Nineteen Eleven

Can't talk to someone who believes the world is that simple.

I don't consider myself simple minded.

You're implying a **** kid, someone who is 17-18, is capable of fully understanding the implications of his/her actions when he/she goes to college and has loans.

Of course many don't understand. Since when is ignorance and being naive an excuse for taking responsibility?

Let's be realistic here. If I was 18 and shot someone in their face with a gun, a jury would say you knew damn what the implications of your actions were. Yet, if I borrow $100,000 with little to no hope for a job after, will that same jury look at this and say "well he had no idea what the implications of his actions were"? If this person isn't smart enough to see possible problems, then I would argue that he or she is not smart enough for college to begin with.

Education should be affordable to EVERYONE.

It should? Says who? Who's going to pay for it? Afterall, this is the real world with limited finances and resources.

I would argue this attitude is the very idea that's causing the problem. College ISN'T for everyone. Too many people are going to college, and you're seeing a collapse in the student loan/college bubble just like we saw in housing. It's the same game with a different name, and it always ends in disaster.

BrentMusburger wrote:Of course many don't understand. Since when is ignorance and being naive an excuse for taking responsibility.

Let's be realistic here. If I was 18 and shot someone in their face with a gun, a jury would say you knew damn what the implications of your actions were. Yet, if I borrow $100,000 with little to no hope for a job after, will that same jury look at this and say "well he had no idea what the implications of his actions were". If this person isn't smart enough to see possible problems, then I would argue that he or she is not smart enough for college to begin with.

Are we comparing shooting someone in the face to pursuing school without going into debt for the rest of your life?

It should? Says who? Who's going to pay for it? Afterall, this is the real world with limited finances and resources.

I would argue this attitude is the very idea that's causing the problem. College ISN'T for everyone. Too many people are going to college, and you're seeing a collapse in the student loan/college bubble just like we saw in housing. It's the same game with a different name, and it always ends in disaster.

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a- ... -students/

Other countries can do it. Why shouldn't we?

gwolf_ wrote:The kid is not, the parents should help the kid. A lot of what Musburger is saying is true its just things that we don't want to hear. I was lucky to be the youngest in my family. I saw my brother go to college, graduate phi beta kappa with a liberal arts degree and not be able to find a job other than working front desk at a hotel. He then went to law school..

When I started college I began as a liberal arts major but quickly started to realize it wasn't going to get me a job when i graduated. I then changed my major to accounting and went on to get a masters in it as well. I graduated in July and almost everyone who graduated from my class has a job or is signed up for a job(I don't start until January so I get to play DOD A LOT while I take my cpa exams LOL)

On the same token I have many friends who majored in liberal arts who are just as smart as I am if not smarter, and just as good of work ethics if not better struggling to find work. Its shitty out there, you gotta protect yourself.

I've already conceded that it's true. I have no problem with students having to be in debt after school. But...for their entire lives? For 20, 30, 40 years? The hell does that say about our society and our rewards for pursuing an education?

I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but deciding to pursue a history major shouldn't entail the responsibility of living with excessive debt for...ever...

Are we comparing shooting someone in the face to pursuing school without going into debt for the rest of your life?

I'll put it this way. If I was on a jury, and an 18 year old looked at me and said "I didn't understand the implications of taking out $100,000 in loans" I would consider it on par as an insult to my intelligence as if they looked at me and said "I didn't understand the implications of shooting this person".

I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but deciding to pursue a history major shouldn't entail the responsibility of living with excessive debt for...ever...

Why?

Someone has to pay. Nothing is free in this world.

Other countries can do it. Why shouldn't we?

Because America is built on greed and money.

Other countries have weeks and weeks off and any number of rediculous things that will never happen in America. Our culture is work work work earn earn earn.

The rules of the game are in view. Follow the rules of the game, or lose.

for the majority of society when you where 17/18 you where married and had 2-3 kids and did get held fully accountable and fully understood the implications of actions taken. its only in recent society that its been acceptable for a 18 year old to still be treated like a 12 year old.

you can pursue knowledge all you want without ever going into a school if you wish. the advent of the internet has virtually eliminated the need to go to school. one day employers will recognize this and start using tests that actually relate to the job to determine a candidates worth, not if they have a degree or not.

i read a lot of stuff from mises.org, doesnt make me an economics major, but i can understand a lot of the general theory just from browsing the articles when im on my phone and pooping.

the reason you cant seem to relate to any of my arguments kirk, is because you refuse to change your view. if we removed government influence in higher education, we lower the amount of graduates, thereby increasing demand for schools to get new students. schools will compete with one another and that will lower the costs of higher education. the fun part about that, is schools will cater towards what the job markets need as time progresses. companies like to recruit straight from college if they can, and they will give equipment and teaching resources to schools who are willing to teach classes that directly benefit them. our country doesnt NEED all the college graduates we have today, we dont have the jobs to cover all the degrees being given.

with all the that... most degrees students receive are virtually worthless in a lot of higher paying or manufacturing related jobs. some companies go out of there way to pay for the tuition and living expenses of students so they will get degrees in engineering and mathematics so they can then higher that person. we have a market flooded with degrees in the arts, and failing with degrees in medical, math or engineering. the decision to get a degree in art history instead of engineering is your decision, no one elses. accept the fact that you took a degree in a saturated field.

you can get drafted at 18(sign up at 17), you can buy a gun at 18, you are tried as an adult when you are 18. you are an adult when you are 17/18 and are held accountable for all other decisions you make in life, whats different about this one?

nothing you say? correct you are.

for the majority of society when you where 17/18 you where married and had 2-3 kids and did get held fully accountable and fully understood the implications of actions taken. its only in recent society that its been acceptable for a 18 year old to still be treated like a 12 year old.

I'll agree with you 100%.

Our parents used to be lucky to have a family car. ALmost no one had a TV. It was a treat to SPLIT Mcdonalds for my parents. They may have got one gift at Christmas. Go back another generation and it gets less extravagent.

The age of irrational exuberence built a generation that is coddled and has no understanding of how ugly things can get. Of how EASY AND UNSTAINABLE our lifestyle truely was.


People used to be happy to eat at all. Look at what we eat today. Look at what kids get for christmas for the last 20 years. X boxes. Iphones. Familes have 3-4 cars one for each kid. Tvs in every kids room. X boxes. You name it. Americans had it all.


The idea people are owed these educations is the height of insanity.


I agree with almost everything you said in that entire last post, Unpro.

BrentMusburger wrote:I'll put it this way. If I was on a jury, and an 18 year old looked at me and said "I didn't understand the implications of taking out $100,000 in loans" I would consider it on par as an insult to my intelligence as if they looked at me and said "I didn't understand the implications of shooting this person".

And this is why you're awfully simplistic.

BrentMusburger wrote:Why?

Someone has to pay. Nothing is free in this world.

Right. It would be paid for. Read the link - it skims the surface.

Because America is built on greed and money.

Other countries have weeks and weeks off and any number of rediculous things that will never happen in America. Our culture is work work work earn earn earn.

The rules of the game are in view. Follow the rules of the game, or lose.

You're justifying your perspective by saying, "that's the way things are." You're not actually saying why it's right, or better. I would say THOSE countries and their number of "rediculous things" are signs of a more advanced society.

This is like the whole ordeal that sprung between that female anchor from Fox and Jon Stewart, when the Fox anchor left on maternity leave and suggested it's a sign of an advanced society when she used to believe it was socialist and wrong. Everyone who gets a handout that you don't get is wrong; but the second you need or want that handout, it's the sign of an advanced country.

That's basically my approach to anyone on the right/libertarians/etc. Libertarians are one unpreventable accident away from being socialists. They just don't know it yet because they're still delusional enough to believe they can control everything that happens in their life, and everyone else is equally capable of such, too.

And this is why you're awfully simplistic.

Again, I am not simple. I would say I am realistic however harsh you may consider it to be.

From my understanding, you have a very idealistic way of how things "should be". Well, I'll let you in on a little secret. It never was that way, isn't now, and never will be.



and there it is...

You're justifying your perspective by saying, "that's the way things are." You're not actually saying why it's right, or better. I would say THOSE countries and their number of "rediculous things" are signs of a more advanced society.

This is like the whole ordeal that sprung between that female anchor from Fox and Jon Stewart, when the Fox anchor left on maternity leave and suggested it's a sign of an advanced society when she used to believe it was socialist and wrong. Everyone who gets a handout that you don't get is wrong; but the second you need or want that handout, it's the sign of an advanced country.

That's basically my approach to anyone on the right/libertarians/etc. Libertarians are one unpreventable accident away from being socialists. They just don't know it yet because they're still delusional enough to believe they can control everything that happens in their life, and everyone else is equally capable of such, too.

unpro wrote:for the majority of society when you where 17/18 you where married and had 2-3 kids and did get held fully accountable and fully understood the implications of actions taken. its only in recent society that its been acceptable for a 18 year old to still be treated like a 12 year old.

you can pursue knowledge all you want without ever going into a school if you wish. the advent of the internet has virtually eliminated the need to go to school. one day employers will recognize this and start using tests that actually relate to the job to determine a candidates worth, not if they have a degree or not.

i read a lot of stuff from mises.org, doesnt make me an economics major, but i can understand a lot of the general theory just from browsing the articles when im on my phone and pooping.

the reason you cant seem to relate to any of my arguments kirk, is because you refuse to change your view. if we removed government influence in higher education, we lower the amount of graduates, thereby increasing demand for schools to get new students. schools will compete with one another and that will lower the costs of higher education. the fun part about that, is schools will cater towards what the job markets need as time progresses. companies like to recruit straight from college if they can, and they will give equipment and teaching resources to schools who are willing to teach classes that directly benefit them. our country doesnt NEED all the college graduates we have today, we dont have the jobs to cover all the degrees being given.

with all the that... most degrees students receive are virtually worthless in a lot of higher paying or manufacturing related jobs. some companies go out of there way to pay for the tuition and living expenses of students so they will get degrees in engineering and mathematics so they can then higher that person. we have a market flooded with degrees in the arts, and failing with degrees in medical, math or engineering. the decision to get a degree in art history instead of engineering is your decision, no one elses. accept the fact that you took a degree in a saturated field.

you can get drafted at 18(sign up at 17), you can buy a gun at 18, you are tried as an adult when you are 18. you are an adult when you are 17/18 and are held accountable for all other decisions you make in life, whats different about this one?

nothing you say? correct you are.

For the **** 50th time: I'm not saying people who are 17-18 should not be held accountable for their decision to pursue college in the form of debt. I am saying NO ONE should be forced into debt for 50 **** years because they want to pursue knowledge. That's a really stupid ideal in society.

I agree with removing certain aspects of government influence, but probably not in the way you think. You're libertarian, I am socialist. I'm all for revamping the way government mingles with the private sector, including education, but I'm not cool with the minimalist approach libertarians often adopt.

BrentMusburger wrote:Again, I am not simple. I would say I am realistic however harsh you may consider it to be.

From my understanding, you have a very idealistic way of how things "should be". Well, I'll let you in on a little secret. It never was that way, isn't now, and never will be.

You're saying an 18 year old should be as knowledgeable about the wrong of shooting someone in the face as he/she would be about the implications of a loan. Yes, THAT IS VERY SIMPLISTIC.

I'm not being idealistic when I'm talking about adopting a system that other countries employ. It's been shown to work in practice, and I'm suggesting we stray in that direction. How is it idealist when it resides in the realm of proven reality?

I am saying NO ONE should be forced into debt for 50 **** years because they want to pursue knowledge. That's a really stupid ideal in society.

and for the 50th time, no one forces them to go into debt. They could pursue that knowledge on the Internet or at publically funded library.

They choose to go into debt with a university education.

And no where in this world has an education ever been a right. Educations have traditionally been for the elite.


Only recently, in the age of irrational excuberence has it been accepted that "anyone" can go. Which of course is another bubble and lie that will crash and burn.