The reasons I did it are: 1. I was REALLY confused about the ladder part until I read it two or three times. Then the word 'former' clicked in my brain and it all made sense. 2. I've been on a 'gently pick on Dan' kick lately. He's usually very thorough in his arguments and posting so it's fun to pick at his nits once in awhile.
You're correct, I misworded. Networking is important, however, I have found that business relationships are the ones that get you job opportunities and raises. Networks developed during school may get you your first job, but not much after that. I don't understand your last statement. Isn't that what grades and a GPA do (or at least, are supposed to), split people up into groups of who does best in the class?
Like I said - its all about proving to employers that you're good. And going to college is a the cheapest (in terms of total costs, like lost wages, time spent while backbraking labor etc) way to show that. Sure, there are other ways, some might be more attractive to people who are financially constrained and cannot go to college etc. But if you can afford to go to college, not going is a stupid financial decision that will cost one later. The wage premium of going to college is only going to widen in the next decades.
Last time I read some research on this - grades mattered, but not too much, and only for the wages at the first job. Grades lump together people who are able but not too hard working, and less able, but hardworking, but later working hard matters more, so grades are not that informative.
Personally, I don't see how someone cannot afford to go to some sort of secondary education institution. With the amount of grants, subsidies, and loans available I feel college is available to anyone who wants to go. If you cannot figure out a way to make it happen, maybe you should not be there.
Yes. I still don't see how having such a large dropout rate benefits anyone. All you're doing is adding to the total amount of debt of the "employable" young population. The whole economy would benefit from these people working instead. Because school is just simply not good for a large percentage of the population. Yes, it may be a stepping stone for greater things for some people, but it just simply doesn't fit with others. Here is a good opinion piece from a college career counselor: http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=wWwv6kBkcTbYktwbjrJkskjtdhknjqvf EDIT; I can't not post the link to this girls opinion.
I'm not saying everyone should seek higher education. All I'm saying is that it is plenty accessible to people of lower income. If you are from a poor family, ou make out like a bandit on financial aid.
There are two things about this thread that kind of baffle me. 1) People are lumping all college degrees together as though there is no distinction between an english major and an engineering major. There is a spectrum here, and I have to say that as many engineering students that I met that didn't know the right way to hold a hammer, if they can pass thermodynamics and deformable body mechanics and all the other crap they gotta go through, "stupid" just isn't a word that I can honestly associate with them. 2) How can in anyone's right mind, argue that education is a bad thing? Maybe not the "right" thing for your time or place in this world, but bad? Seriously? I just got off the phone with my older brother who just moved back from living in taiwan for 5 years to go back to school a couple semesters ago. It turns out he just quit going to his classes midway through the semester because he was too stressed out. It kind of irritates me that he went back and took on the debt, but I kind of knew all along that he wasn't quite the type where college works. It kind of is what it is in his case, but he still says he eventually wants to finish even if it ends up taking 10 years and countless bumps in the road because he genuinely values education and gaining knowledge and wisdom. Honestly, anyone who denounces knowledge and wisdom can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned. Ignorance is not something to be proud of IMO. That being said, one doesn't necessarily need to go to college to gain it.
I won't deny any of that. Going to school just for the sake of going is not a good idea. Plenty of girls go to find a husband, or just because that seems like the thing to do.
Well, it just seems like people are overcompensating in their defense of not going to college and just making it sound like it's a horrible place for liberals and elitists. Being educated or informed != elitist
Well said. Those classes are not for the meek. Some people just have it naturally, and others really have to work at it. Honestly, I envy some people where those classes are a breeze for them. A friend of mine didn't do any homework in statics and he aced all of his exams. I busted my arse for a C. Its kind of frustrating sometimes. On the other hand, there's plenty that you cannot teach people. I know a few students that struggle to wrap their brain around an assembly, or see how things fit together. My roommote is a prime example of this.
Well since my parents made pretty good money while I was in college I got jack ****, I had to pay for it ALL, so being from a family with money, where the parents wont help with education DOES make it difficult. Get student loans? no thanks, Don't feel like paying extra. I'll be going back to school eventually, but it will be on my wife's (so to speak) dime, or "connections".
In the case of a lot of my friends it was: childcare, transportation, inflexible job schedule, recurring medical problems/bills... you get the point. But you are absolutely correct about untapped financial aid. Millions of dollars annually at the UofM alone.
that's another sad reality of America. Parents pretty much charge their kids interest for anything. That's so wrong, moraly wrong. And that is why later kids tell their old an dieing parents that they can go and die at an old folks home.
Well it wasn't like they were out buying new cars and ****, they just didn't have the money to help, I'm not pissed at them about it.
I think that if your parents cannot afford to help you with college, they should not be claiming you as a dependent on their taxes. IIRC, you won't be nailed for their income when it comes to your FAFSA. I'm not totally sure about that though.
You are correct. However the first year is hard. Most kids are claimed by their parents while they are in high school. Since FAFSA's are based off the previous year tax returns the first year students will get hosed.
Wow. Where did you get the statistic that parents are charging their kids interest? I've never heard of that. Way to make some more broad, sweeping generalizations. And I'm assuming that you have no idea what those "old folks homes" cost a month. It's not just a place to send the elderly when they can't take care of themselves, although it's easy to think of them that way. And I'm also assuming that you have no idea what it's like to have to commit someone to one of those facilites. When are you making good on that promise to leave for the Prius forums?
Something in the range of $4k a month? Ya, not cheap. Also, I've never heard of someone charging their kids interest.
Agreed. I have some of the worst typing on earth. But I tend to spell check those post ripping on someone's intelligence (This post not spell checked) I would point out that my grandfather was VP of a large company with just an HS degree (back before every other person in a company was VP). (Yes, there's many flaws in this statement, notibly that back when he entered the workforce in the mid-1920s [he's old] almost no one had a college degree. And it was still the exception to the rule. He didn't exactly go out of his way to make this fact known.)
The 5 college kids that were on the bill to be hired when I applied to my current job, got turned down for me.
I've never heard of a parent charging interest. Where do you get this garbage? Not only that, but kids should pay back loans to their parents...you know, like real adults.
I once paid interest on a loan from my folks. They took money out of a retirement account to help me with a loan I had requested. It wasn't exorbitant at all (it matched the rate from their investment), and was certainly cheaper than a bank loan would have been at that time. I don't think I would have accepted the money without some sort of interest going back to them. Just seems fair and responsible. I mean, if I'm going to call myself an adult...
first of all I did not say they charge interest I said almost charge interest. I know plenty of people here that lab money to their kids. I think that's wrong its your kids, the most amazing thing you can have I this world. I would never ask for any money back from my kids. And I would never send my parents to old folks home, I would rather put up with them buy will have them in my home and I would take care of them no matter what.
Back to the originally original topic... I was thinking, if the gov't wants to help folks out by suspending a fuel tax, wouldn't it be better to choose the diesel tax instead of the gasoline tax? - businesses with shipping expenses (pretty much all of them) would see a reduction in their costs. - in turn, that cost would not need to be passed on to the consumer. And yes, I think most businesses WOULD drop their prices to reflect that reduction in cost. If prices for goods increase because of fuel costs, they should go down when those costs decrease. - it would affect everyone, not just those who drive (okay, most folks do drive), and it would help with virtually all purchases of tangible goods. - as the prices of goods goes back down, folks purchase more stuff. As more stuff changes hands, more tax money is generated through sales tax. Maybe more jobs are created (or fewer lost) with a similar result on payroll tax. - and it might even encourage folks to buy diesel cars. Yes, no, maybe?
suspending the fuel tax is retarded.....yay, look at me -- I ended up saving a whopping $30 over a few months
Not sure what to say. As a young adult at the time, I didn't want to be a burden on my folks. That's why I wanted to treat it like a regular loan instead of it having a negative affect on their retirement future, which they worked hard to achieve. Maybe there's a cultural difference in play. I'm not saying one way is better or worse - both have their points. To me, I needed to keep the feelings of independence, responsibility, and adulthood, and treating it as a business transaction allowed me to do that. To each their own. Interest was my idea in that case and I insisted on it.
And that is why your kids will be spoiled brats. Giving your kids a bunch of free money is absolutely retarded. You buy them what they NEED. An allowance maybe, but tossing money at your kids to just spend how they want teaches them nothing about money. Giving them an allowance teaches kids how to budget and spend within their means. And loaning them money is fine, but they should be required to pay you back for things like that. I would NEVER give my kids a giant chunk of money and not expect it back. Unless it was for some medical thing or other circumstances. But just to get money to buy something like a car or whatever...yeah, you'll be paying me back for that...welcome to the real world. Money isn't free. And I don't work 50+ hours a week so you can buy iPhones and cars with my money.
Definetly a cultural thing. My parents never limited my in anything(with realistic limits) and I can tell you I know how to manage money. Speaking of gas tax cut. To me this whole deal is just to make it sound like the republicans want to make it look like they are trying to help common folk with high gas prices, and they know that it will not pass the congress and it will make it look like democrats are not helping the American people. Clinton is on it to get more votes. No proof for this statement.
Does not matter. Either way its a giveaway for big oil, not a stimulating measure. Supply is pretty much fixed, and all the refineries work very close to 100% load. And when supply is fixed any tax reduction goes directly to big oil's profit. Its just econ101.
