|
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote: The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.
At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all. The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out. RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs. I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall. Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice. The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system. You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%. Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means. Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned. I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience. The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from. This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.
Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?
These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.
The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote: The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.
At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all. The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out. RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs. I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall. Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice. The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system. You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%. Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means. Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned. I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience. The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from. This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education. Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there? These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree. The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it. I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.
As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.
Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.
|
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote: The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.
At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all. The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out. RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs. I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall. Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice. The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system. You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%. Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means. Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned. I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience. The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from. This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education. Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there? These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree. The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it. I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from. As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters. Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.
Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.
|
College costs way too much but it is the best investment you will make if you use it appropriately. As was mentioned before, school doesn't magically give you a tangible benefit by paying for tuition. You have to put in the effort and really dig in to get a return. However, if you attend a good school, get involved in your classes rather than sleeping in because your prof doesn't take attendance, and surround yourself with like-minded students and faculty, you will get way more out of the experience than you put in via tuition. The college experience isn't just about the fun nights and weekends (there's nothing wrong with having fun, mind you). It's also not just about the academics. Mentally developing into an adult and learning to responsibly live on your own is a major component of a successful college career.
Is the cost too high? Hell yes it is...but as long as you take full advantage of the opportunity to go to college, the investment will pay for itself and more.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote: The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.
At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all. The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out. RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs. I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall. Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice. The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system. You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%. Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means. Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned. I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience. The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from. This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education. Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there? These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree. The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it. I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from. As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters. Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well. Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society. How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.
Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.
Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?
|
I could see the "freshman experience" being worthwhile to people who go immediately from highschool to college at 17, but besides that? Eh.
All the "freshman experience" really gives you is a bit of networking experience, really. I would be extremely surprised if you actually got anything worthwhile out of it.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 15 2012 12:58 WTFZerg wrote: I could see the "freshman experience" being worthwhile to people who go immediately from highschool to college at 17, but besides that? Eh.
All the "freshman experience" really gives you is a bit of networking experience, really. I would be extremely surprised if you actually got anything worthwhile out of it. I specifically did (I could be an exception in this regard). After my freshman year I did much less networking/meeting/etc. And that's aside from more general social development.
|
10387 Posts
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective
|
On December 15 2012 13:00 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:58 WTFZerg wrote: I could see the "freshman experience" being worthwhile to people who go immediately from highschool to college at 17, but besides that? Eh.
All the "freshman experience" really gives you is a bit of networking experience, really. I would be extremely surprised if you actually got anything worthwhile out of it. I specifically did (I could be an exception in this regard). After my freshman year I did much less networking/meeting/etc. And that's aside from more general social development.
Right. Okay. I concede that it's probably good from a networking standpoint. While I've always thought that going directly from high school to college is a silly idea, the "freshman experience" could probably come in handy in granting some much needed networking skills.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote: I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.
|
A lot of interesting information and thoughts here. One thing that resonates with me is that there are some degrees that are going to be essential, not necessarily to the individual, but to our society as a whole. Nuclear Engineers are going to be neede in HUGE numbers, very soon.
Now the maturing “boomer” generation is poised to cause yet another upheaval in society, as large numbers of them retire from the workplace. The electric power industry alone will have to replace nearly 100,000 skilled workers—more than 25,000 of them in the nuclear industry—by 2015, a fact that is driving industry partnerships with educational institutions and spurred creation of the Get Into Energy website.
Souce: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/publicationsandmedia/insight/insight-web-extra/help-wanted-25000-skilled-workers/
|
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote: The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.
At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all. The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out. RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs. I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall. Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice. The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system. You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%. Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means. Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned. I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience. The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from. This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education. Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there? These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree. The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it. I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from. As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters. Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well. Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society. How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence. Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree. Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?
No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.
I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.
You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.
|
10387 Posts
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote: I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run. I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.
I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote: [quote] The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.
[quote]I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.
Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.
The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system. You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%. Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means. Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned. I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience. The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from. This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education. Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there? These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree. The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it. I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from. As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters. Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well. Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society. How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence. Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree. Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong? No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury. As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.
I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school. Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.
You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially. You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.
|
I wasn't "well matched" with the campus experience but it was good for me. The culture at my school was a bit different from normal however so that data point may be meaningless
|
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote: I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run. I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled. I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.
Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).
On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.
You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%. Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means. Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned. I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience. The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from. This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education. Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there? These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree. The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it. I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from. As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters. Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well. Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society. How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence. Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree. Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong? No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury. As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify. Show nested quote +I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school. Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know. Show nested quote +You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially. You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.
You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.
Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!
|
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote: I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run. I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled. I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout. Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends). Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote: [quote] Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means. Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned. I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience. The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from. This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education. Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there? These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree. The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it. I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from. As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters. Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well. Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society. How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence. Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree. Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong? No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury. As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify. I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school. Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know. You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially. You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students. You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite. How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in.
Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic! Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making.
Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.
|
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote: I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.
Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.
On December 15 2012 13:33 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote: I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run. I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled. I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout. Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends). On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote]
Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned. I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience. The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from. This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education. Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there? These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree. The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it. I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from. As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters. Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well. Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society. How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence. Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree. Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong? No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury. As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify. I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school. Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know. You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially. You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students. You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite. How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in. Show nested quote +Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic! Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making. Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.
I unfortunately don't understand your first paragraph how it was written at all... would you mind revising or rewording it maybe?
I'm of the opinion government involvement should generally be at a minimum. The government also has used public money to make college significantly more affordable, namely at community colleges where the cost is incredibly small, which is awesome. I am not against making the cost of public (emphasizing as private universities were brought up earlier) much more affordable, as long as it is the tuition cost that is decreased (well, and maybe books). I am wholly against subsidizing the cost of living on campus, etc, although the reducing the most of tuition should relatively make living on campus more affordable, which is a plus/plus.
I must admit though your consistent attempt to debate that "all things are relative" is more than minorly frustrating. While I am fully aware it's not a good practice to speak in absolutes, your arguments are hinging upon that premise. Specifically, that we cannot blame people for pursuing something they find value in if they cannot afford it (tried to word it as best I could from how I'd think you might word it). Financial responsibility comes first beyond the vast majority of things in life. Inability to be financially responsible is what results in the ridiculous environment we have today. Objectively speaking, Americans are not financially responsible in aggregate. We spend more than we make income wise. It's fucking ridiculous. Too many people just "hope" the situation will fix itself, or the future will be better. The opposite mentality needs to be in place - things might go to the shitter, so have a safety net.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 15 2012 13:44 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote: I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens. Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged. Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:33 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote: I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run. I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled. I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout. Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends). On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote: [quote] I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.
The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.
This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education. Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there? These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree. The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it. I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from. As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters. Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well. Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society. How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence. Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree. Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong? No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury. As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify. I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school. Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know. You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially. You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students. You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite. How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in. Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic! Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making. Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable. I unfortunately don't understand your first paragraph how it was written at all... would you mind revising or rewording it maybe? I'm of the opinion government involvement should generally be at a minimum. The government also has used public money to make college significantly more affordable, namely at community colleges where the cost is incredibly small, which is awesome. I am not against making the cost of public (emphasizing as private universities were brought up earlier) much more affordable, as long as it is the tuition cost that is decreased (well, and maybe books). I am wholly against subsidizing the cost of living on campus, etc, although the reducing the most of tuition should relatively make living on campus more affordable, which is a plus/plus. Okay I understand your overall stance better then. The thing I was talking about earlier is really just rehashing the same discussion so I don't think it's even worth clarifying it.
You think having access to a four year degree is important enough to justify some government subsidization. You don't think living on campus or starting at your four year school of choice is important enough to justify some government subsidization. That's fine, but I insist that the distinction between the two is still a degree of intensity thing: it's not that one is truly necessary and the other isn't; it's that one has a big affect on your ability to get a job and the other doesn't (have a big affect), among other reasons. Many countries do have the government subsidize university study to the point that even poor students can live on campus. You probably think that's going overboard. I don't think the list of what is/isn't worthy of government subsidization, when it comes to college-level education, that you employ, is non-negotiable.
edit to your edit:
I've never been trying to justify over-borrowing... just justifying the motivation to take more risk with borrowing than is wise... there is legitimate motivation there.
another edit: remember, our discussion started because you took a passing comment I was making about why people might feel motivated to enter a debt-heavy lifestyle as a college student... but not why they were justified in doing so.
|
|
|
|