The negative economic implications of a college education that does not improve employment opportunities for a 99%er is pretty laughable too

When college is worth up to $200k in total opportunity cost (college related expenses + lost income opportunity), then yeah it's pretty important. Starting life with a huge negative sign is a huge disadvantage.

You can teach yourself things and learn them outside of some ancient guild system. You have the degree as one aspect of college, as a credential. You have trade skills as another. You have knowledge as yet another.

So you can become really interested in French Literature and read a bunch of books, maybe even learn French to do so in the native language. You could travel to France. Meet other people who know stuff about the subject. How much more beneficial is it to go to some random American institution for the learning? Maybe a lot. I assume the reason someone pays a lot of money for the degree has to do with the credential imparted.

I know my guild (the engineers and scientist one) places a lot of weight on a degree. However, just having a STEM one matters a lot more that what you studied. Again, we're all about the credential, as most companies assume a new grad with a sheep skin has little practical knowledge. You can also have people who have no degree but learned the information other ways -- those people can be better at the practical side of things than even those with really fancy/expensive degrees.

You also have MC's idea about broadening beyond job skills. I definitely see benefit to that in many college situations, but two questions. 1) Does this have infinite $ value? Thus the person selling it can ask for whatever and it would be worth going into debt. 2) Is a campus the only place to attain this benefit of broadening?
Agree.

At some point, return on investment has to matter. Unless you're just so rich you'll provide the experience to your child. I know someone who had the cash to afford two Ivy League educations for his children, and he told them flat out not to worry about the income potential of what they studied. This can't be for many people, but again, some people just are willing to pay whatever for the experience.

6-12, HJ (tagnit) opens, button 3!, SB cc, HJ calls, 3 to a flop of AQx rainbow.

Checks to button who bets, both call. Turn A, checks to button who bets.

SB has JJ, there is a mini bad beat active where AAAJJ beaten with both cards playing in both hands gets 5k, winner gets 2500, table chops 2500. This is an auto-call, yes?

Even at just 1 out, yes. Flop is an easy fold fwiw.

Problem for your country is not education, it is the ridiculous cost of it.
And again having a college education go further than a job.
I would even go further and say it is close of being criminal for not giving the liberty and accessibility of a citizen to have a proper education .
Tho it is true, having a lot of citizens not inform and educated are easier to manipulate and contain them ...

Just talk with some one with at best a high school education and someone with post doctorat and you will probably have different of views on how to solve certain problem in life .

Yes, you can learn stuff outside of school, but with all the "fake news" and false information around, it is kinda of normal certain company ask "legit degree" for not getting frame.

Would you go to someone who read lot of medical book or someone of have a degree ?

Anyway, still my point stand, college education goes far beyond on how much money it gets you has a salary.

What makes a good democracy is how well inform and educate your electorate are for example.
Worst they are and worst the country usually ends up.

Ps: no worry, my rant is over on that subject.
Pps: just send your kids to Canada, might end up cheaper !

I think you're mixing correlation and causation. Very smart (or at least strong test takers) are given cheap or free educations. It isn't a randomized trial. Good test takers and high achievers are much more likely to go. I believe that college also helps people, but you can't say that lack of college results in low (whatever metric) without a randomized trial at the start.

This post is absurdly silly. For one, colleges aren't harbingers of information. There is this thing called research that people can do.

Secondly, and this is far worse because it's actually quite fallacious, is that the degree level drives things like intelligence and civic awareness. The population of people w/ post graduate education is drawn from a totally different IQ subset than those drawn from the population of HS grads. And given the crappy turnout rates of millennials in elections, it's likely that civic involvement likely starts being built decades after people leave campus.

You mean the colleges that are so concerned about educating people that they're banning the pronouns he/she?

I think his point is to say that colleges provide a good arena for the development of civic engagement. Outside of college campuses, there are fewer places as you age where diverse groups of people are inclined to sit around discussing ideas. That said, I don't actually believe that that is how the majority of people spend they're time as undergraduates, but you can be more passive and still be "engaged".

I have two undergraduate degrees, one in philosophy and one on biology, and I certainly have a love/hate relationship with the position the time invested and cost of obtaining those degrees has put me in. Even toward the end of my undergraduate studies I just wasn't employing a cost/benefit type of analysis with my time; it wasn't until I was trying to figure what to do a couple of years later that I even began thinking about lost earning potential and things like that.

Nice hir.

This is a low content thread, gentlemen.

Also, my next question is: Did you get two undergrads in fields with a low return on investment because you were interested in the material? Do you have a graduate degree? Do you plan on going back to school? Was your plan to do research? What is your philosophy on biology? Do you do Punnett squares for funsies?

The worst thing you can do is employ hindsight based on winnings rather than your prospects. But, leave when you are not feeling well, or your cognitive powers have weakened

If you're in the right place at the right time with the right scholarships available and you went to the right school to begin with and you're aware of your options and you have a decent support system and you aren't burdened by debt already and come from a family that can assist you with costs associated and and and

Philosphy was my choice based purely on interest. I was accepted to a few PhD programs but didn't receive any funding so I elected to pass. Biology was my minor (again, I was just interested in the material), and I elected to finish out the major to give myself some more opportunities postgrad. I'm just finishing up my MS in Clinical Laboratory Science in the next two weeks. Tons of job opportunities all over the county for my field now and decent pay, but it doesn't require a graduate degree.

I feel like my philosophy degree has certainly given me a leg up on my colleagues, as I have significantly stronger writing skills, but while that has helped me in school it won't be as significant in the workplace.

And yes I do enjoy doing Punnett squares just for fun.

nh sir wp

I could have clarified what i meant by graduate degree but you answered what I wanted to know.

My wife and I actually just had our first child 3 months ago, so I showed her how to do them as we were figuring out our chances of having a red-headed child and blood type while she was pregnant.

For less content, all time great hand from back at the OL 3/6 days:

2 limps, BTN (something like a 38/0 over ~ 200 hands)...raises. SB calls. I look down at KsKh and decide that I don't have enough evidence to not 3 bet, and do so. Limpers call, BTN caps (seals the deal), we call. I resolve to not call unless I'm getting a good price v AA and jam like crazy whenever I can beat AA.

Flop: KQ5cc

Check to BTN who bets, I xr, someone cold calls, BTN 3, I cap they call

Turn: T

I bet, call, BTN raises, I 3 bet, cc, BTN cap we call.

River: 7c

I bet, call, BTN raises, I 3 bet, cc, BTN cap we call.

BTN shows AA obv. Cold Caller has...A5o ship it.

__________________________________________________ ___

One more fun one:

I open Ac3c BTN -3, HJ 3 bets, entire table calls (6 way), I call

Ax8c5c check to HJ who bets. Everyone calls, I xr, he 3, everyone calls again, I cap and everyone calls.

Turn T, I check to HJ who bets, everyone calls.

River 3, check to HJ who bets, everyone calls, I sack up and xr, everyone calls. I win.

Stop nitting and raise more with premiums imo

edit: wait I'm not in BBV am I

Not necessarily. The best way to do it is to make sure the people who pay have the students' best interest. The problem with student loans (and other related issues like secondary markets for mortgages) is that the decision makers aren't financially liable for bad decisions. Want to admit students who can't handle the cirriculum (or can't pay the mortgage)? No problem - someone else is ultimately picking up the bill. I have no problem with colleges simply waiving tuition for any student whose family makes less than $100,000 (most if not all Ivy League colleges do that now) - they're basically saying, hey, we'd rather a qualified poor student attend than get an extra $30k from an unqualified rich student. I think everyone wins.

No question communications and journalism majors are going to be at a competitive disadvantage in 15-20 years. But that in part if not in whole comes from a technological transformation of those fields.

Pitching business types 20 years ago meant pitching someone with a business degree. Pitching today means convincing a technical expert who also has business experience. Journalists 20 years ago got away with simple explanations of how cancer is bad. Today, the articles that are written require explaining why CD47+ renal carcinomas are worse than CD47- ones. More and more often, they have technical skills PLUS journalism skills.

I think Berkeley has to have one of the greatest perception-reality gaps in terms of its liberalness.

1. Engineering is one of the largest departments at Berkeley. I believe Google hires more Berkeley grads than any other school (more than Stanford, more than MIT), on account of the school's overall size and high percentage of engineers.

2. You are correct in terms of technical majors being relatively moderate and relatively apathetic politically. You missed that Asians are also relatively moderate and relatively apathetic. Look at various votes in Berkeley or even California as a whole - Berkeley grad students voted to unionize by a really small margin, basically cut 99-1 for in the humanities and 75-25 against in the sciences. California BANNED gay marriage by statewide referendum in 2008. That is, despite the number of people who will vote Democrat in a head-to-head race, what you really have is a huge pool of non-white people who are moderately liberal to slightly conservative.

3. The school administration is, like any other bureaucracy, moderately conservative. Contrary to popular belief, both the university and the city of Berkeley allowed Milo Yannopoulis to give his speech/performance/whatever, even in the face of protests. The day of, the city - not the university - had to cancel because the protests were getting TOO violent. The only difference between this and any other town where a controversial speaker applies for and receives a permit is that in this case Milo wanted his speech to be canceled. When I was at Berkeley 20 years ago, there was a fairly large movement to kick all protests off the campus - while people are ranting about paid protestors in 2017, the student body at Berkeley was ranting about them in 1997. Why were all these protests - which have always included a violent fringe - be allowed to happen on campus when few if any students were involved?

This isn't to say Berkeley isn't liberal. It's still a pool of young people drawn primarily from one of the most liberal states. But on a scale of -10 to +10, -10 being someone liberal enough to get invited to be on Fox News, I'd put the median student as a -3 or so, and if you select for the politically active ones, probably -5. Any other university would probably be -2 and -3, respectively. The only reason it has such a liberal reputation is the amplification of the very vocal -10s.

FWIW I majored in binge drinking. Took a break. Went back. Now I'm a functioning member in corporate America.

You REALLY have to try to not have a job/career right now.

Hey, I just saw a news story about colleges hiring "diversity officers" that enforce that kind of stuff on campus. They get paid an average 175 grand a year.

What was your degree after taking a break from your moral and mature early years?

Business, obvs.

That's what I assumed. What industry are you working in now, and how many people that you went to school with are utilizing their degrees as functioning members of corporate America?