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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: S. maltophilia who wrote (201683)	11/2/2002 9:37:57 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Respond to of 436258

Khalil, I have no doubt that college is great for even the student too dim to be there. I was thinking more about the roi for the parents. <g> You forgot to mention the lack of a pharmacy benefit as part of our third world medical status. But we'll catch up to Venezuela any day now.

To: S. maltophilia who wrote (201683)	11/2/2002 12:02:29 PM
From: Tommaso	Respond to of 436258

I think it's better for a lot of people to work first and then get education if they really want it. The best students there ever were in the US higher education system were the returning veterans from WWII who --if they had been planning to go to college-- had postponed it several years. There's a very effective program (or used to be) at Harvard College that allows a failing student to drop out without penalty and return--but only if they get a real, paying, non-academic job for a year. If they take a single course anywhere else, they are expelled for good. After a year stacking goods in a warehouse, or whatever, most of them come back cured of whatever hangups they had. My point, by implication, was that the idea that a college education guarantees a higher income for life is not only misleading, but corrupts the motives of many students and their parents. A B. A. is a kind of Green Card that you get any way you can. The substance of college courses becomes an obstruction rather than an opportunity. It is, of course, in the interests of college administrators for whom bigger is always better to increase enrollments by promising economic benefits. This is particularly true on campuses of state universities where the budget appropriations are directly tied to enrollment. You admit 20% more students, you get 20% more money. Someone teaches a tough course; fewer students enroll; some drop for fear of failing; the course generates fewer FTE ("full time enrollment") units, the Provost comes down on the Dean, the Dean comes down on the Department Head, the Department Head decides that the course should not be offered. Contrariwise, someone offers, say, a "film studies course," uses an assistant to show flicks, allows a final "exam" where students make their own home videos, gives everyone A's (maybe a few B's to make it seem respectable), and generates ten times as many FTEs. More money for the school, more money for the Provost to play with, bigger salaries for the Department. I know of one instance where someone got special permission from the state to show porno films in a course. Some students emerge from four years of this kind of education knowing next to nothing about anything. But maybe the whole business is worth while for the gifted and hard-working 10%-20% who really take advantage of it.