Let Conservatives keep their kids out of college

Who is Stephen Hawkins?

 

Ave pay for graduates is meaningless.
Ave pay per area of study is much more meaningful.

I've already shown you that one guy making $500k and four others making $30k averages to $124k. The average is more than 400% greater than what 4/5 of the sample population is earning.

 

The topic is the large percentage of students wasting their time and money, not the minority of students that study something useful

 

Shhhhhh, she's studying quantum mechanics as a major. Oddly that "major" is not offered at the undergraduate level.

 

Christianity definitely had a profound influence on education. The closed the ancient schools of Philosophy and literacy declined precipitously. They then set about on a 1000 year campaign of knowledge destruction.

 

Stanford was tied for #3 in the world.
The bastion of liberalism according to the right. They are the liberalist dream according to RW.

 

Way way more than any average you can come up with for HS dropouts.

 

The vast majority of students are not going to Stanford, and many students at Stanford are studying junk

 

We are talking about not going to college, not dropping out of high school

 

The other flaw is such stats is there is no accounting for age. The value of a college degree now versus 30 years ago, is huge. Such a study would not only have to account for area of study, but also in age categories. For example, to compare the average income of a 30 year old with a BA in the humanities, versus a 30 year old with a 2 year degree now a licensed electrician.

Degrees now also can be a drawback, as companies tend to not hire someone they see as over educated for the job, figuring the person would be not appreciate the job, see him/herself as smarter than superiors, and would always be seeking a better job - meaning job training was wasted. Other employers believe that they can more easily train a person starting with an empty canvas than someone who has a pile of pre-conceptions.

Long ago I worked the night shift of a packinghouse, was the shift steward, and got to know a lot of the guys. One of those talked quite differently than others. Bigger words. Made simple tasks sound complex and tended to overthink everything. Virtually no one there had any college. Privately, I commented about this about him, said probably he'd make a good steward because he's obviously smart, and something about him didn't add up that way. (This is a true story.)

Upon my promising to keep it to myself, he said he had a PhD in philosophy. Other than universities, there was no career jobs for him. But no one would hire him. Literally no one. He couldn't work at a counter at a McDonalds or clerking at a C-store. So, to get this job, he lied. He told them he didn't finish high school, but he did go back to try to better himself and while it took a few years, he did get his GED. The personnel person congratulated him for the GED and hired him on the spot.

About 3 years ago I took a long (1 1/2 hour) ride to an airport. The taxi driver told me that he had a masters degree in biology - and could not find any job. Driving a taxi was all he could find.

Having a MARKETABLE degree truly is MARKETABLE. But of itself, a college degree is not an assurance of income and, sometimes, is a handicap. It also could be a psychological handicap causing a person to believe they are too smart and too educated to take jobs they actually could get. Universities roll out millions of grads a year into a job market that doesn't need millions of generic college grads.

 

Well said.

The issue is not opposition to education, but replacing education with political correctness and professors who do feel-good chatter of their personal and political ideology.

 

What do you gain from insulting your opponent?

 

OK. Tell me what you think of this debate - whom do do you agree with?

 

Hey, where are you majoring in quantum mechanics?

 

Oh no, I admitted not having a PhD.

 

Ad Hominem?

:EDIT:

Oh yeah, give the name of that picture.

 

Progressivism destroys as well. Culture, science, society etc... is evolving and hopefully in a good way. We do have to adapt but we also need some conservatism to offer stability.
We should also avoid confusing political conservatism with religious conservatism. One is about protecting traditions and cultures that tie a society together while the other is about protecting religious views beliefs and traditions. When talking about science, it is the religious conservatives that oppose it the most and based more on beliefs than on concerns for societal consequences.

 

And what about global warming?

Deny the truth?

 

The scientific theory or global warming alarmism?

 

Do you believe one?

 

I believe that green house gasses cause 'some' warming. Mostly in the nighttime. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/91GL02900
The shrinking difference between the day and night temperatures is observable in the various planets where some have temperature extremes between day and night while venus with its dense co2 atmosphere has little difference between temperatures in the day night.

 

Clutching at straws with night and day?

Why would you want to deny scientific evidence so much?

 

What? I am not denying the evidence. The title of the linked scientific journal is "Evidence for asymmetric diurnal temperature change".

 

You need to broaden your thinking.

 

Caught in a fib?