Should everyone have the chance to learn? page 3

65 posts

Flag Post
Since i never said that it would be a magic solution to all economic problems.

You said that those people paying higher taxes (by presumably having better jobs) would make the program pay for itself. I pointed out the central argument you made about its affordability is wrong.

One of the Reasons they don´t expand is because of the uneducated workforce.

The data is mixed, at best, to support your claim of the US’ uneducated workforce. We’re the fourth most educated country in the world. What you fail to acknowledge is we have more qualified people than there are jobs for them right now. Paying for more and more people to go to school doesn’t solve that issue.

 
Flag Post

It seems to me that part of the problem here is lack of co-ordination between universities and industry. The education system is not producing graduates with the skills that industry wants. The government does finally appear to be waking up to this, but it’s been like trying to animate a rock. The problem has existed for years. While governments cannot force students to go in directions which do not interest them, both they and the universities could do a lot more to make science sexy.

This university seems to have the right idea in integrating a paying job into the course itself. Good solid work experience is always an advantage, and the money can be quite helpful too. Sometimes a bit of lateral thinking can go a long way.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Since i never said that it would be a magic solution to all economic problems.

You said that those people paying higher taxes (by presumably having better jobs) would make the program pay for itself. I pointed out the central argument you made about its affordability is wrong.

Did not say that either. And even if i did, you did not point out how this would be wrong. Just claimed that because some people with higher education having no jobs, you would not buy into it.
What i said was the overall economic effect would payback. That means not just higher taxes from those people who get a higher education and a corresponding job, but for example more business from those companies that need highly educated employees. I really mean for example because its just not limited to direct profits. By gaining these high education jobs and companies other lower education jobs and companies that provide goods for the higher education companies and their employees are financed.

One of the Reasons they don´t expand is because of the uneducated workforce.

The data is mixed, at best, to support your claim of the US’ uneducated workforce. We’re the fourth most educated country in the world.

Are you? It seems that would depend on who you ask.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

What you fail to acknowledge is we have more qualified people than there are jobs for them right now. Paying for more and more people to go to school doesn’t solve that issue.

Sigh, i did acknowledge that there are people with higher education who are jobless, because they can´t find jobs. If they are actually qualified is a different question, i would not hire a fair number (depending on position perhaps even most) of those who graduated University with me, including some who had better grades.
I said that: “i never said that it would be a magic solution to all economic problems”. America has another problem shared by many countries that invest heavily in education. That the market looks for specialist in certain types of education fields and that the demands of the market can change more quickly than education industry responds.
This means except for a desperate economy there will generally be a certain amount of higher educated people without job. Those who either lack the education that is currently in demand or who lack other basic qualifications besides education.

Still this does not make my evaluation of the economic impact of education any less true. Those who lose out are but just a fraction of those who win. And those who win carry many with them who would have otherwise lost out or actually to a certain extent did lose out.

Fact is that there are many industries that would love to hire People with the right qualifications in the USA, but they can´t because they are not available on the us job market. There are companies who look at the job market in the USA and say we can´t even get enough qualified people to start or the ones we can get there are 3rd rate leftovers established companies would only take as free interns. So they go elsewhere.

Edit: fixed quote

 
Flag Post
Did not say that either.

“Because the overall economic effect would pay back the entitlement in terms of taxes.” Unless I’m wildly misreading this, you’re implying that people will be making more money (thus paying more in taxes) than if they don’t have the government completely pay for their college.

And even if i did, you did not point out how this would be wrong.

Because college grads aren’t getting jobs now. Having more and more college grads doesn’t exactly solve the problem of people not getting hired.

That means not just higher taxes from those people who get a higher education and a corresponding job, but for example more business from those companies that need highly educated employees.

Your solution in no way encourages companies to expand their business outlook.

Are you? It seems that would depend on who you ask.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

/facepalm

I said the data was mixed. You do know what mixed data means, yes?

Still this does not make my evaluation of the economic impact of education any less true.

We weren’t arguing the economic impact of education. We were arguing the economic impact of the government paying universally for education.

Fact is that there are many industries that would love to hire People with the right qualifications in the USA, but they can´t because they are not available on the us job market. There are companies who look at the job market in the USA and say we can´t even get enough qualified people to start or the ones we can get there are 3rd rate leftovers established companies would only take as free interns. So they go elsewhere.

Absolutely, but the issue isn’t paying for everyone to go to a four year school. The key is to inform high school students that being an apprentice and developing a trade skill can be every bit as profitable, if not more so, than going to a four year school.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

1. Yes you are misreading it. Even more so in your last post. You seem to see everything in an simplistic and extreme version conveniently opposite to your position. Very convenient for you since extremes are much easier to argument against than balanced, nuanced and detailed positions.

2. Some college grads are not getting jobs now. A. This does not mean that more would not get more Jobs. As i have now repeatedly pointed out, there are different fields of education and even with the right education some people will still be unqualified for jobs in their fields of education. B. Those that do get a job that would otherwise not be staffed or even be given to someone oversees, help invigorate the economy. The addition of these jobs that otherwise would not have been helps create/finance other jobs that otherwise would not have been. Similar to a single lose and tumbling rock creating an avalanche.
The important part here is that acquire jobs that otherwise would not have been, instead of just displacing others beneath them from jobs that would be either way. These jobs are well worth having more and more college grades, including those who fail to get hired.

3. Yes, my solution does encourage companies to expand. I already explained there are many companies that would expand, if the labor market could supply their needs in terms of educated workers. And there are many more companies that would expand to supply these companies and employees with goods.

4. Yes, i know what mixed data means. If you do, perhaps you should not have stated the 2nd sentence following the one about mixed Data, as a statement of Fact. Instead of claiming you are fourth place you should have said this source puts in fourth place.
Either way i would have still pointed out that there other sources that put you way below 4th place. Just to make the extent off exactly how mixed the data is clear.

5. Facepalm. Thats like saying we are not arguing math but geometry.

6. Ignoring the fact that no one here is arguing for paying for everyone to go to a four year school. How exactly is your proposition supposed to be a solution?

 
Flag Post
1. Yes you are misreading it. Even more so in your last post. You seem to see everything in an simplistic and extreme version conveniently opposite to your position. Very convenient for you since extremes are much easier to argument against than balanced, nuanced and detailed positions.

You did a fantastic job of clarifying it. And by fantastic, I mean you didn’t do it at all.

This does not mean that more would not get more Jobs.

Nor does it mean that more would get more jobs.

Yes, my solution does encourage companies to expand. I already explained there are many companies that would expand, if the labor market could supply their needs in terms of educated workers. And there are many more companies that would expand to supply these companies and employees with goods.

The thing you don’t realize, because you aren’t a recent college grad living in the states, is how bloody difficult it is to find a job. You seem to be under the impression that these companies are desperately looking to hire, but they just can’t find people qualified. Based on my success of finding a job and my peers’ ability to find a job (many of which are math or engineering majors), you’re dead wrong.

Yes, i know what mixed data means. If you do, perhaps you should not have stated the 2nd sentence following the one about mixed Data, as a statement of Fact. Instead of claiming you are fourth place you should have said this source puts in fourth place.
Either way i would have still pointed out that there other sources that put you way below 4th place. Just to make the extent off exactly how mixed the data is clear.

Only in to your response to your statement of fact regarding the uneducated US workforce.

5. Facepalm. Thats like saying we are not arguing math but geometry.

Hardly.

Ignoring the fact that no one here is arguing for paying for everyone to go to a four year school. How exactly is your proposition supposed to be a solution?

It instructs US students that going to a traditional college isn’t the only option to having economic success in this country. When I was in high school, alternative routes were never mentioned. It was either you go to a four year school or you live in poverty eternally. By providing the knowledge about less expensive but potentially as profitable ventures post high school, fewer people are going to be graduating with useless degrees.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Yes, but if they abuse it too much and waste it, take the free and taxpayer paid option away.
If they want it back, they’re going to have to work for it, because they’re the one who threw it away in the first place.

In regards to college, tuition fees need to be decreased dramatically, because the degree is definitely not worth the money (in terms of knowledge exchange).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Vengeance007:

In regards to college, tuition fees need to be decreased dramatically, because the degree is definitely not worth the money (in terms of knowledge exchange).

Knowledge exchange is not the point of a first degree. It never was. They contain nothing you cannot get on your own. Rather, the value is in the piece of paper and computer record you get at the end. The one that formally proves you can do this stuff up to X standard level.

At the end of the day, that is all you are paying for. Knowledge exchange is a sometimes-occuring incidental, at best.

 
Flag Post

No, under the circumstances that they agree and show they will not get a job/be lazy and/or not put their education to use.

At my school of maybe ~1-3K people, at least 600 probably skip class/school on a daily basis, and don’t care. Think of all of the equipment/technology the school could’ve used had they not have to be forced to cram less teachers with more students.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

No, under the circumstances that they agree and show they will not get a job/be lazy and/or not put their education to use.

At my school of maybe ~1-3K people, at least 600 probably skip class/school on a daily basis, and don’t care. Think of all of the equipment/technology the school could’ve used had they not have to be forced to cram less teachers with more students.

I skipped school too, my class presence was 20% in 12 grade and that was when I was taking my studies seriously.

Yet I still passed with 68% marks.

 
Flag Post

I think that, at some level, everyone agrees with the premise.

complications arise when you ask “how much effort should we spend on core opportunity before we finally say enough, those with talent only?”

 
Flag Post

I think it’s a pretty obvious answer to the question… Yes of course

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

I think it’s a pretty obvious answer to the question… Yes of course

Why?

 
Flag Post

What kind of question is that? Of course people should have a chance to learn. It’s one of the fundamentals of life.