4merper4mer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 birdog doesn't understand supply and demand curves. Did anyone not see that coming? Yes he does. He just prefers the govt dictate the demand and control the supply. It worked for Mussolini. Sorta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yes he does. He just prefers the govt dictate the demand and control the supply. It worked for Mussolini. Sorta. the demand is there. especially for skilled trades and tech jobs.the for profit schools are largely a joke and employers know it. it will be a long while (if ever) til supply meets demand. this involves hard work, determination and intelligence.. many will be unwilling or unable to complete the nondiluted curriculum. by the time that happens there will be a need to retool for other needed skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Why does it have to be free to the stufent's family? Why should I have to pay for your kid's college education? Why should anyone have to pay for anything? Let's just get rid of civilization, its too expensive No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Act_of_1965 Would you gut funding to higher eduction? Would that make us a better country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 perhaps there are where you live. in Appalachia, and I suspect many other poor communities, not so much. here's an article describing what i'm saying in broad strokes: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/02/10/apprentice-programs-can-help-fix-the-high-skill-labor-shortage . the first paragraph parrots what so many here say about higher education. i don't think many here can seriously quibble with what it states. the solution could instead look like the charlotte apprentice program linked in the article. problem is that there are way too few of these. for- profit schools are unsuccessfully filling the void: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/16/for-profit-universities-are-not-inherently-bad-just-empirically-bad/mTMDbC0xUXSYWAdeBD3rwO/story.html. demand for them could dry up overnight if obama's plan is successful. also, keep in mind that the federal dollars going to these largely worthless "schools" could be applied to the community colleges programs. from the first link: "Too many recent college grads have no marketable skills, and face years of staggering loan payments for degrees they can’t effectively put to use. The solution is developing innovative programs that invest in training and educating young people for highly-skilled technical work in lucrative technology and manufacturing fields." That's ridiculous. If too many students graduate with no marketable skills, it's because they opted for a degree in a field with little or no opportunity for earning. The school happily takes the student's money, a lot of which is often in the form of loans or grants, and they get a pass while the 'for profit' schools get criticized for the same thing? from the second link: "For all their problems, for-profit universities are not inherently bad — just empirically bad." Again, that statement is ridiculous. I attended a 2-year tech school on Sallie Mae loans and wound up working for what's likely the largest telecom company in the world, earning the highest non-management pay they offer, with a 'Cadillac' health plan, a pension, and a 401K. If I hadn't gone to tech school, I'd likely still be slogging away in a restaurant somewhere. My point is that schools don't provide jobs, they provide education. It's what the individual does with that training that counts. And I would add that aside from the many apprenticeships still available in many fields around the country, it also exists under another name - internship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 from the first link: "Too many recent college grads have no marketable skills, and face years of staggering loan payments for degrees they can’t effectively put to use. The solution is developing innovative programs that invest in training and educating young people for highly-skilled technical work in lucrative technology and manufacturing fields." That's ridiculous. If too many students graduate with no marketable skills, it's because they opted for a degree in a field with little or no opportunity for earning. The school happily takes the student's money, a lot of which is often in the form of loans or grants, and they get a pass while the 'for profit' schools get criticized for the same thing? from the second link: "For all their problems, for-profit universities are not inherently bad — just empirically bad." Again, that statement is ridiculous. I attended a 2-year tech school on Sallie Mae loans and wound up working for what's likely the largest telecom company in the world, earning the highest non-management pay they offer, with a 'Cadillac' health plan, a pension, and a 401K. If I hadn't gone to tech school, I'd likely still be slogging away in a restaurant somewhere. My point is that schools don't provide jobs, they provide education. It's what the individual does with that training that counts. And I would add that aside from the many apprenticeships still available in many fields around the country, it also exists under another name - internship. traditional universities share blame here. they should encourage more marketable programs. they should be much less expensive: no taj mahal dorms, no "big time" sports, more online teacvhing...you know, kinda like what community colleges do. and i agree, many kids make poor choices. i'm glad that a technical school worked so well for you and provided the opportunities you sought. unfortunately, this is often not the case and student least able to afford it are left with no better prospects and crushing debt. that needs to be stopped or at least slowed. do you feel things don't need improvewment in this regard. if not, what steps would you suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 traditional universities share blame here. they should encourage more marketable programs. they should be much less expensive: no taj mahal dorms, no "big time" sports, more online teacvhing...you know, kinda like what community colleges do. and i agree, many kids make poor choices. i'm glad that a technical school worked so well for you and provided the opportunities you sought. unfortunately, this is often not the case and student least able to afford it are left with no better prospects and crushing debt. that needs to be stopped or at least slowed. do you feel things don't need improvewment in this regard. if not, what steps would you suggest? I think that things like this can always be improved. My issue was with the way the articles placed the emphasis of failure on the tech/trade schools themselves, and not at all on the poor choices the students made, while seemingly giving the 'traditional' colleges and universities a pass. I know a lot of servers and restaurant managers who went to UT Austin and cost their parents a small fortune in doing so, and can't find work because they hold degrees in Art History and Philosophy. If I had to make any suggestions as to what could be done regarding validating or invalidating the success of 'for profit' schools, I would offer businesses some kind of tax break for providing data on their new hires - where did they attain their degree, and were they hired through a school recruitment program or on the applicants' individual initiative. That way we could have some kind of idea of what the actual impact on filling job vacancies various schools have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 traditional universities share blame here. they should encourage more marketable programs. Yes, they should...programs like Womyn's Studies or African Diaspora Culture Studies are a glorious waste of money. Now what's the group of people that hold the philosophy that that crap is important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Schools don't create jobs, lower taxes and relaxation of government regulations do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 I'm still curious how the saturation of the job market with Associate's degrees doesn't devalue them, doesn't drive down wages for those holding them, and doesn't lead to professions which currently don't require a two year degree beginning to require one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Schools don't create jobs, lower taxes and relaxation of government regulations do. Human capital??? Duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I'm still curious how the saturation of the job market with Associate's degrees doesn't devalue them, doesn't drive down wages for those holding them, and doesn't lead to professions which currently don't require a two year degree beginning to require one. Well you know, this would be a much more valuable plan IF we planned on supporting businesses. But the entitled tax and spend regime can't ever see letting go of any of that money. We have the highest corporate tax in the entire industrialized world and rather than fixing that, we will offer some free classes to make the few jobs we do have less valuable. So not only will we be exporting jobs but now we will be exporting the people to fill them. Immigrants will travel here on Visas (or illegally through the amnesty proposal) get a a free 2 year degree and then move home with training to better themselves in their home country. We'll have even more debt and.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Human capital??? Duh! Only in your warped little Obama-world does supply create demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yes, they should...programs like Womyn's Studies or African Diaspora Culture Studies are a glorious waste of money. Now what's the group of people that hold the philosophy that that crap is important? Why are they a waste? If they are useful to the people taking them then so be it. Freedom is a tricky thing, Tom Only in your warped little Obama-world does supply create demand. Ronald Reagan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yes, they should...programs like Womyn's Studies or African Diaspora Culture Studies are a glorious waste of money. Now what's the group of people that hold the philosophy that that crap is important? fully agree. at a minimum, there shouldn't be majors in stuff like this. i think we need to hold parents accountable here as well. who keeps paying tuition for a kid that wants to pursue a financially worthless degree? if the kid see's value in it, let him pay his own way. but let's be clear. these are generally different pools of student we are talking about seeking degrees at traditional uni's vs community colleges. some may go on to traditional uni's but in general, i'd bet they are more practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Why not just mandate 14 years in the public school system? I'm sure the HS teachers would welcome the opportunity to have a few hundred more students in their building every day. They Unions would go for it - slam dunk. But B. O. says it'll be free. So the JC teachers, administrators, staff, and all employees will work for free. Man, that's some trick. Gotta hand it to the Thinker-in-Chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Why not just mandate 14 years in the public school system? I'm sure the HS teachers would welcome the opportunity to have a few hundred more students in their building every day. They Unions would go for it - slam dunk. But B. O. says it'll be free. So the JC teachers, administrators, staff, and all employees will work for free. Man, that's some trick. Gotta hand it to the Thinker-in-Chief. i'd like to see the net cost of this program after fed dollars are diverted away from for profits.. i suspect it will be offset significantly. we will also likely getting a bigger bang for our buck through the jc system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 i'd like to see the net cost of this program after fed dollars are diverted away from for profits.. i suspect it will be offset significantly. we will also likely getting a bigger bang for our buck through the jc system. A private high school education delivers better results than a public education, and does so at a lower cost. This changes at the college level, when, all of a sudden, massive amounts of federal dollars come into play in the "private" education sector. Why do you think that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 A private high school education delivers better results than a public education, and does so at a lower cost. This changes at the college level, when, all of a sudden, massive amounts of federal dollars come into play in the "private" education sector. Why do you think that is? actually, i don't accept your premise at the high school level. it's a false comparison. generally, those that aqttend private schools are from relative affluence (with the exception of the ringer jocks) and high levels of parental support and encouragement (and possibly, better genes). now if you were to compare affluent public schools to poor, private schools (i doubt there are any) you'd come to a similarly flawed conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 actually, i don't accept your premise at the high school level. it's a false comparison. generally, those that aqttend private schools are from relative affluence (with the exception of the ringer jocks) and high levels of parental support and encouragement (and possibly, better genes). now if you were to compare affluent public schools to poor, private schools (i doubt there are any) you'd come to a similarly flawed conclusion. Better genes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Awesome. Our company sells a product to assist remedial students in Higher Ed. Looks like boom times ahead with all the new Obama-idiots who will be enrolling! actually, i don't accept your premise at the high school level. it's a false comparison. generally, those that aqttend private schools are from relative affluence (with the exception of the ringer jocks) and high levels of parental support and encouragement (and possibly, better genes). now if you were to compare affluent public schools to poor, private schools (i doubt there are any) you'd come to a similarly flawed conclusion. Obviously we need a parental support and encouragement tax to level the playing field. Edited January 12, 2015 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts