Santorum: Obama 'A Snob' For Wanting Everyone To Go To College

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

"commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship"
is not the same thing as wanting 100% of our population to go to college. Santorum was fighting a straw man here.

I'll change that to:

Every young person in america should commit to one year serving in the armed forces.

Is that policy so great now?

[ajb]

"commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship"
is not the same thing as wanting 100% of our population to go to college. Santorum was fighting a straw man here.

I'll change that to:

Every young person in america should commit to one year serving in the armed forces.

Is that policy so great now?

No. For one thing, the armed forces wouldn't like it one bit.

[Former Moderate]

Because dropping out of Harvard to start your own computer company is equivalent to jumping onto the job market with nothing but a high school diploma and no real plan for the future?

If 'college opens you up to the most possibilities', why is it that the wealthiest man is a college drop out? If that were in fact true- we would expect the wealthiest man to have went and finished college - not the case.

It may be true that college is beneficial - but certainly not for everyone, and it certainly doesn't 'open up to the best possibilities. Nonsense.

College is a long time in a period of your life that can be spent more productively than attending classes. That is if you want the absolute best outcome.

I said the exception and not the rule. Certainly there are those who did not go to college and wound up running successful businesses or having money-making ideas. But by and large, it is those with no college education that are poor; and it is those who have college education who are wealthy. There is a real correlation. A lucky few can buck the trend, but there is definitely a trend.

The people most strongly poised to capitalize on the kind of opportunities are those who graduate from college. Especially if that person aspires to be in the middle class, upper middle class, or upper class. Period.

[pbrower2a]

Trailer? You live in Michigan. Can't you buy houses for a fraction of the cost?

Michigan, maybe. But not everywhere. But that should say something about the cost of college anywhere.

Because everyone does need to go to college to have the best chance possible at a successful future.

Bill Gates says hi.

Bill Gates has "some college" and his head on straight. If one is the new Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, one might not need any college education. But that said, for every Bill Gates there are thousands who could be wiser faster if they had a real college education. That is before I even discuss the unique Mozart. Without a college education one generally has fewer -- not more opportunities and pays for the lack of opportunities in being more under the thumb of an employer.   

Obviously, there will be people out there capable of being a success without college, but these are very clearly the exception, and not the rule.

Bill Gates again says hi.

And so do lots of people in prison who became extremely materialistic and couldn't achieve their dreams without going to illegal activities (like prostitution, book-making, or drug-trafficking)... or had no alternative to personal anger in response to a nasty situation for lack of the tendency to think of alternatives. College graduates have extremely low participation in violent crime.   Before you say "Ted Bundy" or "Ted Kaczinski"-- those two had big problems that college education could have never cured.   

It genuinely bothers me that the GOP is continually going back to the same well of mocking education. Not the educational system, but the simple act of being educated. It's insane.

Education is useful. But there's this thing called 'marginal utility'.

Some things are public goods -- and they are good for you even if the direct benefit isn't yours. A well-educated public less vulnerable to crass commercialism and political demagoguery is one of them. That is not to say that our educational system is good at that -- it could get better at that. We need to consume less and appreciate what we have more instead of buying schlock that ends up in a landfill. We need to become more critical of mass culture that often pollutes the souls of children. We need to recognize that there is more to life than "sex&drugs&rock-n-roll" or even bureaucratic power and material indulgence.

But some of that could still be promoted earlier than college. But that requires that we have good teachers who learn that stuff in college. Back to liberal arts.

By the way -- what is wrong with an 18-year-old taking a semester of college, dropping out, and then going into an apprenticeship for a skilled trade having realized that college is wrong for him?     

One - even if education is helpful to everyone in some way - is it the most efficient thing for everyone? No. There are people who are better off for not having gone to college at all, let alone staying for a complete degree.

What is the harm? Besides -- the Good Life at any level in America requires at the least some specialized training after high school. High school is no longer adequate preparation for anything other than college or specialized vocational training. The American nightmare of inescapable poverty is increasingly the norm for those who have 'only a high-school education'.

I realize it is a difficult thing - but you can do many things with 80k in your pocket - and that's what not getting a college degree will do for you.

Having 80K in a bank account is not a good thing if one blows it. A fool with 80K could easily blow it on cocaine or sports betting... I've known of people who win large amounts in a state lottery or inherit money from parents and mess up even worse.   

Only 25 percent finish their degree, that is not going to change much, unless you change the quality of education in university, which also hurts the marginal utility. Making college grades 13-6 won't actually improve things at all.

The proposal is for "Grade 13" and "Grade 14" only, which is long enough for specialized vocational training at a junior college or lower-division years toward a bachelor's degree. That might be enough to be prepared to enter the workforce as a "technician", "machinist",  or "nurse". 

What is going to happen - is you are going to see more people wash out - and fewer finish. Does this help the student? No. Does this help the school? For sure. They see enrollment go up - without the burden of having flunked out.

K-12 education still matters. Parents have their role, too -- as in turning off the mind-wasting electronic entertainments that include TV, video games, and Internet access. A kid is better off with a low-tech violin than with a high-tech computer.   

Not all go to college - and this is a good thing. Pushing everyone to go and then flunk out is a substantial negative to the student.

Does anyone believe that there are people wholly unsuited even to post-secondary vocational training?

I wonder how different high school advisors would be if they worked like the stock market. You could put money behind a kid like you do with Intrade. I think that would be a much more enlightening thing to show the true value to actually lose if you make a wrong bet on a kid or steer a kid in the wrong direction.

Maybe college could be tied to getting corporate sponsorship, with "IBM" being more desirable than "Bob Evans Restaurants". Tying college to a contract for being overworked and underpaid for ten years after graduation or having a huge debt to a giant corporation would have its problems.

[True Federalist]

This kind of talk would be inconceivable 20 years ago. Now Rick doesn't want our population to be educated, and if they are, they are snobs?

Believing that wanting 100% of our population going to college is undesirable does not equate to wanting 0% of our population to go to college.

And wanting everyone in the country to
"commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship"
is not the same thing as wanting 100% of our population to go to college. Santorum was fighting a straw man here.

Not entirely.  It used to be that there were good paying respectable jobs that could be had with just a secondary education.  There still could be if we didn't insist on making secondary education nothing more than a stepping stone to tertiary education.  Ideally, the vocational education found in community colleges and the like should be for those who decide to change careers or who wish to pick up additional skills beyond the basics.  There is zero reason why people who wish to enter the building trades, the mechanical trades, basic nursing (LPN level), secretarial/record keeping, cosmetology, and other vocations should be expected to go to tertiary education to pick up those skills.  Indeed, some places still have effective vocational education at the secondary level, but those are increasingly the exception.

When we expect that secondary education must prepare people who either by inclination or aptitude are unlikely to ever pursue a course of study at a four-year college, we add a needless burden on both secondary schools and secondary students.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I said the exception and not the rule.

No, you said that the ideal is a 4 year college education + degree. That's not the case. The ideal shows that there are more successful pathways out there, and that if what you want is the ideal - college is not for you.

Certainly there are those who did not go to college and wound up running successful businesses or having money-making ideas. But by and large, it is those with no college education that are poor; and it is those who have college education who are wealthy. There is a real correlation. A lucky few can buck the trend, but there is definitely a trend.

This is a different argument. You are arguing that college is a hedge - it's a way to hedge your bets against poverty rather than opening up new opportunities for people.

The people most strongly poised to capitalize on the kind of opportunities are those who graduate from college.

Again, not true. See Bill Gates. The people most strongly poised to do so are not the people who went to college - that is time they could have been using to do real work.

Especially if that person aspires to be in the middle class, upper middle class, or upper class. Period.

Again, Bill Gates says hi. He shows you that it's not necessary to have a degree and that a degree is probably detrimental to achieving these ends.

As a hedge - maybe 10 years ago sure - but if you go and fail you'll be very far behind your peers who did not go. That's a big risk when you have a 50:50 chance of making it.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Bill Gates has "some college" and his head on straight.

And because he had his head on straight - he left college when he wasn't getting the education that he needed to be successful. See - it works both ways. You argue he had his head on straight when he went - but I'm arguing he had his head on straight when he left.

If one is the new Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, one might not need any college education.

So what you are saying is that college is not for talented people? Excellent argument.

But that said, for every Bill Gates there are thousands who could be wiser faster if they had a real college education.

Could, but does it lead to that outcome? If it's not working for the talented, why should we expect it to work for those who are less talented? Are we subjecting them to busywork that does nothing to contribute to their future well-being?

Without a college education one generally has fewer -- not more opportunities and pays for the lack of opportunities in being more under the thumb of an employer.

Hardly. When you are 80k in debt - you are in debt slavery as opposed to having the freedom to become an entrepreneur right out of the gate.

And so do lots of people in prison who became extremely materialistic

Ah, the sour grapes defense. So you concede that college provides no material benefit?

College graduates have extremely low participation in violent crime.   Before you say "Ted Bundy" or "Ted Kaczinski"-- those two had big problems that college education could have never cured.   

Aside from the odd serial killer, are you arguing that people who go to college are more moral than those who do not?

Some things are public goods

So I should be paying for other student's education? They didn't pay for mine and I had to make sacrifices along the way to get an education.

they are good for you even if the direct benefit isn't yours.

Nonsense - it provides a well-funded sinecure for your friends and buddies with the best pensions for life. The side goal is to provide an education that is contrary to what I believe on my own dime. What benefit do I derive from the public benefit? If there's no direct benefit then why am I paying for it?

A well-educated public less vulnerable to crass commercialism and political demagoguery

Like in Germany? I see no evidence that universities are immune to either of these. Ever been to a university - do you see what they lavish on themselves in terms of facilities? As for demagoguery - I also see no evidence of this. Most demagogues, and the most effective ones were trained in university.

We need to consume less and appreciate what we have more instead of buying schlock that ends up in a landfill.

You live at a university? Take a walk around and look at all the stuff you can buy.

We need to become more critical of mass culture that often pollutes the souls of children. We need to recognize that there is more to life than "sex&drugs&rock-n-roll" or even bureaucratic power and material indulgence.

University perpetuates this mindset rather than prevents it. Open your eyes.

But some of that could still be promoted earlier than college. But that requires that we have good teachers who learn that stuff in college. Back to liberal arts.

But it doesn't because it doesn't make the universities money. If the university was all about doing less with more - why are they charging 80k+ for what you could do for a buck fifty in late charges from the public library?

Why don't they permit a student to challenge an examination session in order to earn a degree? This way a student could study on his own time and still earn a degree, without having to pay the big bucks.

By the way -- what is wrong with an 18-year-old taking a semester of college, dropping out, and then going into an apprenticeship for a skilled trade having realized that college is wrong for him?   

Nothing, except for the fact that he is now 20k in debt. Wouldn't it be better for an 18 year old to be self-aware before putting down the 20k and going to the apprenticeship in a skilled trade straight away? He's lost a year, and more than that in debt that he is going to have to pay off. This is a win for the system - they made 20k for providing exactly nothing, but the student feels cheated and ripped off.   

What is the harm?

20k x the number of years that you went, and the time spent at university. That's a significant harm. College isn't cheap, especially not for those who pay for it and get nothing out of it.

Besides -- the Good Life at any level in America requires at the least some specialized training after high school.

True, but there are better ways to undertake that training than to fork out 20k per year to a university.

High school is no longer adequate preparation for anything other than college or specialized vocational training.

I teach high school. I beg to differ - I'd match our graduates up against any college graduates straight up. I attended a high school that did the same. There have been studies out that showed college graduates performing worse than their high school graduates after 4 years of college with a degree.

The American nightmare of inescapable poverty is increasingly the norm for those who have 'only a high-school education'

Bullsh**t. This is why folks get branded snobs. Try living out in the real world.

Having 80K in a bank account is not a good thing if one blows it

That is what going to college and dropping out does to you. Ask yourself - would I be where I am if I had 80k in the bank and no degree? If the answer is yes then you've wasted 4 years of your life. College doesn't have to just earn you back that 80k, it has to earn you back the time spent. This is how marginal utility works. With college being so expensive - it imposes a high marginal cost to anyone who attends.

A fool with 80K could easily blow it on cocaine or sports betting

True - but he still has the 80k in the bank, and is just 18.

I've known of people who win large amounts in a state lottery or inherit money from parents and mess up even worse.   

And I've known people who spent that much on school and ended up working at McDonalds.

The proposal is for "Grade 13" and "Grade 14" only, which is long enough for specialized vocational training at a junior college or lower-division years toward a bachelor's degree.

There are better ways to provide that education that do not involve 20k a year at a pop.

That might be enough to be prepared to enter the workforce as a "technician", "machinist",  or "nurse". 

Funny you should say that. I've worked for them previous providing a very specialised service- teaching them the basics that college didn't provide for them so that they are equipped. Cost? Helluva lot less than 20k per. Benefit - they catch up to their peers whom they were behind and go on to be a success. It can be done, and it doesn't need to cost an arm and a leg.

K-12 education still matters.

I'm in K-12 education. I'm trying to have my students up to the standard that they need to be in order to progress and fix the damage from previous years.

Parents have their role, too -- as in turning off the mind-wasting electronic entertainments that include TV, video games, and Internet access. A kid is better off with a low-tech violin than with a high-tech computer.   

You have kids? You ever raise any?

Does anyone believe that there are people wholly unsuited even to post-secondary vocational training?

Yes, there are some. Open your eyes out to the real world again.

Maybe college could be tied to getting corporate sponsorship, with "IBM" being more desirable than "Bob Evans Restaurants". Tying college to a contract for being overworked and underpaid for ten years after graduation or having a huge debt to a giant corporation would have its problems.

Isn't that how the system works now? Look at the universities again. Look at the students working to pay off their education all in the hopes of getting that one job...

[pbrower2a]

We have ignored the question of snobbery itself. Intellectual snobbery is far more common in places in which education is rare. Economic snobbery is more common in places in which the rewards for work are unconscionably small and the reward for being born into the Right Family are unconscionably profuse. The worst snobs are ordinarily the middle-class people least secure about their economic or educational status --  the legal secretary as opposed to the attorney or the waitress. The typical snob has an ill-paying job with big expenses (like "professional" clothing) related to the work.

We have also failed to answer the question of what education is for -- basically preparation for leadership even if leadership comes with personal hardships (military service, parish priesthood) -- let alone teaching, accountancy, medicine, engineering, law, and most creative work... Truly-good education improves the people who get it. It might not be a valid alternative to forty years of matriculation in the School of Hard Knocks that increasingly becomes the norm in our profits-first, people-if-the-elites-get-sentimental economy, but by the time that one has forty years of experience in the School of Hard Knocks one is washed up no matter how wise one is.

Yes, Ben Kenobi, creative people would be wise to drop out of formal education when they can no longer derive anything from it. If one is Bert Bacharach and one can churn out one lucrative pop song after another one need not devote effort to compose dense counterpoint as found in Bach fugues and Beethoven's late sting quartets that the cultural snobs alone like. (Sure, I enjoy that music... but I also think that the artsy snobs vastly underrate Thomas Kincaid as they did Norman Rockwell because he appeals to "the wrong people").   

Education at its best allows people to learn from others' mistakes instead of repeating them. One of those mistakes is to put undue trust in economic elites like ours that see the rest of humanity as livestock at best and vermin at worst. Another, paradoxically, is snobbery.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I also think that the artsy snobs vastly underrate Thomas Kincaid as they did Norman Rockwell because he appeals to "the wrong people").   

I agree that Rockwell is underrated, but that's not why art snobs, speaking as one, hate Kincaid.

[Politico]

I just want to chime in that it would most likely be beneficial for the nation if we saw more undergraduates in the STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) fields. I am not an expert in labor economics, but it appears we have a severe shortage in these type of college graduates and a still-growing surplus in graduates who studied other fields (e.g., psychology, sociology, political science, history, etc.). Of course, market forces will work things out one way or another eventually...

Lastly, college is a rather expensive way to "find yourself" these days. But if that is what you want and you (or your parents) can afford it, you are free to choose that. More power to you.

[Politico]

Also, why have we never discussed the comments Obama made about high school in his SOTU? He practically implied he is in favor of mandatory schooling until 18, not 16. Mind-boggling, if you ask me. It reminds me of the proverb, "you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink it..."

[pbrower2a]

I just want to chime in that it would most likely be beneficial for the nation if we saw more undergraduates in the STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) fields. I am not an expert in labor economics, but it appears we have a severe shortage in these type of college graduates and a still-growing surplus in graduates who studied other fields (e.g., psychology, sociology, political science, history, etc.). Of course, market forces will work things out one way or another eventually...

Lastly, college is a rather expensive way to "find yourself" these days. But if that is what you want and you (or your parents) can afford it, you are free to choose that. More power to you.

We are importing them -- and treating them badly. The horrible HB1A visa that allows tech companies to underpay tech people is a good reason for Americans to steer clear of tech fields.

Don't get me wrong -- it's not a bad idea to encourage highly-educated tech people into America. I'd like them to be paid enough that they have cause to join the American gene pool.

What's wrong with "finding oneself"? People who never  "find themselves" go around confused and often gravitate to self-destructive habits like booze, drugs, and reckless sexuality. 

We have a surplus in about every field of academia because working people are badly paid. Sure, it is profitable -- but ultimately destructive. Were it not for the disappearance of industrial jobs that give a middle income to people of modest intellect and imagination but good work ethic we might not have so many mediocrities entering college. 

[pbrower2a]

Also, why have we never discussed the comments Obama made about high school in his SOTU? He practically implied he is in favor of mandatory schooling until 18, not 16. Mind-boggling, if you ask me. It reminds me of the proverb, "you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink it..."

Let's see -- what prospects do high-school dropouts usually have?

Destitution

Crime

Early death

The Armed Forces don't want high-school dropouts; they have far too many disciplinary problems. Few employers want them because dropping out of high school implies a rebel if not an ignoramus.

Here's the dirty little secret of the American economy. Our productivity is now high enough that we can make in 20-25 hours what we used to make in 40. Workers have been getting the shaft from employers instead of a rising share in the production. Much of what happens in an office -- where productivity gains were slow before the introduction of PCs and word-processing software -- is now office politics. Many temp agencies supply clients hired for only 28-32 hours a week because there isn't enough work to justify the effort.

It's labor-saving technology that has created miracles of productivity -- and bureaucratic elites who have grabbed all of the advantage while driving pay down. Such is classic exploitation straight out of a Marxist stereotype of capitalist plutocracy.

Note well that the amoral, high-functioning sociopaths can do exceedingly well in such a system. The system ensures that plenty of whiskey, gold-digging mistresses, mansions, sports cars, and 'elite' vacations are available to the bureaucratic elite who can tolerate what they do to the common man.

We are five years away from major reforms of the system or twenty years away from a Red revolution -- and by "Red" I mean the sort with hammer-and-sickle devices and icons of Marx and Lenin. It used to be that the Marxist dictum "Workers of the World, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" was outmoded when working people had cars, spacious flats, electronic entertainments, appliances, and comfortable furniture.

Conservatism that offers the common man nothing is a tragic fraud.   

[Tidewater_Wave]

Offers man nothing? What does man offer himself? I was on a job 4 years ago and the subcontractor dropped out of high school during his second year of 9th grade and was making $126,000 a year. Tell him he needed to go to college so he can make $70,000. Most of my friends graduating from college can't find work and it's because we have too many people qualified for high paying jobs that don't exist in such high numbers.  Several people going to college only rack up debt. We can't all be doctors and lawyers.  If we were all doctors, then who would teach school? The perfect economy has a perfect balance among sectors. At my buddy's office, there are people with Ph.D's in molecular biology and nuclear physics making only $30,000 a year. College is only good for an individual if you put it to use. To Obama who doesn't understand any of this because of his elitist and liberal background, looks down on people who don't go to college or so it seems. Or, perhaps he just wants more debt in order to enslave people towards the federal government. His idea for 10 years working for the government in exchange for elimination of school debt screams of ancient Rome's policies of enslavement for those of you who are ignorant of classical culture.  I know it's easy to jump the gun and talk on impulse, "education is imporant because it's our future" or "not going to college makes someone less intelligent." Tell those things to my subcontractor friend making $126,000 a year. Explain to me IN DEPTH DETAIL how it would be productive for us to have only doctors and lawyers?  Who would work the farms, grow food, package products, cook?  Please explain in depth detail to me how those professions are less noble or somehow below being a doctor or lawyer?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Well said Tidewater - couldn't have put it better.

[Tidewater_Wave]

Well said Tidewater - couldn't have put it better.

oh thanks lol

[ajb]

We might want to look at some data here:
Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment, Jan 2012:
Less than a High School Diploma: 15.0
High School Diploma, No College: 9.5
Some College/Associate Degree: 7.5
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 4.4

The labor force participation rates for these same for groups are:
Less than a High School Diploma: 45.3
High School Diploma, No College: 59.8
Some College/Associate Degree: 69.3
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 75.7

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm
Yes, there are lots of people who didn't finish high school, or who finished high school but didn't get any further education, who've done well for themselves, because they've worked hard and made good choices. There are also people who have advanced university degrees who don't do well. But averages matter, too.

[Tidewater_Wave]

We might want to look at some data here:
Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment, Jan 2012:
Less than a High School Diploma: 15.0
High School Diploma, No College: 9.5
Some College/Associate Degree: 7.5
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 4.4

The labor force participation rates for these same for groups are:
Less than a High School Diploma: 45.3
High School Diploma, No College: 59.8
Some College/Associate Degree: 69.3
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 75.7

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm
Yes, there are lots of people who didn't finish high school, or who finished high school but didn't get any further education, who've done well for themselves, because they've worked hard and made good choices. There are also people who have advanced university degrees who don't do well. But averages matter, too.

This is true but if everyone has a college degree and competes for high salaried jobs, then what happens to jobs that produce products and other services? Alot of why our manufacturing sector is gone is because people go to college instead of trade school. This is what happens when everyone goes to college. Again, college is good if you end up doing something that requires a degree.

[Secretary Polnut]

I don't think the issue is purely about 'University'...

Which is the problem, Obama NEVER said everyone must go to college. He referred to vocational and technical training also. What he's referring to is that in a period of economic downturn, more skilled workers tend to be less badly affected. So committing to a year of higher training/education is not about snobbery or elitism or any other of the inflammatory Gingrichesque feigned outrages Santorum is talking about, but trying to ensure you have some degree of insulation.

It also feeds into the ongoing anti-intellectualism that permiates the GOP right now... and considering that all the nominees are highly-educated and have benefited from that education it's hypocritical to the EXTREME to suggest that urging people to upskill during a time of crisis is some kind of warfare.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I don't think the issue is purely about 'University'...

Which is the problem, Obama NEVER said everyone must go to college. He referred to vocational and technical training also. What he's referring to is that in a period of economic downturn, more skilled workers tend to be less badly affected. So committing to a year of higher training/education is not about snobbery or elitism or any other of the inflammatory Gingrichesque feigned outrages Santorum is talking about, but trying to ensure you have some degree of insulation.

It also feeds into the ongoing anti-intellectualism that permiates the GOP right now... and considering that all the nominees are highly-educated and have benefited from that education it's hypocritical to the EXTREME to suggest that urging people to upskill during a time of crisis is some kind of warfare.

He echoes the elitist and intellectual mindset of the left though when he talks about it. I hear alot more than encouragement coming from Obama regarding education. If what you said was true, he'd be identical to Newt Gingrich and that's not the case.

[Secretary Polnut]

I don't think the issue is purely about 'University'...

Which is the problem, Obama NEVER said everyone must go to college. He referred to vocational and technical training also. What he's referring to is that in a period of economic downturn, more skilled workers tend to be less badly affected. So committing to a year of higher training/education is not about snobbery or elitism or any other of the inflammatory Gingrichesque feigned outrages Santorum is talking about, but trying to ensure you have some degree of insulation.

It also feeds into the ongoing anti-intellectualism that permiates the GOP right now... and considering that all the nominees are highly-educated and have benefited from that education it's hypocritical to the EXTREME to suggest that urging people to upskill during a time of crisis is some kind of warfare.

He echoes the elitist and intellectual mindset of the left though when he talks about it. I hear alot more than encouragement coming from Obama regarding education. If what you said was true, he'd be identical to Newt Gingrich and that's not the case.

Lol... you might hear it, but that doesn't mean the policy in practice is any different.

Just out of curiosity... because I'm genuinely curious, what is an elitist to you? Because I think perception OF a person will matter more, regardless of what they actually do or say.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I don't think the issue is purely about 'University'...

Which is the problem, Obama NEVER said everyone must go to college. He referred to vocational and technical training also. What he's referring to is that in a period of economic downturn, more skilled workers tend to be less badly affected. So committing to a year of higher training/education is not about snobbery or elitism or any other of the inflammatory Gingrichesque feigned outrages Santorum is talking about, but trying to ensure you have some degree of insulation.

It also feeds into the ongoing anti-intellectualism that permiates the GOP right now... and considering that all the nominees are highly-educated and have benefited from that education it's hypocritical to the EXTREME to suggest that urging people to upskill during a time of crisis is some kind of warfare.

He echoes the elitist and intellectual mindset of the left though when he talks about it. I hear alot more than encouragement coming from Obama regarding education. If what you said was true, he'd be identical to Newt Gingrich and that's not the case.

Lol... you might hear it, but that doesn't mean the policy in practice is any different.

Just out of curiosity... because I'm genuinely curious, what is an elitist to you? Because I think perception OF a person will matter more, regardless of what they actually do or say.

He would have it that way if the Republicans wouldn't have won the House in 2010. It is all perception but perception is based on how that person behaves. If someone talks down to those in other positions and believes they know what's best for others more than they do. The anti-smoking crowd for example. I think people should be left alone in situations that don't effect others. You're right about perception. I'd add too though that if someone agrees with a candidate, they're more likely to back them than accuse them of elitism.

[ajb]

We might want to look at some data here:
Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment, Jan 2012:
Less than a High School Diploma: 15.0
High School Diploma, No College: 9.5
Some College/Associate Degree: 7.5
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 4.4

The labor force participation rates for these same for groups are:
Less than a High School Diploma: 45.3
High School Diploma, No College: 59.8
Some College/Associate Degree: 69.3
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 75.7

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm
Yes, there are lots of people who didn't finish high school, or who finished high school but didn't get any further education, who've done well for themselves, because they've worked hard and made good choices. There are also people who have advanced university degrees who don't do well. But averages matter, too.

This is true but if everyone has a college degree and competes for high salaried jobs, then what happens to jobs that produce products and other services? Alot of why our manufacturing sector is gone is because people go to college instead of trade school. This is what happens when everyone goes to college. Again, college is good if you end up doing something that requires a degree.

The reason those jobs in manufacturing are going overseas is because it's possible to pay people in other countries a tenth as much money as American workers cost. They're often much less productive workers than Americans would be, but if wages are low enough, that's not a problem.

[pbrower2a]

We might want to look at some data here:
Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment, Jan 2012:
Less than a High School Diploma: 15.0
High School Diploma, No College: 9.5
Some College/Associate Degree: 7.5
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 4.4

The labor force participation rates for these same for groups are:
Less than a High School Diploma: 45.3
High School Diploma, No College: 59.8
Some College/Associate Degree: 69.3
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 75.7

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm
Yes, there are lots of people who didn't finish high school, or who finished high school but didn't get any further education, who've done well for themselves, because they've worked hard and made good choices. There are also people who have advanced university degrees who don't do well. But averages matter, too.

This is true but if everyone has a college degree and competes for high salaried jobs, then what happens to jobs that produce products and other services? A lot of why our manufacturing sector is gone is because people go to college instead of trade school. This is what happens when everyone goes to college. Again, college is good if you end up doing something that requires a degree.

I have known of people with advanced degrees who give up the pretense that their learning and early-chosen profession is so noble that it must be asserted by working for near-starvation pay for 'ignoble' work as a miner or assembly-line worker who gets real pay for real work.  Economic reward means something... like steak and seafood as opposed to repeated mac-and-cheese or ramen noodles. Many kids of families whose chief breadwinner has a skilled trade find that college is just not right for them and goes to an apprenticeship for a skilled trade.

People did not need and still do not need appreciable training to do industrial labor. Industrial labor has disappeared because the bureaucratic elites who wield the real power within corporations have chosen to transform their manufacturing firms into importers, effectively forcing the working class and much of the middle class into the working poor who tend cash registers and sweep floors.

People didn't go to trade school to become industrial laborers or miners. They still don't. The trade schools on the whole have poor rates of return on investment for students as do non-selective colleges that allow about anyone in who will pay the tuition or take out a loan for education.

People are getting the clue that if one wants any chance at a good life one needs to either attend college and get a degree so that one can be perhaps a school teacher or get a lucrative trade such as "plumber" or "diesel mechanic". The middle income jobs that used to require a strong back and a good work ethic have largely disappeared due to the decisions of America's corporate nomenklatura. We are headed to an economy as inequitable as that  typical of a fascist dictatorship.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

non-selective colleges that allow about anyone in who will pay the tuition or take out a loan for education.

Do you have any facts to back up this assertion - I'm seeing just the opposite.