Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Seven examples of people who are not victims   (townhall.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, black Republicans, George Wallace  
•       •       •

5704 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jun 2012 at 11:26 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-19 05:11:59 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Choosing not to get pregnant is like choosing not to be flat-chested: a choice, not a medical necessity that insurance should cover.


You're an idiot.
 
2012-06-19 05:15:53 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I still don't know how one becomes a professional blogger.

Is there some sort of blogger certification that I'm not aware of? Where do you get your professional blogger credentials from?


Furthermore, how does blogging on something make one an automatic expert? Like those stupid commercials where the 30-something chick brags about "running a [whatever] blog". You don't RUN a blog, anymore than you run a Facebook page, people...
 
2012-06-19 05:20:36 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Contraceptives for birth control is the one item on the list with which I agree. Choosing not to get pregnant is like choosing not to be flat-chested: a choice, not a medical necessity that insurance should cover.

So yes, ladies, if you want a pill that has two uses, you should have to prove that you need it, not just want it. But only to your insurer; it's not your employer's business.

For birth control, pay for it yourself or don't fark.


So when said woman cannot afford the child, and thus the resulting MUCH HIGHER medical expenses resulting from pregnancy and delivery of that child (relative to the cost of contraception) end up increasing everyone else's medical expenses (either directly or via insurance), I can only assume that you will be the first to say "I'm cool with that!".

Otherwise, well...you know...you'd be a total f*cking idiot.

That or you just don't give a crap if the baby dies.

/welcome to "how the world really works", d-bag
 
2012-06-19 05:22:45 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Contraceptives for birth control is the one item on the list with which I agree. Choosing not to get pregnant is like choosing not to be flat-chested: a choice, not a medical necessity that insurance should cover.


By your logic, insurance shouldn't cover childbirth either, if you choose to have a baby.

But of course that would be moronic: being born is one of your biggest medical expenses.
 
2012-06-19 05:25:12 PM  
1. White Christian American males
2. White Christian American males
3. White Christian American males
4. White Christian American males
5. White Christian American males
6. White Christian American males
7. White Christian American males
 
2012-06-19 05:26:51 PM  

BeesNuts: You have a problem with the way we finance higher education in this country.


You don't? I know you do, but instead of enlightening me with your own solution, you merely put me in a box as some kind of sadist who wants to punish people. Fwiw, I'd rather be spanked than spank someone. ymmv.

BeesNuts: Describe that problem.


The availability of a student loan is unrelated to the value of what is being purchased (higher learning, job training, whatever you wish to call it). There is no other big-ticket borrowing in the country with that result. Whether you want to start a business, buy a house/boat/car, whatever. The loan is going to be limited based on the bank's view of the value of what you buy with it.

BeesNuts: What is the "punishment"?


Well, our re-start didn't last very long before you dragged things right back to your perspective. :D

BeesNuts: What about the hundreds of thousands of people who DON'T get a licensed degree? Can they go through the bankruptcy process too?


BeesNuts: Doctors and Lawyers are precisely the people who are least affected by the student loan issues plaguing the country.


Its not a perfect solution, no. No solution will be. There will always be winners and losers picked. There are winners and losers picked by the very existence of student loans. There are winners and losers picked right now, when student loans can't be shed by a bankruptcy. There will be winners and losers if all student loans could be shed by a bankruptcy. There will be winners and losers if some can be shed without additional penalty via bankruptcy and others cannot. I'll grant you that. But the very reasons you say licensed professionals are the least plagued by student loan debt is the exact reason why they of all people should be least capable of taking a free ride: they are the most likely to be capable of getting a well above average job.

I know we are starting over here, but I explained my example of the how/why someone might take out a loan they had no intention of paying back and then enjoying their high paying job. I still believe that example exists. I believe people would, in fact, take advantage of that loophole that would open up: get a valuable degree and the room and board for those years, then walk away and leave someone else on the hook for the debt.

BeesNuts: From a purely philosophical standpoint, I don't believe that the purpose of education should be to maximize your lifetime earnings. The purpose of education... is to educate.


I was hired at my current job because I have a degree. My degree doesn't really have much to do with my current job, yet I'm glad I have it, and would get it again. So I agree. At the same time it seems pretty unrealistic to pretend that there isn't absolutely a dollar value that could be assigned to the average degree within a given field.

Would you prefer a situation where everyone can declare bankruptcy and clear student loan debt without penalty, or where no one can?

A bankruptcy proceeding, regardless of student loans, comes down to this: its a better solution than debtor's prisons. I hope we can all agree on that. I know you do. Without any penalty, there would be no reason for anyone to pay back debt. With too much penalty, the bankruptcy proceeding stops being a real option for people. It always comes down to specific cases, income levels, debt ratios, etc. Adding in the acknowledgement that different types of students were borrowing money to buy different value degrees (and yes, I admit its hard to perfectly quantify things) doesn't seem like its changing the fundamentals of what a bankruptcy is all about.

This change is just saying hey, I don't know exactly where everything lies in these grey areas, but I know damn well a doctor doesn't need to discharge his student loans. Any job he takes requiring that medical license will pay enough to feed and clothe him and his family, put a roof over their head, and have enough left to pay the piper. And, like I said, I would be fine with having all three options on the table:
1. standard bankruptcy and keep student loans.
2. No bankrupcty at all.
3. This new version.

Is it solving a problem that doesn't exist and would never exist? Possibly. I admit I can't see the future.
 
2012-06-19 05:27:58 PM  

Xcott: BarkingUnicorn: Contraceptives for birth control is the one item on the list with which I agree. Choosing not to get pregnant is like choosing not to be flat-chested: a choice, not a medical necessity that insurance should cover.

By your logic, insurance shouldn't cover childbirth either, if you choose to have a baby.

But of course that would be moronic: being born is one of your biggest medical expenses.


Yep. It costs upwards of $20,000 to have a kid with all of the pre-natal procedures, delivery, and so-forth. Sure, this is largely a result of the medical profession taking way too much out of the insurance cookie jar, but regardless of the reasons, it's waaaaaaaaaaay too much to expect the vast majority of people to pay out of pocket.

No one would ever have kids if that stuff wasn't covered. Or, they would, and taxpayers would end up paying for it.
 
2012-06-19 05:37:54 PM  

Xcott: BeesNuts: Allowing doctors to declare bankruptcy at the cost of abandoning the last decade or more of their lives doesn't solve the extant problems I see with our higher education system. Again, if it doesn't lower the cost of, or demand for education, it doesn't solve jackshiat.

No, no, no, you don't understand: the idea is to allow everyone to declare bankruptcy, not just doctors. The idea is to return bankruptcy protection to the entire lending system. In exchange, you have a specific measure to prevent one way the system was abused---and this measure still gives doctors more options than they currently have.

This should lower the amount of predatory lending to college students, because the return of bankruptcy protection makes it less profitable.

I have no idea if this will affect the cost of education. There is a theory that tuition costs have ballooned because of our ability to overborrow to pay for it; however, many people dispute this theory. In any case, the specific goal here is not to lower the cost of education, but to prevent widespread crippling debt.


How do you extend these protections, and more specifically, the license penalty, to non-licensed, degreed professionals? Like an Engineer.

Allow bankruptcy protection for student loans and you're effectively limiting access to higher education by putting the very pressure you're describing on the banks.

I already believe, rather firmly, that the endgame of American society is a kind of neo-feudalism, in which the poor have to start working at 15 in order to eat, and at 18 have two choices:
1 Keep working like that for the next 60 years
2 Join the military

This sounds like it would expedite that process, while *also* reducing America's ability to remain academically competitive.
 
2012-06-19 05:41:15 PM  
To be clear, with all the clarifications you've made, the above issue remains my only nitpick.

How do execute that process for someone who gets a degree in Anthropological Museum Curation? Library Science? Spanish?

More generally, I can understand from a pragmatic perspective how this would impact licensed professions. I don't understand at all how this could be applied across the board, as you suggest it could.
 
2012-06-19 05:51:43 PM  

intelligent comment below: 1. White Christian American males
2. White Christian American males
3. White Christian American males
4. White Christian American males
5. White Christian American males
6. White Christian American males
7. White Christian American males


Just a minor addition: Straight white Christian American males.
 
2012-06-19 05:58:03 PM  
aw man, how could I miss that??
 
2012-06-19 06:49:13 PM  
"he's a former dopehead"

Kudos to anyone who could read past that. You are a better man than I.

/or less of a dopehead
 
2012-06-19 07:13:08 PM  
glad to see some people speaking the truth about feminism, birth control, and "wage gap"
 
2012-06-19 08:10:09 PM  

BeesNuts: To be clear, with all the clarifications you've made, the above issue remains my only nitpick.

How do execute that process for someone who gets a degree in Anthropological Museum Curation? Library Science? Spanish?


You don't have to. All the other jobs/majors you described are accessible with an undergraduate degree, and don't require a huge private loan. An engineering or CS major need only go to a four-year college, walking out with less than 20-30K in debt. I doesn't make sense to endure an intentional bankruptcy to walk away from a debt this small.
 
2012-06-19 08:28:45 PM  

BeesNuts: From a purely philosophical standpoint, I don't believe that the purpose of education should be to maximize your lifetime earnings. The purpose of education... is to educate.


If I had a nickel for every kid who says that "college is not about making money," and then I lost a nickel for every college graduate who complains that he's still a barista even though he got a degree in whatever, I'd have zero nickels.

Whatever the primary purpose of your education, a college education is always supposed to give you enough increased earnings potential to make up for the cost of college. Even if your ultimate goal is achieving a higher state of consciousness, your transcript is supposed to qualify you for a better job than you could get with a high school diploma. Note that I said "transcript" and not "degree:" a degree alone does not get you through an interview or qualify you for a job with specific skill requirements.

That's the basic equation of college, and if you graduate and then find yourself still working at Burger King, because you forgot to pick up some marketable skills on the way to your seminar on "critical theory," then you were played for a sucker.
 
2012-06-19 09:44:59 PM  
I was looking kind-of cross-eyed halfway through that muddled mess, but I was going to soldier on through, and then I got to the birth control part and wanted to stab things with rusty forks, so I had to close the window.

Regardless of whether you fall on the awesome or heinous side of the free birth control debate, it is a simple fact that a woman will take the SAME AMOUNT OF BIRTH CONTROL whether she is having all the sex in the world or none of it. Why is it such a hard concept for some people to grasp? They come in those little monthly packs for a reason. You take a pill EVERY DAY, even the ones where you aren't letting someone bone you. Otherwise it doesn't work at all. Taking more wouldn't do a thing unless you kept the schedule, cause it's all about duping your body into thinking it's pregnant all the time so if a fertilized little egg comes traipsing down the Fallopian Tube highway, it doesn't get to make a stop at the cozy Uterus Inn for 9 months.

I may be irrationally RAGEMONSTER over this, but since I'm going to go put my happy, to-be-married vagina on BC for the first time in my life so me and the Rat Husband can have careless, reckless, baby-less, eeeevviiillllll sex whenever we want, I just wanna offer a giant Fark You to people like the one who wrote that article. Take a Health class, dork.
 
2012-06-19 11:03:45 PM  
Five examples of people who are not smart:

1. John Hawkins
2. Friends of John Hawkins
3. Readers of John Hawkins
4. The people who post John Hawkins' articles
5. The people who pay John Hawkins
 
2012-06-20 06:45:54 AM  
i'm sure he thinks he's very smart and clever with his little list
 
2012-06-20 07:53:09 AM  
Sorry if this has been posted already, but I had to share this nugget of (mind-numbingly depressing) gold from the comments:


Watkinson: We have become more polarized along partisan lines and the costs of an increasingly un-civil American society. Please be aware of this and sites like this that only serve to widen the devide for monitary gain. All that I ask is that you make an effort to educate yourselves by reading from many sources, left / right / moderate and think about it. Then come to some sort of conclusion with the reservation that the conclusion can change with the introduction of new evidence.
You owe it to yourself and to your country to change.



Reply

Gayle__CO: In other words, we need to think in a more "progressive" manner.
Your comments on this thread were snarky, dismissive and disparaging. You have no standing to lecture others on how they should conduct themselves. What sites have you been on that have obviously failed to educate you in the manner that you advocate? Maybe you should cease to worry about TH and concentrate on your own rehabilitation.



Reply to the Reply

3585:Well said Gayle


HIlariously depressing. "Thinking rationally and considering all the evidence is a Liberal lie!
 
2012-06-20 08:30:11 AM  

Xcott: a college education is always supposed to give you enough increased earnings potential to make up for the cost of college.


That's how we HAVE to treat it now. With its cost being so high and all.

We're coming at this from fundamentally different perspectives. I happen to think the system is broken. Permanently. Because we've been conditioned so well to want *things*. We NEED things. If we don't have enough things we have to acquire them, and we can never have enough. Even if you have all the things you want, you can always buy nicer versions of those things. Our purpose is to consume.

And our consumption is now predicated on our possession of degrees.

As I said earlier.

BeesNuts: We are lost.

 
2012-06-20 01:52:52 PM  

BeesNuts: Xcott: a college education is always supposed to give you enough increased earnings potential to make up for the cost of college.

That's how we HAVE to treat it now. With its cost being so high and all.


No, that's the way we always treated it. People always had to pay for college---even free tuition has a significant opportunity cost---and people have always had heightened career expectations out of a college education.

Career preparation has always been a primary goal of college, and colleges are architected at a very fundamental level to meet this goal. Disagree? Answer the following questions:

1. Why do colleges and departments have to follow external accreditation requirements?
2. Why do you need to be assigned grades, and why is your transcript kept after you leave?
3. Why must you complete a specific set of classes to graduate with a given major? Why can't you skip a course you don't want to take?
4. Why do departments have external advisory boards to provide feedback on their course requirements?
5. Why do you have to meet any requirements at all for graduation? Why can't you just stop whenever and walk away with a diploma?
6. Why does college customarily take four years?

The answer in all cases: because the degree is supposed to certify to the outside world (employers and graduate admissions offices) that you have competence in a mandated set of skills for each major.

If college was not about getting a job:

o There would be no reason to store your transcript, no reason for me to assign you a grade (for whom to read?) and no reason for half the people in the registrar's office.
o There would be no reason to require biology majors to take microbiology if they didn't want to, or for English majors to take any courses outside of poetry if they didn't want to.
o There would be no reason to meet any external requirements about what our engineering major should teach you, no need for accreditation, no need for an industrial advisory board.
o There would be no reason to have graduation requirements, because a degree wouldn't need to certify anything.
o There would be no reason to keep you there for four years---we only do that because we need at least four years to teach you everything that is expected of you when you leave.

In short, most of college is designed around teaching you skills that will be expected of you when you leave, and objectively documenting your performance so you can be judged. Expected by whom? Judged by whom? Employers and graduate admissions offices.

If college wasn't about career preparation, half of college wouldn't be there. Half our personnel would be gone, most of the rules would be gone, half of the professor's job would be gone. It would have no more academic standards than your average health club.

And this is not a recent phenomenon, it's the way colleges have been run since Gothic arches were hypermodern. Your bumper-sticker philosophy about commercialism and higher education is at odds with the actual history of higher education.

We're coming at this from fundamentally different perspectives. I happen to think the system is broken. Permanently. Because we've been conditioned so well to want *things*. We NEED things. If we don't have enough things we have to acquire them, and we can never have enough. Even if you have all the things you want, you can always buy nicer versions of those things. Our purpose is to consume.

Let me propose the opposite point of view: young people are now being conditioned to treat college as a cultural rite of passage, a journey of self-discovery with no concrete deliverables---indeed, they are conditioned to find earthly concerns like getting a job to be mundane and repugnant and a debasement of academic pursuit.

Then they leave college and believe the system is broken because they can't get a job. That is exactly what happens when you treat college like a four-year spirit journey, if you drift through with a philosophy of undirected dabbling and an aversion to anything "marketable."

Apparently this also results in students who lack the logical ability to see the obvious cause-effect relationship between their coursework and their financial situation when they get out.
 
2012-06-20 04:06:55 PM  
Oh, another one of those people who think the amount of sex you have determines how much birth control you need and that racism and sexism do not exist because he's never experienced them (duh, straight white male). Genius.

Why do we keep greenlighting links to this claptrap?
 
2012-06-21 08:44:48 AM  

Xcott: No, that's the way we always treated it. People always had to pay for college---even free tuition has a significant opportunity cost---and people have always had heightened career expectations out of a college education.


Oh really?
 
2012-06-21 12:22:08 PM  

BeesNuts: Xcott: No, that's the way we always treated it. People always had to pay for college---even free tuition has a significant opportunity cost---and people have always had heightened career expectations out of a college education.

Oh really?


Yes.
 
2012-06-21 04:25:04 PM  

Xcott: BeesNuts: Xcott: No, that's the way we always treated it. People always had to pay for college---even free tuition has a significant opportunity cost---and people have always had heightened career expectations out of a college education.

Oh really?

Yes.


Not about the education at all anymore. You pay for your ticket to success and then wait in line with everyone else. That's the purpose of college? Always has been?

Didn't take much history during your stay, did you?

I mean, factually you're just plain incorrect. Go back far enough and the concept of "tuition" or any kind of payment for education doesn't even exist. But go back just 20-30 years and you have tuition deregulation, after which shiat just got ridiculous. Only after that happened did college become an "investment" in the financial sense, rather than the lifestyle sense.

There was a time before we churned out MBA's, Engineers and Finance Professionals, you know. When it was economically feasible, even in America, to enrich yourself and learn to do something you loved.

But... we're lost now.
 
2012-06-21 05:08:18 PM  

BeesNuts: I mean, factually you're just plain incorrect. Go back far enough and the concept of "tuition" or any kind of payment for education doesn't even exist.


The very first European university, founded in 1088 AD, charged tuition. You are an idiot.

But go back just 20-30 years and you have tuition deregulation, after which shiat just got ridiculous. Only after that happened did college become an "investment" in the financial sense, rather than the lifestyle sense.

Here you are also asserting the exact opposite of reality. Universities have been architected around career preparation for most of their history. The very first universities prepared you for the aristocracy, the priesthood, or a career in law or medicine. The first universities in colonial America likewise required you to declare a major in religion, law or medicine.

If anything, universities have become less career-oriented in the last few decades, with the introduction of majors---including general studies and roll-your-own majors---that have no connection to a specific career path.

In short, historical fact completely contradicts your self-righteous store-bought belief in encroaching materialism in education.
 
2012-06-22 09:24:27 AM  

Xcott: BeesNuts: I mean, factually you're just plain incorrect. Go back far enough and the concept of "tuition" or any kind of payment for education doesn't even exist.

The very first European university, founded in 1088 AD, charged tuition. You are an idiot.

But go back just 20-30 years and you have tuition deregulation, after which shiat just got ridiculous. Only after that happened did college become an "investment" in the financial sense, rather than the lifestyle sense.

Here you are also asserting the exact opposite of reality. Universities have been architected around career preparation for most of their history. The very first universities prepared you for the aristocracy, the priesthood, or a career in law or medicine. The first universities in colonial America likewise required you to declare a major in religion, law or medicine.

If anything, universities have become less career-oriented in the last few decades, with the introduction of majors---including general studies and roll-your-own majors---that have no connection to a specific career path.

In short, historical fact completely contradicts your self-righteous store-bought belief in encroaching materialism in education.


Universities are not colleges. Which is what we *were* talking about.

But you're right. If you completely change the discussion then you were absolutely correct!
 
2012-06-22 11:48:32 AM  

BeesNuts: Universities are not colleges. Which is what we *were* talking about.


Now you're just playing word games. Do you honestly believe that tuition was a concept exclusive to universities but not colleges?

Even though most universities started out as colleges? Northern Illinois University started out as Northern Illinois State Teachers College. Lewis University started out as Lewis College. Binghamton University started out as Harpur College. They all charged tuition before and after becoming universities.

Princeton University started out as the College of New Jersey in 1746, and became a university in 1896. Here is a partial table of tuition rates from 1748 to the present day. Notice that they charged tuition all the way back in the 18th century, even though they were a "college" and not a "university."

Charging tuition is as old as school, and as old as civilization. According to the first chapter of Samuel Noah Kramer's History Begins at Sumer: Twenty-Five Firsts in Man's Recorded History (1959), we have archeological evidence from the second millenium B.C. that scribe schools in Sumeria charged tuition, based on the demographics of student rolls recorded on clay tablet (i.e., only the children of rich people could afford it.) So if you "go back far enough" that the concept of tuition didn't exist, you'd probably be somewhere around the invention of agriculture.

And why is this so hard to believe? You can't have schools unless you pay teachers, and charging tuition is a pretty obvious way to pay teachers.

So to sum up: no, tuition isn't a recent invention, and neither is the emphasis on career preparation a new phenomenon. Mince words all you want, but that's reality and it contradicts your bumper-sticker philosophy of education.
 
2012-06-22 11:59:20 AM  

Xcott: BeesNuts: Universities are not colleges. Which is what we *were* talking about.

Now you're just playing word games. Do you honestly believe that tuition was a concept exclusive to universities but not colleges?

Even though most universities started out as colleges? Northern Illinois University started out as Northern Illinois State Teachers College. Lewis University started out as Lewis College. Binghamton University started out as Harpur College. They all charged tuition before and after becoming universities.

Princeton University started out as the College of New Jersey in 1746, and became a university in 1896. Here is a partial table of tuition rates from 1748 to the present day. Notice that they charged tuition all the way back in the 18th century, even though they were a "college" and not a "university."

Charging tuition is as old as school, and as old as civilization. According to the first chapter of Samuel Noah Kramer's History Begins at Sumer: Twenty-Five Firsts in Man's Recorded History (1959), we have archeological evidence from the second millenium B.C. that scribe schools in Sumeria charged tuition, based on the demographics of student rolls recorded on clay tablet (i.e., only the children of rich people could afford it.) So if you "go back far enough" that the concept of tuition didn't exist, you'd probably be somewhere around the invention of agriculture.

And why is this so hard to believe? You can't have schools unless you pay teachers, and charging tuition is a pretty obvious way to pay teachers.

So to sum up: no, tuition isn't a recent invention, and neither is the emphasis on career preparation a new phenomenon. Mince words all you want, but that's reality and it contradicts your bumper-sticker philosophy of education.


Never said tuition was a recent invention. Ballooning tuition and the commoditization of education however... while not "new" has reached unprecedented levels.

Oversimplify all you want but the cost of education has been outpacing the expected returns on that investment for at least 3 decades. The pressure to get one of an ever decreasing number of degrees, to predict the job market 5 - 10 years in the future, to work 3 jobs while you go to school only to have 10 years of loans to pay off...

That IS relatively new. The 50+ crowd seems to have same the attitude that you do. That the world of today is the same as it was in the 70's. So sorry. That's not true. They also seem to justify this trend by saying, as you do, that it's *always* been this way. Which is also not true.

Is tuition a new idea? Fark no, never said it was. The new idea is tuition as an investment. Like. A straight up monetary investment. I pay 25k now to increase my lifetime earning potential by 250k to a mil.

If that's what "higher education" is for in your mind, then I'm very sad for you. It's that very thought process that circularly justifies itself through higher tuition, and justifies higher tuition through itself. But no matter how hard you try, you can't justify 25% increases in tuition over 5 years. And no matter how smart you think you are, you shouldn't make inaccurate statements and expect them to go unchallenged.
 
2012-06-22 01:01:02 PM  

BeesNuts: Never said tuition was a recent invention.


Here's what you said:

BeesNuts: Go back far enough and the concept of "tuition" or any kind of payment for education doesn't even exist.

As I pointed out with multiple citations, this is pseudo-historical claptrap. Tuition is as old as education, going back to the founding of the first schools and persisting throughout recorded history. You have to go back to prehistoric times to find a world where the concept of tuition didn't exist.

I defy you to name a single period in recorded history where there was no such concept as tuition.

BeesNuts: The new idea is tuition as an investment. Like. A straight up monetary investment. I pay 25k now to increase my lifetime earning potential by 250k to a mil.


And as I told you several times, this is also false: school as career preparation is a very old concept; so is college education as career preparation.

So is the notion of education as an investment that pays back its tuition cost in increased earnings potential. For example, the tale of Protagoras and Euathlus centers around a student training to be a lawyer on credit, the assumption being that he will be able to pay the tuition out of his future earnings. So even in ancient Greece people seemed to regard education in this way.

Notice that I keep giving you specific examples and citations; perhaps you can give me a citation to back up your claim that all this stuff is a recent phenomenon. I mean, where exactly did you get your belief from? A book? A web page? Your personal experience?
 
2012-06-22 03:09:49 PM  

Xcott: BeesNuts: Never said tuition was a recent invention.

Here's what you said:

BeesNuts: Go back far enough and the concept of "tuition" or any kind of payment for education doesn't even exist.

As I pointed out with multiple citations, this is pseudo-historical claptrap. Tuition is as old as education, going back to the founding of the first schools and persisting throughout recorded history. You have to go back to prehistoric times to find a world where the concept of tuition didn't exist.

I defy you to name a single period in recorded history where there was no such concept as tuition.

BeesNuts: The new idea is tuition as an investment. Like. A straight up monetary investment. I pay 25k now to increase my lifetime earning potential by 250k to a mil.

And as I told you several times, this is also false: school as career preparation is a very old concept; so is college education as career preparation.

So is the notion of education as an investment that pays back its tuition cost in increased earnings potential. For example, the tale of Protagoras and Euathlus centers around a student training to be a lawyer on credit, the assumption being that he will be able to pay the tuition out of his future earnings. So even in ancient Greece people seemed to regard education in this way.

Notice that I keep giving you specific examples and citations; perhaps you can give me a citation to back up your claim that all this stuff is a recent phenomenon. I mean, where exactly did you get your belief from? A book? A web page? Your personal experience?


Medieval Europe. Not exactly "prehistoric". There are other examples, but you asked for one. So there it is. That was easy.

Protagoras and Euathulus? Really? That's you're interpretation of that "tale"?

A student of law was being trained by a professional of the law. They agreed to a specific payment structure as COMPENSATION TO THE EDUCATOR. This is important because it was not PAYMENT AS INVESTMENT. A guy wanted to learn law. He found a guy who knew law. He was taught. He had to pay his teacher for his service.

This paradigm requires that the teacher price his services fairly, or he will have no students.

When you shift that paradigm to make that payment an "investment" then there is literally NO cap too high.

Moving along:
BeesNuts: The new idea is tuition as an investment. Like. A straight up monetary investment. I pay 25k now to increase my lifetime earning potential by 250k to a mil.
XCott: "And as I told you several times, this is also false: school as career preparation is a very old concept; so is college education as career preparation."


... This is precisely what I'm talking about. Right here. I can't argue with you because you're an example of the very problem I'm trying to describe. "Career Preparation" != "Investment in Lifetime Earning Potential" You are conflating the two, which IS the new paradigm I decried upthread as "dangerous".

You keep dancing around that point, because you are apparently too blind to notice the difference.

Tuition pays for things. Like any charge for any goods or services. That's the original purpose of tuition.

Now? Tuition has only a tangential relationship with the funding of colleges (and universities). Tuition is a ticket price. Hell, we even started calling it the price of admission. Instead of existing to enable more teachers to ... teach and survive doing so, it exists as a barrier of entry. Is it still "yeah you pay a place and then go to that place and when you come out you're trained and can get a good job"? Sure. Not that it's "always" been that way, but that idea, to pay for an education, isn't the new thing. What's new is our perception of what that payment is FOR.

Before, tuition had to be justified. What's the money going to?
More recently, tuition can be ... anything. Based upon student's "potential future earnings".

It's the same attitude that gives us students who do shiatty and then complain that they paid for their education and are entitled to a degree. Students who can't find a job afterwards and hold the university accountable because they think, exactly as you seem to, that tuition is an investment, and not payment for services.
 
2012-06-22 05:33:52 PM  

BeesNuts: Medieval Europe. Not exactly "prehistoric". There are other examples, but you asked for one. So there it is. That was easy.


I already gave you an example of a medieval European university charging tuition. Try picking an answer I haven't already debunked.

And again, where are you getting your information? Where did you learn how universities set their tuition rates? Where did you learn that the "concept of tuition" didn't used to exist, or that tuition was "deregulated" (it wasn't) 20-30 years ago?
 
Displayed 32 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report