulated marketplace, not the actual ability of the labor in question to satisfy what Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises described as "human needs." While some describe higher education as the enhancement of "human capital," nonetheless we need to draw a distinction between actual occupational learning that is meaningful and actions that simply involve the "punching of a ticket" in the activity of someone gaining legal credentials.

Many of these credentials are gained in the process of one’s earning a certification that comes from a government board (which usually is dominated by members of the profession or people whose employment is in the education process by which one gains certification). Furthermore, many of these particular professions have limited access in order to help maintain the high incomes of those who are seen fit to qualify for a particular license.

People like Krugman immediately would object here, claiming that the licensing boards and the necessary credentialing that goes with it serves as a "quality check" on a particular line of work. After all, they would argue, would someone want a butcher to be a surgeon?

While the rhetoric sounds good, one should remember that incompetent surgeons already exist, along with incompetent people in every licensed profession, which means that a lot of people are able to slip past the supposed "quality control" apparatus that governs numerous professions. But it goes even further than that.

The other day I was driving past an oil-changing shop where they also do brake work. I have fixed the brakes on my own car, including changing the rotors and pads and doing repairs to the slide bolts and brackets, something that would be costly at a shop. Yet, just because I can fix brakes does not mean that any shop that fixes brakes would be willing to hire me because they can find people who can do what I do in their sleep. (The first time, I helped John Sophocleus do brake work and learned a few tricks of the trade from him.)

Occupational licensing and other state-sponsored "quality" checks would have nothing to do with their hiring practices. This shop would need someone who was competent if for no other reason than if they were not done right and the mistake was responsible for an accident, that the shop and its managers would be hung on the line. In part, it is the fear of the ancient tort system that helps drive quality control there, not government credentialing. (I am not sure how the government of Maryland is involved in such matters, as I believe that shops need to be licensed, but not individual repair workers.)

So, if an auto repair shop is concerned about the quality of its repair personnel, why does one think that a hospital or surgical group would hire the first clown that walked through the door? In fact, I suspect that without the fig leaf of a government board license, the medical firms that would be hiring someone might be tempted to look more closely into an applicant’s background than they do now, if for no other reason than the government no longer would be doing the background checks.

We should remember that the emphasis upon credentialing has not arisen because of issues of quality control or continuing trends toward more incompetence, but rather has come about through the legacy of the Progressive Era. During that time, Progressives believed that in order to create more "respectability" for various lines of work, having government set lofty requirements through licensing would mean that practitioners of the profession would be able to be trusted and competent.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in medical care, and much of the current emphasis upon using the state as a quality control device originated with the 1910 Flexner Report. Murray N. Rothbard wrote:

…the roots of the current medical crisis go back much further than the 1950s and medical insurance. Government intervention into medicine began much earlier, with a watershed in 1910 when the much celebrated Flexner Report changed the face of American medicine.

Abraham Flexner, an unemployed former owner of a prep school in Kentucky, and sporting neither a medical degree nor any other advanced degree, was commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation to write a study of American medical education. Flexner's only qualification for this job was to be the brother of the powerful Dr. Simon Flexner, indeed a physician and head of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. Flexner's report was virtually written in advance by high officials of the American Medical Association, and its advice was quickly taken by every state in the Union.

The result: every medical school and hospital was subjected to licensing by the state, which would turn the power to appoint licensing boards over to the state AMA. The state was supposed to, and did, put out of business all medical schools that were proprietary and profit-making, that admitted blacks and women, and that did not specialize in orthodox, "allopathic" medicine: particu larly homeopaths, who were then a substantial part of the medical profession, and a respectable alternative to orthodox allopathy.

Thus through the Flexner Report, the AMA was able to use government to cartelize the medical profession: to push the supply curve drastically to the left (literally half the medical schools in the country were put out of business by post-Flexner state governments), and thereby to raise medical and hospital prices and doctors' incomes.

In all cases of cartels, the producers are able to replace consumers in their seats of power, and accordingly the medical establishment was now able to put competing therapies (e.g., homeopathy) out of business; to remove disliked competing groups from the supply of physicians (blacks, women, Jews); and to replace proprietary medical schools financed by student fees with university-based schools run by the faculty, and subsidized by foundations and wealthy donors.

When managers such as trustees take over from owners financed by customers (students of patients), the managers become governed by the perks they can achieve rather than by service of consumers. Hence: a skewing of the entire medical profession away from patient care to toward high-tech, high-capital investment in rare and glamorous diseases, which rebound far more to the prestige of the hospital and its medical staff than it is actually useful for the patient-consumers.

As Dale Steinreich noted, the "reforms" put into place post-Flexner severely limited individual access to medical care while at the same time enriching physicians. Not surprisingly, medical schools were able to charge higher tuition (with for-profit medical schools being legislated out of business) with the end result being that today medical schools essentially "capture" the economic profits of individual physicians, as most come out of med school carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.

Furthermore, doctors and their state-enforcement bureaus will protect their territory at all costs, even if that protection harms people who need medical care. One example was the prosecution of Jesse Maloney, the wife of a mine worker in eastern California and a licensed practical nurse. The area where the Maloneys lived was very remote and the one doctor under whose supervision she worked only came to the various towns sporadically, as he had to travel by his own private, single-engine plane.

Maloney was the person called when there were medical emergencies and she ran the doctor’s office, and at times gave "prescription" medicine to people who needed care. The people of her town thought her to be a godsend, but California authorities had her arrested and put on trial. A jury acquitted her, much to the delight of people in her community. (I suspect that today, a jury would convict because prosecutors and judges would order them to do so and everyone knows that government regulations always result in higher quality. The affair was made into a movie starring Lee Remick. Not surprisingly, the highly-Progressive Los Angeles Times, which rarely meets a government regulatory edict with disapproval, didn’t like the movie.)

Unfortunately, occupational licensing and state-ordered credentialing are not limited to medical care. Progressives long have dreamed of "professionalizing" nearly everything, which means that in order to find work that is legal, people need to impose all sorts of costs of education upon themselves.

Even the vast coercive power of Progressives, however, cannot overturn laws of economics, and even with all of the education requirements needed for modern employment, an economy in depression cannot employ people whose skills are not needed by consumers. Thus, Krugman and others of his ideological stripe have a plan: have governments "create" new positions within the bureaucracies and pay for these jobs with newly-borrowed or printed money.

At the same time, Krugman demands that taxpayers pony up to pay even for tuition for students while simultaneously funneling more tax dollars to colleges and universities. Why? Well, college costs are increasing and Krugman and others believe it is unfair that given the stratification of our economy due to various state edicts, more students cannot go to college.

If one finds a disconnect in the "logic," that is because there is a huge disconnect. As in medical care, third-party payments along with increased federal regulation placed upon colleges and universities have driven up costs, so Krugman essentially is claiming that the "solution" to putting out the fire is throwing more gasoline on it.

Moreover, when a highly-decorated economists believes that creating more "jobs" in the bureaucracy via the "magic" of inflation somehow is good for the economy, it tells us just how out-of-touch with reality mainstream economics has become. The U.S. economy does not need more bureaucrats; it needs fewer bureaucrats and more entrepreneurs seeking economic profits.

Instead of creating opportunity, Progressives through their forcing people to gain education that they don’t need have created a stratified society that destroys opportunity after opportunity. Such policies lay burdens upon people that are reflected in the huge post-education debts that have risen to the trillion-dollar mark.

Not only is this madness, but it is unsustainable madness at that. In the name of creating economic opportunities, Progressives like Krugman destroy the very thing they claim to be saving: our economy.

May 12, 2012

William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit his blog.

http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson335.html
 
Old June 27th, 2012 #110
DMS
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 193
DMS
Default What "innovation" means these days

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47969316.../#.T-txxsXNnsF


Professor patents way to stop textbook sharing by students

The college student tradition of sharing or selling used textbooks could come to a screeching halt based on a professor's new patent. That patent would require students to buy access codes with their textbooks to join in mandatory online discussion boards — and failure to participate would mean lower grades.

A press release first announced the patent filing's approval as U.S. Patent No. 8195571 on June 5. It described the invention by Joseph Henry Vogel, an economics professor at the University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras, as a way to prevent textbook piracy and allow publishers to earn money from resold textbooks or pirated e-book versions.

"In the case of a used book or pirated download, the student pays for the access code," according to the press release. "No payment — no access code — no participation — lower final grade."
 
Old June 27th, 2012 #111
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMS View Post
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47969316.../#.T-txxsXNnsF


Professor patents way to stop textbook sharing by students

The college student tradition of sharing or selling used textbooks could come to a screeching halt based on a professor's new patent. That patent would require students to buy access codes with their textbooks to join in mandatory online discussion boards — and failure to participate would mean lower grades.

A press release first announced the patent filing's approval as U.S. Patent No. 8195571 on June 5. It described the invention by Joseph Henry Vogel, an economics professor at the University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras, as a way to prevent textbook piracy and allow publishers to earn money from resold textbooks or pirated e-book versions.

"In the case of a used book or pirated download, the student pays for the access code," according to the press release. "No payment — no access code — no participation — lower final grade."
Textbook Piracy?

These publishing bastards (who survive off of the government's own transfer payments that jack-up the price of edumacation--just like the government itself jacks-up the price of healthcare) make the Sheriff of Nottingham look like John the Baptist.
 
Old July 15th, 2012 #112
Trevor Dermott
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 326
Trevor Dermott
Default

The textbook industry is a complete scam. It never made sense to me to have to update a text on Calculus (a subject which has existed for ~300 years where the essentials have not changed at all, anymore than the essentials of arithmetic or geometry have changed), yet they're still pumping them out as fast as ever, every year. It's the same with most introductory science books. All bullshit.

It's semi-arguable that new updates are necessary for the "soft sciences", since popular viewpoints in those "sciences" appear to change so often, but in that sense, they're not really science at all, are they? (jewed "social sciences" ? yep - totally)

Really, western civilization would be better off if we eliminated all liberal arts in the universities for the time being and stuck to engineering and science - that's right: "nuke the entire site from orbit - it's the only way to be sure"

We can rebuild liberal arts afterwards. (I'm talking about solutions in that last sentence.)

Moving on, I have a little bit of first hand experience with the textbook purchasing process, believe it:

Once I was an undergraduate researcher and worked for a professor of high talents, who himself worked for a professor of high esteem (and high talents). We undergrad researchers were invited to attend demonstrations by text-book publishers whose books and internet services were to be involved in the next year's classes.

You must understand the position of these textbook publishers: A contract deal for a year (for the whole university and all its students!) that you can land - all those dumbass undergrads taking physics 101 (or 102!) because they needed it for pre-med, forced to buy a certain book, forced to use a certain internet system, forced to spend money... well, the shekels pile high if you can get several hundred state universities to go along with this sort of contract, you understand. This wasn't insignificant.

The three textbook makers at my particular university were basically selling the same shit (as I said, introductions to real sciences like physics or calculus don't change, but those textbooks sure do seem to change every year) and I went to three presentations - but one of them provided a tasty sandwich dish which we undergrads, grad students, and professors enjoyed greatly. Afterwards I said to my professor - "Man, they all seemed more or less the same, trying to land that contract, but let's go with the one that provided us with tasty food!" He agreed, "Yep, what's the difference?" We both had a hearty laugh. Later that month, the entire faculty voted on the one I (and plenty of others) liked.


That's how textbooks get selected in modern universities.

The end.
 
Old July 15th, 2012 #113
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,863
Crowe
Default

Unless you are going to college for Engineering, Sciences, Medical, or maybe legal, you are wasting your time.

So many kids are going to college for some form of Liberal Arts then finding themselves unemployed with student loan dept and working at Walmart like my Cousin is who makes $10/hour as a cashier.

You are also wasting your time going to any sort of Votech for trades. You are better off just finding a job, and starting out as a grunt and working your way up. Because from what I gathered, even with that Votech degree, you are starting at the bottom as a grunt anyway, so what is the damn point in paying to go to school for something when what they teach doesn't get enough respect in the field from professionals to start you out as anything more than a grunt? Its because what they teach in the classroom isn't up to snuff, and they end up having to re-train you to do it their way. Which means you have to un-learn whatever bad habits they trained you to do in school.

A friend of mine went to Votech for machining, it was a 2 year program, and he couldn't believe how hostile that trade is for new people getting into it. Basically he told me the attitude is you either know your shit, or get the fuck out. Anyway that is going to be a dying trade in the future, and most of the machining jobs are going to end up in China/Korea, so its probably not a good trade to be getting into. Once all the old farts die out, and when they realize they got nobody to take their place, that entire trade is going to die in the US, and the jobs will ship overseas by default.
 
Old July 29th, 2012 #114
Hunter Morrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,802
Hunter Morrow
Default

College degrees just stand in for an endorsement of somebody's moral character, discipline and intellect. An employer can't give IQ tests anymore. That'd be racist because the 85 IQ niggers and 90 IQ bean niggers would never pass. There are states where you can't give a criminal background check because it "adversely effects" the 25 percent of the population that commits 80 percent of the crime. Aptitude tests are likewise banned in hiring and in many cases promoting people. The latest push is to make it illegal to drug test people because niggers and spics abuse drugs.

So in this country an employer can't...

IQ test
Aptitude Test
Drug Test
Background Check

What the fuck can the guy do except ask if somebody has a college degree? But the thing with something like a signalling item like a degree is it signals less and less and means less and less the more that people have them.
If 70 percent of the country had diamond rings and gold coins and ruby slippers they wouldn't be as scarce, special or financially valuable.

All of these people with real-world worthless degrees just further dilute the value of the degrees. The president, public schools and college boards want mandatory school attendance until 18 and mandatory applications to college. Well, if EVERYBODY has a degree then it is worthless. Like the Incredibles, weird movie to reference I know, but if EVERYBODY is "special" that means nobody is special!
 
Old September 13th, 2012 #115
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,495
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Student Loan Debt Bubble Is Creating Millions of Modern Day Serfs

Every single year, millions of young adults head off to colleges and universities all over America full of hopes and dreams. But what most of those fresh-faced youngsters do not realize is that by taking on student loan debt they are signing up for a life of debt slavery. Student loan debt has become a trillion dollar bubble which has shattered the financial lives of tens of millions of young college graduates. When you are just starting out and you are not making a lot of money, having to make payments on tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt can be absolutely crippling. The total amount of student loan debt in the United States has now surpassed the total amount of credit card debt, and student loan debt is much harder to get rid of. Many young people view college as a "five year party", but when the party is over millions of those young people basically end up as modern day serfs as they struggle to pay off all of the debt that they have accumulated during their party years. Bankruptcy laws have been changed to make it incredibly difficult to get rid of student loan debt, so once you have it you are basically faced with two choices: either you are going to pay it or you are going to die with it.

But we don't warn kids about this before they go to school. We just endlessly preach to them that they need a college degree in order to get a "good job", and that after they graduate they will easily be able to pay off their student loans with the "good job" that they will certainly be able to find.

Sadly, tens of millions of young Americans have left college in recent years only to find out that they were lied to all along.

As I have written about previously, college has become a giant money making scam and the victims of the scam are our young people.

Back in 1952, a full year of tuition at Harvard was only $600.

Today, it is over $35,000.

Why does college have to cost so much?

At every turn our young people are being ripped off.

For example, the cost of college textbooks has tripled over the past decade.

Has it suddenly become a lot more expensive to print books?

Of course not.

The truth is that an entire industry saw an opportunity to gouge students and they went for it.

The amount of money being spent on higher education in this country is absolutely outrageous. One father down in Texas says that he will end up spending about 1.5 million dollars on college expenses for his five daughters before it is all said and done.

Unfortunately, most young adults in America don't have wealthy fathers so they have to take out large student loans to pay for their educations.

Average student loan debt at graduation is estimated to be about $28,720 right now.

That is a crazy figure and it has absolutely soared in recent years. In fact, student loan debt in America has grown by 511 percent since 1999.

And student loan debt will follow you wherever you go.

If you do not pay your loans when you graduate, you could end up having your wages, your tax refunds and even your Social Security benefits garnished.

In addition, your account could be turned over to the debt collectors and they can be absolutely brutal.

The student loan debt bubble is the best thing to happen to debt collectors in ages. The following is what one professional who works in the industry said in a recent article that he wrote for a debt collection industry publication....

As I wandered around the crowd of NYU students at their rally protesting student debt at the end of February, I couldn’t believe the accumulated wealth they represented – for our industry.

It was lip-smacking.

At my right, to graphically display how she was debt-burdened, was a girl wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the fine sum of $90,000, another with $65,000, a third with $20,000 and over there a really attractive $120,000 was printed on another shirt. Guys were shouldering their share, with t-shirts of $20,000, $15,000, $27,000, $33,000 and $75,000.


There is no way that our young people can afford to take on those kinds of debt loads, and that is one reason why student loan delinquency rates continue to surge.

In fact, the student loan default rate in the United States has nearly doubled since 2005.

Today, one out of every six Americans that owes money on a student loan is in default.

One out of every six.

And it is going to get a whole lot worse.

At this point there are about 5.9 million Americans that are at least 12 months behind on their student loan payments.

So could the bursting of the student loan bubble do tremendous damage to our financial system?

Don't worry – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is promising that the student loan debt bubble won't cause a crisis.

And you can trust him, right?

For those living with the burden of unpaid student loan debt, life can be really tough. Some try to avoid the debt collectors, but it is easier said than done. The following is from a recent article in the New York Times....

Hiding from the government is not easy.

“I keep changing my phone number,” said Amanda Cordeiro, 29, from Clermont, Fla., who dropped out of college in 2010 and has fielded as many as seven calls a day from debt collectors trying to recover her $55,000 in overdue loans. “In a year, this is probably my fourth phone number.”

Unlike private lenders, the federal government has extraordinary tools for collection that it has extended to the collection firms. Ms. Cordeiro has already had two tax refunds seized, and other debtors have had their paychecks or Social Security payments garnisheed.


The biggest problem, of course, is that there are not nearly enough jobs for the hordes of college graduates that our system produces each year.

During 2011, 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor's degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed.

So without a good job, how are those young people supposed to service their student loans?

Once upon a time, a college degree was a guaranteed ticket to the middle class.

Sadly, those days are long gone. Today, millions upon millions of college graduates have taken jobs that do not even require a college education. The following is from a recent CNBC article....

In the last year, they were more likely to be employed as waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers than as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians combined (100,000 versus 90,000). There were more working in office-related jobs such as receptionist or payroll clerk than in all computer professional jobs (163,000 versus 100,000). More also were employed as cashiers, retail clerks and customer representatives than engineers (125,000 versus 80,000).

You probably know young people who have experienced the "wake up call" that comes as a result of entering the "real world" in this horrible economic environment.

It is not easy out there.

And this can be extremely disappointing for parents as well. How would you feel if your daughter got very high grades all of the way through college and ended up working as a waitress because she couldn't find anything else?

Even those that pursue advanced degrees are having an extremely challenging time finding work in this economy.

For example, a Business Insider article from a while back profiled a law school graduate named Erin that is actually on food stamps....

She remains on food stamps so her social life suffers. She can't afford a car, so she has to rely on the bus to get around Austin, Texas, where she lives. And currently unable to pay back her growing pile of law school debt, Gilmer says she wonders if she will ever be able to pay it back.

"That has been really hard for me," she says. "I have absolutely no credit anymore. I haven't been able to pay loans. It's scary, and it's a hard thing to think you’re a lawyer but you’re impoverished. People don’t understand that most lawyers actually aren’t making the big money."

And the really sad thing is that the quality of the education that our young people are receiving is very poor. I spent eight years attending U.S. universities, and most parents would be absolutely shocked at how little our college students are actually learning.

Going to college really has become a ticket to party for four or five or six years with a little bit of "education" thrown in.

But our society has put a very high value on those little pieces of paper called "diplomas" so we all continue to play along with the charade.

Some college students are finding other "creative" ways to pay for their educations other than going into tremendous amounts of debt. For example, an increasing number of young women are seeking out "sugar daddies" who will "sponsor" their educations. The following is from a Huffington Post article about this disturbing trend....

On a Sunday morning in late May, Taylor left her Harlem apartment and boarded a train for Greenwich, Conn. She planned on spending the day with a man she had met online, but not in person.

Taylor, a 22-year-old student at Hunter College, had confided in her roommate about the trip and they agreed to swap text messages during the day to make sure she was safe.

Once in Greenwich, a man who appeared significantly older than his advertised age of 42 greeted Taylor at the train station and then drove her to the largest house she had ever seen. He changed into his swimming trunks, she put on a skimpy bathing suit, and then, by the side of his pool, she rubbed sunscreen into the folds of his sagging back -- bracing herself to endure an afternoon of sex with someone she suspected was actually about 30 years her senior.

Of course that young woman will probably deeply regret doing that later on in her life.

Once graduation comes, millions upon millions of our young people are discovering that it is really hard to be financially independent if you are drowning in student loan debt and you can't find a good job.

So what are they doing?

They are moving back in with Mom and Dad.

One poll discovered that 29 percent of all Americans in the 25- to 34-year-old age bracket are still living with their parents.

Ouch.

Reprinted with permission from the Economic Collapse Blog.

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/student-...bt-bubble.html
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #116
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/3/162338/5646

I understand differential equations. I can solve some of the simpler ones myself, and I can understand the solutions of the more complicated ones if I'm walked through it. Like probably most everyone else, I first encountered DiffEq in high school calculus, where it was mentioned and then quickly forgotten. I ran into them again in the introductory physics series. Then again in Optics. Then again in Quantum Mechanics. I felt I was really starting to get the hang of it, but I wanted a deeper understanding.
So I signed up for the 200-level Differential Equations course. I'm a senior so it feels a little like stooping, but whatever. I didn't feel I could just jump into the higher level mathematics courses.

God help us all. The entire mathematics department at pdx.edu, as I've come to realize, is based around "group work, group thinking, critical thinking," yadda yadda yadda. I consider this crap the ultimate in cutesy-patooey, and I honestly feel a bit sick in the class.

Don't berate me for putting down group work and critical thinking. Of course these things are important, but I already have these skills. I've been working in groups in the industry for the last three years, and it's done wonders for my critical thinking as well.

The thing that irritates me is that the instructor will ask a question. For example: "If a population grows at a rate proportional to itself, then what sort of function would describe that population over time?" The answer, of course, is an exponential function. I can even get up on the stupid blackboard and show that it's exponential. But this answer is unacceptable, because I'm supposed to "think critically," and "consider all the possibilities." Forget the fact that there's a right answer. In fact, forget all about getting the right answers altogether! It's the thought process that counts, and right answers are secondary to that. Apparently it didn't occur to the instructor that I might possibly have had a thought process while solving the problem. One correct thought process is not enough. We need to have 5 incorrect ones as well. At least.

I feel belittled, insulted, patronized, condescended-to. I'm quite capable of independent thought, I just need to be given pointers in the right directions, and explanations when I get lost.

I'm sorry, but f*ck this. I want to learn about differential equations; how to manipulate them, solve them, and apply them. I don't want to be asked "How do you feel about this solution?" I want the god damned solution. It's idiotic experiments in education like this that make the school system in the United States suck so bad. The last time I took a class like this, I was in middle school.

I'm thinking of dropping it. I'm quite certain I can learn it on my own, if I have a few good textbooks. Can anyone recommend? Or give me just one good reason why I should stick it out.
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #117
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Financial security is a very important part of life. And to me, it simply makes no financial sense, to invest so much time and energy into a career that wouldn't pay at least fairly decent.
Ha. I wish the administrators and professors in graduate school can have that kind of level-headed view. Most times, though, they cling to their cult mentality and try to brainwash their students into thinking that poverty is no big deal and that people should go for their love and passion. I know more people whose life has been f*&ked over by that mentality than drugs.
----------------------
 
Old September 28th, 2012 #118
R. Pearson
The Jew Hunter
 
R. Pearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Apelanta
Posts: 638
R. Pearson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
I'm sorry, but f*ck this. I want to learn about differential equations; how to manipulate them, solve them, and apply them. I don't want to be asked "How do you feel about this solution?" I want the god damned solution. It's idiotic experiments in education like this that make the school system in the United States suck so bad. The last time I took a class like this, I was in middle school.

I'm thinking of dropping it. I'm quite certain I can learn it on my own, if I have a few good textbooks. Can anyone recommend? Or give me just one good reason why I should stick it out.
Most K-12 and undergraduate statistics and mathematics instructors are not very good. They employ cook-book approaches; beyond that, they usually don't have much to say. Perhaps, that is what you are experiencing. An appropriate question would be: Is this the most efficient (or elegant) solution? That would presume, of course, that they began your instruction with proofs and not just templates of solutions for specific types of problems.

If this is an undergraduate course, ask to sit in on a graduate mathematics course during their review of differential equations (they usually have such a review in 500-level courses). I found this useful in econometrics; I learned in a week or two what most undergrads spent an entire semester on - not too unusual when one considers how faculty and departments meet their teaching hour requirements. My wife teaches mathematics and did this throughout her undergraduate studies. You would be surprised how many department chairs will be open to the idea.
__________________
Only Whites, Worldwide
 
Old September 28th, 2012 #119
R. Pearson
The Jew Hunter
 
R. Pearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Apelanta
Posts: 638
R. Pearson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred View Post
The type of degree you get makes all the difference. A friend of mines son just graduated with a bachelors of science ME. He was hired before he finished his senior year. He is making some pretty impressive coin for rookie. I took computer science and electrical engineering. Never had trouble getting a job.

If you take journalism or other liberal arts you may be disappointed.
There are some issues in the engineering field, as well. There is a flood of foreigners in the market, and a good deal of work is being outsourced to inexpensive firms run by Indians and their relatives.

We routinely get undercut by such firms, and predictably the contractor will ask us to "manage the quality control". What that really means is that they don't want to pay our people to do the work, but they want us to guarantee that the little brown monkeys don't fuck up.
__________________
Only Whites, Worldwide
 
Old September 28th, 2012 #120
R. Pearson
The Jew Hunter
 
R. Pearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Apelanta
Posts: 638
R. Pearson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Morrow View Post
College degrees just stand in for an endorsement of somebody's moral character, discipline and intellect. An employer can't give IQ tests anymore. That'd be racist because the 85 IQ niggers and 90 IQ bean niggers would never pass. There are states where you can't give a criminal background check because it "adversely effects" the 25 percent of the population that commits 80 percent of the crime. Aptitude tests are likewise banned in hiring and in many cases promoting people. The latest push is to make it illegal to drug test people because niggers and spics abuse drugs.

So in this country an employer can't...

IQ test
Aptitude Test
Drug Test
Background Check
Employers can still use the Wonderlic Personnel Test, as it is considered a suitable pre-employment test of job suitability. It's also a rough estimate of IQ - just take the Wonderlic score, double it, and add 60.

Typical averages:
  • Chemist – 32
  • Programmer – 29
  • Journalist – 26
  • Sales – 24
  • Bank teller – 22
  • Clerical worker – 21
  • Security guard – 17
  • Warehouse – 15
In reality, the Wonderlic effectively plugs into similar IQ ranges, by profession:


__________________
Only Whites, Worldwide
 
Reply

Tags
edu-business

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.
Page generated in 0.23943 seconds.