The Majority Of Republicans Think Colleges Are Bad For The U.S., Poll Shows

[dead0man]

Since when have banks ever been good? I can understand people thinking that about churches (although I strongly disagree), but banks and other financial institutions are truly, truly awful. Republicans seem to be embracing the worst institutions in our country, the ones that deliver absolutely nothing positive to society, while hating on two of the ones that at least try to do good.

seriously?  Ya can't think of anything banks do that is positive for society?  Not one thing?  Perhaps you could borrow an idea from someone else?


All the things listed (churches, colleges, unions, banks and the media) are probably net positives, but they all have tons of baggage too.  Seems rather obvious.

[pbrower2a]

Since when have banks ever been good? I can understand people thinking that about churches (although I strongly disagree), but banks and other financial institutions are truly, truly awful. Republicans seem to be embracing the worst institutions in our country, the ones that deliver absolutely nothing positive to society, while hating on two of the ones that at least try to do good.

seriously?  Ya can't think of anything banks do that is positive for society?  Not one thing?  Perhaps you could borrow an idea from someone else?


All the things listed (churches, colleges, unions, banks and the media) are probably net positives, but they all have tons of baggage too.  Seems rather obvious.

Banks are ideally the protectors of Other People's Money. Bankers may not be the most admired of businessmen; indeed bankers are drawn from the bottom of college graduating classes. Bankers are arguably the laziest, least imaginative, least creative, least technologically-knowledgeable, and least entrepreneurial of businessmen. The motto for bankers was often "3-6-3" -- borrow from savers at 3%, lend to mortgagees at 6%, and go to the golf course at 3 o'clock. That isn't how retail, machinery, energy, or real estate is done.

Who wouldn't want to borrow tens of millions of dollars in loans, set oneself up with a huge salary even if the business one started failed, do lots of expensive business travel to  fun and exciting places, and hire all one's cronies to live very well? Banks exist to stop that. Banks exist to ensure that a borrower does not live on the proceeds -- in fact that the borrower puts everything that he has into the proposed enterprise  until it is paid off or it makes an unambiguous profit. Banks decide who gets and who does not get a loan, and the sort of person who invests $45 million and spends $5 million on himself is cheating everyone for whom the bank has custodial responsibilities for bank accounts.

Without bankers to monitor the cash, much of the 'Other People's Money' can go up noses, up crotches, and onto gambling tables (and less blatant abuses) instead of into something more practical like a parking garage, a feed lot, or a convenience store. Once the business is profitable, the owners can do what they please with the after-tax profits... but not until then.

Bankers get into trouble when they become entrepreneurial. They are not good at entrepreneurialism. When they do their own investing they show why they are not good investors. Some of the biggest bank cheats (Charles Keating, Don Dixon) did that. (Technically they ran savings-and-loan associations, or in their cases, savings-and-loot associations).   

[OSR stands with Israel]

Most republicans don't think getting a degree is bad .


The reason is ,this poll is completely misleading as what do you mean good for the US . If it was talking for an economical purpose, and non political purposes  I bet the case most republicans say it's  good .


Also  I believe  what many thought was is it good  for a political purpose are they good and seeing that Ben Shapiro of all the people was banned from speaking proves that in many cases they are not as that type of action worsenes the political nature in our country not improve it .


Lastly the poll was done by pew research a group that does polls about politics i wouldn't be surprised if most people assumed they were saying good in a political way .

[Gustaf]

     One could write a book to fully address this question. There are many ways in which they contribute positively and many ways in which they contribute negatively. I am not comfortable approaching it as a simple yes or no.

You're joking? You seriously think that the existence of American universities has an ambiguous effect on the US as a country?

That anyone would even consider that is one of the most moronic things I've heard. Jesus Christ.

     They have done a lot of good historically. They still do a lot of good today, but L.D. Smith is right; the system is deeply flawed. We shouldn't look at only the good and ignore the role they have played in the proliferation of debt among naive young adults or trends in admissions that have promoted social stratification, just to name a couple of problems associated with higher education today.

Right...so let's weight it up.

Cons: some people get debt, some gender studies majors can be annoying, some people waste a few years on degrees

Pros: you have doctors, engineers, scentists. Medicine, bridges, computers. Trained professionals who can do advanced labour.

I feel uncomfortable answering yes or no here, it's a real toughie.

     Colleges are useful for teaching certain advanced skillsets that lead to certain professions. I do know that there is a significant gap between Europe and the United States here (I recall hearing that 12% of college students study engineering over there compared to 4% here), so I can give you some benefit of the doubt on your mischaracterization of the situation.

     Many degree programs in the liberal arts suffer from low demand for the specific knowledge and do a poor job of imparting critical thinking skills (especially compared to yesteryear). Graduating college requires little effort outside of STEM fields and the quality of many graduates, even from prestigious universities, is frankly embarrassingly poor. Liberal arts programs are structured to funnel students into grad schools, where they are used as cheap labor for departments and offered little opportunity for advancement unless they are fortunate enough to enter top programs (even in the sciences, which carries its own baggage). For many jobs, universities are treated as a form of filtering wherein unnecessary degrees are valued for HR reasons and folks are corralled into seeking degrees they don't actually need. At top universities, social filtering both in admissions and in student life ensure that the best opportunities are reserved for upper-class youths, as middle-class strivers are led into a rat race that is stacked heavily against them.

     The spread of these problems that I just described affect far, far more students than do the opportunities offered by engineering and medicine. As I said, there is much good that colleges do. There are also many problems, and I could easily go on. Your dismissive tone only proves that you do not know what you are talking about here.

I'm not talking about opportunities for individuals. If the US educated zero doctors, zero lawyers, zero engineers, zero economists, zero scientists of any kind I think you'd have problems. If you think you'd be better off in that world, where there are no universities in the whole of the US, then you can say they're harmful.

I'm not sure what you think you told me in this post that I didn't know. It contained no new information that would make me less dismissive of the absurd claim that universities would be a net harm to the country.

[Gustaf]

The question in the poll is whether the institution has a "positive or negative effect on the way things are going in the country" not whether the institution is a "positive or negative" institution in general.

Colleges are currently putting a generation and their families into debt without actually providing them with what they need to enter into the job market at a salary that will let them escape that debt.  They are having a net negative impact right now.  Colleges aren't a bad thing however; the problem is people think they need to send their kids to the big expensive colleges with jacked up tuition fees as opposed to smaller public colleges with lower tuition fees.  The problem is also that lack of government funding for education is the actuality and only going to be worse under this administration.

More affordable college that didn't put millions of families into debt would absolutely be a huge positive for the country; more government funding for education past K-12 would absolutely help that.  Unfortunately the problem is probably only going to get worse both as colleges remain with their ridiculous tuition and the fact that more and more young people will simply choose not get a quality education because they want to avoid the debt (which is a very reasonable decision).

So yeah, honestly colleges are kind of a net negative in the current environment and will likely remain that way for a while until we address the underlying problem.

This topic is about colleges specifically; but in reality I'd probably say all of these institutions are net negatives right now, but most people rating them as net negative in this poll are probably doing so for vacuous reasoning.

I don't understand what your comparative is. You seem to say that because colleges have some negative impacts it follows that they are a net negative. That's not true.

To determine whether colleges have a negative impact on the US you need to imagine a world where there are no US colleges and whether that world would be better. That's the thought experiment. If the metric is "could I imagine a better version of this institution" then everything in the world is a negative but I don't see why that would make sense.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     One could write a book to fully address this question. There are many ways in which they contribute positively and many ways in which they contribute negatively. I am not comfortable approaching it as a simple yes or no.

You're joking? You seriously think that the existence of American universities has an ambiguous effect on the US as a country?

That anyone would even consider that is one of the most moronic things I've heard. Jesus Christ.

     They have done a lot of good historically. They still do a lot of good today, but L.D. Smith is right; the system is deeply flawed. We shouldn't look at only the good and ignore the role they have played in the proliferation of debt among naive young adults or trends in admissions that have promoted social stratification, just to name a couple of problems associated with higher education today.

Right...so let's weight it up.

Cons: some people get debt, some gender studies majors can be annoying, some people waste a few years on degrees

Pros: you have doctors, engineers, scentists. Medicine, bridges, computers. Trained professionals who can do advanced labour.

I feel uncomfortable answering yes or no here, it's a real toughie.

     Colleges are useful for teaching certain advanced skillsets that lead to certain professions. I do know that there is a significant gap between Europe and the United States here (I recall hearing that 12% of college students study engineering over there compared to 4% here), so I can give you some benefit of the doubt on your mischaracterization of the situation.

     Many degree programs in the liberal arts suffer from low demand for the specific knowledge and do a poor job of imparting critical thinking skills (especially compared to yesteryear). Graduating college requires little effort outside of STEM fields and the quality of many graduates, even from prestigious universities, is frankly embarrassingly poor. Liberal arts programs are structured to funnel students into grad schools, where they are used as cheap labor for departments and offered little opportunity for advancement unless they are fortunate enough to enter top programs (even in the sciences, which carries its own baggage). For many jobs, universities are treated as a form of filtering wherein unnecessary degrees are valued for HR reasons and folks are corralled into seeking degrees they don't actually need. At top universities, social filtering both in admissions and in student life ensure that the best opportunities are reserved for upper-class youths, as middle-class strivers are led into a rat race that is stacked heavily against them.

     The spread of these problems that I just described affect far, far more students than do the opportunities offered by engineering and medicine. As I said, there is much good that colleges do. There are also many problems, and I could easily go on. Your dismissive tone only proves that you do not know what you are talking about here.

I'm not talking about opportunities for individuals. If the US educated zero doctors, zero lawyers, zero engineers, zero economists, zero scientists of any kind I think you'd have problems. If you think you'd be better off in that world, where there are no universities in the whole of the US, then you can say they're harmful.

I'm not sure what you think you told me in this post that I didn't know. It contained no new information that would make me less dismissive of the absurd claim that universities would be a net harm to the country.

     Meh, it beggars belief and is ahistorical to suppose that there would be no such people educated in absence of universities. The university is certainly more efficient at doing so (perhaps too efficient in the case of lawyers, as that field is hopelessly glutted and 80% of law schools are a net harm and should shut down), but the alternative is not zero.

     I did not claim that universities are a net harm to the country. I claimed that the reality is complicated and they do a great deal of harm along with a great deal of good. You decided to ignore all of the harm and focus only on the good. My point goes well beyond opportunities into other effects that they have for the individual, as well as touching briefly on structural societal effects. All of that is only the tip of the iceberg too.

     In the post I responded to, you had posited a slanted cost-benefit analysis and played down the cons to the point that the only possible readings were ignorance of the subject or an attempt to propagandize on it. If you actually do understand the subject and are voluntarily putting your head in the sand to pretend that everything is okay, then there is frankly little point in discussing this with you. The cons greatly outweigh "some people get debt, some gender studies majors can be annoying, some people waste a few years on degrees", and I have it on your say-so that you know better.

[Gustaf]

     One could write a book to fully address this question. There are many ways in which they contribute positively and many ways in which they contribute negatively. I am not comfortable approaching it as a simple yes or no.

You're joking? You seriously think that the existence of American universities has an ambiguous effect on the US as a country?

That anyone would even consider that is one of the most moronic things I've heard. Jesus Christ.

     They have done a lot of good historically. They still do a lot of good today, but L.D. Smith is right; the system is deeply flawed. We shouldn't look at only the good and ignore the role they have played in the proliferation of debt among naive young adults or trends in admissions that have promoted social stratification, just to name a couple of problems associated with higher education today.

Right...so let's weight it up.

Cons: some people get debt, some gender studies majors can be annoying, some people waste a few years on degrees

Pros: you have doctors, engineers, scentists. Medicine, bridges, computers. Trained professionals who can do advanced labour.

I feel uncomfortable answering yes or no here, it's a real toughie.

     Colleges are useful for teaching certain advanced skillsets that lead to certain professions. I do know that there is a significant gap between Europe and the United States here (I recall hearing that 12% of college students study engineering over there compared to 4% here), so I can give you some benefit of the doubt on your mischaracterization of the situation.

     Many degree programs in the liberal arts suffer from low demand for the specific knowledge and do a poor job of imparting critical thinking skills (especially compared to yesteryear). Graduating college requires little effort outside of STEM fields and the quality of many graduates, even from prestigious universities, is frankly embarrassingly poor. Liberal arts programs are structured to funnel students into grad schools, where they are used as cheap labor for departments and offered little opportunity for advancement unless they are fortunate enough to enter top programs (even in the sciences, which carries its own baggage). For many jobs, universities are treated as a form of filtering wherein unnecessary degrees are valued for HR reasons and folks are corralled into seeking degrees they don't actually need. At top universities, social filtering both in admissions and in student life ensure that the best opportunities are reserved for upper-class youths, as middle-class strivers are led into a rat race that is stacked heavily against them.

     The spread of these problems that I just described affect far, far more students than do the opportunities offered by engineering and medicine. As I said, there is much good that colleges do. There are also many problems, and I could easily go on. Your dismissive tone only proves that you do not know what you are talking about here.

I'm not talking about opportunities for individuals. If the US educated zero doctors, zero lawyers, zero engineers, zero economists, zero scientists of any kind I think you'd have problems. If you think you'd be better off in that world, where there are no universities in the whole of the US, then you can say they're harmful.

I'm not sure what you think you told me in this post that I didn't know. It contained no new information that would make me less dismissive of the absurd claim that universities would be a net harm to the country.

     Meh, it beggars belief and is ahistorical to suppose that there would be no such people educated in absence of universities. The university is certainly more efficient at doing so (perhaps too efficient in the case of lawyers, as that field is hopelessly glutted and 80% of law schools are a net harm and should shut down), but the alternative is not zero.

     I did not claim that universities are a net harm to the country. I claimed that the reality is complicated and they do a great deal of harm along with a great deal of good. You decided to ignore all of the harm and focus only on the good. My point goes well beyond opportunities into other effects that they have for the individual, as well as touching briefly on structural societal effects. All of that is only the tip of the iceberg too.

     In the post I responded to, you had posited a slanted cost-benefit analysis and played down the cons to the point that the only possible readings were ignorance of the subject or an attempt to propagandize on it. If you actually do understand the subject and are voluntarily putting your head in the sand to pretend that everything is okay, then there is frankly little point in discussing this with you. The cons greatly outweigh "some people get debt, some gender studies majors can be annoying, some people waste a few years on degrees", and I have it on your say-so that you know better.

I'm not sure how you propose people get university education without universities? But it's true you can have people pretending to be doctors without training and some of them won't be totally useless. I think it's fair to say that if there existed no med schools there would be close to zero qualified doctors.

Your claim was that it was ambiguous whether they were a harm or not. That it was a difficult question to answer. My claim was that it's not particularly hard to answer. That is not a denial of harms existing and anyone with some university education should be able to figure out the nuance between "clear net positive" and "no negative impacts".

Actually, my "slanted" summary seem to have covered most of what you said. Apart from the odd claim that education holds back the middle class (as opposed to a university free world where the middle class would advance, how exactly?) it did cover it. You seem weirdly passionate about this anti-university crusade and thus was triggered by my admittedly somewhat glib language and I guess that's too bad. But ultimately, yes, I understand that it can be a personal tragedy to get indebted for a useless degree. I understand that when a college professor says something silly you can have a heart attack from conservative outrage. Some of these are real problems, some of them less so. But they all pale in comparison to having any higher education for anyone in an entire country, leaving your position equally absurd no matter how hard you push those harms.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Gustaf, PiT,
Part of the problem seems to be that you two are using the term "university" in different meanings.

Gustaf is using it in the sense of "any and all formal higher education" whereas PiT is using it in a more specific sense of broad spectrum liberal arts schools that'll teach any subject to any student, especially those schools that don't give a rip whether the student is improving their financial prospects so long as they get paid. Medical schools need not be part of a wider liberal arts university. So getting rid of universities hardly means getting rid of medical schools.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm not sure how you propose people get university education without universities? But it's true you can have people pretending to be doctors without training and some of them won't be totally useless. I think it's fair to say that if there existed no med schools there would be close to zero qualified doctors.

Your claim was that it was ambiguous whether they were a harm or not. That it was a difficult question to answer. My claim was that it's not particularly hard to answer. That is not a denial of harms existing and anyone with some university education should be able to figure out the nuance between "clear net positive" and "no negative impacts".

Actually, my "slanted" summary seem to have covered most of what you said. Apart from the odd claim that education holds back the middle class (as opposed to a university free world where the middle class would advance, how exactly?) it did cover it. You seem weirdly passionate about this anti-university crusade and thus was triggered by my admittedly somewhat glib language and I guess that's too bad. But ultimately, yes, I understand that it can be a personal tragedy to get indebted for a useless degree. I understand that when a college professor says something silly you can have a heart attack from conservative outrage. Some of these are real problems, some of them less so. But they all pale in comparison to having any higher education for anyone in an entire country, leaving your position equally absurd no matter how hard you push those harms.

     These sorts of professional programs have not always been and need not be associated with universities as Ernest pointed out. It is not realistic to suppose that no doctors would be educated in the absence of the university. The thing is also that, contrary to your characterization of an anti-university crusade, I am not suggesting that universities (or liberal arts programs, though they are the focus of my critique) should be abolished. Rather, they badly need reform.

     The way that you described the cons strikes me as underselling ("glibly", as you noted). Besides, my list was hardly exhaustive; we also have opportunity cost, cost to the taxpayers, the rise of an ivory tower and a corresponding decline in the quality of academic output, and other things with broad economic implications.

     I referred to the middle-class to note that they are encouraged to strive towards top universities without being taught to fully appreciate how much the odds are stacked against them with facing legacies, athletes, development cases, and other preferred categories. It is a less important point, but it underscores the extent to which top universities are not the meritocracies they claim to be.

     However, it seems that you have misunderstood what I was getting at this whole time (and I misunderstood your point too TBF), so I will try to explain it as succinctly and explicitly as I can. Overall, colleges are important to the country and the economy. There are also many, many problems associated with them, many of these problems resulting from an unhealthy relationship we have with colleges. Eliminating universities is not the answer, but we need to question common assumptions about the role of college in society, particularly dispensing with the idea that every 18-year old ought to go. The question of whether college is a net benefit or a net harm is just not an important one and I wish I had not touched on it at all, as the answer to that question does not change what needs to be done. In my view it is the wrong question to be asking, when we should be asking "how can we mitigate the negative effects of universities in the United States today?"

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I'd forgotten about this one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

How much did you end up paying for the privilege of taking that course? The major reason to learn the liberal arts via a college education instead of self study is so that it can be part of your credentials. That's even true for quite a few STEM courses. Beyond getting a credential, the only other thing gained from the collegiate setting academically is that you are in theory following a curated syllabus of courses that ensures you have a comprehensive view of your chosen field of study. Back in the 12th century, if you wanted access to knowledge you had to go to where the knowledgeable people were, namely a university. But this ain't the 12th century, it's the 21st.  There's zero need for colleges as places to learn. They're places to gain a credential that shows that you have learned.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

How much did you end up paying for the privilege of taking that course? The major reason to learn the liberal arts via a college education instead of self study is so that it can be part of your credentials. That's even true for quite a few STEM courses. Beyond getting a credential, the only other thing gained from the collegiate setting academically is that you are in theory following a curated syllabus of courses that ensures you have a comprehensive view of your chosen field of study. Back in the 12th century, if you wanted access to knowledge you had to go to where the knowledgeable people were, namely a university. But this ain't the 12th century, it's the 21st.  There's zero need for colleges as places to learn. They're places to gain a credential that shows that you have learned.

It was necessary to meet Honors Program curriculum. Again, this was bad for the country? And Ernest, I didn't take you for a pure utilitarian; it's slightly frightening.

EDIT: In any case, most of my "useless" classes counted in some manner towards my degree; whether or not my degree was useless remains to be seen, but it at least serves my declared purposes. My English and Religious Studies courses, for example, either met Honors Program, or core curriculum. That said, my school, particularly in the liberal arts, put a great weight on liberal arts "core" (required philsophy, religion, etc. courses)--something engineers loved to complain about, but that's what you get for going to a Jesuit university. Regardless, in theory, my useless classes served the purpose that you, in your infinite wisdom, prescribed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not a pure utilitarian. I wasn't denigrating spending time or effort on that religious studies class, but money since a roughly comparable learning could be obtained more cheaply outside a four-year college environment.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

I'm not talking about people who just take a couple classes in those areas ,I'm talking about doing your  major related to that . I clearly said doing  degrees in those subjects are bad for the country not taking a couple classes in that area.

 Also being a utilitarian when choosing a major is not a bad thing , as why would you major in something that doenst significantly improve your job prospects.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

I'm not talking about people who just take a couple classes in those areas ,I'm talking about doing your  major related to that . I clearly said doing  degrees in those subjects are bad for the country not taking a couple classes in that area.

But... bad for the country?

[OSR stands with Israel]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

I'm not talking about people who just take a couple classes in those areas ,I'm talking about doing your  major related to that . I clearly said doing  degrees in those subjects are bad for the country not taking a couple classes in that area.

But... bad for the country?

yes as many of the degree make people SJW and that is terrible for the country.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I'm sure they do. Most people find out in college that America is a white supremacist patriarchal society designed to cater to the rich and demonize the poor and the non-white.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm sure they do. Most people find out in college that America is a white supremacist patriarchal society designed to cater to the rich and demonize the poor and the non-white.

America is clearly  less racist than Europe, and this is exactly why I thonk activist and victimhood majors are terrible.


 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

I'm not talking about people who just take a couple classes in those areas ,I'm talking about doing your  major related to that . I clearly said doing  degrees in those subjects are bad for the country not taking a couple classes in that area.

But... bad for the country?

yes as many of the degree make people SJW and that is terrible for the country.

Ah, religion, the province of the left. This of course ignores history, literature, philosophy...

[Associate Justice PiT]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

I'm not talking about people who just take a couple classes in those areas ,I'm talking about doing your  major related to that . I clearly said doing  degrees in those subjects are bad for the country not taking a couple classes in that area.

But... bad for the country?

yes as many of the degree make people SJW and that is terrible for the country.

Ah, religion, the province of the left. This of course ignores history, literature, philosophy...

     I took a really interesting Religious Studies course in college. I can see how a Bibilical literalist would see it as leftist since it discussed the historical context of the Bible (and particularly Genesis), but it really wasn't that left-wing by reasonable standards.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

I'm not talking about people who just take a couple classes in those areas ,I'm talking about doing your  major related to that . I clearly said doing  degrees in those subjects are bad for the country not taking a couple classes in that area.

But... bad for the country?

yes as many of the degree make people SJW and that is terrible for the country.

Ah, religion, the province of the left. This of course ignores history, literature, philosophy...

History is one of the good liberal arts programs (along with history and philosophy)

[Rookie Yinzer]

I'm sure they do. Most people find out in college that America is a white supremacist patriarchal society designed to cater to the rich and demonize the poor and the non-white.

America is clearly  less racist than Europe, and this is exactly why I thonk activist and victimhood majors are terrible.


 

Um.... America is still racist. Discussing the fact that the prison system is a for profit industry that encourages the criminalization of blacks and Latinos is not victimhood. It's the truth. Sorry discussing the brutal truth about this country hurts white, Conservative snowflakes who think the only victimized group in the country are white Christians and gun owners.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

I'm not talking about people who just take a couple classes in those areas ,I'm talking about doing your  major related to that . I clearly said doing  degrees in those subjects are bad for the country not taking a couple classes in that area.

But... bad for the country?

yes as many of the degree make people SJW and that is terrible for the country.

Ah, religion, the province of the left. This of course ignores history, literature, philosophy...

History is one of the good liberal arts programs (along with history and philosophy)

History, history, and philosophy, you say?

[publicunofficial]

It totally depends on the program and degree  in my opinion

Many of the liberal arts degree for example I believe are bad for the country (gender,racial , religious studies for example ).

Me taking RELS 3755 On the Divine was bad for the country!? Gimme an effing break.

I'm not talking about people who just take a couple classes in those areas ,I'm talking about doing your  major related to that . I clearly said doing  degrees in those subjects are bad for the country not taking a couple classes in that area.

But... bad for the country?

yes as many of the degree make people SJW and that is terrible for the country.

I know you must get this a lot, but you really are incredibly f**king stupid.