View Full Version : Obama proposes free community college for first 2 years..........
Hmmm......Hearing about this on the same day I'm hearing that some schools in a local city are offering free lunches to students and parents, even when they are closed for bad weather/cold.
I'm not sure I agree with either of these things.
DH has a good friend who has taught a remedial English course at a community college in this city for years. He's just retired, but it came a good time for him. He is so very disappointed and disgusted with the kids who have taken his course for the past few years. I guess this course is "free" (Pell Grants), and you can take it 2 times free. It's for kids who don't know enough to get into college. It is hoped that this will help them to get into a college. Well, hardly anybody passes his class. Kids don't show up, don't do their assignments, leave class early, and in general just don't give a crap. No matter how many times this teacher would explain the assignment, the majority of kids wouldn't do it, or wouldn't understand it.
So this is where our taxes are going?
And how long do we give people like this more and more things??
I feel like we should have some kind of different approach. Many of these parents don't feed their kids breakfast or dinner........so the schools have started to supply breakfast, lunch, and send the kids home with dinner too.
How can we ever fix this, without expecting the people who struggle and work hard at a job to constantly pay more and more for the ones who can't/won't?
And ideas?
I've only surfed headlines but I believe that part of obama's proposal is that to qualify you have to maintain a 2.5 GPA and have achieved a similar GPA in high school. I agree that I'd hate to see money wasted on students who lack interest but if it works as intended I think this will be a good thing. Over the long run the cost will likely be more than made up by increased tax revenue since more education, on average, means more income over the course,of one's life.
I've read that the estimated cost of this is something along the lines of $60b over 10 years. There must surely be $6b/year that could come out of the military's budget. This seems like a 1000x more productive use of the money. I mean, really, if educating our citizens isn't one of the most important things we can be doing with tax dollars, what is?
rodeosweetheart
1-9-15, 7:09pm
Personally,I think that feeding people is, on the whole, a good thing to do, as it builds a sense of community when we eat together.
It seems like with the Pell grant classes, students can only fail so many courses before they lose the grant. It's also a limit, so they would probably not be able to take the courses again. I know what you mean about being frustrated about students not showing up--I have been in teaching situations where that happens, and I can't understand why someone walks away from such a great opportunity. But if they really don't want to be in college or they can't do the work, then they will not stay, and that is okay, too. I'd rather have a system that gives more students a chance, than something that is strictly merit based and does not allow time and opportunity for students to catch up. There is a lot of untapped talent that we lose each year because students are not ready for college or are turned off by college.
My husband's dad started a school in the inner city and took in kids and fed them, supplied lots of scholarships, etc., and we were just talking about how those kids have grown up to do great things, many of them. College professors, bishops--if they had not had that place to go to, they probably would have ended up like so many in the community, in jail or dead from drugs. It was a really bombed out neighborhood. So I personally do not have any problem with tax money going to feed students--maybe I am naive, but I'd so much rather feed a kid in school than in prison, you know?
It'd be sort of nice to get our high schools working first though....
ApatheticNoMore
1-9-15, 7:34pm
Over the long run the cost will likely be more than made up by increased tax revenue since more education, on average, means more income over the course,of one's life.
I'm doubtful that's true. Just because there are more people "qualified" for high income jobs (and qualified although it may have an objective component, is still very much in the eye of the beholder,employers can do some training at one extreme, or hold out for the ideal candidate for months in another extreme) doesn't mean there are anymore of those jobs than there were before.
And it's kind of annoying as we already have fairly affordable city colleges. I think it's like some $40-$50 a unit in California and a lot of the students get that waived. The bigger problem is not cost but availability of classes. I voted incidentally for increased state taxes to keep classes from being cut further and costs from going up further. And it's income taxes so I definitely pay them. But I think the state already does a pretty good job of providing affordable college education.
I mean, really, if educating our citizens isn't one of the most important things we can be doing with tax dollars, what is?
I sometimes think if the citizens were educated we'd have a revolution. Educated enough to see how badly we are misruled ...
I can't find anything wrong with feeding kids period. Education doesn't solve the problem of a economic system that doesn't have a place for everyone (who it has a place for may shift and may be more or less fair by any arbitrary definition, but I think it's indisputable some people must be discarded by this economic system). But feeding kids does solve the problem of kids are going hungry.
While I agree that more education may not ultimately bring everyone's salary up if we don't have more opportunities, the current stats are that the better educated a person is the more they are likely to earn.
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm According to the BLS a person with an associates degree is likely to earn $121 more per week than someone with just a high school diploma and is 2.1% less likely to be unemployed. If we churn out a boatload of folks with associates degrees and they can find jobs this program will pay for itself. On the other hand, if all this does is drive down the wages of people with associates degrees, then yeah, it will be a waste of money and students' time and effort.
It is entirely possible, though, that if one were to look at longterm stats we would find not that education has improved incomes, but that lack of education today is a bigger hinderance to income than it used to be.
It is entirely possible, though, that if one were to look at longterm stats we would find not that education has improved incomes, but that lack of education today is a bigger hinderance to income than it used to be.
I think if you'll look at long-term data, you'll see that early childhood education gives you insane bang-for-the-buck. The earlier the course correction, the simpler it is to steer the ship, that sort of thing.
http://www.highscope.org/content.asp?contentid=219
I think if you'll look at long-term data, you'll see that early childhood education gives you insane bang-for-the-buck. The earlier the course correction, the simpler it is to steer the ship, that sort of thing.
http://www.highscope.org/content.asp?contentid=219
I agree completely.
Higher Education is only the solution for Higher Education. If we make Colleges accessible and affordable enough, and lower the standards enough, to accommodate everyone who wants to go and jump through some hoops for a Diploma, we will largely just be creating new jobs in the Educational Sector. The end result will be unemployed people with Batchelors Degrees preparing their resumes & competing for the next available opening at Mickdonalds or WahMart. AA Degrees are already kind of worthless, except in Health Care. See? But, I believe someone else here already said that. Thank Mee, anyway.
I agree completely.That is good to hear. There was an old grocery store that closed over on this city's northwest side, in a low-income area. The govvermint spent a ton of money remodeling it, and leased it from the owners for a ridiculous amount. It is one of those "early childhood" operations you are speaking of. Hopefully, we will be getting a lot of "bang" in return.
flowerseverywhere
1-10-15, 6:43am
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_Yes_to_Education
here is a program that did just that for poor inner city kids. Some great results, some not so great.
What at you really need is to have a fire in your belly, to really want it and be willing to work for it.
Here is an interesting article about the decline in high school dropout rates. But of course we never hear the good news.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-high-school-dropout-rate-reaches-record-low-driven-by-improvements-among-hispanics-blacks/
as as far as feeding kids goes, I am surrounded by kids who live in extreme poverty. People are stepping up to the plate as citizens to help these schools through giving supplies, books, mentoring and tutoring and the result is remarkable. I am starting to volunteer in one of the local schools that has 86% free lunch qualification. Their high school graduation rate is only 77% and as Bae pointed out, they have started bolstering their early education and there is a ripple effect up and the grad rate and proficiency rates are increasing each year.
lessisbest
1-10-15, 7:08am
I don't have enough information at this time to give a good opinion on this current boondoggle, but "FREE" is never free. Higher education has almost become a "right", but what about the "rights" of everyone who has to pay for it. We paid for our higher educations, and the same opportunity to do so is there for everyone who is willing to work for it.
This also brought to mind the WWII generation. The generation that literally built this country with their hearts, hands and minds. Most of them had an 8th grade education, and a much smaller number completed high school and college, and had just come through the Depression and a world war. They had a great work ethic. I just read yesterday that a large percentage of students leave high school and can barely read at a 7th grade level and have few skills --- unless texting with two thumbs is considered a "work skill". At this point, I think the money would be better placed in trade schools. Not everyone needs a higher education, but everyone does need the skills for a job. We've put the emphasis on college for too many years.
flowerseverywhere
1-10-15, 7:15am
Lessisbest, WWII vets took advantage of the government programs for education, loans etc. almost 8 million of the 16 million vets took advantage of the education benefits.
http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/history.asp
also, read my post about high school dropout rates from the pew institute.
I think if you'll look at long-term data, you'll see that early childhood education gives you insane bang-for-the-buck. The earlier the course correction, the simpler it is to steer the ship, that sort of thing.
http://www.highscope.org/content.asp?contentid=219
I totally agree.
Among 3-4 year olds you have a completely 'captive audience' and receptive.
All those dear little ones want to do is please the adults in their lives (along with some occasional pushbacks and declarations of independence). Plus, in preschool, my kids learned skills that allowed them to assert their independence in a healthy way. They absolutely thrived in preschool and were ready to hit the ground running in kindergarten.
If we were able to impact children earlier, it may lessen the load on grade school teachers, so they are not always playing catch up with students that are behind grade level.
Not to mention it is helpful to parents to know that their child is in a solid beneficial program, so they can focus on their own careers.
Both of our kids are now in fulltime public school. What a relief on the pocketbook!
We had the good fortune of putting our kids in solid preschools, but it COST a lot.
I agree with you Packy.
It's a crime how slimy some of these so-called educational institutions have become.
To leave college straddled with high interest loans doesn't seem to really help anyone (except the bankers).
It is an apples to oranges argument to try to compare what college costs used to be to what they are now.
At least with this measure, it's focused on community colleges.
Don't community colleges also have a wide variety of vocational options that are specific to the workforce options in their area?
To me that's the key, 'workforce options in their area'.... I live in a place that used to have tons of knitting mills, factories etc. a long time back.... We drive around and I ask my husband, "You're telling me that it is really cheaper for an American company to make things on the other side of the globe and ship it here than to do it right here in this area that desperately needs jobs?"
The other little tidbit that stunned me was when they did the Immigration measures in the deep Southern state and the food rotted on the vine because they couldn't hire people who would/could do it, although the area was filled with the unemployed.
I see it in my own kids that they are picking up that the only way to succeed in life is to 'go to college' and I quickly correct them that there is pride in all work.
I don't have enough information at this time to give a good opinion on this current boondoggle, but "FREE" is never free. Higher education has almost become a "right", but what about the "rights" of everyone who has to pay for it. We paid for our higher educations, and the same opportunity to do so is there for everyone who is willing to work for it.
This also brought to mind the WWII generation. The generation that literally built this country with their hearts, hands and minds. Most of them had an 8th grade education, and a much smaller number completed high school and college, and had just come through the Depression and a world war. They had a great work ethic. I just read yesterday that a large percentage of students leave high school and can barely read at a 7th grade level and have few skills --- unless texting with two thumbs is considered a "work skill". At this point, I think the money would be better placed in trade schools. Not everyone needs a higher education, but everyone does need the skills for a job. We've put the emphasis on college for too many years.
I think perhaps the two biggest differences between now and the past are 1)college educations used to be much cheaper, and 2) after WWII a person without an education could get a good job in a factory and live a middle class lifestyle.
That said, I agree with you regarding trade schools. If I had a kid nearing adulthood today and they were not especially interested in school I'd probably try to steer them towards trade school and a career that can't be outsourced like diesel mechanic, refrigerator tech, copy machine tech, etc.
Miss Cellane
1-10-15, 10:52am
Speaking to the feeding the children part of the OP, because I have to do a lot more reading about the free college bit: There are kids who go hungry in my nice little city on a daily basis. Some of them have two parents who are both working. Some don't.
1. Some parents on SNAP (the food stamp program) and WIC (Women, Infants and Children) sell their SNAP and WIC cards to get money for drugs or alcohol.
2. Some parents on SNAP have spouses/SOs who steal the SNAP cards to sell them.
3. SNAP is a supplemental program--it is not designed to pay for a family's entire food costs for the month, just give them some extra money.
4. In some families, even working two jobs does not pay the daily expenses of the family. There are still a lot of minimum wage, part-time jobs out there, with no benefits and crap hours, which require the families to pay for child care.
I work with a lot of temps in my job. I get to hear the conversations as they talk about struggling to find money to keep the 14 year old car going so they can get to their permanent, part-time night job, their permanent, part-time weekend job, and the temp, 8-5 jobs that my workplace provides. They share tips on what programs to apply for and how to get emergency help when there's no money and no food in the house. These people are not slackers. They work hard, because they rely on my company for a large part of their income. They are tired, they are worn out, but they keep trying.
I work with moms who eat one meal a day, so their kids can have enough food. I work with people who use the free hot chocolate our company provides to sweeten/cream their coffee--because the sugar in the chocolate gives them a few more calories to get through the day. I work with people who fall asleep at their computers because they have put in a 70 hour week, for weeks on end, trying to make enough money at $7.25/hour to pay the rent and feed their kids.
5. We have entangled our school systems into doing a lot more than teach our children. After the age of three, all children with disabilities get their therapy through the local school system--physical, occupational, speech, etc. Using the schools is not necessarily a bad idea--the kids go there on a regular basis anyway. So using the schools to feed the kids isn't that far a stretch.
6. They are kids. They can't get jobs and feed themselves. Or they may have parents who would steal their money to buy drugs. They are kids. They shouldn't go to bed hungry. I have all sorts of issues about using schools for all the services other than education, but I don't have an issue with using the schools to feed kids.
I mean, in an ideal world, those kids would be getting fed at home, sitting down to a steaming hot plate of pot roast, green beans and mashed potatoes for dinner. But until that day comes, if my tax dollars get spent anywhere, feeding kids who can't feed themselves is a good place for the money to go.
One facet of government paying for school - I remember getting Pell grants when I went to a 2 year school (all I could afford and my parent did not have a lot). I also remember getting a much better paying job afterwards. It didn't take long for the extra taxes I was paying into the system to offset what I had gotten in grants. In that respect it was not a bad investment for the government.
One facet of government paying for school - I remember getting Pell grants when I went to a 2 year school (all I could afford and my parent did not have a lot). I also remember getting a much better paying job afterwards. It didn't take long for the extra taxes I was paying into the system to offset what I had gotten in grants. In that respect it was not a bad investment for the government.
Yes--more enlightened countries consider education--including vocational training--an investment, not a burden. Well-paid citizens pay more taxes, after all, and aren't so likely to require aid. Not to mention contributing more fully to the common good. Community colleges were practically free when I went to University, and my four-year tuition and books probably amounted to $500 a year. Adjusted for inflation, that probably works out to $2000. Students today are just considered cash cows--who cares if they actually learn something. No wonder some of them cynically use the system.
As far as feeding needy children, surely we can divert some money from the banksters and our endless wars to throw a crust to Tiny Tim. Unless your role model is Ebenezer Scrooge.
gimmethesimplelife
1-10-15, 12:08pm
I am all for two years of community college being free - this is how things work in much of Europe and I firmly believe that if you want a civil society, you have to give people chances in life (such as through education). Drowning students in student loan debt doesn't really help anyone other than perhaps bankers as many of these loans are government guaranteed - do we really need to be helping the bankers any more than we already have? (Yet another class of Americans immune to the consequences of their actions, how to forgive for this?)
All that having been said, I agree that this money might be better spent on getting these young people into trades - there just are not going to be enough job openings in the future for English majors or even MBA's. Maybe even some program teaching entrepreneurship or even soloprenuership - there is a one semester block of classes at Phoenix Community College with a long waiting list covering entrepreneurship. Covering that one semester would not cost as much as two years of community college and some young people seem to have the fire to go out on their own - there is no job security these days anyway, why not go out on your own? I'm not sure covering two years of prereqs to a four year degree is a great investment in society these days. Maybe we'd be best off teaching young people how to fish so that they could eat vs. paying to provide them fish. Rob
Children should definitely not go hungry. I am just wondering if this allows some of the slacker parents to slack even more. DH told me that they recently started sending home food for the weekends for these children.
We just seem to be throwing bandaid upon bandaid on situations that should be dealt with in a different way. Seems like we're not even trying to deal with anything but bandaids any more.
Now kids have all-day preschool. No matter how much is tried to give these kids support/food/encouragement, etc., they still have to go back to their dysfunctional/irresponsible homes. Maybe if you don't live near a big city that has big problems like this, you can't imagine it. This city has a huge public school system that has been struggling for years and years. The problem being, they can't change the homes that these kids go home to.
And as far as college........I, too, believe it's just big business now and there are lots of better ways to learn a profession. I was mostly responding to the frustration of DH's friend in that none of his pupils there any more (at least in the remedial classes) have any intention of learning or changing or making a go at a better life.
I think this country is a bit nuts. We send all our jobs overseas and then complain that there's no jobs to be had. We have a very expensive culture.....yet we won't pay a minimum wage that can keep some people afloat....even when they are working 2 jobs.
Seems like this country gets more and more dysfunctional all the time. :(
iris lilies
1-10-15, 1:00pm
One facet of government paying for school - I remember getting Pell grants when I went to a 2 year school (all I could afford and my parent did not have a lot). I also remember getting a much better paying job afterwards. It didn't take long for the extra taxes I was paying into the system to offset what I had gotten in grants. In that respect it was not a bad investment for the government.
That economic equation only works if there is an assumption that untrained/uneducated candidates can't be found for open positions. And back in those days, it may be true. If you had not been ready for the job, was someone else ready for it? The job existed to pay someone who would pay income taxes. Back when I started my professional career, national unemployment was 10%. Had I not taken that first job, someone else would have taken it, it would not have gone unfilled.
It is very difficult for me to reconcile these seemingly conflicting concepts:
1) Today, there is a serious lack of good paying, professional jobs any more
2) Today we need to push more people into white collar job tracks, traditionally performed through college education, by making it free
If it is true that Jr. college (aka community college) is replacing the education that high school once did, we are no further ahead. We have only stretched Nanny Government to cover more years of schooling, not "better" or "higher" ed. I have been hiring for 25+ years in an urban environment, and I can assure you that people come out of community college unable to write standard English at what was once a medium Jr. High level of a competence. I won't address their reading comprehension because I really don't expect them, at minimum levels of employment, to read and comprehend much on their own.
There is national outcry about out society's need for STEM graduates, but that's not what the President's program is about.
Miss Cellane
1-10-15, 1:01pm
Children should definitely not go hungry. I am just wondering if this allows some of the slacker parents to slack even more. DH told me that they recently started sending home food for the weekends for these children.
We just seem to be throwing bandaid upon bandaid on situations that should be dealt with in a different way. Seems like we're not even trying to deal with anything but bandaids any more.
(
You know, it probably does allow the slacker parents to be even bigger slacker parents.
But at what point do you remove children from their homes? Force sterilization on people who won't be good parents? How do you even determine that?
There are slacker parents and there are parents who are trying really hard--the children of both types shouldn't have to suffer.
What other ways would you suggest to get food into these kids?
iris lilies
1-10-15, 1:09pm
You know, it probably does allow the slacker parents to be even bigger slacker parents.
But at what point do you remove children from their homes? Force sterilization on people who won't be good parents? How do you even determine that?
There are slacker parents and there are parents who are trying really hard--the children of both types shouldn't have to suffer.
What other ways would you suggest to get food into these kids?
Feeding stations. Just set up feeding stations run by the gubment and forget it. 3 squares a day, just show up and present your FeedStation card, children, mom, dad. The end.
The end to thousands of gubmnet bureaucrats who administer SNAP, WIC, EBT, etc benefits. Move them into The Feeding Stations Department.
It's annoying for me as a taxpayer to feed the children BOTH at school AND AT HOME. Yes, I know there are irresponsible parents who can't manage to do it. So why are we paying the parents to do it?
ApatheticNoMore
1-10-15, 1:49pm
It is very difficult for me to reconcile these seemingly conflicting concepts:
1) Today, there is a serious lack of good paying, professional jobs any more
2) Today we need to push more people into white collar job tracks, traditionally performed through college education, by making it free
If it is true that Jr. college (aka community college) is replacing the education that high school once did, we are no further ahead.
even if it provides a better education, let's say it really is better than high school used to be, we are not further ahead economically if the jobs that exist out there are the same one's that always did (I make no comment on the value of an educated citizen. One argument at a time! I'm talking economics). Instead of a HS diploma being the absolute minimum now a more advanced degree is.
The concept is basically the "tragedy of the commons" or alternately has been described as the fallacy of composition (what is true for the part is true for the whole).
It may be individually rational for an individual to get more education to improve their economic position, but if everyone did so everyone would be no further ahead. Now there are possible flaws with that as an absolute model, but what about foreign competition, maybe the competition isn't just local, won't it slightly improve us against that (perhaps but I'm not sure foreign competition isn't more a race to the bottom than about education). But but if everyone has more education won't a few rare people use it to produce things that are beneficial for everyone thereby raising the standard of living? Perhaps, then again they could just invent more robots to put everyone out of a job! :~) But the argument can't get to nuanced until one agrees that just because more education for an individual means more pay does not necessarily mean that if everyone had it everyone would get more pay.
I don't really see Europe as always being a model. There are a lot of very educated unemployed people there. There are educated unemployed people here too. However I bet in Europe they are even MORE educated! :~) Sigh ... I do get a sense that that is true though.
There is national outcry about out society's need for STEM graduates]/quote]
even this is maybe mostly nonsense. "Society's need for STEM graduates" may just = employers need for cheap labor. If there was enough people in a field but you wanted to pay them less and were an industry lobbyist wouldn't you say there wasn't? Some say this is what is actually going on with STEM.
[quote]Higher education has almost become a "right", but what about the "rights" of everyone who has to pay for it. We paid for our higher educations, and the same opportunity to do so is there for everyone who is willing to work for it.
Actually higher education in CA was subsidized then quite a bit and is now by the state (it was once free by the way, became not so in the 80s). And people benefited from it then and pay taxes for it now and so the virtuous circle turns - pay it back if you can't pay it forward. But that is different than seeing education as solving problems it will not solve. And I deeply distrust what Obama is up to. The mistake would be to see him as a liberal. He is not.
And I deeply distrust what Obama is up to. The mistake would be to see him as a liberal. He is not.
The fact that many progressives and socialists consider themselves liberal shows how little understanding they actually have. There's nothing liberal about today's mainstream left.
even if it provides a better education, let's say it really is better than high school used to be, we are not further ahead economically if the jobs that exist out there are the same one's that always did (I make no comment on the value of an educated citizen. One argument at a time! I'm talking economics). Instead of a HS diploma being the absolute minimum now a more advanced degree is. ...
I don't really see Europe as always being a model. There are a lot of very educated unemployed people there. There are educated unemployed people here too. However I bet in Europe they are even MORE educated! :~) Sigh ... I do get a sense that that is true though. ...
Well, education isn't just about employment. Those in power might not find an educated electorate desirable, but I, for one, would prefer to live in a country where people are literate and well-informed.
ApatheticNoMore
1-10-15, 2:07pm
What is Obama really up to with all this? He can't possibly pass these things by executive order or just through executive departments can he? I'm not even talking about what is constitutional as this country is post-constitutional. But I mean what is the precedence for passing these things by executive order?
And if not then he has to work with the Republicans right? How? Now it's possible this is a proposal that can't be passed and is just a suggestion that noone even expects to be passed but it makes Obama look good giving a speech ("it wasn't my fault, the evil republicans, look what you made me do ... " etc.). It doesn't help Obama that he is proposing this when the congressional odds have never been worse for him in his term prior to now. It is also possible that congressional Republicans are all for this without concessions. I regard that latter as extremely unlikely, the current crop of legislators is bought and sold period and will not do anything unless they get concession for their donors. Now it is also possible the Republicans could be for it with concessions but the concessions could make it a really really bad deal. What might the concession be? I don't know. Keystone XL? Cutting Social Security? Fasttrack for the TPP?
Let's dwell on that last point, the TPP. So there are the trade agreements the TPP and the TPIP, the strongest objections to them are based on them being 1) entirely negotiated in secret (that's true) and 2) them being a coup against democracy as they will have a global corporate appeal body that will be able to economically punish democratically passed laws. If they don't like laws on poison in the river because it interferes with profits they could sue the city that passed them etc.. Those are the good objections, please research the TPP and the TPIP if you haven't. But to circle back to the point there are also economic objections to those laws. Fear that more trade agreements will outsource more good jobs and leave us just with more and more low paying service level jobs. That certainly seems to be what has happened. If so these trade agreements will mean less good jobs while meanwhile people will be fooled by the tragedy of the commons and an assumption that the external job environment remains stable (when in fact it could get worse if more and more jobs are outsourced) into getting more and more education for less and less jobs! This seems to me a very bad situation. Obama giveth (free 2 years of college) and Obama taketh away (trade agreements unless we are sure there won't be irreplaceable loss of good jobs - they are still bad for other reasons mentioned, but here I am just speaking about the mess young people could find themselves in).
The fact that many progressives and socialists consider themselves liberal shows how little understanding they actually have. There's nothing liberal about today's mainstream left.
Nor is Obama a progressive or socialist.
ApatheticNoMore
1-10-15, 2:34pm
Well, education isn't just about employment. Those in power might not find an educated electorate desirable, but I, for one, would prefer to live in a country where people are literate and well-informed.
I'm skeptical whether more years of formal education on average will produce this, however it's possible it could (running a social experiment at that point I guess). I guess it depends on to what extent education is seen as valuable for it's own sake, and to what extent it is seen as worthless but absolutely necessarily economically to get an education (so cheat your way through if you have to. Or if you are more ethical than that, but still don't care: memorize and forget, memorize and forget your way though.).
I guess there's an assumption that it's ok to blackmail everyone to get an education if necessary (by having it be the only way to survive economically so that's it's a choiceless choice). Don't know how cool I am with that no matter how beneficial an educated citizenry is (and also because I doubt education if viewed so cynically has much effect anyway).
I'm skeptical whether more years of formal education on average will produce this, however it's possible it could (running a social experiment at that point I guess). I guess it depends on to what extent education is seen as valuable for it's own sake, and to what extent it is seen as worthless but absolutely necessarily economically to get an education (so cheat your way through if you have to. Or if you are more ethical than that, but still don't care: memorize and forget, memorize and forget your way though.).
I guess there's an assumption that it's ok to blackmail everyone to get an education if necessary (by having it be the only way to survive economically so that's it's a choiceless choice). Don't know how cool I am with that no matter how beneficial an educated citizenry is (and also because I doubt education if viewed so cynically has much effect anyway).
Cynical, indeed--but your point is valid. Maybe we're post-cerebral as well as post-constitutional...
Nor is Obama a progressive or socialist.So, according to some, he's not a liberal, he's not a progressive and he's not a socialist. I think I could agree with that, narcissists place themselves above ideology, I just wonder why so many on the left idolize him so? It's a mystery..
I don't think anyone can get elected to national office in this country who isn't right of center--witness the Clintons, et al. Republicans Eisenhower (warned against the military-industrial complex) and Nixon (championed the environment) would probably be considered "Socialists" today. Language is fluid.
So, according to some, he's not a liberal, he's not a progressive and he's not a socialist. I think I could agree with that, narcissists place themselves above ideology, I just wonder why so many on the left idolize him so? It's a mystery..Well, I think maybe you could classify him as being like Reagan--an actor(of sorts). Like an aspiring actress who does whatever it takes to get work. Sometimes, he reads the script from the Teleprompter, sometimes he's like a sportscaster, who kind of gives a play-by-play. Other times, it's just banal sports talk. Can you relate to that? At one time, Reagan was a Democrat & a Union Leader(Actors' Guild, I believe). But then later, playing an archconservative, I think he prolly beat out Charleton Heston or somebody like that for the lead role in "Bringing Down Godless Communism". Not everyone is an Ideologue, but the present norm these days is to either be Fanatically "Conservative" or a Bleeding-Heart "Liberal". Neither stereotype is liberal, or conservative. But, that's a topic for another thread...
gimmethesimplelife
1-10-15, 4:54pm
Obama was in Phoenix briefly this past week and I was surprised that he received a polite reception and even applause - I often tell people Arizona is more liberal than the media makes us out to be but even I was surprised at the kindly reception he was shown. And his speech about the housing crisis and things starting to get better worked for me too though I realize it's a bit of a stretch with so many long term unemployed still unable to find work and so many stuck working part time that would rather be full time.
I do applaud Obama's wanting to make two years of community college free of tuition but I also understand that life is not that easy. Today there was an article in the Arizona Republic to the effect that the Feds would only cover 75% of the costs with the states picking up the remainder of the cost. Not going to play very well in Arizona as we are looking at a budget deficit of a BILLION dollars this year - that's right, a billion dollars, even with retail sales and auto sales and housing having perked up a bit. Things are still very slow overall here compared to how Arizona is historically and we are also near the bottom of the barrel in how many jobs we have recovered after the recession ended. The money is just not there for the state of Arizona to pick up 25% of the cost of this plan. As much as I am a liberal, the math here just isn't going to work. Crystal clear on this one. Rob
"Narcissistic?" He probably has a strong ego, as who doesn't who ever aspired to the presidency. Good God--if he didn't he'd probably be in a rubber room wearing a wraparound jacket, for as much shade as he's thrown for every bloody move he makes. He's pretty moderate in my estimation, although who can tell, as he's pretty much hogtied by the opposition. I guess some of our fine citizens would characterize him as "uppity," or whatever synonym is the current dogwhistle for that. But I digress.
"Narcissistic?" He probably has a strong ego, as who doesn't who ever aspired to the presidency. Good God--if he didn't he'd probably be in a rubber room wearing a wraparound jacket, for as much shade as he's thrown for every bloody move he makes. He's pretty moderate in my estimation, although who can tell, as he's pretty much hogtied by the opposition. I guess some of our fine citizens would characterize him as "uppity," or whatever synonym is the current dogwhistle for that. But I digress. Probably, the public abuse and frustration they have to put up with as elected officials(plus, occasionally being shot at) is why many very qualified people would not run for the top offices. That, and living in the public eye for the rest of your life.
Probably, the public abuse and frustration they have to put up with as elected officials(plus, occasionally being shot at) is why many very qualified people would not run for the top offices. That, and living in the public eye for the rest of your life.
I was thinking the very same thing. Likely the leaders who could have turned this ship around are wise enough not to try. Our loss.
"Narcissistic?" He probably has a strong ego, as who doesn't who ever aspired to the presidency. Good God--if he didn't he'd probably be in a rubber room wearing a wraparound jacket, for as much shade as he's thrown for every bloody move he makes. He's pretty moderate in my estimation, although who can tell, as he's pretty much hogtied by the opposition. I guess some of our fine citizens would characterize him as "uppity," or whatever synonym is the current dogwhistle for that. But I digress.
Classifying Obama as the radical far left allowed the right to set a stake in the ground a little to the right of center and call it the new far left. I also think it's easier to vilify a person than to justify what you're trying to do in terms of idealogy.
I guess some of our fine citizens would characterize him as "uppity," or whatever synonym is the current dogwhistle for that. But I digress.Yes, implying things like that have been a popular means to dismiss others without the pressure of backing up the perceived claim. Luckily, most folks now recognize it for what it is.
I've re-read the DSM-IV Definition of narcissism, which states, among other things:
Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by an over-inflated sense of self-importance, as well as dramatic, emotional behavior that is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders.
I'm not sure how one could over-inflate the importance of twice being elected to arguably the most powerful position in the world (unless you count corporate puppeteers), and if you want to see dramatic, emotional behavior from President "no drama" Obama, you'll be sorely disappointed. As far as I can tell--and I'm hardly a psychologist--he has a very stable, steady, non-histrionic personality, which has stood him in good stead while he has been buffeted from all sides. He wasn't my first choice as President, but he's done as good a job as most, given today's climate.
Yes, implying things like that have been a popular means to dismiss others without the pressure of backing up the perceived claim. Luckily, most folks now recognize it for what it is.
To point out but one, the constant harping on him having been "just a community organizer".
Maybe he's the self-deprecating type. My favorite local senator, Patty Murray, spent years describing herself as "just a mom in tennis shoes." I guess you can't win.
On the other hand, my choice for president would have been John Edwards, even though I got a vibe from him like he was that guy at the bar who only seemed remotely appealing when seen through beer goggles. I'd venture a guess that he's a lot closer to being a narcissist than President Obama. :~)
To point out but one, the constant harping on him having been "just a community organizer".
Well, he was a community organizer prior to being elected to the state senate. This reminds me of a discussion on these boards several years ago where someone mentioned his attending a Muslim school. Several posters took offense and insisted that he never attended a Muslim school. After I pointed out that he said in one of his books that he did attend a Muslim school, the response from someone here was "He was wrong". I still laugh about that. :~)
When truth is interpreted as slander, all opportunities for discussion are gone.
Indeed he was, but I think that he's shown that he can at least competently do the job for which the american people hired him six years ago. Harping about his previous inexperience at this point comes off as calling him uppity.
When truth is interpreted as slander, all opportunities for discussion are gone.
Harping about his previous inexperience at this point comes off as calling him uppity.http://img.pandawhale.com/60981-Homer-Simpson-Facepalm-meme-do-pO4R.jpeg
So you do think he was uppity for being presumptuous enough to think that he could handle the job as president and actually go for it? Personally I think that anyone from his humble background that could not only get into harvard law but become editor of harvard law review probably has the capacity to be president. Meritocracy and all that. And if he had the talent and skill to actually make it happen there's nothing lacking is his capabilities.
After all, if W, mediocre student at best that only got into Yale as a legacy could become president, it really must not take any particular supermanian talent.
So you do think he was uppity for being presumptuous enough to think that he could handle the job as president and actually go for it?
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608023294849908901&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
Teacher Terry
1-11-15, 2:50pm
Yes in regard to first 2 years of community college free, trade schools also would be great & yes feed the children. Children should not have to suffer for their parents mistakes. Many poor families are hard working but still can't afford to fee their families adequately. Kids need food to be able to concentrate & think at school. I have spent my life working with families in many different areas in the human services professions & most poor people are not losers.
I would like to see vocational schools added, too. We don't have a system of apprenticeships in this country.
Teacher Terry
1-11-15, 3:07pm
apprenticeships are awesome & have gone away unfortunately. Many people that learn a trade make more $ then college grads.
http://img.pandawhale.com/60981-Homer-Simpson-Facepalm-meme-do-pO4R.jpeg
D'oh indeed. If you want to call someone a racist, just call them a racist. This "uppity" nonsense is just a mealy-mouthed way of doing the same thing.
The community college where I used to teach WAS a trade school, and there were only two years there....no "first two years" as some have said. We also had an academic program that was the equivalent of the first two years of university and our students were, some of them, quite excellent. Some of them were not.
I look around here in the Canadian Maritimes (to which I moved after upstate NY and central ME) and see that kids who study trades have a good chance to make a career for themselves, either working for a local business or through entrepreneurship. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters...these kinds of skills take years to refine and master, and mastery is probably MORE meaningful than a bachelor's degree, especially in something like art, philosophy or (my field) psychology. It seems to me that parents here are more encouraging of kids to learn skills and trades than the parents were when my kids were in high school in upstate NY...though that could reflect more of the demographic than the times (ten \+ years ago). Free community college....for kids to learn trades....that seems like a good idea to me. Particularly if there are prerequisites like doing a half decent job in high school.
Miss Cellane
1-12-15, 7:37am
The community college where I used to teach WAS a trade school, and there were only two years there....no "first two years" as some have said. We also had an academic program that was the equivalent of the first two years of university and our students were, some of them, quite excellent. Some of them were not.
I look around here in the Canadian Maritimes (to which I moved after upstate NY and central ME) and see that kids who study trades have a good chance to make a career for themselves, either working for a local business or through entrepreneurship. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters...these kinds of skills take years to refine and master, and mastery is probably MORE meaningful than a bachelor's degree, especially in something like art, philosophy or (my field) psychology. It seems to me that parents here are more encouraging of kids to learn skills and trades than the parents were when my kids were in high school in upstate NY...though that could reflect more of the demographic than the times (ten \+ years ago). Free community college....for kids to learn trades....that seems like a good idea to me. Particularly if there are prerequisites like doing a half decent job in high school.
Way back when I was graduated from high school, in the 1970s, the majority of the 400 students in my class did not go to college. Some went to community college, but most got jobs in the local factories. And had good, solid, middle-class lives, just as their parents did. But a good friend of mine got a job as a teller in a bank, and worked her way up to manager, getting an Associate's degree along the way.
None of those factories are here anymore. Bank teller jobs now require a Bachelor's degree. The non-college-degree jobs have moved away, or become college-degree jobs, to a huge extent.
And there's a stigma in many places about the trades--carpentry, plumbing, etc. And yet we desperately need good plumbers and electricians and auto mechanics.
College isn't for everyone. But now that more people are going to college, more jobs require the degree, just because the employer can ask for it and get it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.