Let Conservatives keep their kids out of college

If social conservatism is the desire to preserve societal values and cultural conservatism is the desire to preserve ones culture then religious conservatism is the desire to preserve ones religion. Of course religion can sometimes be the foundation of ones culture and moral values so it makes sense that when religious conservatism is dominant in society and government that it would be difficult to make a distinction.

Political conservatism is different. I was using this to describe todays political ideology and the trajectory it is on. Liberal-Conservatism vs Progressive-authoritarianism. Liberalism used to be progressive but as they try to use authoritarian structures and systems to engineer and enforce social values they stray from what progressivism was in the past.

In short, you cannot look to past at progressivism and conservatism and how it effected societies and nations of the past and assume the same is true for today because conservatism has changed a lot and progressivism has changed some as well.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave.......

 

And .. that an 'education' is utterly useless in the absence of a practical application. It can only ever have 'value' (and what that value is, is unclear. perhaps vanity? dinner party conversation?) to the extremely rich, who are at liberty to value the nonsensical.

 

It's not just a factor laziness. Those fields (humanities) are essentially remedial classes, for the academically impaired. Basically, college for Dumb-dumbs

 

And the person chooses the major. Unless you're saying that because you can point to a few famous exceptions, then the choices people make in life have nothing to do with them?

 

For every George Lucas (whose value to society is debatable), there are a million Arts Grads waiting tables and barely making rent.

 

Because our tax dollars are partially funding these vanity courses. NO vanity course should be accessible via the same route as vocational courses. It's outrageous, frankly. If you want to waste 3 years on studying Poetry, do it on your own dime. We have young people to train for actual work.

 

It was the top 10 in popularity, meaning the majority go into those majors.
Try reading the link sometime.

At any rate, most in the top 10 in popularity, are in fields that have a good career after graduation.

 

Your post was completely pointless, trolling type.
There is no ammo needed for mindless garbage posts.

 

I have an Associate's Degree, a Bachelor's Degree, and a law degree, and I'm a conservative. I studied music, humanities, history, and philosophy, as well as physics, chemistry, and calculus. Conservatives are not against education, they're against brainwashing and liberal groupthink. As for "conservatives" bringing down empires, that, too, is nonsense. It's liberalism that has brought down every empire from the beginning of time to today. Why is Europe crashing and burning? Because of liberalism, not conservatism. Why is Islam expanding worldwide? Because of conservatism, not liberalism. Rome was long dead before the Dark Ages happened. What brought it down? Liberalism. The conservative barbarians of the north overran and destroyed the Roman empire because the liberal Romans had gotten soft. I once tried to read a history of China, but it was so ****ing repetitive that I gave up. Barbarians ransack a territory and conquer it, set up an empire, the people become cultured, a new flowering of art occurs (along with homosexuality), and the empire comes crashing down when the new barbarians attack it. It's the same story with every civilization, with the possible exception of the Aztecs, who were still at the height of their power but were overwhelmed by a still more powerful society from a far distant place. As for starting pay, yes, college grads get paid more in the beginning, but studies have shown that people who could have gone to college but didn't earn almost as much as the people who did go to college, without the crippling student debt, so who exactly is better off? Another study showed that those who could have gone to an Ivy League university but went to a state university instead get a lower starting salary but end up earning as much as their Ivy League competitors, again, without the crippling debt. So it's not college that determines pay, it's IQ.

This all fits in with the studies that show that conservatives understand liberals very well while liberals don't understand conservatives worth a damn.

 

I was making a snide comment about the weird fixation on campus culture war horseshit, I don't actually care about your phd

 

I cared so much, I didn't get passed I have a blah blah blah degree, and another blah, ......done.

 

you have difficulty with the concept of plurality.
Let me make it easy for you.
If there are 100 majors, 10 of them have 21 students in them and 90 have 20 students in them, the !0 most popular do not have the majority of students.
This is not difficult.

 

Which liberal arts colleges are you partially funding?
There is no Poetry major. No one is studying poetry for three years In a liberal arts program.

 

Literacy, universal language (Latin), were products of HRE expansionism. Galileo, et alia, though sometimes at odds with the Vatican, were heavily dependent on the church for financial support. Haters gonna hate though ... Catholisms missionaries have educated the masses for millennia.

 

were gonna miss your crying closets.

 

I don't know what "authoritarian structures" you're referring to. But I think there is a big confusion in the use of terms above. The colloquial meaning of "liberal" in the United States today simply means "Democrat". And therefore is meaningless from the point of view of political theory. If you mean the actual historical political current born in the 17th century, it was, as you say, progressive in its beginnings. Starting the Age of Enlightenment. And then it was adopted in part by the Libertarian movement, and in part by the Conservative movement. In neither of those cases is liberalism itself authoritarian.

Given the above confusion in terms, it's difficult to respond. Today, in general terms, progressives are simply those who want progress. And conservatives are those who oppose change. But, in reality, they have nothing to do with authoritarianism. Sometimes progressives want to give the government more power, sometimes it's conservatives. When conservatives (the right) seek to have the government decide if a woman can have an abortion, or who people can marry, or when they enact the Patriot Act, or when they allow their President to attack the press and become almost completely impermeable to questions, or when they are fine with their fraction in Congress negotiating bills in secret behind closed doors, or when they give corporations more power than people....(I could go on and on)... they are building more "authoritarian structures" than any I can recall progressives might have ever advocated for. Not that they are absent in progressives. But, much as I try, I can't think of any even remotely comparable to those in regards to authoritarianism. Most (if not all) the ones that progressives enact are meant to benefit the people. As it is mandated by the Constitution.

 

Lucas has created over a thousand technical and artistic jobs at Industrial Light and Magic and a thousand more at Skywalker Sound. He has helped pump literally billions of dollars into the US economy from national and international sources.

What have you done?

 

Everybody with a brain realizes that the topic is the number of kids studying junk majors and the fact that if you don't study something worthwhile (QM is not a major btw), you're wasting you're time and money

 

Did you not read his post?
He said there was one George Lucas, and a millions with garbage jobs.

Those billions of dollars have been diverted from other productive areas of the economy.
Perhaps you could have been cured from a deadly illness, but instead will only have fond memories of a Wookie

 

Why do you care if someone, as YOU say..."wastes their time and money"? Seems an odd thing to be preoccupied with, no?

 

You can waste whatever you want.
This is a forum where ideas are discussed.
If you want to keep making bankers rich, sending dolts that have no business in college to get "educated", who will study nothing of value, go ahead.

 

You're not discussing ideas though. You're just whining about what OTHER people choose to do with their life. Again...that seems very odd.

 

Actually, imaging technology from ILM has transferred over into medical imaging and research. Lucas has set up a foundation that will donate over $4 billion to education. Skywalker Sound has helped develop sound systems that are being used to research audio wave transmission that might help hard of hearing people with more advanced hearing aids.

I'm not saying that we don't need technical training, I'm just pointing out that arts degrees are not a waste.

What have YOU done for society that you can compare to what Lucas has done?

 

Not so. Conservatives (by which I mean "the right") are against education as is illustrated, for example, by their disdain of Science . But recently they have adopted the strategy to create a conspiracy theory about "brainwashing", instead of arguing the actual point. And the hold of this conspiracy theory is transitioning from their most extreme media, to what was once considered more moderate.

I have met many people (both when I was in College, as outside) who attended a University obtained one or more degrees, but never grasped the concept of what a University is. In higher education, professors attempting to "indoctrinate" you (if by this you mean that they are biased) is part of your education. In almost any field you chose to pursue a degree on, there is more than one tendency. In Psychology, for example, there are (or there were when I attended) two major schools: Behaviorism and Psychoanalysis. Teachers would tend to one or the other. Each student would make up their own mind, based on what they were taught by each, their own personal research, their experience, .... In short, they are taught the same way life teaches. I took courses in Psychology, but more in Philosophy (even though my major was I.T.), where this is immensely more complex.

I agree on the latter example, will await your arguments on the former. Mainly because I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm talking about the Holy Roman Empire. Its influence (and de-facto control) in most of Europe came to an end at the Rennaisance. Which was hardly a "conservative" era. As a matter of fact, ti was known as the "Reformation" Hardly a conservative term.

Here, boys and girls, the problem of judging other periods of history in the prism of today's paradigm is illustrated. Homosexuality was considered normal in China until about the 19th Century. This due to the return of European influence. The end of the Ming Empire was not brought about by Barbarians. It was brought about by the Manchu. The Manchu were farmers, lived in walled cities, villages and forts, and were sedentary.

It's not difficult to understand why so many empires are brought down by more scientifically inclined, and therefore technologically proficient forces. Question is if this lag is due to circumstances they cannot control, or to their own bad choices. In the case of ours, Conservatives have become the anti-science, anti-progress force. As this tendency takes hold in one of our major political parties my question is: is it now our turn?