DescentBB

....isn't just a 'government' thing.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersa ... li=BBnbfcN


now, I can see PART of the reasoning(using a few top notch scholars from well off families as bait for more who'd pay full ticket), but don't see that as justification. I mean, this kid could go anywhere, and UConn is a fine choice('slick MS 1980 UConn), but he is, in some measure, accomplished in academics partly as a reflection of his affluence his whole life, and that isn't what scholarships are supposed to nuture, by and large. I wrote the admin as an alumni with my two cents. Yours?

Not to be flip, but how is this any different than athletic scholarships where physically gifted people are lured to a school for the bling they may add to their football program?

woodchip wrote:Not to be flip, but how is this any different than athletic scholarships where physically gifted people are lured to a school for the bling they may add to their football program?

in a sense it isn't, that's why I understand the reasoning. I just don't think it's a proper allocation(and I'm not keen on vast amounts of money spent on athletics, either, something my graduate alma mater is awash in).

If the general public put half the attention and research into politics as they put into sports...

Perhaps if more lower income students actually graduated, the schools could place more emphasis on need grants, but as it stands now, upper income students provide more return for the buck, such as alumni contributions, and a host of other things that keep the school in business.

Also, if lower income students were more competitive for merit grants....

Spidey wrote:Perhaps if more lower income students actually graduated, the schools could place more emphasis on need grants, but as it stands now, upper income students provide more return for the buck, such as alumni contributions, and a host of other things that keep the school in business.

So what you are saying is that people are a means to an end and this is Ok?

Gottcha.

In the real world the answer to that would have to be…yes.

As far as "OK" I didn't say that...you said that...I'm simply pointing out the economic realities, I'll leave the moral judgments to you.

Spidey wrote:I'm simply pointing out the economic realities, I'll leave the moral judgments[sic] to you.

Our collective moral judgements make the economic realities. I'm not Ok with people being a means to an end, especially when it comes to education.

Ya know, I was watching a segment the other night on the NewsHour, and this woman being interviewed said there was something like 3 billion in student grant money left on the table last year.

If you are really concerned with education you might want to start with the lower income dropout rate, and work your way up from there…hell how can a lower income person even begin to think about college, when they just dropped out of high school. (don't really give a ★■◆●) And the ones that do consider college don’t have the wherewithal to get on the right track.

There is a hell of a lot more to this issue than just college admissions and grant money.

Spidey wrote:…hell how can a lower income person even begin to think about college, when they just dropped out of high school. (don't really give a ★■◆●) And the ones that do consider college don’t have the wherewithal to get on the right track.

Oh goodie, I'm glad you brought this up, I have excellent second-hand experience in this matter. As I'm mentioned before, one of my best friends is a counselor in the Chicago Public School District. She's one of those people who found their true calling in life, and that is to help disadvantaged kids. It's exactly her job to steer low income students to grants and other services and get them started on a career path. However, the last decade has been especially brutal. Her caseload keeps going up and now there is simply not enough time and resources to give students adequate help. Budgets cuts you know. (Gee I wonder who decides that?) In fact, the budget cuts are so severe they might be removing her position entirely from the system, which would be a shame because part of her job is grief counseling and anywhere between one and half a dozen of her students don't live through the year. Someone always dies. Always. These kids need more help. The system is failing them terribly.

We do our part though. We only vote for people of integrity. But that doesn't seem to be enough since a good percentage of the population was sold this lie that everything needs to be a business. That somehow privatizing education is a good thing. That there should be financial barriers to education in the first place. How stupid is that? And yet we lament "uninformed voters." Maybe if we didn't have competing interests in the education system people would get more out of it? One can only dream that people will wake up.

Well vision, I'll tell you what is really stupid and that is the lie you need a college degree to get a job. Truck drivers are much needed as are skilled trades yet school administers don't bring these up as career paths. So why the tunnel vision on college when there are other well paying jobs out there that don't take 4 years of college and a 40k bill at the end of it?

woodchip wrote:Well vision, I'll tell you what is really stupid and that is the lie you need a college degree to get a job

quit saying this,you sound like an idiot. Why would you suggest a young person take up driving a freaking truck when we are less than 10 years from driverless vehicles according to every major over-the-road carrier out there? Skilled trades are fine, but dwindling as well. The cold facts are that the ONLY people who will rise in the coming economy will be those with higher education or exceptional non-academic skills.

I may not have run any large business(I've actually helped run two small ones), but THIS is the future, and Woody's advice to young people is beyond dumb, it is irresponsible for anyone to suggest:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rs-jobs-us

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well vision, I'll tell you what is really stupid and that is the lie you need a college degree to get a job

quit saying this,you sound like an idiot. Why would you suggest a young person take up driving a freaking truck when we are less than 10 years from driverless vehicles according to every major over-the-road carrier out there? Skilled trades are fine, but dwindling as well. The cold facts are that the ONLY people who will rise in the coming economy will be those with higher education or exceptional non-academic skills.

The only idiot is one who thinks everyone is equipped mentally to go to college. Tell that to the millennials who have a 4 year degree and can't find work to pay off their student loans. Why do you think Hillary Clinton is talking about the govt. should pay off their loans and make education free. As to trucks if you really think they will all be robotic, I suggest you start reading up on robotic car accidents. And the Teamsters are a union not to mess around with.

Who is going to unload the freight?

woodchip wrote:The only idiot is one who thinks everyone is equipped mentally to go to college. Tell that to the millennials who have a 4 year degree and can't find work to pay off their student loans

that is precisely the problem and reality that I've been strongly suggesting we ALL start thinking about. My grandchildren will live in a world in which mediocrity in intellect, skillsets, creativity or other talents will not be economically necessary to fill out the rolls of the 'workforce'. Sounds harsh, but you are entering a global economy with a LOT of available bodies, and ever dwindling need for human labor. It will be a sink or swim situation which has to be managed or we all face global chaos. I don't offer answers to those who are under 40, but would urge none of you to take up truck driving as a career choice.

. Why do you think Hillary Clinton is talking about the govt. should pay off their loans and make education free. As to trucks if you really think they will all be robotic, I suggest you start reading up on robotic car accidents. And the Teamsters are a union not to mess around with.

you have no idea how well acquainted I am with quite a few Teamsters officials, but they know the end is in sight both for truckers but warehousers and other occupations. Not a damned thing they can do but forestall, and they admit that. And, once again you proudly display your lack of insight with the goofy remark about car accidents. Sure, they are still working on issues, no one said otherwise. I said that in a DECADE(a technological eternity), they will be reality. I stand by that, as do most investment professionals dealing with transportation, shipping and the like.

Spidey wrote:Who is going to unload the freight?

robots.

Spidey wrote:Who is going to unload the freight?

large scale operations already are very automated. Go to any major rail hub or shipyard. Look around.

Did some research, looks like for the foreseeable future most self driving systems in trucks are being designed to retain the driver.

Looks like future drivers will need some additional skills, but the jobs will still be there.

And of course major hub to hub routes will go automated first, maybe well within the 10 year period stated, but local deliveries will lag far behind.