The Student Protests

[Accountable]

An education in history is an education in long-term strategy. The skills learned in recognizing true cause-and-effect patterns help when making long-term decisions and planning. Studying the unintended consequences of well-meaning programs is invaluable in learning to recognize potential pitfalls in plans that make sense on the surface.

Such skills apply to any strategic leadership position, whether it be in business, medicine, politics, or in making family decisions.

 

[MoonOwl]

What I think he means (correct me if I'm wrong, Ed) is that some gov't official "seeds" the crowd with agitators to get people stirred up - yell profanities, maybe throw a rock or yell out suggestions to turn a car over - then let mob mentality take over, come what may.

An 'Agent Provocateur'. Standard practice over here.

One should always ignore the little asshole advocating violence at a protest. He's been put there for a reason.

Doesn't everyone know that? If not, now you do.:nod:

 

[Kyle B]

What job does it get you? Serious question.

You do make an interesting point. I too wonder why some degrees exist.

However, I think that having a goal in mind matters more than the degree. If you want to do something, and your degree will help you do it, than go for it. To many people go to college, pick any old degree, and have no idea where they're going with it.

 

[Springsteen]

To many people go to college, pick any old degree, and have no idea where they're going with it.

This is true. Little story for you, when I first went to college many moons ago (let's call is 2003 because, well, that's when it was) there was this big room with lots of tables, and basically you went up to the table which had your course and talked with the tutors about it. Anyway there was a few people there who despite being able to do any course (they had done well in GCSE's) they had no idea what they were going to do. As for history, I guess I can see it adds something to life's road if you will, but I was more concerned about them finding a job after Uni to pay off the debts, although I guess you could do it with Law too, or something like that. Probably would as it's rare someone would do only one course at Uni (unless it was nursing/fashion whatever)

 

[Kyle B]

This is true. Little story for you, when I first went to college many moons ago (let's call is 2003 because, well, that's when it was) there was this big room with lots of tables, and basically you went up to the table which had your course and talked with the tutors about it. Anyway there was a few people there who despite being able to do any course (they had done well in GCSE's) they had no idea what they were going to do. As for history, I guess I can see it adds something to life's road if you will, but I was more concerned about them finding a job after Uni to pay off the debts, although I guess you could do it with Law too, or something like that. Probably would as it's rare someone would do only one course at Uni (unless it was nursing/fashion whatever)

Yep, I see stuff like that all the time, and it's sad. Last year, I was talking to a friend of a friend who was living on campus about four hours away. It came up in discussion that he chose to major in accounting because he had no idea what to do and that was the first major on the list.

There's a person at my school who studied and earned a bachelor's degree and two associates degrees in fields that she isn't even interested in. Another similar person has two associates degrees and is studying for a third because they just want to stay in college and not have to work.

Just examples of people going to college for the wrong reasons and wasting their money and time.

 

[edgray]

An 'Agent Provocateur'. Standard practice over here.

One should always ignore the little asshole advocating violence at a protest. He's been put there for a reason.

Doesn't everyone know that? If not, now you do.:nod:

:thumbup

 

[Zorak]

This is true. Little story for you, when I first went to college many moons ago (let's call is 2003 because, well, that's when it was) there was this big room with lots of tables, and basically you went up to the table which had your course and talked with the tutors about it. Anyway there was a few people there who despite being able to do any course (they had done well in GCSE's) they had no idea what they were going to do. As for history, I guess I can see it adds something to life's road if you will, but I was more concerned about them finding a job after Uni to pay off the debts, although I guess you could do it with Law too, or something like that. Probably would as it's rare someone would do only one course at Uni (unless it was nursing/fashion whatever)

Yep, I see stuff like that all the time, and it's sad. Last year, I was talking to a friend of a friend who was living on campus about four hours away. It came up in discussion that he chose to major in accounting because he had no idea what to do and that was the first major on the list.

There's a person at my school who studied and earned a bachelor's degree and two associates degrees in fields that she isn't even interested in. Another similar person has two associates degrees and is studying for a third because they just want to stay in college and not have to work.

Just examples of people going to college for the wrong reasons and wasting their money and time.

I think it's unrealistic to expect the majority of 16-18 year olds have any idea what they want to do.
I thought I wanted to be a journalist, but actually upon doing it for a few months, I quit. And I'll never consider it as a career path again.

I still don't know what I want to do, which is why unspecialised degrees are good and essential to an economy. As they display to potential employers a number of skills, one of which being common to all would be an ability to work to a very high level of scholarship.
The opposite would be a system in which all degrees were specialised, which is fine for the few students who are sure in what they wish to do for a career and will do it until retirement. But forcing all students into taking specialised degrees could lead to a number of graduates deciding upon entering employment that they have made a mistake in their chosen career path. And holding such a definate and atypical degree, they may find great difficulty in finding another job that offers the same pay-scale, and thusly, have difficulty in paying off their Student Loan. Obviously, this could cost a government an almost unfathomable amount of money.

This issue is pretty close to the OT too, since the tuition fee rises and education cuts have made a number of universities consider downsizing their tutoring in humanities.

 

[edgray]

I think it's unrealistic to expect the majority of 16-18 year olds have any idea what they want to do.
I thought I wanted to be a journalist, but actually upon doing it for a few months, I quit. And I'll never consider it as a career path again.

I still don't know what I want to do, which is why unspecialised degrees are good and essential to an economy. As they display to potential employers a number of skills, one of which being common to all would be an ability to work to a very high level of scholarship.
The opposite would be a system in which all degrees were specialised, which is fine for the few students who are sure in what they wish to do for a career and will do it until retirement. But forcing all students into taking specialised degrees could lead to a number of graduates deciding upon entering employment that they have made a mistake in their chosen career path. And holding such a definate and atypical degree, they may find great difficulty in finding another job that offers the same pay-scale, and thusly, have difficulty in paying off their Student Loan. Obviously, this could cost a government an almost unfathomable amount of money.

This issue is pretty close to the OT too, since the tuition fee rises and education cuts have made a number of universities consider downsizing their tutoring in humanities.

good points.

All degrees have their uses, and they show a level of dedication on the part of the student to the future employer, and a good level of competency.

 

[Kyle B]

I think it's unrealistic to expect the majority of 16-18 year olds have any idea what they want to do.
I thought I wanted to be a journalist, but actually upon doing it for a few months, I quit. And I'll never consider it as a career path again.

I still don't know what I want to do, which is why unspecialised degrees are good and essential to an economy. As they display to potential employers a number of skills, one of which being common to all would be an ability to work to a very high level of scholarship.
The opposite would be a system in which all degrees were specialised, which is fine for the few students who are sure in what they wish to do for a career and will do it until retirement. But forcing all students into taking specialised degrees could lead to a number of graduates deciding upon entering employment that they have made a mistake in their chosen career path. And holding such a definate and atypical degree, they may find great difficulty in finding another job that offers the same pay-scale, and thusly, have difficulty in paying off their Student Loan. Obviously, this could cost a government an almost unfathomable amount of money.

This issue is pretty close to the OT too, since the tuition fee rises and education cuts have made a number of universities consider downsizing their tutoring in humanities.

The thing is though, why go to college if you have no idea on what you want to do? You don't have to go to college upon completing high school. They get a job first and then come back.

Also, don't get me wrong, I don't think non specialized degrees are bad at all. You're right, they do show an employer that you are capable are higher education. However, by doing that you run the same risk as entering a specialized degree. If you find out that you want to enter a particular field, you have to nearly start all over and stay in college longer.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the US at least, there are so many students going to college just for the sake of it, and not really taking advantage of it in the way that they could.

 

[All Else Failed]

ATTN UK Police: Start shooting.

My education was totally free. I don't see why kids nowadays should have to pay. If we can afford to fight pointless wars overseas we can damn well afford to educate our kids. End of.

Why exactly should others have to pay for a person to get a degree in art history?

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I think all degrees have a use somewhere in this world...seeing as everyone is always trying to make a job out of everything and earn a profit somewhere...

 

[Abcinthia]

When we did UCAS week, we learnt that History is actually a very good degree to have, it opens a lot of doors. Especially if you want a job as a researcher or in muesums. Law is another good stepping stone for people with a history degree to go into and teaching as well.

 

[edgray]

Why exactly should others have to pay for a person to get a degree in art history?

Culture, for one thing.

A country is more culturally varied the better and more varied people are educated.

And something like Art History wouldn't be studied if people have to pay for it because the jobs it might lead to are scarce and poorly paid. But we need curators. We need museums. We need people who know about this stuff. Otherwise the culture dies and it's just in the hands of the privileged who can afford to study a pretty jobless subject.

<rant>

And furthermore, I'm so fucking sick of that ridiculously selfish attitude "oh why should I have to pay for someone else to blah blah fucking blah"

We live in a society for fucks sake. We pay tax into a pool that is there to enrich the country, help the needy, and help things progress. All of our success as a species relies on us WORKING TOGETHER. Life is better when people work together. Quality of life improves immeasurably. Stress is reduced. Why do you think people in Europe live so much longer than the US? Because we share burdens. It's that simple.

You think you're an island? Go live on one.

</rant>

No offense, but that's the God's honest way I feel about this.

 

[Zorak]

You want the latest computer technology, and men standing on other distant planets, and the best new blockbuster movies in hollywood, and the fastest cars, and an ever growing collection of quality entertainment in a number of mediums, and you want it all without contributing towards further education. lol.

 

[edgray]

You want the latest computer technology, and men standing on other distant planets, and the best new blockbuster movies in hollywood, and the fastest cars, and an ever growing collection of quality entertainment in a number of mediums, and you want it all without contributing towards further education. lol.

Well said, sir!

 

[All Else Failed]

Culture, for one thing.

A country is more culturally varied the better and more varied people are educated.

And something like Art History wouldn't be studied if people have to pay for it because the jobs it might lead to are scarce and poorly paid. But we need curators. We need museums. We need people who know about this stuff. Otherwise the culture dies and it's just in the hands of the privileged who can afford to study a pretty jobless subject.

<rant>

And furthermore, I'm so fucking sick of that ridiculously selfish attitude "oh why should I have to pay for someone else to blah blah fucking blah"

We live in a society for fucks sake. We pay tax into a pool that is there to enrich the country, help the needy, and help things progress. All of our success as a species relies on us WORKING TOGETHER. Life is better when people work together. Quality of life improves immeasurably. Stress is reduced. Why do you think people in Europe live so much longer than the US? Because we share burdens. It's that simple.

You think you're an island? Go live on one.

</rant>

No offense, but that's the God's honest way I feel about this.

no see a burnt out student drawing sketches for 4 or 6 years and then doing nothing with it afterward is basically an average art major. Why should anyone pay for these people?


And no, cultural diversity is an incredible weakness for any country. It dilutes the native culture and strips away their identity to the point of where they have no concrete cultural basis as a people.



Yeah, we do live in a society, and I shouldn't have to be forced to pay for other people's lives. Think about how that sounds. We can work together and support each other by not having to go on each other's dime and be a burden. Of course reality is inherently communal. What people do or don't do, say or don't say affects you either directly or indirectly. However, this is not an excuse to make others pay for all of your shit. Have some self reliance and willpower for god's sakes.


Actually people in Europe only live about 4 to 5 years longer than Americans. I'm not impressed.

You want the latest computer technology, and men standing on other distant planets, and the best new blockbuster movies in hollywood, and the fastest cars, and an ever growing collection of quality entertainment in a number of mediums, and you want it all without contributing towards further education. lol.

Funny, we did all of this without any sort of socialist education system. You should be thanking us.



Truth is, fewer people should be going to college. Only those with a certain skill set and Intelligence level should be permitted. Others can do vocational activities.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Cultural diversity is not bad. It allows for more cultural tolerance between groups. Coming from an area where there is every group of the world you can imagine, I don't mind. You learn their languages, eat their food, all the while we still have our Aussie traditions. There's nothing wrong with other cultures being here, let's not pull a wobbly like Pauline Hanson. Everyone has the right to everything we have, why do we have to segregate based on land? Land is land, let everyone be and do their thing on it. Life is not a competition.

 

[Zorak]

Funny, we did all of this without any sort of socialist education system. You should be thanking us.

Funny, that free universal education which is what America has is pretty socialist.
Neil Armstrong got a scholarship to go to college several times.

But this is completely irrelevent. I could give you a thousand examples of ways further education has enriched the world over for a thousand years. It has nothing to do with socialism.

 

[Zorak]

Truth is, fewer people should be going to college. Only those with a certain skill set and Intelligence level should be permitted. Others can do vocational activities.

That I do agree with, completely. For economic reasons, both for the entrant and government.

 

[All Else Failed]

Funny, that free universal education which is what America has is pretty socialist.
Neil Armstrong got a scholarship to go to college several times.

But this is completely irrelevent. I could give you a thousand examples of ways further education has enriched the world over for a thousand years. It has nothing to do with socialism.

Um, America does not have free, universal education.



and you earn scholarships