What's new

This bill made me curious

Serious? You think that a cop with a degree in "business" or "sociology" has a better understanding of the law?

Then just some dude that spent a few weeks in the police acadamy, yes.

I think back to my undergraduate days, and they weren't spend perusing the laws of the land.

So, what do they really get?

I'm serious here. Other than the debt, what has that younger cop gotten? Both cops went through the Police Academy. Both cops learned what they need to learn in the Police Academy.

As far as cops I don't really care what they have gotten out of it. I care that I am less likely to deal with some dumb hick cop.

Another example: most doctors in the world are bachelors degrees. Why do we require ours to obtain doctorates? What does the Dr learn in his undergraduate studies that makes it essential to becoming a Dr? Other than the debt, what did we do for the Dr?

Same with school teachers. It used to be, to be a school teacher, all you needed was a teaching certificate. Now, most places want a bachelors degree. My sister did her bachelors in education. She didn't learn calculus. She didn't take extra history or english or literature or writing classes. So, what was the point? Other than the debt she came out of school with, what did she really come away with that teacher's in the past were so desperately missing?

Maybe you should ask your sister about class sizes in schools and how hard it is to teach nearly 40 kids to read.

I know 3 people that either just finished a bachelors in education or are almost there. All 3 seem happy with their schooling.


Take a look at the list of degrees offered by most colleges and universities. What good are they? Most are completely useless. So, what is this huge advantage we are getting over being more educated?

Education holds more value than simply the vocation it may provide. For one thing it gives me interesting people to talk to. People that chose to learn about something because they fell in love with it and are passionate about it help make this country the vibrant place that it is. As far as the debt is concerned if you choose to live off loans while you are in school you're going to go deep into debt. In state tuition at the U is what $7,000 a year. So that's 28,000 over four years. Half the price of a brand new truck. You can pay for that education on a low interest loan. Wahhhh

One Brow's mobility link is interesting and I'll have to look more into this.

Now, I'm still forming my opinion on all of this. But I need more than "without schooling we would all be ignorant fools." Have you seen American lately? Even though we can read (somewhat. How often are there common grammar mistakes on message boards? And how often is that viewed as ok? So, again, what is the point of all this education?), we aren't less ignorant by any stretch of the means.

But, hey, at least we can read about what Kim Kardashian is up to, right?


All I can say is compare well educated states to poorly educated ones. Pick a few measures you like.

Compare EU nations for that matter. The patterns will reveal themselves to you.
 
In getting my business degree I took 3 classes aimed at business law. I deal with laws that affect workers and businesses on nearly a daily basis, and have training with great regularity to update us in terms of changes to such laws. I would argue that a business degree does a pretty decent job of helping the student get 1) an introduction to the legal system in America, and a good foundation for understanding, analyzing, and interpreting the output of congress (i.e. laws of the land), and 2) preparing the student to deal with the realities of those laws in a context that has a decided impact on real people.

Frankly, the argument against a degree, of any kind, sounds like it comes from someone who never went to college and is now bitter that they don't get the same chances as someone with a "useless" degree anyway.
 
Frankly, the argument against a degree, of any kind, sounds like it comes from someone who never went to college and is now bitter that they don't get the same chances as someone with a "useless" degree anyway.

No it doesn't since the dude is a dentist.

He is making some valid points.
 
No it doesn't since the dude is a dentist.

He is making some valid points.

I am aware of green's educational background, which is why the comment stood out to me, as that is exactly what it sounded like.

I am more in heyhey's camp in terms of the value of an education, especially for certain fields, and in general. Largely for me this comes from years of dealing with people with a huge diversity in educational backgrounds in an employment setting. There is a reason companies want to locate their operations in places with an "educated work force", as it provides a better prepared employee pool, who takes generally less time and money to train, is more productive and creative, and is also generally paid a higher wage. For example, Reno has a fairly diverse and educated workforce compared to, say, some places in the south. Consequently, we pay on average $4 per hour more for the same work as in parts of Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama. Part of that is cost of living-related, part of it is the fact that we are attracting generally a better-prepared workforce. On average about 80% of the people we hire graduated from high school or have some college, on average one of our sister facilities has 40% high school grad or some college, all others have some kind of GED and nothing more. On average, with the same processes, equipment, and software we are nearly 30% more productive. I do not attribute all of it to a higher education, but it does play a role, one you can see specifically when working with individuals. Of course there is always the chicken or the egg argument, does a higher wage attract a more educated person, or do you have to pay a higher wage due to the higher education of the people in the local employment pool. From my experience working with corporate and other locations in depth, it is more the latter than the former, and that holds true when looking at demographic data regionally to see that hiring patterns tend to follow societal trends in this regard.

I would add to heyhey's comments that I think one thing an extended educational tract does is weed out people who do not seriously want to pursue a particular field, which will generally increase the competence of those who push through, meet the requirements, and overcome the barriers of entry to get into the profession. If it were a 4 year program being enough to graduate as a doctor, then I would imagine the average quality of the doctoral candidates would decrease. If you lower the bar does it really help the profession or society as a whole? Or does it just make it easier for people who couldn't or wouldn't make it in the old system, which isn't necessarily better. Would it be worth it to lower the overall quality of healthcare in order to ease the burden of becoming a doctor?
 
I don't know if I'm serious or not. Just a thought that popped in my head. What about my cop example:

A cop with a HS diploma has a son who now has to get a college degree to be a cop. Other than $20,000-$50,000 in student loans, what did we accomplish?

A cop who is moderately computer-literate and can be more effective in investigations, among other things. The job of a police officer has grown much more complex over the years.
 
So, what do they really get?

heyhey gave some great points, I'll try to supplement them after paying him that suppliment.

I'm serious here. Other than the debt, what has that younger cop gotten? Both cops went through the Police Academy. Both cops learned what they need to learn in the Police Academy.

40 years ago, we didn't have Miranda warnings, our search and seizure routines were haphazard, and interrogations were often brutal.
We decided we wanted a more civilized way of dealing with criminals. That requires police capable of dealing with abstract principals like the right to silence, the sanctity of personal property, and the methods of non-violent interrogations. Even if you don'[t deal with these specific abstractions in your college education, college is where you go to learn to apply and use the process of abstraction generally.

Another example: most doctors in the world are bachelors degrees. Why do we require ours to obtain doctorates? What does the Dr learn in his undergraduate studies that makes it essential to becoming a Dr? Other than the debt, what did we do for the Dr?

As I understand it, you are advocating for, basically, going directly from high school to the equivalent of medical school, and skipping the undergraduate school in between. I've never worked for a medical school. However, I'm confident they have good reasons for not only admitting college graduates, but showing a preference for certain majors over other majors. To my understanding, mathematics is one of the best majors for a prospective doctor. That indicates a preference to the ability to engage in pattern detection and quantitative reasoning.

Same with school teachers. It used to be, to be a school teacher, all you needed was a teaching certificate. Now, most places want a bachelors degree. My sister did her bachelors in education. She didn't learn calculus. She didn't take extra history or english or literature or writing classes. So, what was the point? Other than the debt she came out of school with, what did she really come away with that teacher's in the past were so desperately missing?

I did take a couple of education classes. We learned about child psychology, developmental stages, and methods of successful communication (it seems you can't treat most kids like adults after all).

Take a look at the list of degrees offered by most colleges and universities. What good are they? Most are completely useless. So, what is this huge advantage we are getting over being more educated?

With some degrees, the practical benefit is immediate. With others, the benefit is general, but applies widely. There are also some where you have to be very creative in crafting and applying the skills you have learned. For example, we don't need many professional philosophers, but we could certainly use more decision makers who carefully thought out the consequences of their positions. I think Congress would benefit by balancing out the lawyers with a few philosophers.

... we aren't less ignorant by any stretch of the means.

But, hey, at least we can read about what Kim Kardashian is up to, right?

I use technology every day that my grandfather would have been perplexed by (and he was a pretty smart guy). We are less ignorant, overall, than the American populace of 150 years. In fact, every few years, they make IQ tests a little more difficult (look up the Flynn effect).
 
A cop who is moderately computer-literate and can be more effective in investigations, among other things. The job of a police officer has grown much more complex over the years.

Because you need to spend $20k to become "moderately computer-literate."
 
Remedial-English-copy.jpg
 
I like it.

Don't have a lottery in Utah though we could sell weed in the state liquor stores. Think that would cover it?

Or maybe the Mormon ****ing Church could pay? I mean, you know with all the tax breaks and tithing they're getting. I think they'd make more of a societal impact than all the ******** missionary work they do.
 
Back
Top