Um, no I agree with everything you said about academia, but it's all common knowledge. I've heard that exact thing a thousand times on the internet as well as from other students at school. I would think that you would have to simply be in denial not to understand that, especially at the end of your graduate degree.



I agree with you about all the drawbacks of becoming a PHD, but all of that is common knowledge. It'd be massively naive of anyone to go into a grad school and expect to just "become a professor". The ratio of grad students to professors alone makes it obvious that a PHD position is going to be difficult to attain, even if by some miracle they never talk to any other grad students or never read any articles about becoming a grad student.

I don't see how this is relevant. No one is saying that hard work, no matter what, will make you money. Obviously if you work really hard to get an eduction that you know there is almost no demand for, you won't get a proportionally good reward. Just become someone finds something interesting doesn't mean that anyone else finds it useful enough to pay them for it. However if you do some footwork, and pick something that people have a chance of wanting, (this eliminates most easy degrees) you can do pretty well for yourself.

What we're saying is that if you work hard and develop and interest in something that people do want, eg. engineering, medicine ect. you can do pretty well for yourself.

The kids who drink their way through college and get a job with their Dad's company are by far the exception rather than the rule. (This obviously isn't sustainable for any large number of people. Law of primogenitor ect.) For every one of those guys, fifty hung over communications majors work off college debt next to people who never went to college.



http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=cgsisas&xhr=t&q=most+valuable+degrees&cp=16&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=f&oq=most+valuable+de&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.&fp=eda1291fdd569703

If you spend tens of thousands of dollars and 4+ years on a education in order to get a good job, and then do absolutely no research as to what kind of education is valuable then you are a moron.

I don't understand why people think they can go spend their parent's money on a BS in Psychology, Business, Geography, English, ect. and expect that they will get jobs. It's just asinine. You can party, or you can get a good degree, but you probably can't do both. All it really give you is a leg up on jobs that a high school grad could do.

At the risk of doing a bit of thread necromancy...

There's a movement to recall eight of the Republican senators. If you would like to donate - though I'd recommend putting money toward Japanese relief efforts first - you can donate through this site:

http://www.recalltherepublican8.com/

That's hilarious.

^^It's working

http://www.politiscoop.com/component/content/article/35-last-24h-news/149-one-down-7-to-go-hopper-up-for-recall.html

Yeah. That's what people don't really seem to get. They are stuck in the mindset of 50 years ago, and have been for 50 years.

And honestly I can't believe that people are still suckered in by the 'higher education' scam, except engineering and other corner cases.

Under no circumstances should one be expected to egregiously indebt himself on a (heavily misconstrued) promise of future repayment. That's just asking to be swindled.

I take it these are 8 Republican senators involved with the whole CBA thing in the State of Wisconsin? This site does nothing to explain why 8 senators should be recalled.

It was a collective Republican representative effort, but, according to their FAQ:



These eight are eligible because they weren't put into office during the last election.

Oh look, it's a perfect example of what is wrong with politics.

Let 'em recall of them. They'll be overwhelmingly reelected.

That is if Wisconsin law allows that. I wouldn't think they do. If you've been recalled, it's an express wish of the people that you suck so much that they want you gone before the next election.

That's your opinion, and I'm glad you have one because you're a very good predictor in a statistics sense. There seems to be a strong correlation between your opinion and the outcome.

(I didn't say which outcome, of course.)

















(It was me, I was the one keeping notes.)

Meat's back on the menu, boys!

Beautiful.

Jon`C scares me.

This one's my favorite, for a couple of reasons. First, because Palin's selection was responsible for the only polling trend between June and November of '08 that made a McCain win seem remotely likely. Second, because Wookie06 acknowledges that Republicans don't respect women.

Of course it was you. Either that or you are very bored. When I posted that last night as I was hitting the submit button I thought about how I was dismissing the union machine ability to manufacture the vote. Doesn't really matter, though.

With regards to McCain, yeah I misread the influence that race and pop culture would have on the electorate. The Obama Experiment is proving to be a most humiliating experience for America.

I remember when I watched the respective National Conventions for the two parties that year. It was an amazing contrast. The McCains clearly came of as a couple to be admired and people that you could strive to be more like in your own life. The Obamas were being sold as being just like you. In the end Bush syndrome and the promise of another moderate Republican leader just wasn't enough to counter the media glamorization of the Obamas.



I'm curious how you reach that conclusion.

Oh, and Jon`C, so what if my sports-like trash talk overoptimism was wrong? So far as I can tell you never responded to my post on the bottom of page one where I show errors and outright lies in your opening posts.

Obama: highly-awarded graduate of Harvard law, former president of the Harvard Law Review, well-traveled with an educated, upper-middle class upbringing, a devoted Christian with a long history of volunteer work and community action, with 2.5 children and a white picket fence.

Just like you.

McCain: pressed into service by his military family, where he had a bad attitude, wouldn't take orders, ****ed up a lot, crashed a lot of planes, and eventually quit because he didn't get the promotion he wanted. And he dumped his crippled, disfigured, faithful wife for a younger, richer, hotter woman.

Admired, someone to strive after.

Hilarious caricatures of both men.

I understand. I guess I'd also feel bad if my life plan stalled out after "never get promoted, quit."

I'm sure there's a rich white girl for you somewhere.

I don't really admire him, he hasn't even begun to fulfill the great expectations I had, expectations that were created by hype, the utter failure of the dude he replaced, and my own gullibility. But so far (at least from my POV which excludes actually living in America) The Bush Jr. Experiment was more humiliating by an incredibly large margin, and at this rate I can't imagine Obama being good enough at humiliating America that he'd ever top his predecessor in that regard.

^Couldn't agree more. Walker really damaged the US' international relations and image.

I would like to third this assessment.

Which? That Republicans don't respect women? Or that at some point, even if only briefly, you registered some awareness of the fact?

Part of me wonders how much the international media in fact actually REALLY knows about the situation and the economic climate of Wisconsin. About 9/10 Brits I knew had no ****ing clue a state Wisconsin even existed about 8 months ago. For example, I wonder how many of them would know about the Milwaukee Public School district, Wisconsin's voucher experiment, test scores from the previous years, etc. Our demographics are also incredibly important, as when broken down by race some of our test scores are worse than Texas. And that's saying something. Perhaps teachers union's aren't apt for certain DISTRICTS (*cough* Milwaukee *cough*).

The "collective bargaining" argument was a necessary one in Wisconsin, because education clearly wasn't working in Milwaukee, I believe our biggest district by far, and it's a step in the direction of trying to figure out why certain places are getting served so poorly by our education system. The "collective bargaining" argument is currently about only benefits and such, but I think it's a step in a good direction for helping figure out some of the WAY bigger problems Milwaukee Public Schools are having that aren't covered in the international media. Specifically, the places where there's almost no hope for a student to get out of school, and teachers equally have no reason to try hard because of horrible teacher evaluation systems that are severely biased against low-performing schools. It's not their fault, I'd probably do the same thing in their position. Other people though are crazy and love teaching. Either change the evaluation system, or start letting them deal with teachers in a private manner without union ties. Otherwise it's a toxic environment for both teachers and students. I can tell you right now my brother who is trying to become a history teacher would take a salary lower than the union one if that meant he could actually find a job in some of these areas. Most empirics will say that private schools really don't perform better than public schools with decently similar inputs. The private school vs. public school argument is lame nowadays. But the difference in Milwaukee is that there are nowhere near the same inputs. The environment just is not a good one for unionization. Elsewhere in the state, I'm fine with it :).

Buck, I think he was talking about George Walker Bush.

That's what I thought.

I have no idea what's going on with the Wisconsin thing. The recall website didn't even explain anything.

That is my mistake. Sorry, he is honestly the first person I've ever heard in my entire life that has referred to him as "Walker". I thought by now it was clear that we can say "Bush", because the administration was that awful that it sets itself apart.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. How do you quantify 'similar inputs?' How can you have an empirical study that controls for similar inputs? If you do control for similar inputs, can you generalize your conclusions to any meaningful population?

And what studies are these? The empirical studies I've seen (e.g. Dronkers and Robert, 2008) most definitely show a statistically significant correlation between private* education and academic outcomes. You're probably right, but what's being said if you aren't considering the student composition?

(* but funding source is not a good predictor. Private government-dependent schools do not perform any better or worse than privately-funded schools.)

Aw, sorry man. Unlucky coincidence. I sometimes refer to Bush as Walker because it's such a funny middle name.

I'll throw in my +1 into buck's corner: I thought Scott Walker was "Walker".

me three! gotta start reading more of the thread...

I always love how Jon`C conveniently ignores any evidence that disproves anything he posts. My favorite example from his opening post is:



To which I responded:

Actually, you either suck at reading comprehension, which we know you don't, or are lying yourself. Actually, most likely you didn't bother to fact check any of the talking points from whichever faction of the Communislamfacist movement you're taking direction from. The page you link to says "71% of Wisconsin Voters Say Gov. Walker's Budget Changes Are 'Fair'" From your own cite above but more directly from here:



.



To generalize that Republicans don't respect women is deeply insulting but to be expected here so I'll disregard that. I'm curious what made you think that I would, to any degree, have agreed with that sentiment. I certainly didn't post anything that would cause a reasonable person to infer that.

You don't "get" this thread.


Edit: For the people who might be confused about Wookie06's post, he is stuck on the idea that 50% = 71%.

[quote=Fox Nation]71% of Wisconsin Voters Say Gov. Walker's Budget Changes Are 'Fair'[/quote]

[quote=a study funded by a Tea Party front]1* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable opinion of the budget repair bill proposed by Gov. Scott Walker?

39% Very favorable
11% Somewhat favorable
14% Somewhat unfavorable
36% Very unfavorable
0% Not sure[/quote]

Wookie06 is just being intellectually dishonest, as always.... but to be fair he is modelling his life after McCain, so good for him.

I am not a reasonable person.

You could not be more dense or intellectually dishonest. I cited the evidence which supports the title of the piece you linked to using the exact same source. I think in this case I could actually call you an idiot without getting banned for it, although I didn't even do it when I was banned for it but that is beside the point. Question number four, as cited for the third time now specifically asks "Is that fair?" 71% answered yes. If you are unwilling to acknowledge your "error" in such a simple and plain matter, it brings to question how frequently you purposely make other such "errors". You're fortunate that I don't have the time to research all of your deceptive posts but I think in this matter you are already losing credibility.

You did no such thing.

71% approve of public union workers paying for more of their benefits. Fox News used this one data point to claim that 71% approved of the budget. In reality, the study shows clearly that only 50% of likely voters approved of Walker's budget proposal.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed to have to explain something so obvious. You can't seriously believe you have damaged my credibility with this damningly public display of your own illiteracy, can you?

Y'know. Living with a teacher has kind of provided me more of their point of view. I don't know all the nuances but I can tell you, without her union, she'd be pretty dicked over not by politicians but administrators. Bureaucrats! What I've come to learn is that they are a teacher's worst enemy. Most often they are the people at the school district. They will fire them at the drop of a hat if they could esp. in a severely broke state such as ours.

If they were really insulted by it, I'd expect them to change. You know, stop trying to defund Planned Parenthood, that sort of thing.



How else are we to take the following, exactly?



Who are these voters who wouldn't turn out, but if they did turn out would vote for McCain? And why else would the presence of a woman on the ticket cause them not to turn out?

They know they would be rendered immobile by the knowlege that one, or both depending on how saggy McCain is, of the people on the ticket have breasts. Look I'm just saying that obviously the VRWC has inftrated the... Stuff... Ok I've got nothing. Its late.