Romney's big 'four years tuition-free' college

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

You actually spent time on a Saturday to write this long winded response?

About 6 second worth.

How long does it take you to post?

Dude. Go play your guitar. You can't spend 7 days a week on that soapbox of yours.

I have two little soapboxes I attach to the bottom of my shoes, so I can always be soapbox'in.

Good lord. You were pontificating while I was changing a boiler in a basement. But I'm the lazy entitlement type. Lmao.

I don't work weekends.

Serious. Go finger some frets. Deep breaths and spider chords.

If you heard me play, you'd be glad I wasn't.

/shrug

Before you ask, total time to post this, 45 seconds.

[MnJetFan]

College is just another entitlemnt for some in this country. Pay or don't go! You do not expect someone else to pay your bills.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by MnJetFan

College is just another entitlemnt for some in this country. Pay or don't go! You do not expect someone else to pay your bills.

Yes and no. The value of college has been inflated by the government for the better part of the last 40 years. I agree that no one is entitled to a college education.

However we would be much better off if government got out of the higher education business. Stopped touting college as the most basic requirement for fiscal security. And set an example by stripping college requirements out of government positions where it makes no sense. Requiring a college degree to be an officer in the military is one of the most asinine job requirements I've ever heard of.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Axil

Yes and no. The value of college has been inflated by the government for the better part of the last 40 years. I agree that no one is entitled to a college education.

However we would be much better off if government got out of the higher education business. Stopped touting college as the most basic requirement for fiscal security. And set an example by stripping college requirements out of government positions where it makes no sense. Requiring a college degree to be an officer in the military is one of the most asinine job requirements I've ever heard of.

Ex Army officer here. Kind of hard to do certain things if you are not educated to a certain level. Plus the military attaches a certain level of maturity to a college education. A demonstration of committment.
Some specialties require high education. Combat pilot, naval officer on ship, air defense missile command. Most areas do with the POSSIBLE exception of infantry. And even there you need to know your way around other specialties (jobs).
A person is commissioned as an officer with the intent that he/she can rise to a much higher rank. That would require a higher level of education. On top of that the men respect an educated leader more than a dummy.

[chiefst2000]

The era of high paying low skills jobs is over. People need to be educated to succeed in todays world. Skills however can vary and many don't require college. Electricians, plumbing, HVAC are skills that can lead to a great living. Auto Mechanics and the like as well. In the old days unskilled people would make a living as a mailman or factory worker. Those types of jobs are harder and harder to find and that isn't changing anytime soon.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Ex Army officer here.

Thank you for your service.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Kind of hard to do certain things if you are not educated to a certain level.

Can you think of some specifics?

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Plus the military attaches a certain level of maturity to a college education.

I'm sure they do. I just believe they are in error.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

A demonstration of committment.

I would hope that years of faithful service to our military would adequately demonstrate commitment to the military. Correct me if I'm wrong but I am under the impression that a college graduate just starting his military service can be given a higher rank than a soldier who has served multiple tours in a combat environment. If the military considers the freshly recruited college grad more committed, that is disgraceful.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Some specialties require high education. Combat pilot, naval officer on ship, air defense missile command. Most areas do with the POSSIBLE exception of infantry. And even there you need to know your way around other specialties (jobs).

Require is a bit strong. But i concede that in some roles. Some college degrees would make performing the job easier.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

A person is commissioned as an officer with the intent that he/she can rise to a much higher rank. That would require a higher level of education.

Why?

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

On top of that the men respect an educated leader more than a dummy.

This is not universally true, and where it is true, i do not believe it is reasonable.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

The era of high paying low skills jobs is over. People need to be educated to succeed in todays world. Skills however can vary and many don't require college. Electricians, plumbing, HVAC are skills that can lead to a great living. Auto Mechanics and the like as well. In the old days unskilled people would make a living as a mailman or factory worker. Those types of jobs are harder and harder to find and that isn't changing anytime soon.

I agree, and i think trade schools offer excellent, meaningful programs. Unfortunately i think the earning power bestowed by the traditional four year college degree is a function of perception and tradition more than anything else.

Now I'm not saying that your average college grad isn't actually more skilled or better prepared for a job than someone who did not attended college. I just don't believe that it has anything to do with the college. I believe it has more to do with the effects demonstrated in the Jane Elliott experiment.. Essentially, you're creating a caste system with a fee for success. Those who pay that fee are more likely to succeed. They are viewed as more intelligent, more qualified. Over time you attract a group of people who are more intelligent, more qualified. The problem is those attributes existed prior to the attendance of college.

I wouldn't have a problem with this except it's all government sponsored. The value of college is being rammed down the throats of the nation, with such force it makes it difficult to question the underlying assumptions. The same thing happened under Roosevelt with the food pyramid. The government made value judgements (bad ones as it turned out) about what food was healthy, and what wasn't. Unsurprisingly it largest food producing PAC at the time got themselves on the bottom of the pyramid. America's obsiety problem has been growing ever since.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Axil

Thank you for your service.



Can you think of some specifics?

Gunnnery. Heavy math. That would also apply to missile assignments. Pilot. Any officer's job on a sub. Logistics (harder than fighting). Engineers. Communications. Nuclear weaponry.

I'm sure they do. I just believe they are in error.

Big difference between a commisioned officer and Billy frat boy.
There is a discipline associated with a college education which is frankly, more intense than being in the military. Plus I was athlete - many officers were. Personal experience. And my experience is elite combat.



I would hope that years of faithful service to our military would adequately demonstrate commitment to the military. Correct me if I'm wrong but I am under the impression that a college graduate just starting his military service can be given a higher rank than a soldier who has served multiple tours in a combat environment. If the military considers the freshly recruited college grad more committed, that is disgraceful.

The fresh out of school second lieutenant in fact outranks some people 20 years older than him (although he would have command over someone probably 5-6 years older). Not disgraceful. It's the system. You ask counsel of those who have been around. Mutual respect works very well.



Require is a bit strong. But i concede that in some roles. Some college degrees would make performing the job easier.

Almost all. AND you never know what your assignment will be. The military wants ALL its officers prepared for diverse capabilities.


Why?

Because you are expected to interrface with intelligent people. In a wide array of fields.

This is not universally true, and where it is true, i do not believe it is reasonable.

Sorry. Men do not want to follow dummies. Respect is important.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

As usual, you rw'ers are so blind you overlook the obvious.

This is nothing more than redistribution of income to the wealthy. It does not help lower and middle class Americans as they STILL cannot afford the costs of college.

Agreed. Free tuition disproportionately benefits the wealthy, who would otherwise struggle to pay for their kids' college . . .

[Axil]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Sorry. Men do not want to follow dummies. Respect is important.

I agree on both counts. However I fail to understand why lacking a college degree makes someone a "dummy" or unintelligent. As i detailed in my response to chief's post i believe there may be a correlation (though i've not seen a study confirming this) between higher education and intelligence, but i do not believe there is any demonstrated causal effect.

If this is only a matter of perspective, it is not a sufficient reason to disqualify those without a college degree from the position. Not long ago many men would've found it very difficult to respect a black officer. I'm sure that some still do. The military ought not cater to ignorant preconception.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Axil

I agree, and i think trade schools offer excellent, meaningful programs. Unfortunately i think the earning power bestowed by the traditional four year college degree is a function of perception and tradition more than anything else.

Now I'm not saying that your average college grad isn't actually more skilled or better prepared for a job than someone who did not attended college. I just don't believe that it has anything to do with the college. I believe it has more to do with the effects demonstrated in the Jane Elliott experiment.. Essentially, you're creating a caste system with a fee for success. Those who pay that fee are more likely to succeed. They are viewed as more intelligent, more qualified. Over time you attract a group of people who are more intelligent, more qualified. The problem is those attributes existed prior to the attendance of college.

I wouldn't have a problem with this except it's all government sponsored. The value of college is being rammed down the throats of the nation, with such force it makes it difficult to question the underlying assumptions. The same thing happened under Roosevelt with the food pyramid. The government made value judgements (bad ones as it turned out) about what food was healthy, and what wasn't. Unsurprisingly it largest food producing PAC at the time got themselves on the bottom of the pyramid. America's obsiety problem has been growing ever since.

Not only is college important for people in certain fields, BUT with certain companies you are not going anywhere without a masters degree. Or a masters plus something else as well or extra concentartion with a second advanced degree.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by Warfish

About 6 second worth.

How long does it take you to post?



I have two little soapboxes I attach to the bottom of my shoes, so I can always be soapbox'in.



I don't work weekends.



If you heard me play, you'd be glad I wasn't.

/shrug

Before you ask, total time to post this, 45 seconds.

PK has been unusually ornery lately, more so than usual.

I take that as a sign that Romney is going to win.

Or Betsy has him sleeping on the couch.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Not only is college important for people in certain fields, BUT with certain companies you are not going anywhere without a masters degree. Or a masters plus something else as well or extra concentartion with a second advanced degree.

Oh i understand completely. However i contend that company's engaging in this behavior do so at their detriment. I believe it is there right to institute these policies but i am adamantly against the government subsidizing this type of behavior.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Axil

I agree on both counts. However I fail to understand why lacking a college degree makes someone a "dummy" or unintelligent. As i detailed in my response to chief's post i believe there may be a correlation (though i've not seen a study confirming this) between higher education and intelligence, but i do not believe there is any demonstrated causal effect.

If this is only a matter of perspective, it is not a sufficient reason to disqualify those without a college degree from the position. Not long ago many men would've found it very difficult to respect a black officer. I'm sure that some still do. The military ought not cater to ignorant preconception.

It's been that way for a ling time. No battlefield commisions anymore out of necessity. The system is as it is and will not change.
As far as blacks or women, our society is evolving as it should. One time prejudices are going away.
BTW, you don't just get NAMED an officer. Places like our service academies turn out outstanding leaders. ROTC programs turn out some outstanding ones as well. It is a multi year process during college.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

It's been that way for a ling time. No battlefield commisions anymore out of necessity. The system is as it is and will not change.

When has "it's always been that way" been a good defense for anything? I believe it will eventually change, but likely not in our lifetime.

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

As far as blacks or women, our society is evolving as it should. One time prejudices are going away.

Except this one, which you support, yes?

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

BTW, you don't just get NAMED an officer. Places like our service academies turn out outstanding leaders. ROTC programs turn out some outstanding ones as well. It is a multi year process during college.

I'm sure that they do. I just believe this has to do more with the caliber of people than the process. Also i confess i don't know enough about this particular process. Perhaps the service academies and ROTC programs more closely resemble a trade or apprenticeship program than your traditional four year school. In that case perhaps they are more effective at imparting the knowledge necessary to be a successful officer. Keep in mind though that knowledge is not intelligence. If someone was a dummy when he entered the service academy he'll be a dummy when he graduates, and no system will be 100% effective in weeding such out.


Anyway, i think we can safely agree to disagree here. You believe higher education is a good selection criteria for a large percentage of occupations. I do not. I suspect we will find out who is right sometime in the next 20 years or so. So don't go anywhere.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Axil

When has "it's always been that way" been a good defense for anything? I believe it will eventually change, but likely not in our lifetime.



Except this one, which you support, yes?



I'm sure that they do. I just believe this has to do more with the caliber of people than the process. Also i confess i don't know enough about this particular process. Perhaps the service academies and ROTC programs more closely resemble a trade or apprenticeship program than your traditional four year school. In that case perhaps they are more effective at imparting the knowledge necessary to be a successful officer. Keep in mind though that knowledge is not intelligence. If someone was a dummy when he entered the service academy he'll be a dummy when he graduates, and no system will be 100% effective in weeding such out.


Anyway, i think we can safely agree to disagree here. You believe higher education is a good selection criteria for a large percentage of occupations. I do not. I suspect we will find out who is right sometime in the next 20 years or so. So don't go anywhere.

ROTC programs (which was my route) overlays military on top of the regular curriculum. Essentaiily it is an additional course of study - a total of 24 extra credit hours which do not count toward a regular degree. Plus extra time during the week and weekend activity when those involved were not playing ball plus some summer committment.
Dummies do not get into service academies BTW. Had a couple HS friends get in there - brilliant plus top athletes. As for ROTC, tough load with regular academics PLUS the military courses. You learn things through the program. Those things are not taught to regular enlistees. That is the difference.