Plumbing vs. Forestry

[Akrazotile]

Thought this would be an interesting comparison since the issue of education is prevalent in the public dialogue currently.

Deucewallaces was kind enough to share with us some info on forestry salaries. According to him, once you complete a masters degree, you can make 52k per year.

Incidentally, 50k is about the salary of the average plumber in America.

So let's say a couple kids finish high school. The first kid starts vocational training and works as a plumbers assistant a few hours a week and also works a regular job a few hours a week. Let's say he makes 30k his first two years out of high school.

The other kid begins a bachelors program. Pays 5k per year for four years.

Now after the first couple years the plumber is gettin closer to the average salary. He's working full time and making 40k per year in his 3rd and 4th year after high school. While the other kid is still payin 5k each year to finish his bachelors.

So four years out of high school, a plumber has earned $140k so far, while Deuce (err, the foresty student) is at -20k.

But now Deuce is starting his masters. So for the next two years he's... still paying 5k per year (minimum). So six years out of high school, Deuce is 30k in the hole. While the plumber has made 200k+ in that same time.

But NOW Deuce has his masters in forestry. And he can begin makin the BIG bucks.

But wait. He earns 52k with his masters degree. And that's now what the plumber is making, too. But the plumber is already a quarter of a million dollars ahead of Deuce after just 6 years.


So... I don't understand. WHat's the big deal about this forestry degree Deuce keeps bragging about?

Why does everyone need a degree to succeed? Deuce has spent his entire young adulthood paying random tenured professors to grade his busywork so that he can now, at 38 years old, show the world his masters certificate and start making $52k per year.


Like... wow. When you put it in context, it's pretty amazing how dumb the left wing rhetoric is about this stuff.

[Im Still Ballin]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[nathanjizzle]

you can put plumbing/electrical occupations against any profession in terms of money.

but, the difference is that one has to do manual labor and deal with shit as a living. the other gets to go out in nature and study it and make it a better place. for a person like you who would be more fitted to fix sewage pipes, studying your brain for the betterment of the world isnt something you would value or understand, which is why you had to ask the question.

[Akrazotile]

you can put plumbing/electrical occupations against any profession in terms of money.

but, the difference is that one has to do manual labor and deal with shit as a living. the other gets to go out in nature and study it and make it a better place. for a person like you who would be more fitted to fix sewage pipes, studying your brain for the betterment of the world isnt something you would value or understand, which is why you had to ask the question.



Teleport yourself into the cringe thread.

[Patrick Chewing]

I made 70K last year with just a High School Diploma and some College Courses.

Don't let Douchewallaces fool ya. He works at the campus bookstore. That's why he's up to date on all the lingo. He's 35, looks like he's 12, and thinks he's a tough guy. :lol


You ain't fooling us, Norman.

[ALBballer]

Well to be fair you do need some people that specialize in Forestry, and atleast forestry is some sort of STEM degre. I suppose he provides some value to the world, and We can't have a world full of plumbers.

But I never got the snobbery or the entitlement some people have for having a degree. I have a graduate degree as well and do fairly well for myself but I don't think I am above people that have to go out and figuratively break their back for their job while mine involves sitting in an office chair. But I do look down upon people that major in a liberal art degree and then complain about their job prospects. Sorry if you want to major in a liberal arts degree you should realize that your job prospects are limited (generally speaking)and there is only a certain amount of liberal arts job the market will hire. The latter might make me a hypocrite but some of these majors are more akin to hobbies.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I can't tell if this thread is a dig at degrees, forestry degrees, or just DW.

[Nick Young]

you can put plumbing/electrical occupations against any profession in terms of money.

but, the difference is that one has to do manual labor and deal with shit as a living. the other gets to go out in nature and study it and make it a better place. for a person like you who would be more fitted to fix sewage pipes, studying your brain for the betterment of the world isnt something you would value or understand, which is why you had to ask the question.
You think that Deuce doesn't dig through bear and wolf shit for a living? :confusedshrug:

[ALBballer]

Going back to Starface's analysis I used a similar method in deciding not to go to law school.

When I was considering law school (I was in my early 20's) I was making roughly 50-55k, and if I went to law school full time and quit my job I would have lost three years of my salary and salary increases (in the very least around $150k) and would spend another $120k or so to obtain the degree. Therefore, my total opportunity cost of going to law school was around $270k. This doesn't include the costs of bar exam material, additional transportation, salary increases and living costs while going to law school, interest, and so forth. So let's round up and say it would of been around $300k.

If I went to a top 14 law school I would have a pretty good chance of getting a big law soul sucking job where I would work crazy hours but make around $120-$150k. It probably would of taken me around 3-4 years after working as a lawyer to break even of the opportunity cost of $300k I mentioned above. But this assumes I would of made it in a top 14 law school and landed a big law job, and in reality I probably would of went to a top 100 law school and would have had to graduated in the top 10% of my class to get a big law job. And I would of probably had to settle for some average $50-$70k job and hope to make it big afterwards.

Now there are many lawyers that didn't analyze the costs and quit their jobs and went back to school because a Lawyer is a prestigious job and afterall these costs are just an investment, Right? Well to some degree it is but it could be a bad investment, and now you have a large backlash against law schools because many of their students are in debt with no jobs.

Point is people need to look at going to school with a realistic approach. As long as DW is happy with his decision and isn't bitching about the pay then good for him. But if he thinks obtaining 4 degrees and forewent years of potential earnings to make $50k in his 30s (this is assuming Starface's info is correct) was a sound business idea then I think Starface has a point to some degree. But if DW is doing something he has a strong interest in and enjoys his job then more power to him. The ones that should be criticized are the ones that go into huge student debt and/or bitch about the salary of their jobs and how unfair it is they make alot less compared to "x"

[DeuceWallaces]

I can't tell if this thread is a dig at degrees, forestry degrees, or just DW.

I'm rent free in a test subject's head.

On another note, who needs forests, trees, timber, wildlife, carbon, ecosystem services and everything else that goes along with it.

[DeuceWallaces]

Going back to Starface's analysis I used a similar method in deciding not to go to law school.

When I was considering law school (I was in my early 20's) I was making roughly 50-55k, and if I went to law school full time and quit my job I would have lost three years of my salary and salary increases (in the very least around $150k) and would spend another $120k or so to obtain the degree. Therefore, my total opportunity cost of going to law school was around $270k. This doesn't include the costs of bar exam material, additional transportation, salary increases and living costs while going to law school, interest, and so forth. So let's round up and say it would of been around $300k.

If I went to a top 14 law school I would have a pretty good chance of getting a big law soul sucking job where I would work crazy hours but make around $120-$150k. It probably would of taken me around 3-4 years after working as a lawyer to break even of the opportunity cost of $300k I mentioned above. But this assumes I would of made it in a top 14 law school and landed a big law job, and in reality I probably would of went to a top 100 law school and would have had to graduated in the top 10% of my class to get a big law job. And I would of probably had to settle for some average $50-$70k job and hope to make it big afterwards.

Now there are many lawyers that didn't analyze the costs and quit their jobs and went back to school because a Lawyer is a prestigious job and afterall these costs are just an investment, Right? Well to some degree it is but it could be a bad investment, and now you have a large backlash against law schools because many of their students are in debt with no jobs.

Point is people need to look at going to school with a realistic approach. As long as DW is happy with his decision and isn't bitching about the pay then good for him. But if he thinks obtaining 4 degrees and forewent years of potential earnings to make $50k in his 30s (this is assuming Starface's info is correct) was a sound business idea then I think Starface has a point to some degree. But if DW is doing something he has a strong interest in and enjoys his job then more power to him. The ones that should be criticized are the ones that go into huge student debt and/or bitch about the salary of their jobs and how unfair it is they make alot less compared to "x"

His economics are way off. I'm not going to argue with a troll about the value of going to school vs being a test subject or plumber.

[Im Still Ballin]

His economics are way off. I'm not going to argue with a troll about the value of going to school vs being a test subject or plumber.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Chris is an absolute madman! No regard for human life!

Disregard health

Acquire money

[Brunch@Five]

I know guys with a forestry degree that make $80k a year just a few years after they left university.
Also, forestry is obviously an extremely important subject to study, because without forests mankind is facked

[Akrazotile]

Well to be fair you do need some people that specialize in Forestry, and atleast forestry is some sort of STEM degre. I suppose he provides some value to the world, and We can't have a world full of plumbers.

But I never got the snobbery or the entitlement some people have for having a degree. I have a graduate degree as well and do fairly well for myself but I don't think I am above people that have to go out and figuratively break their back for their job while mine involves sitting in an office chair. But I do look down upon people that major in a liberal art degree and then complain about their job prospects. Sorry if you want to major in a liberal arts degree you should realize that your job prospects are limited (generally speaking)and there is only a certain amount of liberal arts job the market will hire. The latter might make me a hypocrite but some of these majors are more akin to hobbies.

This was primarily in relation to this specific quote of his:


It seems logical that as a society we would benefit from subsidizing college education. We need more people with those skills and no debt. Undergraduate is the new high school and a MS is the new BS/BA.


If we create free edumacation the way Bernie wants we're gonna be paying for all these kids who are simply going to school THINKING it's the way to a more prosperous future. Not because they have a specific field picked out and know it requires a certain degree, but all the kids (probably a majority these days) who are just going because they think theyre supposed to and dont have any clue what they're gonna be doing in 10 years. Most of them have absolutely no business being in school. It will serve them no economic benefit, because in reality, going into something like a forestry program puts you in a HOLE compared to something like plumbing or construction work. How many foresters do we need?? I'm all for conservation, but when it comes right down to it I'd rather have someone available to fix a bursted pipe than deuce out there measuring tree rings.

So it's not like it's all that economically beneficial to subsidize college for everybody. In fact it's downright stupid. For many people, it's simply a waste of income earning years. They're not any better off when they're done than if they'd have just learned some skills fresh out of high school and gotten to work.

[Jailblazers7]

Wild guess here but I don't think people get into forestry for financial gain.

[Akrazotile]

I know guys with a forestry degree that make $80k a year just a few years after they left university.
Also, forestry is obviously an extremely important subject to study, because without forests mankind is facked


But how many foresters do we need?

My point is about this 'free educational degrees for everyone!' idea.

The liberal thought process is that anyone who goes to school will make more money by getting a degree. That's what this is all about. Their fantasies of "Making every1 teh equal!"

Well you can earn an equal amount of money as the average forester with a masters degree, by being a plumber. And you'll actually make more money over your career due to the time not spent reading Moby Dick becuase it was part of your English gen ed requirements etc. for forestry.

[Akrazotile]

Wild guess here but I don't think people get into forestry for financial gain.

Bruh I'm comparing the SALARIES of a masters degree occupation to a labor occupation to dispute the notion that more degree holders will make the country more prosperous.

[Brunch@Five]

But how many foresters do we need?

My point is about this 'free educational degrees for everyone!' idea.

The liberal thought process is that anyone who goes to school will make more money by getting a degree. That's what this is all about. Their fantasies of "Making every1 teh equal!"

Well you can earn an equal amount of money as the average forester with a masters degree, by being a plumber.

the "liberal" thought process is not only about making more money. One part certainly is to enable everyone independently of their socio-economic background to go study so they can theoretically take up any job they want (be it in the field of forestry or to become a lawyer).
Also, in a knowledge-based economy which we live in in the western world, it is clearly and unequivocally better to improve opportunities for everyone to go study.
If you really think a society is better of with more vocational training and less college, you're stupid.

[Akrazotile]

the "liberal" thought process is not only about making more money. One part certainly is to enable everyone independently of their socio-economic background to go study so they can theoretically take up any job they want (be it in the field of forestry or to become a lawyer).
Also, in a knowledge-based economy which we live in in the western world, it is clearly and unequivocally better to improve opportunities for everyone to go study.
If you really think a society is better of with more vocational training and less college, you're stupid.


Germany has done it this way for years and is the strongest economic country in Europe.

You are completely clueless as to how many jobs don't really necessitate the amount of time spent in college to be performed effectively. You think you need a degree to learn 'marketing'?? You could read a textbook over the summer, do an internship in the fall, and if you're actually creative and passionate about the field, you can be a successful marketer. The only reason you couldn't get hired is because companies are LAZY about qualifications and use degrees to weed people out. That laziness should not fall on the pocket book of the US tax payer.

Same with 'psychology' degrees. Do you have any idea how many kids in America are getting these things because they don't know what else to do in school? Waste of time, waste of money.

I know a chick who got a BS in communications and wanted to get into real estate. I know her, because she's the receptionist at my apartment building's office.


This "everoyne needs a dergree!" attitude is for suckers who just accept whatever the social consensus is at the time. About education, about race, about economy, about everything. People with no nuance in their thought, who just mindlessly stick up for the 'everytins a injustice!!!!' doctrine of their peer group. Would it be fair to say you are that sort of person, or nah?

[Akrazotile]

His economics are way off. I'm not going to argue with a troll about the value of going to school vs being a test subject or plumber.


That's convenient. :oldlol:


Although I'm using his own figures, so I don't see what could be so off about them. If anyone knows forest gnomery, it's him. And he told us in the other thread you earn 52k per year with a masters in forestry. :confusedshrug:

[Brunch@Five]

there's a difference between "no one should be prevented from going to university for financial reasons" and "everyone should go to university".
Also, the western society is built on what is written in books. The more people go to school/university and the more they read, the better for society. It's that easy.

[Akrazotile]

there's a difference between "no one should be prevented from going to university for financial reasons" and "everyone should go to university".
Also, the western society is built on what is written in books. The more people go to school/university and the more they read, the better for society. It's that easy.

Nobody is tho. There are plenty of scholarships available. Including scholarships simply for being low income and/or minority. And if we DIDNT send all the kids now who shouldnt be there, tuition would drop substantially.

Between scholarships and work-study programs that help cover tuition for a few hours a week serving food in the cafeteria, I think we have enough to cover college expenses for those low income kids who enter college with good grades AND a career path in mind.

We dont need every kid going to school to study psychology or african american history. The fact that some cant afford to is completely immaterial, bc they shouldnt be doing it anyway. Virtually nobody should. Top students who have select career paths and need financial assistance already have access to it, and thats whom it should be reserved for. Some kid with B- grades and a whatever attitude isnt going to just automatically make a wonderful for himself bc someone sent him to college to study communications. And I know everyone feels sympathy if his name is Laquantrelle and he comes from a rough neighborhood. But he still doesnt need to be in college if hes not planning to pursue a specific field of career options. Yall just wanna put him there to include him. Its another big magnanimous noboe act from the sjw left. Yall dont care if its necessary or makes any sense whatsoever - if hes not ABLE to be included, then yall wanna make sure to include him. Thats the whole thing this is about. An sjw crusade to put lots and lots of people where it doesnt make sense to be in the first place, just to complete the mandatory sacraments for the Liberal Church of Equality.

[Brunch@Five]

you are a fool if you think success in our education system is only based on merit

[Akrazotile]

you are a fool if you think success in our education system is only based on merit


You think teachers are gettin bribed by rich kids for better grades?

[Brunch@Five]

You think teachers are gettin bribed by rich kids for better grades?

yes that is exactly what I think. :coleman:

[Akrazotile]

yes that is exactly what I think. :coleman:

Just help me understand some of this, bro.

It's well known that education is an inflated bubble right now. Even Mark Cuban said so a few years back. Said it's no different than the housing bubble. Said forgiving student debt is the worst thing we could do. Link.
(http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-on-student-loans-2014-10)
Now, tell me this. Do you think making college free for everyone who feels like showing up will give them incentive to work harder and take it more seriously, or no? Will there be any sense of urgency for a 18 year old who has no idea what he wants to do in life and is just in college because he's supposed to and the whole thing is free? Is this a valuable investment for taxpayers?

Do you think handouts and free stuff make people work more or less hard?

We've established that psychology, marketing, communication, gender studies, political science, and other vague shit you could easily learn on your own if you have a passion for doing so, are worthless majors. You believe we need to pay inflated tuition costs (which will rise significantly if we give Uncle Sam the bill) so that every kid can go waste his time on this shit if he feels like it?


Explain to me the DETAILS of why you think this is a good thing.

I don't have a problem with scholarships for kids with good grades in specific fields who need help. I'm completely reasonable to SPECIFIC ideas that are sensible. If you have more nuance than just 'make it free 4 every1!' then tell me what's up. Hit me with facts.

[Brunch@Five]

if you think that subjects like political science and psychology are "vague shit you could easily learn on your own" I don't know of we have a common basis to talk about the benefits and challenges of higher education.
It seems that you think that a country/society works like a company, and that we are not "citizens" but human capital. It'd be short-sighted a prosperous society follows purely from cost-benefit calculations.

also, did you just quote Marc f*cking Cuban to prove your point on student loans?

[Akrazotile]

if you think that subjects like political science and psychology are "vague shit you could easily learn on your own" I don't know of we have a common basis to talk about the benefits and challenges of higher education.
It seems that you think that a country/society works like a company, and that we are not "citizens" but human capital. It'd be short-sighted a prosperous society follows purely from cost-benefit calculations.


Tell me what you majored in then let's talk history, politics, and psychology.

I am extremely interested in these subjects, just not vocationally, so I dropped out of school and learn what I can about them on my own simply for my own personal development.

But you presumably have a bachelors and therefore are more learned than I in these subjects. Even if it's an unrelated degree. You still went to college and thus know these things well.

So I assume you know far more than me, and I would like to pick your brain.

What was your field of study?

[Dresta]

Wild guess here but I don't think people get into forestry for financial gain.
:oldlol:

Yeah, science doesn't pay very well compared to lots of other things. I know FRS members who don't earn more than 100,000 pounds a year, and it takes basically your whole life to get to that level, and most never get there. Most don't even get group leader positions.

Though in America you can make much more, but the science is less enjoyable, as you're always having to apply for funding, which takes time from research, whereas in the UK you have your funding for 5 years when you have't got to worry about it. Alan Ashworth is earning a fortune down in San Francisco now, but that's really a rarity, probably like .01% of people who go into science or something.

So yeah, it obviously has to be your passion for it to be worthwhile.

[longtime lurker]

I can't tell if this thread is a dig at degrees, forestry degrees, or just DW.

Dunn what OP is thinking considering that Deuce is more educated and making more money than the failed actor and college drop out

[Akrazotile]

Tell me what you majored in then let's talk history, politics, and psychology.

I am extremely interested in these subjects, just not vocationally, so I dropped out of school and learn what I can about them on my own simply for my own personal development.

But you presumably have a bachelors and therefore are more learned than I in these subjects. Even if it's an unrelated degree. You still went to college and thus know these things well.

So I assume you know far more than me, and I would like to pick your brain.

What was your field of study?


I had a feeling this might abruptly end the convo.

[DeuceWallaces]

:oldlol:

Yeah, science doesn't pay very well compared to lots of other things. I know FRS members who don't earn more than 100,000 pounds a year, and it takes basically your whole life to get to that level, and most never get there. Most don't even get group leader positions.

Though in America you can make much more, but the science is less enjoyable, as you're always having to apply for funding, which takes time from research, whereas in the UK you have your funding for 5 years when you have't got to worry about it. Alan Ashworth is earning a fortune down in San Francisco now, but that's really a rarity, probably like .01% of people who go into science or something.

So yeah, it obviously has to be your passion for it to be worthwhile.

Lol, that is not an accurate assessment of funding in either systems.

[Akrazotile]

Lol, that is not an accurate assessment of funding in either systems.


We're still waiting for the specifics on why you disagreed with my assessment of the economics.

So give us that first, before you detail your reasons for disagreeing with his statement.

But obv I'm only kidding bc everyone knows youre a completely hollow fraud and will never provide specifics on WHY you disagree with anyone. You're afraid to be wrong and lose the credibility you THINK you have as a pretend know-it-all.

How come you never drop any science info on us? Like if that's all your life is, make some interesting threads about news items and give us the scientists take. I like nature, I support the environment and conservation. Drop some cool knowledge on us from time to time! You never do that! You never say anything interesting or informative. You never offer any substance at all. You're a total empty poser. We all know it. But you keep pretending otherwise.

We're tired of it deuce. We want you to demonstrate competence in SOMETHING. We WANT to believe in you, Josh. We do. But do something to make us believe. Throw us a friggin bone here.

[DeuceWallaces]

We're still waiting for the specifics on why you disagreed with my assessment of the economics.

So give us that first, before you detail your reasons for disagreeing with his statement.

But obv I'm only kidding bc everyone knows youre a completely hollow fraud and will never provide specifics on WHY you disagree with anyone. You're afraid to be wrong and lose the credibility you THINK you have as a pretend know-it-all.

How come you never drop any science info on us? Like if that's all your life is, make some interesting threads about news items and give us the scientists take. I like nature, I support the environment and conservation. Drop some cool knowledge on us from time to time! You never do that! You never say anything interesting or informative. You never offer any substance at all. You're a total empty poser. We all know it. But you keep pretending otherwise.

We're tired of it deuce. We want you to demonstrate competence in SOMETHING. We WANT to believe in you, Josh. We do. But do something to make us believe. Throw us a friggin bone here.

I write peer reviewed papers, go to seminars, and attend conferences. I have a professional life. I don't feel the need to be an extension agent on a basketball message for fulfillment of my scientific knowledge. Moreover, I provided my reasoning in the other thread. For some reason (i.e. you're an attention whore) you felt the need to make another thread because your vapid life provides you with little to no social or professional interaction.

That's one of the major differences between you and I. ISH is your life. ISH is a part of my life.

[9erempiree]

I just read this entire thread.

At first glance of the title I thought it was about taking a shiitt and having plumbing vs taking a shiit in the forest.

I guess that is the camping man in me.

:lol

[Akrazotile]

I write peer reviewed papers, go to seminars, and attend conferences. I have a professional life. I don't feel the need to be an extension agent on a basketball message for fulfillment of my scientific knowledge. Moreover, I provided my reasoning in the other thread. For some reason (i.e. you're an attention whore) you felt the need to make another thread because your vapid life provides you with little to no social or professional interaction.

That's one of the major differences between you and I. ISH is your life. ISH is a part of my life.


Is a picture not worth a thousand words?

https://j.gifs.com/mZMAx9.gif
http://oi57.tinypic.com/huo86b.jpg


I've posted myriad pics of my life away from the computer. Your pics are always you smiling sheepishly in front of the computer with diaper rash on your face. Or pics of you wandering through the trees at work.

Have you ever been out in a social situation? There's scant proof of such endeavors here so far.


Link us to one of your papers. Share with us some info. You share your 'opinions' (telling people 'ure teh stupid, im smarter') and you post computer selfies. So it's not like you "don't have time" to share some real things.

Why don't you ever share insights? Specifics of your views? Work you've done?

You always make claims (like the one five years back about having a girlfriend) but then you always get exposed for lying.

We just want the truth, Josh. That's all.

[Patrick Chewing]

Look at those rosy cheeks!!!

[Akrazotile]

Look at those rosy cheeks!!!


Guy is like half flamingo.

[WindmiLL]

Guy is like half flamingo.


He has his own youtube channel too

https://www.youtube.com/user/FreddyFairhair

[Kvnzhangyay]

It depends on the definition of success.

Foresty degrees exist? I would presume that only people that don't have to worry about money would get a degree like that; most relatively poor people that I've known that have worked their way up have gotten business, engineering, or med. Engineering and med are consistent high pay, while business [finance] has the highest upside.

That's where the money is made... along with big law...

But even then, I think that the economy is starting to shift the majority of pay away from the financial industry... For example, last year was the first time in a while that my bonus didn't exceed my base pay

[Jailblazers7]

Bruh I'm comparing the SALARIES of a masters degree occupation to a labor occupation to dispute the notion that more degree holders will make the country more prosperous.

No, what you're comparing is a career choice for an individual based on financial factors. A discussion about what is good for a robust and prosperous nation is a much different conversation.

[Akrazotile]

No, what you're comparing is a career choice for an individual based on financial factors. A discussion about what is good for a robust and prosperous nation is a much different conversation.


Yes, to dispute the notion (perpetuated by deuce among other libtards) that an absense of a degree holds people back financially. It doesnt have to. The stats show what they do bc many people who dont get a degree also dont maximize their other possibilities, bc they are often simply low quality people.

Someone who WANTS to earn a good living without a degree has plenty of opportunity. Deuce has made less money in his life than a plumber even tho he has a masters degree. So dont tell me the key to improving the populace's ecomic prospects is to add more schooling. It clearly ISNT.

Also if you dont understand what Im saying, dont make shit up just so you can contradict me. Thanks.

[Kvnzhangyay]

Yes, to dispute the notion (perpetuated by deuce among other libtards) that an absense of a degree holds people back financially. It doesnt have to. The stats show what they do bc many people who dont get a degree also dont maximize their other possibilities, bc they are often simply low quality people.

Someone who WANTS to earn a good living without a degree has plenty of opportunity. Deuce has made less money in his life than a plumber even tho he has a masters degree. So dont tell me the key to improving the populace's ecomic prospects is to add more schooling. It clearly ISNT.

Also if you dont understand what Im saying, dont make shit up just so you can contradict me. Thanks.

It doesn't hold then back, but the chances of being successful with a college degree is exponentially higher

[Dresta]

if you think that subjects like political science and psychology are "vague shit you could easily learn on your own" I don't know of we have a common basis to talk about the benefits and challenges of higher education.
It seems that you think that a country/society works like a company, and that we are not "citizens" but human capital. It'd be short-sighted a prosperous society follows purely from cost-benefit calculations.

also, did you just quote Marc f*cking Cuban to prove your point on student loans?
I took a multidisciplinary undergrad, but I had a choice of a fair few modules from political science, and yes, that subject is utter trash. It cannot only be learned on your own, it can be learned far, far better on your own. Their need to categorise, to simplify, and to break things down into easily digestible pieces, completely destroys any kind of intelligent analysis of political phenomenon. Not to mention that politics does not exist in a vacuum, and cannot be separately studied like it is and be at all relevant to understanding the real world.

[KyrieTheFuture]

the "liberal" thought process is not only about making more money. One part certainly is to enable everyone independently of their socio-economic background to go study so they can theoretically take up any job they want (be it in the field of forestry or to become a lawyer).
Also, in a knowledge-based economy which we live in in the western world, it is clearly and unequivocally better to improve opportunities for everyone to go study.
If you really think a society is better of with more vocational training and less college, you're stupid.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read

[Akrazotile]

It doesn't hold then back, but the chances of being successful with a college degree is exponentially higher

But again, a lot of this is due to a couple things:

One, a lot of kids who don't go to college also don't pursue anything else meaningful. They have kids, collect welfare, sit on the couch watching Springer. This has nothing to do with opportunity, this is just who they are and what they choose. These numbers bring down the income of non degree holders, but it's extremely misleading. It's not a reflection on the actual possibilities. Compare apples to apples and we see that a plumber and a forestry major make roughly the same. We see that a police officer (no degree required) and a teacher (degree required) make roughly the same. Also, tons of entrepreneurs and successful business people are drop outs. People who aspire to make a good living have plenty more avenues than just college. Just because a lot of bums didn't go to college, doesn't mean college is a must for anyone who doesnt wanna be a bum. It's a false equivalence.

Also, employers are extremely lazy about hiring these days, and that's what has created the insane demand for schooling. It's not because the schooling is necessary for all these jobs. That's what's creating this bubble, and that's what is causing all this frustration among indebted students with poor prospects. Nobody ever told them that at the end of the day, you'll earn what you contribute. Most kids just go to school because they're told, and that means society owes them some kind of good living when they get out. That's not how it is at all. You have to produce something. Resourceful people find ways to do this. Others don't. It has nothing to do with school. School is just an expensive substitute for employers taking their time to really analyze qualified candidates. If we just accept that as okay, then we're in for a never ending problem. And this is the root of so much strife in this country. Mis-identifying the problems and their causes. If the problem isn't a quick-fix with some additional funding, then we just conveniently CHANGE our perception of the problem to fit that narrative. Everything is about how we need more money for this or that, and never about the attitudes and values we have toward it, our cultural stances, or abilities, our accountability. It's always because "Pity group x isnt getting results because Oppressor group y isn't giving them enough money." That's ALWAYS the left wing narrative. No matter what. It's absurd.

[Akrazotile]

Look at deucewallaces. The guy can't read, NOR do math, nor does he have knowledge of ANYTHING outside the subject he's been in school for his whole adult life.

He's not innately intelligent. And so even though he went to college and got degrees, he's nothing but a specialist. He could have probably efficiently condensed everything he learned in 6-8 years of bachelors and masters work into a couple years if he hadn't been in a for-profit school environment where they stretch things out, break things up, throw in electives, etc. etc.

He could have learned the basics of forestry in 2 years then got an entry level job and started working. But the dope spent 8 years on this shit and still doesn't have all the degrees he needs apparently, how much more is there to learn about forestry?

It's a crock, and it's backward, and it's designed to use taxpayer money to give losers like him some kind of career opportunity since he isn't resourceful enough to make things happen on his own. He needs his safe space and his well-lit path and his sense of belonging and nominal accomplishment. Taxpayers shouldn't have to buy that kinda shit for needy losers like him. If he wants it, let him take out a loan and go for it.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Jesus Kraz you are ****ing shook

[Akrazotile]

Jesus Kraz you are ****ing shook


Yeah, I'm shook because I care about the future of my country and getting the right answers and solutions going forward.

And we have a lot of dummies who continue to jeopardize all of us with their emotionally-driven false narratives and desperately contrarian and 'hip' new-wave positions that are retarded.

SORRY FOR CARING BRO. IM SORRY.

IM SORRY FOR CARING.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Yeah, I'm shook because I care about the future of my country and getting the right answers and solutions going forward.

And we have a lot of dummies who continue to jeopardize all of us with their emotionally-driven false narratives and desperately contrarian and 'hip' new-wave positions that are retarded.

SORRY FOR CARING BRO. IM SORRY.

IM SORRY FOR CARING.
Yes, the ramblings of a perfectly calm, level-headed man.

[Akrazotile]

Yes, the ramblings of a perfectly calm, level-headed man.


Zip it, queer.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Zip it, queer.
http://i.imgur.com/dhMeAzK.gif

[Dresta]

Lol, that is not an accurate assessment of funding in either systems.
Yes it is. Maybe your discipline is different to those that get more serious funding like molecular cell biology and cancer research, I dunno (and lets be honest here, far more serious and rigorous disciplines). In the UK your salary is guaranteed, in the US it is dependent on getting grants, and time spent on grant applications is inordinate as a result. You have more freedom to do your own work without authority bearing down on you also. This is straight from the mouths of far more prestigious and experienced scientists than yourself. I doubt these people would even consider you a scientist tbh, more like a plant enthusiast :oldlol:. You ever published in Nature, in Science, in Cell or any of the prestigious journals? Of course not. So why would you know more about this than people who have?

There's a reason the UK produces higher quality research than the US, despite there being far less money to go around:

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/dec/06/uk-ranks-above-us-research-quality

And it's for the reasons I stated, and also the reason why many scientists choose to remain in the UK despite the draw of high salaries from the US. Anyway, don't take my word for it (though I have no possible reason to lie about this, you just seem to be being an obnoxious and difficult ass like always), here's an article arguing the exact same thing:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dr-no-money/

Subheading:
Scientists spend too much time raising cash instead of doing experiments


Most scientists finance their laboratories (and often even their own salaries) by applying to government agencies and private foundations for grants. The process has become a major time sink. In 2007 a U.S. government study found that university faculty members spend about 40 percent of their research time navigating the bureaucratic labyrinth, and the situation is no better in Europe. An experimental physicist at Columbia University says he once calculated that some grants he was seeking had a net negative value: they would not even pay for the time that applicants and peer reviewers spent on them.

A vicious cycle has developed. With more and more people applying for each grant, an individual’s chances of winning decrease, so scientists must submit ever more proposals to stay even. Between 1997 and 2006 the National Science Foundation found that the average applicant had to submit 30 percent more proposals to garner the same number of awards. Younger scientists are especially hard-pressed: the success rate for first-time National Science Foundation applications fell from 22 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2006.
Not only does the current system make inefficient use of scientists’ time, it discourages precisely the kind of research that can most advance our knowledge. Many politicians go so far as to accuse scientists—particularly in politically contentious areas such as climate science—of cooking data to win government grants. They have yet to produce any evidence to support these claims, however. The real problem is more subtle. Inundated with proposals, agencies tend to favor worthy but incremental research over risky but potentially transformative work. Nobelist Mario R. Capecchi and other prominent scientists say they had trouble getting grants to make their breakthroughs. In 2009 a New York Times article quoted leading cancer researchers who said the war on cancer would make more progress if funders took more risks.


And here's a detailed statistical analysis:

http://www.cpb.nl/en/publication/public-funding-of-science-an-international-comparison

Showing in the US there is 0% fixed funding, no ex post funding, and 100% ex ante funding (UK is only 64%: table 2.4 on p. 16). That reliance on ex ante funding is just what makes the problems mentioned in the above article particularly troublesome in the US.

The paper's conclusions:


Overall, Germany ranks lowest on scientific productivity. Like Switzerland, the Netherlands and Denmark score above average on all three indicators of knowledge production and rank second and third, respectively. Although the US has an above-average score on top 1% publications it has the lowest rank on publications and citations.

It ranked 6th out of the 7 overall.

p. 21: The UK ranked as the most efficient based on money spent per publication, and the US as the least efficient (both on a publication and citation basis). Thus US science is woefully unproductive based on the amount of money spent, another one of my points. Here's a nice graph for you to demonstrate this:

http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=13_screenshot2016-03-19at20.41.13.png


It's amazing how you don't even seem to know anything about the field in which you actually work :lol. My guess is that you're a trivial scientific nonentity, a guy who does the legwork, gets middle-author publications, and who tries to portray himself as some kind of scientific hotshot over the internet; you act as if you're the scientific authority of the interwebz, because you've published in a few low-impact journals. Hilarious you are.

[9erempiree]

I can say this with confidence...Deuce Wallace is no scientist but he may have been a science experiment.

[nathanjizzle]

Yes it is. Maybe your discipline is different to those that get more serious funding like molecular cell biology and cancer research, I dunno (and lets be honest here, far more serious and rigorous disciplines). In the UK your salary is guaranteed, in the US it is dependent on getting grants, and time spent on grant applications is inordinate as a result. You have more freedom to do your own work without authority bearing down on you also. This is straight from the mouths of far more prestigious and experienced scientists than yourself. I doubt these people would even consider you a scientist tbh, more like a plant enthusiast :oldlol:. You ever published in Nature, in Science, in Cell or any of the prestigious journals? Of course not. So why would you know more about this than people who have?

There's a reason the UK produces higher quality research than the US, despite there being far less money to go around:

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/dec/06/uk-ranks-above-us-research-quality

And it's for the reasons I stated, and also the reason why many scientists choose to remain in the UK despite the draw of high salaries from the US. Anyway, don't take my word for it (though I have no possible reason to lie about this, you just seem to be being an obnoxious and difficult ass like always), here's an article arguing the exact same thing:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dr-no-money/

Subheading:



And here's a detailed statistical analysis:

http://www.cpb.nl/en/publication/public-funding-of-science-an-international-comparison

Showing in the US there is 0% fixed funding, no ex post funding, and 100% ex ante funding (UK is only 64%: table 2.4 on p. 16). That reliance on ex ante funding is just what makes the problems mentioned in the above article particularly troublesome in the US.

The paper's conclusions:



It ranked 6th out of the 7 overall.

p. 21: The UK ranked as the most efficient based on money spent per publication, and the US as the least efficient (both on a publication and citation basis). Thus US science is woefully unproductive based on the amount of money spent, another one of my points. Here's a nice graph for you to demonstrate this:

http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=13_screenshot2016-03-19at20.41.13.png


It's amazing how you don't even seem to know anything about the field in which you actually work :lol. My guess is that you're a trivial scientific nonentity, a guy who does the legwork, gets middle-author publications, and who tries to portray himself as some kind of scientific hotshot over the internet; you act as if you're the scientific authority of the interwebz, because you've published in a few low-impact journals. Hilarious you are.

i think you are just intimidated by deuce's actual academic achievements. his skills are alot more important than philosophy, and you hate that.

[9erempiree]

i think you are just intimidated by deuce's actual academic achievements.

Dresta is smarter than him though.

There is a reason why American is near bottom when it comes to education...we have guys like Deuce Wallace obtaining degrees.

[nathanjizzle]

Dresta is smarter than him though.

There is a reason why American is near bottom when it comes to education...we have guys like Deuce Wallace obtaining degrees.

well, i dont know how smart deuce wallace is, but from my opinion dresta isnt that smart. education? why an emphasis on high education when you can drop out of college and invent internet and computers? america is efficient, which is the real smart approach in this world, not studying academics to the highest degree.

[DeuceWallaces]

Yes it is. Maybe your discipline is different to those that get more serious funding like molecular cell biology and cancer research, I dunno (and lets be honest here, far more serious and rigorous disciplines). In the UK your salary is guaranteed, in the US it is dependent on getting grants, and time spent on grant applications is inordinate as a result. You have more freedom to do your own work without authority bearing down on you also. This is straight from the mouths of far more prestigious and experienced scientists than yourself. I doubt these people would even consider you a scientist tbh, more like a plant enthusiast :oldlol:. You ever published in Nature, in Science, in Cell or any of the prestigious journals? Of course not. So why would you know more about this than people who have?

There's a reason the UK produces higher quality research than the US, despite there being far less money to go around:

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/dec/06/uk-ranks-above-us-research-quality

And it's for the reasons I stated, and also the reason why many scientists choose to remain in the UK despite the draw of high salaries from the US. Anyway, don't take my word for it (though I have no possible reason to lie about this, you just seem to be being an obnoxious and difficult ass like always), here's an article arguing the exact same thing:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dr-no-money/

Subheading:



And here's a detailed statistical analysis:

http://www.cpb.nl/en/publication/public-funding-of-science-an-international-comparison

Showing in the US there is 0% fixed funding, no ex post funding, and 100% ex ante funding (UK is only 64%: table 2.4 on p. 16). That reliance on ex ante funding is just what makes the problems mentioned in the above article particularly troublesome in the US.

The paper's conclusions:



It ranked 6th out of the 7 overall.

p. 21: The UK ranked as the most efficient based on money spent per publication, and the US as the least efficient (both on a publication and citation basis). Thus US science is woefully unproductive based on the amount of money spent, another one of my points. Here's a nice graph for you to demonstrate this:

http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=13_screenshot2016-03-19at20.41.13.png


It's amazing how you don't even seem to know anything about the field in which you actually work :lol. My guess is that you're a trivial scientific nonentity, a guy who does the legwork, gets middle-author publications, and who tries to portray himself as some kind of scientific hotshot over the internet; you act as if you're the scientific authority of the interwebz, because you've published in a few low-impact journals. Hilarious you are.

You are misinformed. I have spent the past 15 years in academic, state, federal, and NGO research. You are generalizing in an area which you clearly lack experience and knowledge.

[nathanjizzle]

Dresta is smarter than him though.

There is a reason why American is near bottom when it comes to education...we have guys like Deuce Wallace obtaining degrees.


You are misinformed. I have spent the past 15 years in academic, state, federal, and NGO research. You are generalizing in an area which you clearly lack experience and knowledge.

see. dresta operates on philosophy, not actuality. Philosophies are essentially guesses.

[Dresta]

You are misinformed. I have spent the past 15 years in academic, state, federal, and NGO research. You are generalizing in an area which you clearly lack experience and knowledge.
errr... of course i'm generalising: how could any comparison between what it's like to work in a huge field between two different countries be anything other than a generalisation? :hammerhead:

But that generalisation is a fairly accurate one, supported by the facts. And, when trying to measure these generalities, the data supports my assertions, which I really don't give a shit about, as I was only repeating what i've been told be prominent scientists, only to meet with a standard disparagement from King Deuces, PhD.

And if I was generalising, how can you not be generalising by saying "that's wrong"?

Your logic is really bad.

[DeuceWallaces]

errr... of course i'm generalising: how could any comparison between what it's like to work in a huge field between two different countries be anything other than a generalisation? :hammerhead:

But that generalisation is a fairly accurate one, supported by the facts. And, when trying to measure these generalities, the data supports my assertions, which I really don't give a shit about, as I was only repeating what i've been told be prominent scientists, only to meet with a standard disparagement from King Deuces, PhD.

And if I was generalising, how can you not be generalising by saying "that's wrong"?

Your logic is really bad.

It's not accurate and it's not supported by facts or experience. You are a keyboard warrior wannabe scientist. You can read Wikipedia all you want but it's obvious you don't understand the scientific process, you are an ignoramus when it comes to inference and analytical techniques, and you have no experience in any professional scientific field.

[9erempiree]

errr... of course i'm generalising: how could any comparison between what it's like to work in a huge field between two different countries be anything other than a generalisation? :hammerhead:

But that generalisation is a fairly accurate one, supported by the facts. And, when trying to measure these generalities, the data supports my assertions, which I really don't give a shit about, as I was only repeating what i've been told be prominent scientists, only to meet with a standard disparagement from King Deuces, PhD.

And if I was generalising, how can you not be generalising by saying "that's wrong"?


Your logic is really bad.

You have embarrassed him enough.

[Akrazotile]

It's not accurate and it's not supported by facts or experience. You are a keyboard warrior wannabe scientist. You can read Wikipedia all you want but it's obvious you don't understand the scientific process, you are an ignoramus when it comes to inference and analytical techniques, and you have no experience in any professional scientific field.


Can you share with us a piece of research you have done?

Afterall, what is the point of research if not to disseminate it, right?

Can we see something you've worked on scientifically? Can you tell us about something?

[DeuceWallaces]

Can you share with us a piece of research you have done?

Afterall, what is the point of research if not to disseminate it, right?

Can we see something you've worked on scientifically? Can you tell us about something?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07038992.2014.943392

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38067

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2745.12132/full

https://energy.ky.gov/biofuels/Documents/Barton%20bioenergy%20final%20KOEP.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11056-011-9278-4

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112710006882

[Akrazotile]

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38067

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2745.12132/full

https://energy.ky.gov/biofuels/Documents/Barton%20bioenergy%20final%20KOEP.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11056-011-9278-4

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112710006882


Excellent treesearch, brother. :cheers:

Now let me ask you, in this one for instance:

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38067


Reading through the synopsis, it looks like your aim was to test whether or not fertilizer was effective in plant growth.

You did the study, and concluded that it was.

In summation you concluded: Our findings indicate that fertilizer applications to 1-year-old seedlings on reclaimed mines in Appalachia increase height, diameter, and biomass accumulation.


Is this groundbreaking? That fertilizer works?

Fertilizer has been around for a long time. Is this what government pays you to reaffirm? That fertilizer works?


In all seriousness, I respect that you posted up your stuff. But... what am I missing about this study here? Is there a lot of skepticism I'm not aware of in the fertilizer industry about whether it works compared to non-fertilized plants in a control group?

What exactly did this provide that was new or useful to your field of study?

[oarabbus]

Look at deucewallaces. The guy can't read, NOR do math, nor does he have knowledge of ANYTHING outside the subject he's been in school for his whole adult life.

He's not innately intelligent. And so even though he went to college and got degrees, he's nothing but a specialist. He could have probably efficiently condensed everything he learned in 6-8 years of bachelors and masters work into a couple years if he hadn't been in a for-profit school environment where they stretch things out, break things up, throw in electives, etc. etc.

He could have learned the basics of forestry in 2 years then got an entry level job and started working. But the dope spent 8 years on this shit and still doesn't have all the degrees he needs apparently, how much more is there to learn about forestry?

It's a crock, and it's backward, and it's designed to use taxpayer money to give losers like him some kind of career opportunity since he isn't resourceful enough to make things happen on his own. He needs his safe space and his well-lit path and his sense of belonging and nominal accomplishment. Taxpayers shouldn't have to buy that kinda shit for needy losers like him. If he wants it, let him take out a loan and go for it.


So then do you think people going into engineering and computer science should be discouraged?


Also what I get from this topic is that Dresta called out DeuceWallaces for not actually having any legitimate publications, and wallaces responded with links proving he is first author on at least one peer-reviewed paper released by a large scientific publisher. Kind of takes the wind out of the sails of his argument, unless his point is that anyone who isn't Einstein "isn't a true scientist"?

[Akrazotile]

So then do you think people going into engineering and computer science should be discouraged? Or that we are better off with less engineers?


Of course not. Those jobs have plenty of value. However I guarantee you the amount of time and money spent learning those skills in university environment is hyper inflated versus how long it takes to actually learn them when youre focused exclusively on them as career training and not required to take English, and history, and electives etc with expensive textbooks and lengthy assignments for four years in addition. Shit is such an inflated con job.

College used to be for the few kids from wealthy families who didnt need to work immediately out of high school. So you go learn some things. Greek, Latin, some science, some math. It was never vocationally oriented. These kids got better jobs, so as fewer people had to go be a butcher or lumberjack or whatever and support a lil house on the prairie right away like in the old days, more started going to college. But it's still not an efficient career training institution. It was never supposed to be. The problem is the average dolt doesnt realize that.

So we're wasting a ton of money acting like kids need a four year bachelors to do the vast manority of jobs in America. You dont. Its that simple. You can learn the basics of any career in a year and then just continue to grow through experience. 4 year bachelors in communications??? I mean... Its REMARKABLY absurd, and astonishing how unable to realize it most people are simply bc theyre so ingrained to believe "college = only way to succeed." It just meeps getting repeated over and over and people dont even look at it. They just repeat it too.

[oarabbus]

Of course not. Those jobs have plenty of value. However I guarantee you the amount of time and money spent learning those skills in university environment is hyper inflated versus how long it takes to actually learn them when youre focused exclusively on them as career training and not required to take English, and history, and electives etc with expensive textbooks and lengthy assignments for four years in addition. Shit is such an inflated con job.

College used to be for the few kids from wealthy families who didnt need to work immediately out of high school. So you go learn some things. Greek, Latin, some science, some math. It was never vocationally oriented. These kids got better jobs, so as fewer people had to go be a butcher or lumberjack or whatever and support a lil house on the prairie right away like in the old days, more started going to college. But it's still not an efficient career training institution. It was never supposed to be. The problem is the average dolt doesnt realize that.

So we're wasting a ton of money acting like kids need a four year bachelors to do the vast manority of jobs in America. You dont. Its that simple. You can learn the basics of any career in a year and then just continue to grow through experience. 4 year bachelors in communications??? I mean... Its REMARKABLY absurd, and astonishing how unable to realize it most people are simply bc theyre so ingrained to believe "college = only way to succeed." It just meeps getting repeated over and over and people dont even look at it. They just repeat it too.


Yeah, I agree with this and the inflated con job part. My 4-year engineering degree easily could have been 3 years of dedicated study, maybe even 2 - although two I think is pushing it. Engineering does require a lot of the math and physics background and the heavy unit requirements, even if they aren't t applied by the individual at the end of the day.

My parents helped me out with college, and basically laid an ultimatum that I go pre-med or engineering if I wanted their financial support (do note that I also have paid substantially out-of-pocket towards college), which I hated at the time but am glad as shit now that I have an engineering degree in this job market . People I know who studied political science, or psychology are struggling HEAVILY for the most part. To be totally honest it's hard for me to be overly sympathetic, because I could have chosen a "fun" major and not endured an overwhelming workload.

However how are you going to restructure the entire school system? It isn't feasible. Plus there is basically an "Educational-Industrial Complex" which is quite established at this point. People go and spend up to $50,000 a year for four years a degree which is worth nothing near that value. The schools get this money immediately, paid for by a loan from the bank. Interest accumulates during this time and people spend decades trying to pay off their $150,000 debt which has accumulated significantly with their underwater basket weaving major. Or their communications major that lands them a secretarial job, like the girl you mentioned. All the while, the schools and banks stuff their pockets with more and more cash every year. You aren't going to stop this system any more than any other entrenched industry.

I don't think Sanders plan for forgiving all student debt and giving free college to everyone is feasible either, or even fair. So Jimmy Butthead who screwed around and is sitting on $200k debt gets it all magically relieved at taxpayers' expense while Johnny Responsible who put half his paycheck towards his debt since the day he graduated is now just shit out of luck for 200 grand? It makes no sense. And there probably should be more vocational training in this country, honestly kids as young as 11th grade should be able to specialize in a vocational sector if they so choose. If they want to go to a 4-year that should be an option as well, but we should definitely be encouraging more vocational 2 year type programs.

[Akrazotile]

Yeah, I agree with this and the inflated con job part. My 4-year engineering degree easily could have been 3 years of dedicated study, maybe even 2. While I hated it at the time (my parents helped me out with college, and basically laid an ultimatum that I go pre-med or engineering if I wanted their financial support), I'm glad as shit now that I have an engineering degree in this job market. People I know who studied political science, or psychology are struggling HEAVILY for the most part.

However how are you going to restructure the entire school system? It isn't feasible. Plus there is basically an "Educational-Industrial Complex" which is quite established at this point. People go and spend up to $50,000 a year for four years a degree which is worth nothing near that value. The schools get this money immediately, paid for by a loan from the bank. Interest accumulates during this time and people spend decades trying to pay off their $150,000 debt which has accumulated significantly with their underwater basket weaving major. Or their communications major that lands them a secretarial job, like the girl you mentioned. All the while, the schools and banks stuff their pockets with more and more cash every year. You aren't going to stop this system easily more than any other entrenched industry.


I mean, it's up to us as people to change things with our dollars. We can complain on the internet, and we do, but it doesnt do shit. We'd have to support businesses that dont encourage this sort of thing, but its hard because most do.

For instance I think political correctness is stupid, as do a lot of people. I think the education system is bogus, so do a lot of people. Im working right now to start my own business predicated on operating without employee restrictions on free speech, and hiring based on natural competence not time spent at university. My hope is enough consumers will help it to grow and eventually set a new standard for businesses to change their own models.

Nothing will change if we dont have alternatives. And we wont have alternatives if someone doesnt create them. So Im at least trying.

[Brunch@Five]

I took a multidisciplinary undergrad, but I had a choice of a fair few modules from political science, and yes, that subject is utter trash. It cannot only be learned on your own, it can be learned far, far better on your own. Their need to categorise, to simplify, and to break things down into easily digestible pieces, completely destroys any kind of intelligent analysis of political phenomenon. Not to mention that politics does not exist in a vacuum, and cannot be separately studied like it is and be at all relevant to understanding the real world.

when political science or sociology gets turned into a quantitative empirical research fetish, I don't like it either. But both disciplines are such vast fields of study that it's absolutely of great help to go to seminars and have good lecturers introduce you to their field of specialty. Without that you'd never know what of the thousands of publications, monographs you should occupy yourself with.
Obviously, taking political science 101 classes or whatever you did in your multidisciplinary undergrad will not get you deep knowledge of what political science is or can be. To extrapolate from this that the whole subject is "utter trash" is idiotic. Also to postulate that "politics is studied like it is in a vacuum" is simply untrue and shows that you have little experience in this field of study.

[LilKateMoss]

Dresta's journey from resident tobacco apologist to beloved idiot savant is truly fascinating.

[Im Still Ballin]

J$

[rufuspaul]

Wild guess here but I don't think people get into forestry for financial gain.

:lol


1. Go to college

2. Get masters in Forestry

3. ?

4. Profit

[Im Still Ballin]

:roll:

Unban Akrazotile

[tomtucker]

deuce in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7RSA3olvA