Plumbing vs. Forestry

[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.

[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 . 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-ed...search-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/pub...nal-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?i...at20.41.13.png


It's amazing how you don't even seem to know anything about the field in which you actually work . 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 . 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-ed...search-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/pub...nal-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?i...at20.41.13.png


It's amazing how you don't even seem to know anything about the field in which you actually work . 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 . 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-ed...search-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/pub...nal-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?i...at20.41.13.png


It's amazing how you don't even seem to know anything about the field in which you actually work . 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?

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.