2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: AZDuffman

Nonsense. I can see what courses someone took and get an idea for what they mean. Same as I can look at the global warming argument and draw intelligent conclusions.

Just like your intelligent conclusions on evolution, including the part about drowned bears turning into fish? Your so-called "common sense" doesn't cut it where actual science is concerned.

Quote:

I have been in white collar work much of my life. I consider my career "gray collar" as I have often had to know how to manage the P&L then later go figure out how to do something constructive.

My point exactly. You view "managing a P&L" as non-constructive. That's a wholesale dismissal of the value of knowledge work. It's nonsense that office work is abstractly "better than" non-office work, but of equal nonsense is your idea, which you very clearly believe, that someone who works in an office is somehow inferior to those engaged in the physical trades. You call me elitist (for what, valuing education?), but I call you a hypocrite for thinking that knowledge work isn't as worthwhile as physical labor. That's your own personal elitism. And you've dedicated a significant portion of your past few weeks to denigrating the educations of a meaningful percentage of the US population, and generally denigrating liberal arts education overall. In your own way, that's as elitist as it gets -- you think you're "better than" all those liberal arts majors just because you have a business degree and you've chosen to pursue money as a life goal. Good for you, but your priorities aren't shared by everyone. And I'm glad for that -- if everyone were as narrowly-focused as you are on money as the sole source of life's worth, there'd be no firefighters or school teachers.

Quote: RonC

We're off on another tangent here regarding education.

College degrees are not "worthless" but some are worth less.

Sometimes people go to overly expensive colleges, borrow lots of money, and pursue degrees that are not a good value for their intended occupation.

If you're only going to school to learn a trade for an intended occupation, and that occupation doesn't actually require advanced schooling, you're probably better off not going to college in the first place. You shouldn't bother getting a college degree if you know you want to be an auto mechanic or irrigation installer for the rest of your life. But who knows that at 18?

Quote:

Yes, there are great advantages to getting a degree. There are more advantages to getting a degree that prepares you for what you want to do instead of what you like to study. Major in Business; minor in the Fine Arts....or even do it as a double major...

I totally, emphatically disagree. College is the last opportunity in most young adults' lives where they have no responsibilities other than getting an education. Wasting that opportunity learning undergraduate business management is a terrible mistake when, for the vast majority of those students, such practical management skills can be learned on the job, while doing it, with little to no risk. You don't get to learn theoretical matters or the liberal arts on the job, and if you believe (as I do) that life isn't all about managing businesses, it's a better use of one's time during college to educate yourself on less practical topics. College is not meant to be vocational training.

I studied computer science in college (and Chaucer, and the Crusades, and ancient Egyptology, and modern musicology, and moral justice, and...), but I didn't get really good at actual software programming until I had my first job. Nothing about my college degree was directly related to working in a large commercial software team with million-dollar customers filing angry bug reports. It's far, far more important to learn how to learn (in college) than to learn a particular skill. There were two types of programmers in 1999 that made a lot of money on Y2K, those who actually remembered COBOL from the 70s and the younger ones who learned it in 1998 when they saw the Y2K bug coming. I guarantee that none of the younger coders in 1998 who learned COBOL got any of that from college. Curricula had moved on to C++ by then. Adaptability (learning ability) is always more valuable than excellence at a particular skill as long as your job isn't entirely static. Manual cow-milking is a good example of a static job -- the cows don't change so the job doesn't change. Nothing in technology is static. And I didn't learn gaming math in college, I learned it afterwards, on my own, because I wanted to. Learning how to learn and think clearly is more important than almost anything else for virtually every 18-21 year old in the US economy. Without that ability to think clearly, you end up with idiot senators bringing snowballs to Congress as proof that climate change doesn't exist.

With Trump we'll be able to pay off the debt with half the money. Creative accounting.

Quote:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he raised $6 million for veterans groups at a January fundraiser. The Washington Post's accounting, based on interviews with charities, only found $3.1 million in donations to veterans groups. In addition, almost four months after promising $1 million of his own money to veterans' causes, Trump moved to fulfill that pledge. (McKenna Ewen/The Washington Post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/24/four-months-later-donald-trump-says-he-gave-1-million-to-veterans-group/

Quote: MathExtremist

If you're only going to school to learn a trade for an intended occupation, and that occupation doesn't actually require advanced schooling, you're probably better off not going to college in the first place. You shouldn't bother getting a college degree if you know you want to be an auto mechanic or irrigation installer for the rest of your life. But who knows that at 18?

I totally, emphatically disagree. College is the last opportunity in most young adults' lives where they have no responsibilities other than getting an education. Wasting that opportunity learning undergraduate business management is a terrible mistake when, for the vast majority of those students, such practical management skills can be learned on the job, while doing it, with little to no risk. You don't get to learn theoretical matters or the liberal arts on the job, and if you believe (as I do) that life isn't all about managing businesses, it's a better use of one's time during college to educate yourself on less practical topics. College is not meant to be vocational training.

I studied computer science in college (and Chaucer, and the Crusades, and ancient Egyptology, and modern musicology, and moral justice, and...), but I didn't get really good at actual software programming until I had my first job. Nothing about my college degree was directly related to working in a large commercial software team with million-dollar customers filing angry bug reports. It's far, far more important to learn how to learn (in college) than to learn a particular skill. There were two types of programmers in 1999 that made a lot of money on Y2K, those who actually remembered COBOL from the 70s and the younger ones who learned it in 1998 when they saw the Y2K bug coming. I guarantee that none of the younger coders in 1998 who learned COBOL got any of that from college. Curricula had moved on to C++ by then. Adaptability (learning ability) is always more valuable than excellence at a particular skill as long as your job isn't entirely static. Manual cow-milking is a good example of a static job -- the cows don't change so the job doesn't change. Nothing in technology is static. And I didn't learn gaming math in college, I learned it afterwards, on my own, because I wanted to. Learning how to learn and think clearly is more important than almost anything else for virtually every 18-21 year old in the US economy. Without that ability to think clearly, you end up with idiot senators bringing snowballs to Congress as proof that climate change doesn't exist.

You did exactly what I said one should do and then you said how strongly you disagreed with what I said.

You studied something that could end up being a career (business was an example, not the be all end all of it...) and learned how to think in the process by taking courses over a broad range of subjects (the strong minor or even double major I mentioned would allow one to be well studied in a particular area). I am sure you didn't use your degree exactly as you thought you would in an ever-changing field, but the computer science courses taught you basics that helped you easily learn new things in the field. Learning to learn is part of the whole package.

You also aren't really free to study whatever with no repercussions in college--using a whole lot of future resources to get a degree in fields where there aren't a lot of jobs or opportunities to use the degree is probably not the best use of college loans or even government grants. Most people do go to college to get a better job in the end...not just to become better thinkers. That part is just part of the process. The dirty little secret is that more than a few (like your Senators, for example) don't really learn to think. They learn to pass.

Quote: MathExtremist

Just like your intelligent conclusions on evolution, including the part about drowned bears turning into fish? Your so-called "common sense" doesn't cut it where actual science is concerned.

For someone who says they went to college to learn to think, you have really missed it. My point of bears becoming fish was satire to point out your completely closed mind to a theory, namely Intelligent Design. My point is that new species do not just pop up from nowhere, something must drive it to happen, Spontaneous Generation was disproved by scientific methods. We do not know why life formed. An intelligent, thinking person would at least consider some kind of Intelligent Design, but your mind being closed on the subject, some satire was used.

Quote:

You call me elitist (for what, valuing education?), but I call you a hypocrite for thinking that knowledge work isn't as worthwhile as physical labor. That's your own personal elitism. And you've dedicated a significant portion of your past few weeks to denigrating the educations of a meaningful percentage of the US population, and generally denigrating liberal arts education overall. In your own way, that's as elitist as it gets -- you think you're "better than" all those liberal arts majors just because you have a business degree and you've chosen to pursue money as a life goal. Good for you, but your priorities aren't shared by everyone. And I'm glad for that -- if everyone were as narrowly-focused as you are on money as the sole source of life's worth, there'd be no firefighters or school teachers.

Once again, you are missing the point. I have been saying that college is not the best option for half or more of the college-age population. College takes 4 years and currently 50 grand or more. Most office work could be taught in six months or less at a fraction of that cost. Phone manners, computer skills, how to behave, etc. I would like it if a University of Phoenix type school could get with the largest employers and design such a course of study. Then certify it, then promise to interview from that pool. The skills would be such that smaller employers would accept the standards set and see the value. It would save a ton of money,

As to your idea on liberal arts majors and there being things more important than money, fine. Then tell them to quit crying about how much they pay for their school loans. As to people not going into teaching or firefighting for the money, I am afraid you did not learn much street sense from all those fancy liberal arts classes.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Let's be clear here: It doesn't matter to me one bit whether someone completed college or not. The *actual* issue for me is that when someone can't even correctly spell simple three-letter words (e.g., they can't differentiate homonyms I learned in third grade), then it's pretty hard to take their arguments seriously. And, it's not surprising that it's the people who can't spell their way out of a wet paper bag who are the ones making the most ridiculous arguments. Coincidence? I think not.

There are a lot of complete idiots out there with great education credentials (not necessarily great educations) who write a whole lot of bullshit extremely well.

I'd rather someone have a decent position that they can defend even if they misuse a word or punctuation every once in a while.

Quote: AZDuffman

. An intelligent, thinking person would at least consider some kind of Intelligent Design, but your mind being closed on the subject, some satire was used.
.

LOL
Religious fanatics insisting that scientists need to consider a make believe being residing in the sky or unknown dimension.
How about scientology and Xenu, the intergalactic warlord that dropped beings onto the planet Earth from a spaceship millions of years ago.
No less valid then intelligent design
Yup, scientists need to look into xenu
Why stop at intelligent design or Xenu.
Shouldn't scientists look into the thousands of religions out there and examine all the crack pot theories about some figment of their imagination creating Man.
Hey, scientists need to look into the greek gods, maybe they started mankind
Just as valid as Xenu or intelligent design by an imaginary being

Save it for the church. Does not belong in the classroom.

There are 2 different reasons to go to college, that of course overlap quite a bit. There is the "It is so that I can get a job" reason, but there is also the "It will help me grow as a person" reason. When I was applying for colleges, I was definitely in the first camp. I knew I would have a better chance to get into Med School from a 'better' college, hence I went to Columbia. My oldest son was in the second camp. He had no idea what he wanted to do for a career, and he was very well rounded, hence he went to the 'best' college that was strong in both the arts and sciences (Carnegie Mellon). He found his calling (Entomology) early on in college, but then took as many extra classes (Philosophy, eg.) as he could. His senior year he took way more credits than he needed to to graduate, maturely stating that he will never have this opportunity again. My younger son wanted to be a journalist. So he went to the best Journalism school he could get into (Missouri). It could have been looked at as a 'trade' school. Interestingly, he didn't like journalism, switched to Computer Programming, and got a job in his field directly from college.

I agree with AD that there are many kids who should not go to college that do. But I'll agree more with MB and ME that the value to the majority who go to college can't be simply measured in dollars and cents.

Quote: RonC

You did exactly what I said one should do and then you said how strongly you disagreed with what I said.

I studied comp sci because I was interested in it, not because I wanted a career as a software engineer. It's the same reason I studied Chaucer or played in the jazz band -- for interest, not visions of commercial profit. There may be many 18 year olds who know exactly what they want to do when they grow up, but I wasn't one of them. I certainly didn't think I'd be a gaming mathematician. If I had had my heart set on that back then I would have done things differently in college, and also gotten a Ph.D. I've been accused more than once of being unqualified because I "only" have a bachelor's degree.

Quote:

You also aren't really free to study whatever with no repercussions in college--using a whole lot of future resources to get a degree in fields where there aren't a lot of jobs or opportunities to use the degree is probably not the best use of college loans or even government grants. Most people do go to college to get a better job in the end...not just to become better thinkers. That part is just part of the process. The dirty little secret is that more than a few (like your Senators, for example) don't really learn to think. They learn to pass.

But again you're judging the "best use of college loans" by their financial ROI. I contend that's an inappropriate metric. Learning to think critically is almost always a predicate to getting a better job, and there too "better job" includes more than just money. You can make an awful lot of money doing some pretty menial jobs these days, but nobody goes to college to learn how to park cars or drive a garbage truck. Look, I'm not advocating for just completely screwing off in college, doing whatever you want with no thought to future planning or economic self-sufficiency. But neither am I suggesting that the best course is to identify the highest paying job you can get and take courses to get it. Someone like Senator Inhofe who comes out of college with a good job/career clearly didn't go there to learn to think. Maybe he went there to learn to evangelize. Behold, the holy snowball that disproves climate change.

Quote: AZDuffman

For someone who says they went to college to learn to think, you have really missed it. My point of bears becoming fish was satire to point out your completely closed mind to a theory, namely Intelligent Design. My point is that new species do not just pop up from nowhere, something must drive it to happen, Spontaneous Generation was disproved by scientific methods. We do not know why life formed. An intelligent, thinking person would at least consider some kind of Intelligent Design, but your mind being closed on the subject, some satire was used.

There are so, so many things wrong with this. First of all, you're using the egregious logical fallacy of the false dichotomy -- namely that if Spontaneous Generation is disproved, there is no other explanation but Intelligent Design. That's false logic. And it's also false facts: if you had studied biology, or had even bothered to look it up, you would know that biologists have observed speciation in real-time:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

And it's not satire to try to disprove a theory by using nonsensical examples that have nothing to do with that theory. That's just idiocy. No scientist has ever said that drowning a bear turns it into a fish. But you said drowning a bear turns it into a fish, and then you said "see, science can't explain that, so Intelligent Design must be true!" That's such blatant illogic that it's embarrassing.

And if you're such an intelligent, thinking person, why have you not intelligently considered that your particular flavor of Intelligent Design is the only one you accept? Why do you not accept the theory that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created all that we see and feel? On what scientific basis do you accept one theory but reject the other? Why aren't you being "open-minded" and "considering all theories"?

It's a trick question, there is no scientific basis to distinguish the two, because neither are testable scientific theories. You just don't have the courage to admit that your concept of Intelligent Design is nothing more than thinly-veiled evangelism and a shameful attempt to insert religious indoctrination into grade school classrooms. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

You didn't fully comprehend my theological comment from before. Science will never expand to include the untestable. That's just not possible, any more than ten will expand to include eleven. But likewise, faith in a deity -- dealing as it does with the ineffable -- should not expand to include the testable. If you can test God, you can disprove God, and you don't want your religious community in a position where God is not just disbelieved but disproven. Don't just take my word for that, ask your clergy. When you say "science can't explain speciation, therefore God did it" and then science explains speciation, the natural conclusion is that God didn't do it. If you conclude "God didn't do it" enough times, then you get to "God didn't do any of it." Is that really where you want to be?