I can recall a conversation I had with my grandfather who said it was very common to see people working a part time job and paying for their college tuition and everything with this one job, which...
I can recall a conversation I had with my grandfather who said it was very common to see people working a part time job and paying for their college tuition and everything with this one job, which usually sounds like “ I worked my way through college and didn’t need any loans or help”. He can’t believe that now even working full time there is no way you can cover tuition in most colleges.
College definitely still has a role. It's kind of hard to get the deep knowledge you need for various STEM degrees without it. However, I think it's importance as a stepping stone into a career is...
College definitely still has a role. It's kind of hard to get the deep knowledge you need for various STEM degrees without it.
However, I think it's importance as a stepping stone into a career is grossly misplaced. A lot of bullshit jobs are born out of college degrees, and I for one wish I went to a trade school instead.
There’s also plenty of service sector jobs that would benefit from tertiary education, but not a four year degree. I could see a certificate program for administrative assistants, for example. My...
There’s also plenty of service sector jobs that would benefit from tertiary education, but not a four year degree. I could see a certificate program for administrative assistants, for example. My mom has been passed over for so many job opportunities because she didn’t have the magic “BA” on her resume, in spite of having more experience. Here I’m thinking “She’s done administrative work before, for years. She doesn’t need a four year degree to do this!”
I think a lot of that STEM knowledge could be taught in high schools if we had better programs for science and math. Then maybe you'd need less college time and could do with a 2 year degree and...
I think a lot of that STEM knowledge could be taught in high schools if we had better programs for science and math. Then maybe you'd need less college time and could do with a 2 year degree and still have the same knowledge base.
(I'm in the US, where our school systems are horribly broken)
I've only watched the first 5 minutes of the video. Does it touch on how the value of education has been corrupted from a public good into a market good, where students weigh up crazy tuition...
I've only watched the first 5 minutes of the video. Does it touch on how the value of education has been corrupted from a public good into a market good, where students weigh up crazy tuition costs against the expected value of their future increased income?
It shows some data indicating that a college degree still greatly impacts economic outcomes, especially for students with low income. The main point of the video is to criticize the ruthless...
It shows some data indicating that a college degree still greatly impacts economic outcomes, especially for students with low income.
The main point of the video is to criticize the ruthless corporative practices of some universities that care very little about providing quality education.
Disagree. Of course I have met some great programmers that don’t have degrees and if you have the motivation that’s a great avenue but not only does a degree widen your opportunities most...
But if you want to be a software engineer or programmer or an artist, don't waste your money.
Disagree. Of course I have met some great programmers that don’t have degrees and if you have the motivation that’s a great avenue but not only does a degree widen your opportunities most programmers I know would not be as good as they are today without it. Unless you’re very motivated you just don’t get as much mileage from the more mathematical side of programming which you really
do need to get into the more interesting parts of the field.
I won't outright say that skipping college is worth it, but keep in mind the amount of years spent on it. It's slow, adapted to the slowest of the average, very generic, the tests are...
I won't outright say that skipping college is worth it, but keep in mind the amount of years spent on it. It's slow, adapted to the slowest of the average, very generic, the tests are standardized, and especially when we're talking about tech the material is often outdated.
Great for basics, not so great for deep dives. Dedicated courses and curriculums are a lot better. MOOCs are an overall better avenue but do have their own issues.
An independent path is imo the best, but you have to have the dedication for it as there's nothing enforcing anything.
(Disclaimer: Left school at 14; doing so allowed me to be financially independent by 18 and maintain a high standard of living throughout my life)
This video sucks so much. This reminds me of a lot of John Oliver's videos. Well, actually much worse since it sneaks in rightist talking points dressed in progressive language. Each episode...
This video sucks so much.
This reminds me of a lot of John Oliver's videos. Well, actually much worse since it sneaks in rightist talking points dressed in progressive language. Each episode points to a serious social ill and talks about how bad whatever the subject is completely absent any sort of coherent sociological or economic analysis. Sometimes the conclusion is "vote for more liberals" or "donate to liberals." Education, from grade school to graduate school has traditionally been thought of as an investment the public makes towards its own collective benefit, which is ideologically opposed to the growing individualistic neoliberal consensus. This position, that the sole value education serves is purely based on expected market value, is an unpleasant consequence of this ideological shift.
I guess I shouldn't expect shows developed by businesses that benefit from neoliberalism to articulate an actionable critique of these conditions. If we are a tad more cynical or adopted a more grounded analysis, we may find it is in their benefit to produce this sort of content. An ideologically bankrupt critique that pushes people to vote for democrats or donate to PACs to relieve their frustration may have a recuperating effect; it may also be a way to remove space for a more radical critique.
Specifically for the video, the framing of the situation as college students "getting screwed" isn't taking a radical, or even progressive frame. It is "colleges suck 'cause they charge students so much money" rather than "colleges are too expensive because neoliberal policies have largely dried up the public investment in these institutions." One implied remedy is that maybe trade schools or online schools specifically crafted to make you marketable replace these institutions. I don't love colleges, but this shift that's hinted at the end, the replacement of "academia" with for profit trade schools and bootcamps, this changing of "what college really means" is one conservatives have wanted for decades.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said in this comment, but can we refrain from using "what conservatives want" as a euphemism for "is bad"? There's no need to oversimplify this issue...
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said in this comment, but can we refrain from using "what conservatives want" as a euphemism for "is bad"? There's no need to oversimplify this issue into a progressive vs. conservative dilemma. Obviously the Big Bad conservatives like the Kochs would love that reframing, but guilt by association isn't really proof of guilt.
The political project that conservative forces attempt to implement anywhere and everywhere is antagonistic to either my interests or the interests of those I am allied to and that I find myself...
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said in this comment, but can we refrain from using "what conservatives want" as a euphemism for "is bad"?
The political project that conservative forces attempt to implement anywhere and everywhere is antagonistic to either my interests or the interests of those I am allied to and that I find myself in solidarity with. When talking about politics, there are irreconcilable antagonisms between my politics and theirs. If what is "good" is what is aligned with my interests and what is "bad" is what is in contradiction to my interests, then "what conservatives want" is a really good synonym for "is bad."
I'm not sure I find value in pretending that everyone at the table has a valid perspective, or that disagreement is simply a respectable difference in views about social values or the economy. Let's take any issue: austerity, LGBTQ rights, imperialism, climate change, you name it; these aren't reconcilable differences.
There aren't valuable perspectives on both sides here; these interests are directly contradictory to each other.
Did I make that argument? In cases where what conservatives want are actively bad, sure, call it bad. Scream it from the hilltops. In cases like this, that really are nowhere near as cut and dry...
I'm not sure I find value in pretending that everyone at the table has a valid perspective, or that disagreement is simply a respectable difference in views about social values or the economy. Let's take any issue: austerity, LGBTQ rights, imperialism, climate change, you name it; these aren't reconcilable differences.
Did I make that argument? In cases where what conservatives want are actively bad, sure, call it bad. Scream it from the hilltops. In cases like this, that really are nowhere near as cut and dry as respecting the rights of LGBTQ persons, imperialism, or climate change, it's just more useful to talk about the issues as they are, rather than wrapping them in a package.
Just because you disagree that a reformation of the economy toward one that values the kind of education that trade school-type institutions can supply is a good reformation doesn't mean that they are inherently tied to actively disingenuous and unethical political ideologies. Sure, code bootcamps are the worst kind of that potential shift, but they are hardly the only alternative to formal university education as it is today.
I feel that mentioning the fact that conservatives have fought to dismantle academia for decades relevant information for the "issue as it is." I'm open to my understanding of this issue being...
it's just more useful to talk about the issues as they are, rather than wrapping them in a package.
I feel that mentioning the fact that conservatives have fought to dismantle academia for decades relevant information for the "issue as it is."
Just because you disagree that a reformation of the economy toward one that values the kind of education that trade school-type institutions can supply is a good reformation doesn't mean that they are inherently tied to actively disingenuous and unethical political ideologies.
I'm open to my understanding of this issue being incomplete, but I think we fundamentally disagree on what politics are.
I'm not making any normative ethical claims about "good" or "bad" politics. Conservatism is an aggressive form of the dominant ideology that reinforces the interests of the capitalist class at the expense of members of other classes, as these groups have interests antagonistic to one another.
Conservatism is fundamentally contrary to my interests, in the same way that monarchism is manifestly opposed to the interests of peasants. By pretending that these interests aren't necessarily irreconcilable only benefits one group: the dominant class. Conservatives (and neoliberals more broadly) in our society and monarchists in theirs.
I believe I more or less agree, I just think it's more useful to describe these things specifically than to label them conservative and therefore as sucking, which is roughly a normative ethical...
I believe I more or less agree, I just think it's more useful to describe these things specifically than to label them conservative and therefore as sucking, which is roughly a normative ethical claim.
I feel that mentioning the fact that conservatives have fought to dismantle academia for decades relevant information for the "issue as it is."
The issue at hand, as you established in the paragraph that I took issue with, is that you think a shift toward less holistic and usually for-profit education is a bad one. That conservatives have fought to dismantle academia for decades is relevant, but not the issue in itself.
They're not really euphemisms....more like synonyms. Conservative ideology, from the onset hundreds of years ago, is primarily focused on preserving the existing power structures. Look back...
can we refrain from using "what conservatives want" as a euphemism for "is bad"?
They're not really euphemisms....more like synonyms. Conservative ideology, from the onset hundreds of years ago, is primarily focused on preserving the existing power structures.
Look back through history, and things that are almost universally considered morally wrong today were defended by conservatives, and most universal good things were opposed by them.
Progressives fight for improving people's lives. Conservatives send in army/police/militia to kill those progressives, to protect their profits or power.
You might be right in broad strokes, but I have no interest in discussing anything of substance with people who don't care to use any degree of nuance in their framing of issues.
You might be right in broad strokes, but I have no interest in discussing anything of substance with people who don't care to use any degree of nuance in their framing of issues.
nuance != centrism or political neutrality You can capture the nuance of a situation while also having a specific political perspective on an issue. "Nuance" does not mean falsely acting as if all...
nuance != centrism or political neutrality
You can capture the nuance of a situation while also having a specific political perspective on an issue. "Nuance" does not mean falsely acting as if all perspectives are valid. Pretending that conservatism is a perspective worth considering is not a prerequisite for having a nuanced discussion of an issue. For example, I don't need to hear out creationists to have a nuanced discussion on the merits of evolutionary biology.
I'm not acting like all perspectives are valid, I take issue with the characterization that nearly every good thing done in the past multiple hundreds of years has been done by people who not only...
I'm not acting like all perspectives are valid, I take issue with the characterization that nearly every good thing done in the past multiple hundreds of years has been done by people who not only apparently described themselves as progressives, who just so happen to meaningfully be the same lineage of people who currently call themselves progressive, and didn't have harmful views or take harmful actions. And apparently nearly nobody in those past hundreds of years has declared themselves a conservative and still done anything meaningfully positive for humanity.
Yes, major human rights progress is made by people who are progressives. That's kind of how the label works. However, to use the same word as an identity, label for others, and a label for nearly every good piece of movement the whole of humanity has used for centuries dilutes the meaning of the term to the point of meaninglessness. There's no coherent definition of "conservative ideology throughout hundreds of years", except as a post hoc description, at least that I'm aware of.
As an example of a progressive who championed something bad, look at Malcolm X. The man had a major hand in the formation of the Nation of Islam, which, while having done good for many black people in the USA in the past, is more or less an intensely racist, hyperconservative group. Now, obviously he later decried them, but that's not particularly relevant to the argument that progressives champion goodwill for man and conservatives champion killing progressives.
That isn't even getting into the fact that while, yes, it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people who consider themselves conservative are regressive and benefit from those regressive stances being held by people in power, there are plenty who identify as such due to linguistic differences. I know it isn't popular to discuss the way this type of language drives wedges between humanity and meaningful progress, but I find it hard to believe divisive rhetoric for its own sake does much more than that.
As a younger person I was an arrogant asshat who agreed with conservative 'libertarian' types, who has since 'seen the light' and come to agree with many aspects of progressive policy. Nothing stood in the way of me changing my mind more than random people online who villainized my views and told me that the only reason I believed in things like capitalism was that I didn't care about racism or the struggles of impoverished people.
I don't think that "acting as if all perspectives are valid" is a useful approach, but it's much more useful to describe why things are bad, than to summarize them as being in line with an ideology that is distasteful to you and leave it at that. To label my petition for more constructive language as "centrism or political neutrality" when I firmly believe that the next step in human development involves a dissolution of gender, the concept of currency as we know it, and hierarchy in general, is presumptive and conversational poison.
So what is your perspective? I greatly value your perspective on topics on this site and I guess I'm seriously missing what you are trying to convey here. I'm okay with leaving this discussion as...
with people who don't care to use any degree of nuance in their framing of issues.
So what is your perspective?
I greatly value your perspective on topics on this site and I guess I'm seriously missing what you are trying to convey here. I'm okay with leaving this discussion as it is, but I do want to try to understand where you are coming from a little better, since you are saying that I'm misrepresenting your position.
I'm sorry if that came across as ragequitting a discussion that challenges my views, but the truth is that I'm not entirely sober and somewhat triggered, which is why I didn't respond to your last...
I'm sorry if that came across as ragequitting a discussion that challenges my views, but the truth is that I'm not entirely sober and somewhat triggered, which is why I didn't respond to your last reply in the other subthread. I'll respond to you again tomorrow with a clearer formulation of my thoughts. Sorry if I've wasted anyone's time in advance of my personal realization of that matter.
Ah, I didn't make it quite that far. But I've seen a lot of academia, and there are some massive flaws with college. One, as you mentioned, is the neoliberal destruction and privatization of...
Ah, I didn't make it quite that far. But I've seen a lot of academia, and there are some massive flaws with college.
One, as you mentioned, is the neoliberal destruction and privatization of education. Even public universities are running like corporations now.
But there's one that has been pitched from the outside, from mainstream Democrats (and a fair number of Republicans), that "education is the only answer" for problems like crime and poverty.
Lots of parents pushed their kids to college, seeing it as the only path to upward mobility. But, turns out that if everyone is getting college degrees, upward mobility dries up quick. College as path to "not starving" is gonna result in college being disproportionately expensive to the benefit it provides. Which is kinda what happened.
Education needs reformed top to bottom. Part of that reform needs to include banning private schools, free post-secondary and Pre-K, and de-stigmitization of tradeskills.
RIP Patriot Act I think College is definitely worth something - it is quite important in many fields, even if it perhaps shouldn't be, because if nothing else so much recruiting happens at target...
RIP Patriot Act
I think College is definitely worth something - it is quite important in many fields, even if it perhaps shouldn't be, because if nothing else so much recruiting happens at target colleges. From my college's career surveys, for CS majors the average starting pay of a newly minted graduate is roughly 110k, which is a good bit above national average.
But "worth it" means you need to consider value proposition, and there I have difficulty, since it is genuinely very expensive. However, I feel that for many occupations, a bachelors or higher is almost a necessary but not sufficient condition (of course, there are exceptions). Which makes it a very hard thing to advise - on one hand, I have a hard time saying you shouldn't go to college, because in many cases it will make your early career a huge uphill battle, but I also have a hard time doing a blanket recommendation to go to college, because certainly you can get a degree at huge expensive and get precisely nowhere with it.
I will say, if you happen to be born into moderately wealthy parents who will pay for most of your education, I think going to college is a still good idea in the States, although that's not a particularly hot take.
Post-secondary education needs to be re-re-marketed from "something that will get you a good job" to "something that will broaden your damn narrow horizons."
Post-secondary education needs to be re-re-marketed from "something that will get you a good job" to "something that will broaden your damn narrow horizons."
Socializing with people outside my zip code was most beneficial outcome of college, by far. Really opens your eyes, and also explains the whole "college makes liberals" conservative slur.
Socializing with people outside my zip code was most beneficial outcome of college, by far.
Really opens your eyes, and also explains the whole "college makes liberals" conservative slur.
The economics are nothing I care to delve into. Mostly because I'm very ignorant and have no answers.* Other than that, yea... school should be a lot cheaper! I didn't pay for high-school. Why pay...
The economics are nothing I care to delve into. Mostly because I'm very ignorant and have no answers.* Other than that, yea... school should be a lot cheaper! I didn't pay for high-school. Why pay for the next step? Or... should I have paid for high-school?
Anyhow... out of high-school... we still have a lot to learn. And a post-secondary education should give us something ~enlightening~, dammit. I mean... all levels of education should provide as such...
*: although, it seems to be in the best interests of a country to have a well-educated population... so why not subsidize it?
I can recall a conversation I had with my grandfather who said it was very common to see people working a part time job and paying for their college tuition and everything with this one job, which usually sounds like “ I worked my way through college and didn’t need any loans or help”. He can’t believe that now even working full time there is no way you can cover tuition in most colleges.
College definitely still has a role. It's kind of hard to get the deep knowledge you need for various STEM degrees without it.
However, I think it's importance as a stepping stone into a career is grossly misplaced. A lot of bullshit jobs are born out of college degrees, and I for one wish I went to a trade school instead.
There’s also plenty of service sector jobs that would benefit from tertiary education, but not a four year degree. I could see a certificate program for administrative assistants, for example. My mom has been passed over for so many job opportunities because she didn’t have the magic “BA” on her resume, in spite of having more experience. Here I’m thinking “She’s done administrative work before, for years. She doesn’t need a four year degree to do this!”
I think a lot of that STEM knowledge could be taught in high schools if we had better programs for science and math. Then maybe you'd need less college time and could do with a 2 year degree and still have the same knowledge base.
(I'm in the US, where our school systems are horribly broken)
This is very true as well.
I've only watched the first 5 minutes of the video. Does it touch on how the value of education has been corrupted from a public good into a market good, where students weigh up crazy tuition costs against the expected value of their future increased income?
It shows some data indicating that a college degree still greatly impacts economic outcomes, especially for students with low income.
The main point of the video is to criticize the ruthless corporative practices of some universities that care very little about providing quality education.
Disagree. Of course I have met some great programmers that don’t have degrees and if you have the motivation that’s a great avenue but not only does a degree widen your opportunities most programmers I know would not be as good as they are today without it. Unless you’re very motivated you just don’t get as much mileage from the more mathematical side of programming which you really
do need to get into the more interesting parts of the field.
I won't outright say that skipping college is worth it, but keep in mind the amount of years spent on it. It's slow, adapted to the slowest of the average, very generic, the tests are standardized, and especially when we're talking about tech the material is often outdated.
Great for basics, not so great for deep dives. Dedicated courses and curriculums are a lot better. MOOCs are an overall better avenue but do have their own issues.
An independent path is imo the best, but you have to have the dedication for it as there's nothing enforcing anything.
(Disclaimer: Left school at 14; doing so allowed me to be financially independent by 18 and maintain a high standard of living throughout my life)
This video sucks so much.
This reminds me of a lot of John Oliver's videos. Well, actually much worse since it sneaks in rightist talking points dressed in progressive language. Each episode points to a serious social ill and talks about how bad whatever the subject is completely absent any sort of coherent sociological or economic analysis. Sometimes the conclusion is "vote for more liberals" or "donate to liberals." Education, from grade school to graduate school has traditionally been thought of as an investment the public makes towards its own collective benefit, which is ideologically opposed to the growing individualistic neoliberal consensus. This position, that the sole value education serves is purely based on expected market value, is an unpleasant consequence of this ideological shift.
I guess I shouldn't expect shows developed by businesses that benefit from neoliberalism to articulate an actionable critique of these conditions. If we are a tad more cynical or adopted a more grounded analysis, we may find it is in their benefit to produce this sort of content. An ideologically bankrupt critique that pushes people to vote for democrats or donate to PACs to relieve their frustration may have a recuperating effect; it may also be a way to remove space for a more radical critique.
Specifically for the video, the framing of the situation as college students "getting screwed" isn't taking a radical, or even progressive frame. It is "colleges suck 'cause they charge students so much money" rather than "colleges are too expensive because neoliberal policies have largely dried up the public investment in these institutions." One implied remedy is that maybe trade schools or online schools specifically crafted to make you marketable replace these institutions. I don't love colleges, but this shift that's hinted at the end, the replacement of "academia" with for profit trade schools and bootcamps, this changing of "what college really means" is one conservatives have wanted for decades.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said in this comment, but can we refrain from using "what conservatives want" as a euphemism for "is bad"? There's no need to oversimplify this issue into a progressive vs. conservative dilemma. Obviously the Big Bad conservatives like the Kochs would love that reframing, but guilt by association isn't really proof of guilt.
The political project that conservative forces attempt to implement anywhere and everywhere is antagonistic to either my interests or the interests of those I am allied to and that I find myself in solidarity with. When talking about politics, there are irreconcilable antagonisms between my politics and theirs. If what is "good" is what is aligned with my interests and what is "bad" is what is in contradiction to my interests, then "what conservatives want" is a really good synonym for "is bad."
I'm not sure I find value in pretending that everyone at the table has a valid perspective, or that disagreement is simply a respectable difference in views about social values or the economy. Let's take any issue: austerity, LGBTQ rights, imperialism, climate change, you name it; these aren't reconcilable differences.
There aren't valuable perspectives on both sides here; these interests are directly contradictory to each other.
Did I make that argument? In cases where what conservatives want are actively bad, sure, call it bad. Scream it from the hilltops. In cases like this, that really are nowhere near as cut and dry as respecting the rights of LGBTQ persons, imperialism, or climate change, it's just more useful to talk about the issues as they are, rather than wrapping them in a package.
Just because you disagree that a reformation of the economy toward one that values the kind of education that trade school-type institutions can supply is a good reformation doesn't mean that they are inherently tied to actively disingenuous and unethical political ideologies. Sure, code bootcamps are the worst kind of that potential shift, but they are hardly the only alternative to formal university education as it is today.
I feel that mentioning the fact that conservatives have fought to dismantle academia for decades relevant information for the "issue as it is."
I'm open to my understanding of this issue being incomplete, but I think we fundamentally disagree on what politics are.
I'm not making any normative ethical claims about "good" or "bad" politics. Conservatism is an aggressive form of the dominant ideology that reinforces the interests of the capitalist class at the expense of members of other classes, as these groups have interests antagonistic to one another.
Conservatism is fundamentally contrary to my interests, in the same way that monarchism is manifestly opposed to the interests of peasants. By pretending that these interests aren't necessarily irreconcilable only benefits one group: the dominant class. Conservatives (and neoliberals more broadly) in our society and monarchists in theirs.
I believe I more or less agree, I just think it's more useful to describe these things specifically than to label them conservative and therefore as sucking, which is roughly a normative ethical claim.
The issue at hand, as you established in the paragraph that I took issue with, is that you think a shift toward less holistic and usually for-profit education is a bad one. That conservatives have fought to dismantle academia for decades is relevant, but not the issue in itself.
They're not really euphemisms....more like synonyms. Conservative ideology, from the onset hundreds of years ago, is primarily focused on preserving the existing power structures.
Look back through history, and things that are almost universally considered morally wrong today were defended by conservatives, and most universal good things were opposed by them.
Progressives fight for improving people's lives. Conservatives send in army/police/militia to kill those progressives, to protect their profits or power.
You might be right in broad strokes, but I have no interest in discussing anything of substance with people who don't care to use any degree of nuance in their framing of issues.
nuance != centrism or political neutrality
You can capture the nuance of a situation while also having a specific political perspective on an issue. "Nuance" does not mean falsely acting as if all perspectives are valid. Pretending that conservatism is a perspective worth considering is not a prerequisite for having a nuanced discussion of an issue. For example, I don't need to hear out creationists to have a nuanced discussion on the merits of evolutionary biology.
I'm not acting like all perspectives are valid, I take issue with the characterization that nearly every good thing done in the past multiple hundreds of years has been done by people who not only apparently described themselves as progressives, who just so happen to meaningfully be the same lineage of people who currently call themselves progressive, and didn't have harmful views or take harmful actions. And apparently nearly nobody in those past hundreds of years has declared themselves a conservative and still done anything meaningfully positive for humanity.
Yes, major human rights progress is made by people who are progressives. That's kind of how the label works. However, to use the same word as an identity, label for others, and a label for nearly every good piece of movement the whole of humanity has used for centuries dilutes the meaning of the term to the point of meaninglessness. There's no coherent definition of "conservative ideology throughout hundreds of years", except as a post hoc description, at least that I'm aware of.
As an example of a progressive who championed something bad, look at Malcolm X. The man had a major hand in the formation of the Nation of Islam, which, while having done good for many black people in the USA in the past, is more or less an intensely racist, hyperconservative group. Now, obviously he later decried them, but that's not particularly relevant to the argument that progressives champion goodwill for man and conservatives champion killing progressives.
That isn't even getting into the fact that while, yes, it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people who consider themselves conservative are regressive and benefit from those regressive stances being held by people in power, there are plenty who identify as such due to linguistic differences. I know it isn't popular to discuss the way this type of language drives wedges between humanity and meaningful progress, but I find it hard to believe divisive rhetoric for its own sake does much more than that.
As a younger person I was an arrogant asshat who agreed with conservative 'libertarian' types, who has since 'seen the light' and come to agree with many aspects of progressive policy. Nothing stood in the way of me changing my mind more than random people online who villainized my views and told me that the only reason I believed in things like capitalism was that I didn't care about racism or the struggles of impoverished people.
I don't think that "acting as if all perspectives are valid" is a useful approach, but it's much more useful to describe why things are bad, than to summarize them as being in line with an ideology that is distasteful to you and leave it at that. To label my petition for more constructive language as "centrism or political neutrality" when I firmly believe that the next step in human development involves a dissolution of gender, the concept of currency as we know it, and hierarchy in general, is presumptive and conversational poison.
There you go misrepresenting my pretty clear cut comments again. I'm done with this thread.See below.
So what is your perspective?
I greatly value your perspective on topics on this site and I guess I'm seriously missing what you are trying to convey here. I'm okay with leaving this discussion as it is, but I do want to try to understand where you are coming from a little better, since you are saying that I'm misrepresenting your position.
I'm sorry if that came across as ragequitting a discussion that challenges my views, but the truth is that I'm not entirely sober and somewhat triggered, which is why I didn't respond to your last reply in the other subthread. I'll respond to you again tomorrow with a clearer formulation of my thoughts. Sorry if I've wasted anyone's time in advance of my personal realization of that matter.
Ah, I didn't make it quite that far. But I've seen a lot of academia, and there are some massive flaws with college.
One, as you mentioned, is the neoliberal destruction and privatization of education. Even public universities are running like corporations now.
But there's one that has been pitched from the outside, from mainstream Democrats (and a fair number of Republicans), that "education is the only answer" for problems like crime and poverty.
Lots of parents pushed their kids to college, seeing it as the only path to upward mobility. But, turns out that if everyone is getting college degrees, upward mobility dries up quick. College as path to "not starving" is gonna result in college being disproportionately expensive to the benefit it provides. Which is kinda what happened.
Education needs reformed top to bottom. Part of that reform needs to include banning private schools, free post-secondary and Pre-K, and de-stigmitization of tradeskills.
RIP Patriot Act
I think College is definitely worth something - it is quite important in many fields, even if it perhaps shouldn't be, because if nothing else so much recruiting happens at target colleges. From my college's career surveys, for CS majors the average starting pay of a newly minted graduate is roughly 110k, which is a good bit above national average.
But "worth it" means you need to consider value proposition, and there I have difficulty, since it is genuinely very expensive. However, I feel that for many occupations, a bachelors or higher is almost a necessary but not sufficient condition (of course, there are exceptions). Which makes it a very hard thing to advise - on one hand, I have a hard time saying you shouldn't go to college, because in many cases it will make your early career a huge uphill battle, but I also have a hard time doing a blanket recommendation to go to college, because certainly you can get a degree at huge expensive and get precisely nowhere with it.
I will say, if you happen to be born into moderately wealthy parents who will pay for most of your education, I think going to college is a still good idea in the States, although that's not a particularly hot take.
Post-secondary education needs to be re-re-marketed from "something that will get you a good job" to "something that will broaden your damn narrow horizons."
Socializing with people outside my zip code was most beneficial outcome of college, by far.
Really opens your eyes, and also explains the whole "college makes liberals" conservative slur.
Sure, that could work if school were also a lot cheaper. How do you justify people going deep into debt to broaden horizons?
The economics are nothing I care to delve into. Mostly because I'm very ignorant and have no answers.* Other than that, yea... school should be a lot cheaper! I didn't pay for high-school. Why pay for the next step? Or... should I have paid for high-school?
Anyhow... out of high-school... we still have a lot to learn. And a post-secondary education should give us something ~enlightening~, dammit. I mean... all levels of education should provide as such...
*: although, it seems to be in the best interests of a country to have a well-educated population... so why not subsidize it?