LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksEducation is necessary but at the same time it should be open. Does education hamper innovation and simplicity?
25Likes
1
Post By Flick Montana
1
Post By John Galt
2
Post By cosmictraveler
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By John Galt
1
Post By Quantum immortal
3
Post By John Galt
2
Post By Flick Montana
2
Post By CultureHead
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By babe
2
Post By grmpysmrf
2
Post By Seneca
2
Post By Flick Montana
1
Post By babe
1
Post By John Galt
1
Post By astromark
September 12th, 2013, 11:47 AM
Education is necessary but at the same time it should be open. Does education hamper innovation and simplicity?
Define "open" and elucidate on "does education hamper innovation and simplicity". Some examples of what you're talking about would be helpful because I can't figure out the question here.
I am sorry. I don't understand your question.Originally Posted by parag29081973
I am confused by your conjunctions.
Education is necessary. You don't say what it is necessary for, but let's take a standard Western cultural standpoint. In that case then, yes, education is necessary to maintain and develop our society.
However, you now add but at the same time it should be open. The 'but' implies that making education open would in some way run counter to it being necessary. Surely the reverse is true? I hope you will clarify.
Then you ask does education hamper innovation? That's a strange one. I suppose second rate education that focuses on pure knowledge rather than skills would do this. You continue, asking if it also hampers simplicity. I fail to see why you would link innovation and simplicity. And I am completely bemused as to why education would hamper it, or why you would think so. (Though I suppose the question is innovative.)
.....Not to mention the implied idea that "hampering simplicity" is somehow bad.I am confused by your conjunctions.
Education is necessary. You don't say what it is necessary for, but let's take a standard Western cultural standpoint. In that case then, yes, education is necessary to maintain and develop our society.
However, you now add but at the same time it should be open. The 'but' implies that making education open would in some way run counter to it being necessary. Surely the reverse is true? I hope you will clarify.
Then you ask does education hamper innovation? That's a strange one. I suppose second rate education that focuses on pure knowledge rather than skills would do this. You continue, asking if it also hampers simplicity. I fail to see why you would link innovation and simplicity. And I am completely bemused as to why education would hamper it, or why you would think so. (Though I suppose the question is innovative.)
Education makes someone's apprehension of the world richer and more complex, i.e. less simple. Is this bad? Not at all, surely (?!).
Could this be a spambot, do you think? The name is a bit heavy on numbers.....
It could be a birth date of the form dd/mm/yyyy.
I was going to agree with you until I read your signature, then I decided you probably don't know what you're talking about.
That signature is there for a reason.I was going to agree with you until I read your signature, then I decided you probably don't know what you're talking about.
It depends upon the kind of education being taught. There are places that teach things that are totally false or very confusing. With the internet anyone can educate themselves if they so desire. To have a robust and innovative society education is paramount.
Education, even when done rather poorly, dramatically improves innovation and ability to approach, understand and solve problems from multiple directions.
I have learned far more browsing the internet than I have from just taking a class in school. With the exception of math.
My college is starting to offer more online courses, a trend that hopefully continues.
And is there a reason you have not yet responded to my request for clarification made in post #4 made in September of last year?That signature is there for a reason.I was going to agree with you until I read your signature, then I decided you probably don't know what you're talking about.
Formal education is apparently meant there.
In theory education is about cultivating your self. In practice, it's rote learning, looking smart and been able to study 15 hours a day. With the real purpose to filter people in social classes. It actually resembles the medieval guilds. It would have been much more efficient to learn things in apprenticeships, but then how you separate people in classes?
employers use it like a crude filtering device. They ask for a college degree when the job absolutely doesn't need it. Or they use education as an excuse to pay you less, or an excuse to fire you.
The multiplication of training programs for almost anything reduces social mobility. If you want to change position, you need to go back to school, at your expense of course. You do a prestigious business school, and you are parachuted as a CEO. You do a management certificate and you are parachuted in management. You do a secretary certificate, and you are stuck there for life. In practice, you get the education your parents can pay you.
Other negative effects of education, is negative population growth rate and aging of the population, because of the time young people need to get there education. Since it doesn't really produces anything, it just a waste of recourses. It's just a means to compete with others.
The correlation of education and wealthy societies, is due to the fact that wealthy societies can afford this waste.
If you think that you retain much after years of education you are seriously mistaken. Lets take the example of your native language. You use so much your native language, that it burns in your brain, as nothing else will in your life. I didn't really use my native language for over 10 years now, i can tell you my level has dropped to that of a young kid. I checked once a course i had passed just a year later, i would not be able to pass the exam with out restudying it. And thats just a year later.
What is worse is that there is a education inflation going on. People go to school for longer and longer, to get the same jobs. This is not with out precedent, (rich) people studied until there 30s and 40s to pass the imperial examination of China to become an official of the empire. If things continue unchecked, you'll need a masters in cleaning to clean toilets and a Ph.d in floor purification to be a janitor.... Fortunatly, we'll go bankrupt before that extream. Any one here has 4 year college debt and working at mac donalds?
Paradoxically, education is incredibly stupid.
So much to disagree with. Here are some highlights.
It depends what you mean by cultivating. It may be useful to consider Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Education, of different types, seems appropriate for all levels. (Physiological, Safety, Belonging, Esteem, Self Actualisation). In that case I would be interested to hear of any education that does not address one or more of these.
I observed that many people fall into the trap of thinking knowledge is what is being tested. I always worked on the principle one was acquiring understanding. With understanding one can deduce much of the detail others learn through rote (and then have no idea how to use).In practice, it's rote learning, looking smart and been able to study 15 hours a day.
A college degree suggests the applicant has shown certain skills and intellect. So, yes it is a useful filtering device. So what? Do you seriously expect companies and mangers to interview each of the hundreds of applicants they may have for a given position. (You also seem to ignore the lamentable instances in which ill trained managers reject applicants because they are overqualified.)employers use it like a crude filtering device. They ask for a college degree when the job absolutely doesn't need it.
Moreover, many companies do not restrict themselves to tight hiring specs. Some of my most effective employees in roles nominally requiring a degree have left school at fifteen. You seem to have a tendency to generalise from specific, perhaps atypical, examples.
The opposite is true. Through the open provision of courses individuals can choose their career trajectory, subject - of course - to their competence and attitude.The multiplication of training programs for almost anything reduces social mobility.
Well, the world does not owe you a living, but even so, there are many ways one can find company, government and foundation resources that will fund part or all of one’s education.If you want to change position, you need to go back to school, at your expense of course.
A declining population certainly creates demographic, social and economic problems. However, population growth has to be halted and reversed, for a time, in order to match population to resources.Other negative effects of education, is negative population growth rate and aging of the population, because of the time young people need to get there education.
In some cases it can produce people who are able to spell resources.Since it doesn't really produces anything, it just a waste of recourses. It's just a means to compete with others.
What's wrong with competition?
Returning to an earlier point, if you think education is about learning facts then you were wasting your time. It includes facts, but it is about learning skills. Those improve over the years, rather than deteriorate.If you think that you retain much after years of education you are seriously mistaken.
Amusing, but can you prove that?If things continue unchecked, you'll need a masters in cleaning to clean toilets and a Ph.d(sic) in floor purification to be a janitor.... Fortunatly(sic), we'll go bankrupt before that extream(sic).
Education, as you misunderstand it, certainly seems to be.Paradoxically, education is incredibly stupid
While I agree with the other guy, I don't necessarily have that big a problem with what you're saying. But here goes.
I don't expect them to, but there's a chance it'd be a better system if not for how much work would have to be involved in filtering.
And I never understood why people ever get rejected for being overqualified, whoever rejects them must be a moron.
I think... Formal education isn't as convenient as it's supposed to be. Theoretically; a dirt poor individual with excellent all-around skills should be able to succeed, but since they have to go through college(expensive) they have way fewer opportunities than the typical person does. I think, again... Someone like that should be able to just instantly get a high-paying job without needing to attend school.
It would be impractical. If my job, for instance, did not require a degree in geology or a related field, how many people would apply because they know enough about the subject from watching Discovery Channel or NatGeo? Not only would sifting through the countless applications be completely impossible, the odds of actually picking out the qualified people best suited to the job would be tiny if you don't use education as a criterion.
Some jobs require a degree because it demonstrates that you learned certain things (laboratory skills, for instance). For other jobs, it is a way to demonstrate that you are committed to that field.
Using education as a filter is a very good way to weed out candidates.
Usually, it has to do with pay. Someone with a PhD is not going to do graduate work for $10 an hour. You may also find employers who don't want someone "too smart". Like Carlin once said, they want people just smart enough to operate the machines, but stupid enough to accept the lousy conditions.
This is a good reason why many people think college is for elitists. Somehow, the world owes it to the select few people who can succeed immensely without a formal education. Those people, however, are so uncommon that it does not warrant toppling our educational system. Find me any person without a formal education who can run a magsup on my GeoTek using laboratory best practices on day one and they can have my job. For the vast majority of people, they simply do not have the skills.
I went through college on the government's money (federal loans). It didn't require anything special. If someone wants to do it, they can apply like me. No one "deserves" anything. They have to earn it just like the rest of us. If you don't want to put in the time, why should we be bothered to care when you can't get the job you want?
And it would likely be a better system if every child had an individual tutor for each subject they studied. It is, however, impractical.I don't expect them to, but there's a chance it'd be a better system if not for how much work would have to be involved in filtering.
If companies were to seek to interview every applicant then their products and services would increase in price with no assurance the end result would be an improvement for company or clients. The existing system works for the employer. It also works for those employees who visibly meet the requirements of the employer. Those who don't may indeed miss out. This is why the need for a good CV is emphasised.
So I agree with you completely: it would be nice if all candidates could be interviewed, but it is impractical. (There are selection processes that allow large numbers of candidates to be assessed in groups and whittled down. These are also expensive and tend to only work if your seeking alpha males.) The present system, if applied by effective managers, or HR teams, can find the right candidate, regardless of qualifications. A hiring I took especial delight in was for a management position where I had identified three key characteristics. I invited to interview one applicant who barely met one of them. Something looked right about him. I hired him, despite surperficially more qualified candidates being available and he did an outstanding job.
It is fear that the overqualified candidate will not stay, or will not wish to 'dirty their hands' with menial aspects of the job.And I never understood why people ever get rejected for being overqualified, whoever rejects them must be a moron.
The first company I worked for had a very high turnover in a particular technical role. They initiated detailed psychological assessments of all new hires and over a two year period identified what types tended remain with the company. We then hired those types. The success was a two edged sword. Many more people stayed, but they were ones who lacked imagination and resourcefulness. We had lost the go-getters, who - though they only stayed a short time - made major contributions.
This is a moving target. I would say a college education is almost prohibitively expensive for a 'typical person', not just 'dirt poor'. In Scotland, today, the government pays all college and university fees. When I studied, if you came from a 'dirt poor' background (which I did) you got a grant, on top of having your fees paid. The grant, coupled with a summer job, meant I was able to pay my parents over a third of my wages to help support the family home. But back then, fewer than 10% of the population went to university, so the government could afford such largesse. It was easier then for a 'dirt poor' student than for some who came from well off families. Go figure.Theoretically; a dirt poor individual with excellent all-around skills should be able to succeed, but since they have to go through college(expensive) they have way fewer opportunities than the typical person does.
Most education past high school is not rote learning.
You have a point, but lacking experience, it's a reasonable criteria to use.employers use it like a crude filtering device. They ask for a college degree when the job absolutely doesn't need it. Or they use education as an excuse to pay you less, or an excuse to fire you.
If you work in a crappy industry or line of work. Graduate education in many STEM fields is free for the taking. (I made money in mine and it's even more the case now)The multiplication of training programs for almost anything reduces social mobility. If you want to change position, you need to go back to school, at your expense of course.
This is a problem in the US (not sure elsewhere), as is increasing fewer students from lower socioeconomic classes even applying.You do a prestigious business school...
You have an odd definition of negative effect.Other negative effects of education, is negative population growth rate and aging of the population, because of the time young people need to get there education.
It's not so much education and wealth--Saudi Arabia, and Cuba, for example would be a strong counter examples. But range of socioeconomic classes, class mobility and education that are closely tied together.The correlation of education and wealthy societies, is due to the fact that wealthy societies can afford this waste.
Than somehow you never really learned it. I recently went back to school for teaching 25 years after getting my Master's degree in Meteorology and had to pick up a few 300 and 400 math and science courses--it all came back in less than a month (I have a 3.9 GPA take II--better than the first college spell).If you think that you retain much after years of education you are seriously mistaken. Lets take the example of your native language. You use so much your native language, that it burns in your brain, as nothing else will in your life. I didn't really use my native language for over 10 years now, i can tell you my level has dropped to that of a young kid. I checked once a course i had passed just a year later, i would not be able to pass the exam with out restudying it. And thats just a year later.
This might be the only thing I agree with in your post.What is worse is that there is a education inflation going on. People go to school for longer and longer, to get the same jobs. This is not with out precedent, (rich) people studied until there 30s and 40s to pass the imperial examination of China to become an official of the empire. If things continue unchecked, you'll need a masters in cleaning to clean toilets and a Ph.d in floor purification to be a janitor.... Fortunatly, we'll go bankrupt before that extream. Any one here has 4 year college debt and working at mac donalds?
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 16th, 2014 at 11:18 AM.
Well yes, but so does everything else. Education tends to select and enforce one world view over others. Once you start down one path of thinking you tend to ignore other ideas.
The trade off is that it also gives you a set of tools for formulating and solving problems and if a person is prepared to shift their paradigm these tools can lead to solutions with huge benefits.
Myth. "Other Ideas" you won't have any ability to understand, augment, integrate with other useful things you know, research its possible relationships with other things, or formulate for yourself.Well yes, but so does everything else. Education tends to select and enforce one world view over others. Once you start down one path of thinking you tend to ignore other ideas.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 16th, 2014 at 12:33 PM.
Education's true purpose should be to teach us HOW to think and not so much WHAT to think.
...Not too many institutions coincide with this statement, however.
Why are you quote mining?Myth. "Other Ideas" you won't have any ability to understand, augment, integrate with other useful things you know, research its possible relationships with other things, or formulate for yourself.Well yes, but so does everything else. Education tends to select and enforce one world view over others. Once you start down one path of thinking you tend to ignore other ideas.
If you are going to quote me at least you should be doing it honestly.
The second part of my post matters every bit as much as the first part does.
Its exactly what i said, you don't even try to hide it.
You don't see the big picture.
Do you realize, how extremely inefficient is to filter people this way? All the cost of education, part of high school plus college, interests on debt, lost years not worked, lost interests, wasted taxes, psychological costs, escalating competition, aging of the population, drop in fertility etc... Its what? 100-1000 times more expensive this way, then in house by the companies. No seriously, it can be like 1000 times more expensive. Seriously, do you realize the huge cost on prospective employees compared with the cost to the companies. And if your parents don't have the money, you get filtered. In practice you select people with rich enough parents... Actually, is not much different then filtering based on skin color. Its just a first crude filter, remember.
It would have been more efficient for society , that the companies do something in house. The government should intervene and ban the practice. It will be forced to do so eventually because fertility rates will stay collapsed until they do. Fertility rates can't stay at these levels for too long.
Do you realize society is unsustainable this way.
...If they can afford it in time, money and psychological resources.
Social mobility actually dropped in the last decades. Inequalities actually increased in the last decades.
The best predictor of your future social class, is the social class of your parents.
So all these people are just stupid and lazy?
How old are you? You think that its still like when you were 20? They are absolutely not the same. My grand mother just has no clue whats going on, she just criticizes young people, she still thinks that things are like when she was young.
In the US and other neoliberal countries, people simply get in debt for life. In more socialist countries, the government get in debt to unsustainable levels. The end result will be the same.
Korea has the world record "1,08" . It was a few years back i think. I wonder if any country will go bellow 1, is that even possible??? This is not population management, its a disaster waiting to happen. Its too fast.
Very funny. I guess if i had send you an application you would have eliminated me because of that.
Since i'm stupid and lazy i deserve only to be homeless and to live in a cardboard, under a bridge. Well thats competition, they are winers and losers. And now i lost. Don't worry, its my problem, not yours.
Yes competition is good, competition is ecstasy. You should be working at school 15 hours a day for years and years. If you are too lazy or stupid or week, you only deserve to be homeless. If you complain that you are unhappy at school, it just proves that you are week.
ohh well, thats natural selection, it can't be helped.
Facts, skills what ever. same thing in the bran, just synapses.
The brain simply deletes stuff it doesn't uses. Period.
People that stay in a coma for too long get brain damage because of this.
You can see that in the last 100 years, the same jobs, progressively require more and more education.
An amusing example is Japanese Porn. They require college degrees from the women. Can you please explain to me, why the hell you need a college degree to do porn ?_? And i really mean in front of the camera, not behind.
There is a bachelor in secretary work, a bachelor in medical secretary work, and a bachelor in dentist assistant. I think there's a bachelor in hair dressing, or i'm confusing things?
I've seen an optional training program for cleaning at the job center. How long its going to take before its mandated by employers to have the certificate of that program, so that you can find work in the field? I also read that there was a training program to cut the lawn. Are we going to have a bachelor in porn too?
You can see that in the last 100 years, the same jobs, progressively require more and more education.
In large part that's simple because they really do. Even a relatively simple jobs of the past, such as a nurses aid, car mechanic, ham burger flipper etc, now required significantly more education to handle increased technical and safety information that wasn't necessary a few decades ago.
So you feel the need for me to dismantle the 2nd part as well, very well:Why are you quote mining?Myth. "Other Ideas" you won't have any ability to understand, augment, integrate with other useful things you know, research its possible relationships with other things, or formulate for yourself.Well yes, but so does everything else. Education tends to select and enforce one world view over others. Once you start down one path of thinking you tend to ignore other ideas.
If you are going to quote me at least you should be doing it honestly.
The second part of my post matters every bit as much as the first part does.
The trade off is that it also gives you a set of tools for formulating and solving problems and if a person is prepared to shift their paradigm these tools can lead to solutions with huge benefits.
There is no such trade off. If anything it's just the opposite, ignorance more than anything else, paints one into paradigms and limited sets of possible solutions.
--
While there's a rather odd romanticism in American culture for individualist garage wankers who supposedly are great inventors and what not, the reality is they are so rare and actually have contributed so little to advances in recent decades they are more myth than reality.
QI - The elders of Greece were complaining about the antics and inattention of the youth two and a half millennia ago. I know the dangers of that one very well. If you bothered to actually read what I have written instead letting your angst and agenda drive you into a tirade, then you would see I had acknowledged differences between yesterday and today.
Now, you have a choice: you can continue in venting your knee-jerk beliefs and discard everything that an older person offers up, or you can try listening ad learning. A smart person learns form their mistakes. A really smart person learns form the mistakes of others. I learn from everyone I can, regardless of their age, education, sex, ethnicity, politics, nationality, or shoe size. You should try it some time.
Now, if you want to hold a mature discussion, why not go back and re-read what I wrote before, but this time try doing it with an open mind. Try thinking about what I am saying. You don't have to agree, but it would be nice if you correctly interpreted my points.
Thank you.
Why not just create special tests instead of needing degrees? I don't necessarily mean make that for everything, but for stuff like art jobs it would be superb.
United States presidents are religious, now isn't that strange? Perhaps just a product of democracy. But is it more? I believe there isn't enough competition for presidency due to the system currently in place... Although technically, assuming the most competent person for the job was actually hired, they'd probably be a very unpopular president.
Some one answers this. How many time more expensive it is for the prospective employee to get a college education so that he can pass the crude filter of the employer, compared to just passing some tests in house by the employer? 100 times?
John Galt, ask your employees how much debt they have accumulated and compare it to what it would have cost you, if you didn't rely on degrees.
What effect does it has on society as a whole if you impose such costs on the population???
Spousy told me years ago, that college relly didn't teach him his job. Hands on experience did. However, he did gain some knowledge in his particular field, in his opiion.
If you've been to college you would know that they DO teach you how to think. It's the bozos on TeeVee that "teach" you what to think.
Hell, I remember in high school hearing Rush Limbaugh make a statement and asking "what do you think?" he waited about 3 seconds and then launched in with "Now I'll tell you what to think." I said no you won't and I haven't listened to him since. that was over 20 years ago.
oh heavens!!!!If you've been to college you would know that they DO teach you how to think. It's the bozos on TeeVee that "teach" you what to think.
Hell, I remember in high school hearing Rush Limbaugh make a statement and asking "what do you think?" he waited about 3 seconds and then launched in with "Now I'll tell you what to think." I said no you won't and I haven't listened to him since. that was over 20 years ago.
Who EVER listened to him!
Half of all Americans. True story.oh heavens!!!!If you've been to college you would know that they DO teach you how to think. It's the bozos on TeeVee that "teach" you what to think.
Hell, I remember in high school hearing Rush Limbaugh make a statement and asking "what do you think?" he waited about 3 seconds and then launched in with "Now I'll tell you what to think." I said no you won't and I haven't listened to him since. that was over 20 years ago.
Who EVER listened to him!
Many companies give various forms of test as part of the hiring process. I'm not sure why you think it would be good for art jobs. I believe in those applicants simply bring along a portfolio of their work.
I should say it costs the prospective employee less than half to acquire the degree than to carry out the self learning, by themselves, to acquire the knowledge the employer is looking for in order to pass such a test. As I noted above such tests are frequently used by companies. I strongly suspect several companies already use them ahead of any interview process - along with assessment of degree capability - as one of the filters. Can you at least confirm you have no objection to filters of some kind?
QI, this is an area of which, based on your observations, you are profoundly ignorant. Ignorance is not something to be ashamed of. All of us are ignorant of most things. The thing is to be able to identify when our ignorance is such that we should ask questions to reduce that ignorance, or where we may have some small piece of knowledge we should share with others. I've been engaged directly and indirectly with the hiring process for companies that have had fewer than a dozen employees and for companies with over 60,000 employees. I have hired people to work as janitors and as country managers. I've read books on the subject and discussed the issues with HR professionals. I'm offering you the benefit of that knowledge. It is a small loss for me if you reject it, but a potentially large loss for yourself.
I've already told you, we do not rely on degrees. Assessing education is one part of a complex ranges of processes designed to find the best candidates for a position.John Galt, ask your employees how much debt they have accumulated and compare it to what it would have cost you, if you didn't rely on degrees
Further, as noted above, acquiring the necessary knowledge independently would be a hit and miss affair, that would probably cost them more. But let's run with your idea. Here's how we might work it:
The John Galt/Quantum immortal "Get a Job Without a Degree" Program
Step 1: Detailed lists of the Competencies, Skills, Attributes and Knowledge required for the position would be published.
Step 2: The applicant sets about acquiring these.
Step 3: The acquisition will take a minimum of two and more likely three years for a dedicated individual accustomed to working alone. It is unlikely that they will know any other individuals who are embarked on the same acquisition program, so motivation and group study will be challenging.
Step 4: Working in such an isolated environment most of them will give up, or their progress will slow to a rate that requires five to ten years to complete. (This is based upon specific observation of comparable in-house situations.)
Step 5: Assuming they out compete the other applicants they now have a job.
Step 6: They decide to change job.
Step 7: Go back to step 1.
I thought I asked you to read what I wrote. Are you not taking this seriously?What effect does it has on society as a whole if you impose such costs on the population???
Why should the two be separate? When I was in college I got grant money to do research, a paid internship with the state, and worked in the field gathering samples with a professor's NSF money.
If the only thing someone takes away from college is what they learned in a lecture hall, they didn't do it right. College is about opening up opportunities to GET field experience before you try to go into the field. I think too many people think college is just about trying to maintain a 3.5 and studying books for 4 to 7 years.
Last edited by Flick Montana; February 17th, 2014 at 10:19 AM.
@ John Galt
for discussion sake i'll go along with you. Lets assume you are right. Then, you are basically saying, that the current level of economic productivity is unsustainable. With out realizing, you asked more then 100% from the work force.
There is a certain amount of out put some one can produce, some of that out put must go in reproduction so that the population stays stable enough. If employees give too much for the company, they reproduce less. Employees don't just work for the company, they also "make" other employees. If the standard employee is too sophisticated to make, then less of them get made. If the level of sophistication reaches the point that you need 2 employees to make one replacement....
cut me some slack, I was a freshman in high school. I was trying to listen to what the grownups did so I could be more informed. My basketball coach liked him and recommended him to me so I tuned in for about a month or so. Now all I hear from him is when he says something really stupid and it makes the news.oh heavens!!!!If you've been to college you would know that they DO teach you how to think. It's the bozos on TeeVee that "teach" you what to think.
Hell, I remember in high school hearing Rush Limbaugh make a statement and asking "what do you think?" he waited about 3 seconds and then launched in with "Now I'll tell you what to think." I said no you won't and I haven't listened to him since. that was over 20 years ago.
Who EVER listened to him!
What other way would you seriously suggest? College filter is is the best way currently. anyone can get a college degree. yes you are right the amount of money it will send you into debt is absurd, BUT the fact remains that at the very least it shows an employer that you are dedicated, a hard worker, you have the ability to learn, and you are responsible.
Have you ever seen the lines for American Idol?(I absolutely have to note I don't watch that crap but I've seen the commercials) Those lines are wrapped around the building and out into the street with serious candidates as well as people looking to waste everybody's time. You think that is a more efficient method than filtering people by degree? Again you can get an AA/AS degree at a community college without going in to debt. That makes a BA/BS degree far cheaper because you only have to go to an expensive college for 2 years.
Sounds to me like you're pissed that you can't get hired somewhere because you are not qualified even though you think you are qualified.
I do not understand how you reach this conclusion. Will you lay out your reasoning please.
If this is the explanation then I find addressing it difficult. As Fermi remarked of an asinine proposal by a fellow researcher, "It isn't even wrong."There is a certain amount of out put some one can produce, some of that out put must go in reproduction so that the population stays stable enough. If employees give too much for the company, they reproduce less. Employees don't just work for the company, they also "make" other employees. If the standard employee is too sophisticated to make, then less of them get made. If the level of sophistication reaches the point that you need 2 employees to make one replacement
Increased productivity leads to greater wealth which demonstrably leads to a lower birth rate. The lower birth rate is not a consequence of a limit on how much a worker has to give. That's not realistic.
John, I think you should be a bit cautious about how demonstrably true that statement is.
In a Down Economy, Fewer Births | Pew Research Center
In a Down Economy, Fewer Births
.... A state-level look at fertility illustrates the strength of the correlation between lower birth rates and economic distress. States experiencing the largest economic declines in 2007 and 2008 were most likely to experience relatively large fertility declines from 2008 to 2009, the analysis finds. States with relatively minor economic declines were likely to experience relatively small declines. ....
You start by saying that its the best way, then you say that the debt of it is absurd. So its not really the beast is it? Is this sustainable in the long run? This debt will be repaid or be just defaulted on? There was a time that almost no one had a college degree, is it unrealistic to go back then?
The bottom line is. The current system is unsustainable. If you disagree, explain how people will repay all this debt, and have enough kids, and send there own kids to college. If all that can't be done, then the system is unsustainable and it will scale back.
You just state the statistical correlation. According to you, why greater wealth leads to lower birth rate???
Frankly most that was taught did not apply actively in his field, nor did it prepare him for his licensing exams. He took away knowledge, but not practical for his profession. What was applicable to the reality was never taught. Why? Because the professors didn't do the job!Why should the two be separate? When I was in college I got grant money to do research, a paid internship with the state, and worked in the field gathering samples with a professor's NSF money.
If the only thing someone takes away from college is what they learned in a lecture hall, they didn't do it right. College is about opening up opportunities to GET field experience before you try to go into the field. I think too many people think college is just about trying to maintain a 3.5 and studying books for 4 to 7 years.
You can get a degree in music, but if it doesn't give you knowledge about actually quality and expression in performing, bookings, and auditions, you are pretty much on your own. You have a degree. Practical applications not included
So, though I do respect you. I absolutely do not agree with you!
I do not think this applies to ALL degrees, but it certainly does apply to many.
You were smart enough to listen and hear and make some decision. I was not dissing you. I rarely EVER diss people in the forum. I just stick them in the iggie box. Sometimes that is the smarter move.cut me some slack, I was a freshman in high school. I was trying to listen to what the grownups did so I could be more informed. My basketball coach liked him and recommended him to me so I tuned in for about a month or so. Now all I hear from him is when he says something really stupid and it makes the news.oh heavens!!!!If you've been to college you would know that they DO teach you how to think. It's the bozos on TeeVee that "teach" you what to think.
Hell, I remember in high school hearing Rush Limbaugh make a statement and asking "what do you think?" he waited about 3 seconds and then launched in with "Now I'll tell you what to think." I said no you won't and I haven't listened to him since. that was over 20 years ago.
Who EVER listened to him!
Dan, wake up and look behind the numbers.John, I think you should be a bit cautious about how demonstrably true that statement is.
In a Down Economy, Fewer Births | Pew Research Center
In a Down Economy, Fewer Births
.... A state-level look at fertility illustrates the strength of the correlation between lower birth rates and economic distress. States experiencing the largest economic declines in 2007 and 2008 were most likely to experience relatively large fertility declines from 2008 to 2009, the analysis finds. States with relatively minor economic declines were likely to experience relatively small declines. ....
I am going to take a chance here. I am going to tell you what the study says before I read your link. If it turns out I am wrong I'll withdraw completely from this thread on the basis that I have no idea what I am talking about. Meanwhile my answer will also address QI's question "You just state the statistical correlation. According to you, why greater wealth leads to lower birth rate???"
Consider a country, or region, where the economy has reached a level where incomes, government programs and availability of medical treatments are such that:
- The large majority of children born reach adulthood.
- Concerns about being cared for in old age are substantially reduced.
- Substantial material possessions become affordable by the average citizen, but not if they seek to raise large families.
- A range of similar, related concepts apply. (adelady is probably reading this, fuming, "Why hasn't he mentioned mature programs of sex education and accessible birth control".)
Couples then decide to have fewer, and in some cases zero, children, so that they can enjoy the material benefits now within their reach. Populations growth slows, halts and (as is the case in Italy and elsewhere) even reverses.
That is a rather crude summary of the current consensus view on the relationship between birth rate and economic prosperity.
If so, can it really be true if the study you quote shows the reverse trend? My prediction is that your study looks only at countries that are already economically successful (I'll also admit China, since the one family - one child laws have distorted reproductive habits there.) The study will not contain any third world, or developing countries. (I am guessing it might look at the G7 - not Russia - or western Europe, or the OECD members).
How is this relevant? When you have already switched to a mindset where you assess the number of children you will have on the basis of the number of children you can afford, then any decline in income/wealth will tend to cause you to delay, or cancel plans for further, or any children. If the economic downturn is less in one country or region then the impact will be less. The pattern you describe from the report will occur.
In short, the study will confirm the underlying concept and validate the mechanism that causes it to function.
So, if I am mistaken you can all poke fun at me for illogical thinking and for being so foolish as think reason can ever outsmart proper observation. I'll wait to hear how I've done.
nah....I'll just write your name on the bathroom door of a potty!! *ducking*Dan, wake up and look behind the numbers.John, I think you should be a bit cautious about how demonstrably true that statement is.
In a Down Economy, Fewer Births | Pew Research Center
In a Down Economy, Fewer Births
.... A state-level look at fertility illustrates the strength of the correlation between lower birth rates and economic distress. States experiencing the largest economic declines in 2007 and 2008 were most likely to experience relatively large fertility declines from 2008 to 2009, the analysis finds. States with relatively minor economic declines were likely to experience relatively small declines. ....
I am going to take a chance here. I am going to tell you what the study says before I read your link. If it turns out I am wrong I'll withdraw completely from this thread on the basis that I have no idea what I am talking about. Meanwhile my answer will also address QI's question "You just state the statistical correlation. According to you, why greater wealth leads to lower birth rate???"
Consider a country, or region, where the economy has reached a level where incomes, government programs and availability of medical treatments are such that:
- The large majority of children born reach adulthood.
- Concerns about being cared for in old age are substantially reduced.
- Substantial material possessions become affordable by the average citizen, but not if they seek to raise large families.
- A range of similar, related concepts apply. (adelady is probably reading this, fuming, "Why hasn't he mentioned mature programs of sex education and accessible birth control".)
Couples then decide to have fewer, and in some cases zero, children, so that they can enjoy the material benefits now within their reach. Populations growth slows, halts and (as is the case in Italy and elsewhere) even reverses.
That is a rather crude summary of the current consensus view on the relationship between birth rate and economic prosperity.
If so, can it really be true if the study you quote shows the reverse trend? My prediction is that your study looks only at countries that are already economically successful (I'll also admit China, since the one family - one child laws have distorted reproductive habits there.) The study will not contain any third world, or developing countries. (I am guessing it might look at the G7 - not Russia - or western Europe, or the OECD members).
How is this relevant? When you have already switched to a mindset where you assess the number of children you will have on the basis of the number of children you can afford, then any decline in income/wealth will tend to cause you to delay, or cancel plans for further, or any children. If the economic downturn is less in one country or region then the impact will be less. The pattern you describe from the report will occur.
In short, the study will confirm the underlying concept and validate the mechanism that causes it to function.
So, if I am mistaken you can all poke fun at me for illogical thinking and for being so foolish as think reason can ever outsmart proper observation. I'll wait to hear how I've done.
I have two children....soon to be 32 and 34....neither married. I think people are marrying later, and having fewer children.
That is my humble observation.
Except for the south, of course. They're still having children like crazy, it's no wonder why we have the politicians we do.
I do not know that that is true.Except for the south, of course. They're still having children like crazy, it's no wonder why we have the politicians we do.
sorry if the quotes might get misinterpreted out of context.
yes, ANY real decline of income. Including ever more expensive education that actually reduces real income with out reducing nominal income.
John, I was not trying to poke fun at you.
I was just trying to point out that your claim was not nearly as "demonstrably true" as you claimed.
I am quite aware that correlation is not causation.
I was aware of it when I was reading all those articles that appeared in magazines like The Economist over the years.
They have all of the same faults in them as you accuse this study of having.
Often even worse.
The study is based in the USA. Partly because it is from the Pew Research Center, which is a foundation endowed with funds from the oil industry and their conserns are with economic and social trends in USA. Partly because they have a good data set to work with from the US government, something that is usually lacking in third world countries.
But, thanks for telling me to wake up, for jumping to conclusions, and for refusing to even look at what I offered you.
I think you should at least take a look at their study, read the methodology they applied and then give it some thought.
It really is not about poking fun, who is more clever, or about the fact I believe direct observation can correct false assumptions.
If your preference is to react in an offended manner to what should have been taken as a totally nonoffensive comment, well, that really is not my fault.
I don't want you to withdraw from the thread.
I would rather discuss this with you in a calm and sane manner.
possibly in another thread questioning whether the assumptions in these differing studies are true.
possibly in maths because it would relate to statistics...
Last edited by dan hunter; February 18th, 2014 at 06:11 AM.
Dan,
you seem to have missed the point. You presented research that seemed to contradict a claim I was making. It took me perhaps three seconds to recognise that the contradiction would not be valid if the study only examined wealthy countries.
I had sufficient confidence in my hypothesis that I wished to lay it out in advance. If the research did not support my claim then clearly my views on the topic would have been shown to be totally screwed up. If I had looked at the research before writing down my views I could have been guilty, even subconsciously, of modifying my argument to adjust to what was said. That's unacceptable.
So, I repeat what I said - it's even better since this is for the USA - the wealthiest country in the world. The mindset in the US, like all developed countries is, for the most part, to base the number of children you have on how many you think you can afford. In economic hardtimes those less well off will be most impacted by this and their fertility rate will drop. The study fully supports the thesis.
In regard to the 'poking fun', if I had been mistaken in this I would deserve to be poked. I would be disappointed if I was not poked. If I poke at people who make dumb statements and have stupid ideas, then I insist that I am treated in the same way.
I have taken absolutely no offense at what you have said. I am perplexed as to why you think I might have. I am also puzzled that you do not seem to understand that the study supports my thesis. (Well, its not my thesis, but its the one I'm supporting.) I am almost tempted to take offense at the implication that my earlier post was not "calm and sane". It is one of the most logical posts I have assembled for a while, because I was putting part of my reputation on it. That demands serenity and objectivity. Tempted, but it is a temptation easily ignored.
And, my responses here are out of order. I did not refuse to look at the study. I said I would not look at it till I had put my thesis on the record. I then decided to wait for you, or another member to tell me whether or not I had hit the mark. I had, but you seem not to recognise that. Odd.
If you give it more than a 1/2 second, knee jerk reaction's worth of thought you will notice they are not the same. It is the best way AND the debt is absurd.
You start by saying that its the best way, then you say that the debt of it is absurd. So its not really the beast is it?
Does it matter? in order to be given second's worth of consideration for a skilled job you need the education. in order to get the education you need to pay for it. If you're going to plunk down 50k -200k for an education, this also signals to an employer that you are serious about your field. Something will probably need to be done about the debt and the loans, yes. but debt and loans are not directly tied to education. community college used to be free... if you have a plan to get back to that, I think anybody would be willing to listen. For one I'd say we have to get away from privatizing every god damn thing under the sun which drives up the costs of everything.
you want Pa Walton running your science labs and treating your cough or representing you in court? I think not. Or Barney Fife keeping you safe? I think not. the world is much more advanced and requires much more understanding then back then.
You're right, the current affordability is unsustainable but the need for college is not going away.
Que?
" Cost of education " is directly proportional to the results attained. Umm.. yep that works.. as does
The price of being uneducated is higher than you don't know.
~ Teaching ones self to be happy now seems to have been a valued decision.
The Greeks thought that the Universe could be known by learning its laws. Science has made progress. We can use Science for our own progress. We can train minds. Humans are social species. I think the telecom revolution has made us talk more. We care more for individual freedom(knowing fully well that an individual is never going to be satisfied with what he has). Some where old traits of sharing and taking care need to be imbibed. I wonder whether we are better humans today.Technology has somewhat blinded us. We all know that as kids we were adored, taken care of by elders. There were people who stood by our side through thick and thin. I think we are loosing these kind of people. Maybe education can help....
| « Help with a degree please | Affidavit » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
