An amazing quote.

[patandchickens]

Er, it can be argued that FDR's New Deal policies may have worsened and/or prolonged the Depression. (But who really knows - it is all just one argument versus another argument, no way to rewind and try it a different way).

However you CANNOT sensibly say that he "caused" the Great Depression.

The Great Depression started in October 1929. FDR did not become president until 1933, three and a half years later. By the time he came into office things were ALREADY in terrible awful shape, with massive unemployment and huge numbers of people having lost their homes and a GNP only half of what it was pre-Black Monday.

As far as only the most academically-inclined going to college, what on EARTH is wrong with that. The current system is, if I may be permitted to use the term, pretty STUPID -- practically everyone goes to college for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, just because, since practically everyone *does* go to college, employers require applicants to have a college education. Four years of liberal education -- and please remember I am a former college professor and a big *fan of* a well-rounded liberal education -- does exactly diddlysquat to prepare you for a normal job.

Most careers require career-specific skills. THAT is what it would be cost-effective and sensible to fund people to learn.

Those of you who've been to college, I know it's *fun*, and if you made good use of your tuition dollar you *will* have emerged with a broader perspective on the world and an improved ability to think about things (both of which can be acquired for free at your local library, however)... but how many of the courses you took do you actually USE in real life on any regular basis?

For most people, the answer is "few to none". And those few could perfeclty well have been taken as just those courses, cut to the chase, you know? The 'breadth' part of a liberal arts curriculum has good intentions, but as implemented these days, and for what students do in college these days, it is so vague and watered down as to be pretty pointless.

So I for one would support radically reducing the number of students getting liberal-arts degrees (ha, I can say that b/c I'm no longer one of the zillions of faculty who would be severely unemployed if that should ever happen! ) while at the same time providing more opportunities, and more financial support, for USEFUL education.

JMHO,

Pat

 

[DrakeMaiden]

As to the comment about how well you do in school being the determiner of what type of job or schooling you get to qualify for. WHAT????????????? This is a free country & we are free to choose what type of education & how much of an education we get. We should never change that if we do then we are no better than the communist & socialist countries in this world.
I worked hard to earn my college education & am very proud that it was not given to me or the fact that I was given a career I was able to choose it myself.

I think you took my comment out of context. I meant that the govt shouldn't necessarily pay (give tax credits) to put every student through college, but I do think they should fund the best students as far as they would like to go.

I worked nearly the entire time I was in college, with no tax credits, so that I could get through debt free. It took me longer, but it is obviously possible for those who are determined to get a college degree in a free society.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

I agree with your assessment on higher education, Pat.

I will only add one thing . . . I do think college education tends to give people more open minds. I generally socialize with people who have degrees, but when I am around those who don't, I have noticed they tend to not want to listen to anything they don't want to hear. I don't mean to make generalizations, because I think there are certainly exceptions on both sides. I just think college tends to develop critical thinking a little more than high school level.

 

[Homesteadmom]

Ok but I still disagree with that. As some of the "best" students(gradewise) have plenty of money to pay for a higher education, why should my tax $$'s go to pay for their education when their parents can pay for it? I think the current tax credits parents can take for their college children are just fine. Mind you I only got a little credit for my college son(less than $100) for 2 yrs. But so what? I was not looking for a major credit or break for him to get a degree.
Maybe a better thing to do for students is to have all of them take a aptitude test to see where their real skills & knowledge is to help them make a better choice on going to school for the correct degree. A lot of kids have no idea what they want to be or do at 18 so they just start with a liberal arts degree & then once they decide then they start going for an even higher degree. College has never been a given to anyone in this country & I don't think anyone should just be given a college education. Most kids will not appreciate it at all if it is just given to them.
My other problem is this, you have a student with a 4+ gpa apply to an ivy league school & a student with a 3.0 gpa apply to the same school, one slot left & because they have to meet the "diversity quota" the student with the 3.0 gets the scholarship & gets in. Now how fair is that? Not at all, because the 3.0 student had more family money than the 4.0 did & ended up flunking out in 2 yrs.(True story by the way). 4.0 went to a community college because that is all he could afford.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

I was generalizing, but I think you picked up on what I meant, because I would say that the 4.0 student should have been able to get govt. funds to go to that ivy leage school, because the situation you describe is exactly how it works now, as far as I can see. Kids with family money are not always the smartest in their class. Actually I'd bet it was more an inverse relationship, but I'm just guessing based upon my own experiences.

I didn't mean that kids with money AND smarts should also be funded, because that would be kind of ridiculous, IMO. Sorry I didn't clarify that.

And YES an aptitude test after high school would, I think, really help. I agree that most high school grads have no idea what they want to do. Many go to college due to peer pressure or societal pressure . . . it is just what you do, right?

I never felt comfortable with the ambivalence of college counselors to the "I don't know what I want to major in" syndrome. That should be a clue that maybe the student needs some time to make decisions about their future before they start choosing a career track. JMO.

 

[patandchickens]

just think college tends to develop critical thinking a little more than high school level.

I would say that is not so much a virtue of college, as a FAILURE of high school, that really really needs to be addressed

I don't know how accurate or useful aptitude testing really is. You certainly hear a lot of stories of individual cases where it certainly wasn't. Anybody know the larger picture?

A lot of kids have no idea what they want to be or do at 18 so they just start with a liberal arts degree & then once they decide then they start going for an even higher degree.

For a student who can't decide between, say, journalism and biology and becoming a phys ed teacher, college is a reasonable place to park yourself while you decide.

For those who really haven't much of a clue at all what they want to do, though, I think the VAST majority would be waaaaay better off just working for 4 yrs (or whatever it takes, be it more or less time). Til they decide. THEN they can go to college, if their chosen career really requires it, or do whatever else is required for career training.

It is a giant pet peeve of mine to have a large fraction of the classroom filled with people just filling in time til a career idea grabs them. It *really* gets in the way of those who WANT to be in college and WANT to be learning the course material.

Even if your waiting-to-decide-what-to-do-in-life job is "just" selling shoes or night manager at Burger King or doing landscaping work or whatever, you learn quite a lot of crucially important real-life skills that will help quite a lot in whatever future career you may choose; you will do better in college as a result of those acquired work skills; and you may discover important things about yourself that will change your ideas about what you wanna do (like 'I just CAN'T deal with working more than 40 hrs a week' or 'I don't want to be in charge of a buncha people' or 'hey, I really really enjoy the challenge of finding new solutions to problems', or whatever).

Plus you are *earning* money instead of *spending* it

Off soapbox,

Pat

 

[On Our own]

My other problem is this, you have a student with a 4+ gpa apply to an ivy league school & a student with a 3.0 gpa apply to the same school, one slot left & because they have to meet the "diversity quota" the student with the 3.0 gets the scholarship & gets in. Now how fair is that? Not at all, because the 3.0 student had more family money than the 4.0 did & ended up flunking out in 2 yrs.(True story by the way). 4.0 went to a community college because that is all he could afford.

Or lose that spot to a "legacy" student.....

 

[Tallman]

If the government should fund the higher education for the smart kids as far as they want to go, should the government then regulate what area of study these kids should pursue?

 

[DrakeMaiden]

Well, I would expect we wouldn't want to pay for the education of several thousand psychologists. In my mind I was thinking mostly science & technology fields, not so much American Litterature.

 

[patandchickens]

If the government should fund the higher education for the smart kids as far as they want to go, should the government then regulate what area of study these kids should pursue?

You do realize that there is already a limitation on how many people are accepted to any given major/field in college/gradschool?

It is not set by the gov't (well I don't know how med school quotas are set, but certainly other fields it's not set by the gov't), it's set by the colleges and universities. According to a combination of demand and economics.

There are X many slots open for people to enter vet school, med school, grad school; and the higher-demand college majors also exercise a certain amount of control over how many students they accept.


Pat