Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (133757)	3/27/2001 10:27:37 PM
From: RON BL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"That's where some assistence in the form of need-based scholarships and admissions placeholders becomes crucial, in my opinion. " For what reason Kevin ? Do we need 2 million more sociologists to satisfy a need to pass people a diploma ? It would be much cheaper to just hand them the degree. I recall taking a sociology test. Without opening a book I got 90 on the test. The questions were multiple choice and the answers were so simple. Yet 50 % of the class struggled and complained how difficult it was. And these were the people you are talking about. Mind you I was taking a BS in CS and these people were supposedly Liberal Arts types who were going to go out and save the world. If we can't get them when they are young in the earlier years then these people should be out working in a trade not going to school. Of course it is a free world but we seem to think today that anyone can get a degree. It is an expensive proposition and worse yet many of these people graduate and believe themselves to be educated and intelligent when the truth is they were passed along in an already watered down system.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (133757)	3/27/2001 11:00:28 PM
From: Thehammer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Kevin, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I never said that it would be easy. I also was a manager and always tried to counsel my employees on their career options.For example, our firm hires junior programmers internally if they pass several college level programming classes. We then put them through our own training classes. BTW the firm picks up 75% of the tuition. In any event, if they have an aptitude, I tried to get many of them to take the required classes. I estimate that a third of them took my advice. Several have launched very successful careers. Many that did not try, (or say they will when they get the time) have situations less imposing than the lady in your story. My impression that for some it is just not that high a priority.("Will i have to give up softball?") Others have family or spouses that constantly berate them with their worthlessness ("My husband won't let me."). Others have a profound fear of failure or change ("What if I don't like it?" or "Will you take me back if it doesn't work?") Some of these folks do not remain in the "inertia" state forever. I have seen and taken great joy in watching some employees advance from a state of low self esteem to a position they decided to take control and responsibility for their own lives. For some a cathartic life experience turns them around. For others it is a slow and gradual building over time. I never cease to be amazed by the strength and resilience of the human spirit.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (133757)	3/28/2001 3:57:21 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 769667

I understand, but understand that that would have required her to quit her job and possibly go onto welfare. She had a daughter to support, and did not possess the skills to get a 9-5 job that would allow her to make ends meet so that she could go to school. This is unlikely to be a popular statement, but: She did have a choice- -and made the wrong choice. If she could not support herself, her daughter, and take care of her career needs, why did she have the daughter? That is avoidable these days. She could have delayed until after she had completed her education. Expecting the rest of society to pay for her mistake is unreasonable. All of us serve a purpose, some of us as bad examples. However, some get trapped both by their situation and their own inertia. Breaking out can be hard, especially those with a family. Day care alone is enough to break most; adding 'night care' to that while attending night classes is near impossible. Without some help, many in these situations seemed doomed to continue in low paying jobs just to make ends meet. For some, it may be too late. Breaking the cycle may have to wait for their next generation. That's where some assistence in the form of need-based scholarships and admissions placeholders becomes crucial, in my opinion. Wonderful. In theory. But how do we pay for this? My tax burden is already at 40%; many people pay more. What will this push it to? 80%? Why then should I work? Why not become a professional govenment-supported scholar? It's an easier, more enjoyable life that would avoid the stresses and pressures of working in the real world. What happens when 80-90% of people choose that path? The system collapses. And this "solution" is no longer viable. You appear to be advocating welfare for anyone who does not enjoy what you deem to be an acceptable standard of living. The fact is, she was working and supporting herself. Ultimately, we must support the government because, ultimately, it will not work the other way around.