|
On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations.
Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation.
|
On May 21 2015 00:22 Requizen wrote:
How do I tell my manager that I've only been working with for 3 months that I'm quitting for a new job even though in the interview I made it very clear I didn't want to job hop?
"I told you not to trust me"
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 21 2015 00:22 Requizen wrote:
How do I tell my manager that I've only been working with for 3 months that I'm quitting for a new job even though in the interview I made it very clear I didn't want to job hop?
Ideally you don't get into that situation in the first place?
IDK, a friend of mine was kind of in a similar position about a year and a half ago, and my perspective was that if you've already switched so quickly, you kind of need to tough it out at the new place for 6 months to a year even if something "better" comes along because ultimately it's not going to do you good in the long run if you can't stay long enough to build strong references and get a reputation of being a job hopper when your resume shows such short stays at each place.
While I understand the desire to not miss an opportunity that presents itself, I feel like it will reflect poorly to future employers if you show that kind of pattern.
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation.
We as in the entire world. Education has always been tightly connected to financial considerations.
|
On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation.
I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations.
But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable.
|
On May 21 2015 00:22 Requizen wrote:
How do I tell my manager that I've only been working with for 3 months that I'm quitting for a new job even though in the interview I made it very clear I didn't want to job hop?
Pray he's got bad memory?
You can try and be straight-forward I guess, explaining that (and how) things in this job didn't turn out they way they appeared at the time? I probably put too much stress on understanding things though, people seem to usually blow up if they're annoyed without a care about the reasons stuff happened.
|
On May 21 2015 00:27 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:22 Requizen wrote:
How do I tell my manager that I've only been working with for 3 months that I'm quitting for a new job even though in the interview I made it very clear I didn't want to job hop? Ideally you don't get into that situation in the first place? IDK, a friend of mine was kind of in a similar position about a year and a half ago, and my perspective was that if you've already switched so quickly, you kind of need to tough it out at the new place for 6 months to a year even if something "better" comes along because ultimately it's not going to do you good in the long run if you can't stay long enough to build strong references and get a reputation of being a job hopper when your resume shows such short stays at each place. While I understand the desire to not miss an opportunity that presents itself, I feel like it will reflect poorly to future employers if you show that kind of pattern.
You're right, and I struggled with this decision for a good while. But I'm really unnhappy where I am now and this opportunity is quite good.
I dislike job hopping. My longest job stints so far have only been a year, but I've had legitimate reasons to leave every job I have left. Except this one, which sucks. I like the people but I can't stand the environment. The move is better pay, a better environment, and will be working with a former coworker that I am friends with. It's a good move... but this transition is awkward.
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable.
Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities.
|
There is no doubt that further education grants more opportunities. Its not like you lose opportunities by gaining more degrees. The problem as mentioned is the price. and in america it is the worst i think? I basically saved my whole life until I went to uni and had thousands of dollars put away. I was blessed with dual income generous parents that matched every dollar I saved, I worked 7 days a week every summer I was still in school. and I still had to borrow in order to finish. I mean much less than most and was able to pay it off relatively easily but that makes it sound impossible to put yourself through school without crippling debt. The other problem would be the time investment for ghandi since he doesn't know what he wants to do.
some cool stats that basically demonstrate the difference between when our parents put themselves through college vs this generation. The price of tuition is rising way faster than wages.
|
On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities.
Huh? Did you just completely change the point in order to try and "win" a discussion. How does having "top" university have anything to do with accessibility of higher education to the populace lol.
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On May 21 2015 00:32 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities. Huh? Did you just completely change the point in order to try and "win" a discussion. How does having "top" university have anything to do with accessibility of higher education to the populace lol.
? I didn't change anything. Europe/Canada/Asia do have much better access to higher education than in America, but it's still not free from financial consideration. And people in school are still choosing degrees and programs with consideration of how that will translate to financial success later in life. Just by getting more people into college isn't unarguably "better" when the cream of the crop students all over the world are still disproportionately trying to get into top American institutions.
|
On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities.
Yes it does, and that's something to be proud of. But in terms of the average amount of education available to the average person, we are far behind.
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On May 21 2015 00:35 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities. Yes it does, and that's something to be proud of. But in terms of the average amount of education available to the average person, we are far behind.
This again treads on the philosophical - should human progress and society be measured at the top or by the average? Or ...?
|
On May 21 2015 00:36 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:35 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities. Yes it does, and that's something to be proud of. But in terms of the average amount of education available to the average person, we are far behind. This again treads on the philosophical - should human progress and society be measured at the top or by the average? Or ...?
I mean, the average person would obviously say the average lol.
Why can't we have both?
|
On May 21 2015 00:34 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:32 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities. Huh? Did you just completely change the point in order to try and "win" a discussion. How does having "top" university have anything to do with accessibility of higher education to the populace lol. ? I didn't change anything. Europe/Canada/Asia do have much better access to higher education than in America, but it's still not free from financial consideration. And people in school are still choosing degrees and programs with consideration of how that will translate to financial success later in life. Just by getting more people into college isn't unarguably "better" when the cream of the crop students all over the world are still disproportionately trying to get into top American institutions.
So why are you mentioning having top universities when it's not at all about the discussion. Sure it's not free from financial situation but they are actively making it better to a point where one day it may be. Acting as if this is some impossible task that will never happen and how we shouldn't even make it try happen is ludicrous. It also doesn't matter where the "cream of the crop" students are going. It's about equal opportunity to learn for everyone if possible and if not for as many people as you can.
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On May 21 2015 00:37 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:34 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:32 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities. Huh? Did you just completely change the point in order to try and "win" a discussion. How does having "top" university have anything to do with accessibility of higher education to the populace lol. ? I didn't change anything. Europe/Canada/Asia do have much better access to higher education than in America, but it's still not free from financial consideration. And people in school are still choosing degrees and programs with consideration of how that will translate to financial success later in life. Just by getting more people into college isn't unarguably "better" when the cream of the crop students all over the world are still disproportionately trying to get into top American institutions. So why are you mentioning having top universities when it's not at all about the discussion. Sure it's not free from financial situation but they are actively making it better to a point where one day it may be. Acting as if this is some impossible task that will never happen and how we shouldn't even make it try happen is ludicrous. It also doesn't matter where the "cream of the crop" students are going. It's about equal opportunity to learn for everyone if possible and if not for as many people as you can.
Why is that a given?
On May 21 2015 00:37 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:36 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:35 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities. Yes it does, and that's something to be proud of. But in terms of the average amount of education available to the average person, we are far behind. This again treads on the philosophical - should human progress and society be measured at the top or by the average? Or ...? I mean, the average person would obviously say the average lol. Why can't we have both?
Because historically we have never been able to achieve both.
We (humanity as a whole) are currently doing better than ever before in terms of educating people, providing options, and improving accessibility. But it's currently done through crippling debt in America and sacrificing peak quality in the rest of the world.
On May 21 2015 00:41 Eppa! wrote:
Cheep just own up to it. You couldn't give a good answer so you divert from the initial question.
?? What question?
|
Cheep just own up to it. You couldn't give a good answer so you divert from the initial question.
|
It's next level divergence.
|
req just make sure you want to stay at this new place for a long time then it wont matter how you quit 
i can't even tell which point of cheeps that people disagree with.
|
On May 21 2015 00:39 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:37 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:34 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:32 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities. Huh? Did you just completely change the point in order to try and "win" a discussion. How does having "top" university have anything to do with accessibility of higher education to the populace lol. ? I didn't change anything. Europe/Canada/Asia do have much better access to higher education than in America, but it's still not free from financial consideration. And people in school are still choosing degrees and programs with consideration of how that will translate to financial success later in life. Just by getting more people into college isn't unarguably "better" when the cream of the crop students all over the world are still disproportionately trying to get into top American institutions. So why are you mentioning having top universities when it's not at all about the discussion. Sure it's not free from financial situation but they are actively making it better to a point where one day it may be. Acting as if this is some impossible task that will never happen and how we shouldn't even make it try happen is ludicrous. It also doesn't matter where the "cream of the crop" students are going. It's about equal opportunity to learn for everyone if possible and if not for as many people as you can. Why is that a given? Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:37 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:36 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:35 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 00:30 Ketara wrote:On May 21 2015 00:27 Numy wrote:On May 21 2015 00:23 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
FWIW I agree with the idealized view of education serving a more transcendent and elevated role beyond business/financial decisions, but that's simply impossible right now (and I would argue, has always been impossible for the majority of the population).
The very term "liberal arts education" gives a hint to its status as something reserved for the privileged. LIBERAL, deriving from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," education is something that is only available to the free man - in the old sense, meaning someone from the privileged upper class who is relatively unencumbered from both societal and financial obligations. The ability to pursue higher education has always been dependent on your financial situation.
I would argue (I think pretty unopposed) that we have actually made great strides to improving the accessibility of education to the wider population, but we are still not at the point when anyone can study whatever they like however they like and still be reasonably cared for. We may never reach that point, and we have certainly never had that state in all of human history to date, so it's a bit silly to expect education to be completely free from financial considerations. Are you talking about "we" as in America or "we" as in the world? Don't really see how it's silly to expect education to be free from financial situation. I mean, its not completely free from financial considerations almost anywhere. Even in Scandinavia there are some financial considerations. But the rest of the modern world is definitely doing it a hell of a lot better than america is. To say that america can't do it any better right now when most of the world is blatantly doing it better is laughable. Are they really doing it better though? America dominates the world in terms of top universities. Yes it does, and that's something to be proud of. But in terms of the average amount of education available to the average person, we are far behind. This again treads on the philosophical - should human progress and society be measured at the top or by the average? Or ...? I mean, the average person would obviously say the average lol. Why can't we have both? Because historically we have never been able to achieve both. We (humanity as a whole) are currently doing better than ever before in terms of educating people, providing options, and improving accessibility. But it's currently done through crippling debt in America and sacrificing peak quality in the rest of the world. Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:41 Eppa! wrote:
Cheep just own up to it. You couldn't give a good answer so you divert from the initial question. ?? What question?
"Historically we've never been able to do X" is not an acceptable argument for not striving to do something as a society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
