Talk Elections

Are the Republicans just pulling a classic move in demonizing college degrees? It seems as though they've developed a habit over the course of their existence in targeting a common opposition demographic and turning the rest of the public against them and riding that as a political platform. Hippies are unwashed scum, war opponents are limp wristed wimps, welfare supporters are mooches, etc. Is it just a pitifully successful playground tactic because the educated are trending towards the Democrats? Turning the issues into people on either side rather than face the issue itself. In fact it's not only one of their classic moves, it's a textbook example of a litany of classic logical fallacy meant specifically to distract from real issues. False generalizations, false dilemmas, non-sequiturs, bandwagoning...

And I don't mean this as an actual question, I'm just stirring the pot about this junk and can't successfully translate my tone into internet words.

Not a good strategy, considering these (http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2011/tables.html) census numbers.

Education                                             Percentage
High school graduate                            87.58%
Some college                                         56.86%
Associate's and/or Bachelor's degree    39.89%
Bachelor's degree                                  30.44%
Master's degree                                      7.95%
Doctorate or professional degree            3.00%

I don't get that vibe as much as you do, though.  Sure, there is a demonization of the "liberal intellectual elite" college professors and the like, but the average parents of your Republican voting nuclear family all expect (or at least hope) their children will get bachelors degrees.

I've always wondered what "some college" means. I've noticed that they tend to vote GOP more then the other groups and just assumed it meant associates degrees, but this seems to disprove that. Does anyone know what its supposed to mean?

Someone who attended college but left before before they could complete their bachelor's degree would be my guess. 

What they should be attacking are the elites, not the educated.

Shocking fact, but there is a difference.

I had a friend tell me once that American politics is just a struggle between two the business elite and the academic elite, both of which demonize the other stir up a following and trick everyone into voting for the because of how terrible the other elites are.

I'm not a moderate extremist like him, but I think it's a pretty accurate description.

That's not what they're saying at all. They're taking direct issue with college education by asserting that it is an indication of being "elite". They're turning one thing (a highly positive thing) and purposefully implying that it equates to the universal negative of being a snobby elitist from the Northeast. They've done it before with those other things I've listed.

First women and now the college educated?  What's next puppies?

1 in 6 Americans drop out of college? Or am I misinterpreting the figures?

No, I think you're right. One thing that leads to that, I guess, is inability to continue financing studies. That's likely far more common in the US than most places.

The four year graduation rate at many state schools is abysmal. As an example here are my state's rates:

University of Idaho - 25%
Boise State - 6%
Idaho State - 7%

Right, good point.

The on-time graduation rate is very low in Sweden as well, but that's hardly strange since the education is free. There isn't that strong an incentive to graduate on time.

A lot of people just drop out for various, non-financial reasons (I'm one).  Not cutting it being the big one (not me...sort of).  A lot of people go to college because it's what they are "supposed to do" even though college isn't necessarily a good fit (me).  Trade school or the military should be valid options, not second choices that are looked down upon by peers, counselors and parents.  There should be no shame given to the HS senior that wants to get into HVAC or carpentry.

(I'm not saying you are saying that, I'm just saying that it is a common attitude)

Well, they frequently are.

LOL

A lot of truth to it in the current alignment, of course. ;D

I don't think anyone is demonizing degrees.

Eh, I think you'll find many cultural conservatives bash the idea of a "liberal arts" education or anything that they don't see as productive (most of the social sciences and humanities).

The elite have millions (or billions) of dollars - the educated are just a slightly different category of worker.

It's not just cultural conservatives who do it. I'm going for a Geography and History BA, and the students of every other faculty seem to be in a civil war with us for our "poor choice" and "useless degree." At least we devote our studies to ideas, not numbers. But I guess that's a conversation for another day!

Generally though, my time in university has really shown me the elite side of academia. These people are wanting to devote their whole lives to abstract, fart-in-the-wind academic debates. It's pretty stuffy, and it's full of people who think they're better than you because they can write a good essay. I'm not a fan.

Sure, but that's not the same as demonizing.

Yeah I can't stand when math-types who don't know too much about politics/history try to say their somehow technically "smarter" because they know math instead. They think they know everything about the universe but when you ask them basic political strategy or history you get a blank state coupled with a dismissal of those subjects in general as being "not important". It's basically a way they try to get out of admitting that someone else is smart too.

Bashing the smarts is a way of praising the idiots. Since the overwhelming majority of the people of every country is made of idiots...

My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge!

/sarcasm/

Well, obviously. The elites are based upon who they know and how powerful their daddy was and not how educated or competent they are. We are not a meritocracy. The richest 1% are certainly not the smartest 1%, the most educated 1%, or the hardest working 1%.

Well no.  A power is just that - others do those toils for you, such as 'work' 'be-smart' 'learn', etc.  You even have people to kill them if they don't.

Anyway, its largely a fiction that 'hardness' or 'smartness' in toils matter much anyway - just part of the deception to separate districts 1 & 2 from the rest.  The key to the system is obedience, not minor distinctions in servility.

Most political fights are undergirded by competing elites. It seems rather obvious when you think about it. The elites have the resources and the smarts and the connections to agitate effectively in the public square, and hone their message to try to gather enough adherents to their cause to have their way.

I think more and more Americans may be agreeing with Peter Thiel - that college educations may actually be detrimental to society.

One of the few new regulations that I might support is legislation that bans employment discrimination based on educational attainment.  If someone has gone out and spent tens of thousands of dollars to get a piece of paper when they really would not use those skills in the jobs they are applying for, perhaps the man or woman who achieved only the necessary level of education is a bit smarter and more practical.

I toured an advanced manufacturing plant last week where they make metal alloys for use in semiconductors.  They have plenty of good jobs available... not for people with Masters degrees in Post-Modern Female Sociology, but for electricians and welders.

I'm not happy with the demonization of higher education that is going on out there, but I think these criticisms may provide an adequate balance to the snobbery of the highly privileged and/or highly indebted.

That is such an insanely offensive political concept that I don't know which part to start with. Punishing the attainment of education and honing of a specialized craft? I don't disagree that our higher education system is wildly corrupt and ineffective, but completely shunning the concept of education is probably the worst possible way to combat that. And I'm not sure what point is being made with the available jobs at the manufacturing plant. No shet someone with a "Masters in Post-Modern Female Sociology" isn't gonna find a job as a welder and I don't think that degree is going to be an advantage in the application process for that job at all. Anyway, punishing the victims of a perverted education system seems completely inappropriate to me. The issue you seem to be fighting against is simply one mild symptom of a whole host of institution-scale problems. Picking this one to go after by devaluing education is just bizarre.

Fezzy I thought we were pals *cry*


Higher education at a 4-year University and "honing of a specialized craft" are two very different things.  Almost two years of the 4-year degree are spent on post-secondary general classes in everything ranging from Algebra to Bowling.

An auto mechanic who grew up helping their dad with the hot rod and chooses to get certifications to work on cars is honing a specialized craft.  A plumber or electrician or HVAC technician starting off with an apprenticeship then getting his license is honing a specialized craft.  Having to spend years accumulating expensive credits in Urban anthropology or Art history is not honing a specialized craft.


Victims? Yes.  Conspirators also.  The students are signing their names on these outrageous loans without guarantee that they will be able to pay them back.  We pity people who walk into a Payday loan vendor and sign themselves up for 400% annual interest, but we congratulate students who bury themselves in enough debt to make a loan shark flinch.  The system will not reform itself.  Reform will come when people from the outside demand change - and my solution for demanding change is to make the product of these institutions less valuable so the price will have to come down.

I have this point of view, that if you can afford it, college is all about honing your intellectual skills, and knowledge, on a wide range of subjects, and thinking about what kind of person you want to be, and to be better able to savor that which one cannot savor very well without such knowledge. I once read a book about this guy who went back to Columbia University at age 50 to retake a Western Civilization course. The professor said the course was really all about the students, and exposing them to texts which would help them think more about their values, what kind of role models in the texts appealed to them, and so forth. He said in that sense, it was a very selfish course, and all about them and for them,  and he was right. The same with a good humanities literature course.

To learn a trade, you then take specialized courses in graduate school.  Yes, I know, it's a luxury these days, particularly given the scandalously high tuition rates (if I were POTUS I would focus on just how and why that all happened, and what if anything government can do about it, to give students a lot more bang for their buck).

After 3 years of college, I had but two real skills: I could think pretty logically, and had the ability to read complex texts rather rapidly with a high rate of comprehension. And I honed my writing skills, which were already pretty good, because I went to an elite and very demanding private grammar school, where starting at about the 3rd grade, we had to write essays every week, week in and week out, and by 5th grade more than one a week, in more than one course (starting in 5th grade, we had teachers who specialized in different fields).

And all of the above made it much easier for me to understand and excel at  finance and economics, when I went to Business School (yes I was near the top of my class), and I think a much better lawyer than I otherwise would be after I got my JD. The more complex stuff was, the more of an advantage I had over the opposition.

Life is not only about money, it is about how to live the good and satisfying life, which gives it meaning and joy, and having a broad based liberal arts education really assists in that. And it gives one more strength to endure the down drafts, which will pop up in your life. From that there is no escape. None. And some of the lows  can be excruciating painful and sad and stressful. But you have a good cry, and move on to just deal with it as best you can.

This is such utter twaddle... and deeply offensive.

As someone who has two degrees, I wouldn't have my job now without them. You develop important skills such as increased capacity for comprehension, analytical thinking and not to mention the cultural and social benefits.

Education is NOT just about the acquisition of job specific skills/tools... sure it a primary reason, but it's about developing the person... and it has been since Aristotle. I'm pleased that along side my history/poli sci undergrad and public policy masters, I also did courses in english and drama and economics ... again, about embracing your interests and developing the whole person.

It's funny, conservatives seem to think that just by going to college or graduate schools, they're denigrating the mechanic or carpenter (who can actually make a lot more money) ... when it's (usually college educated) conservatives attacking the college educated.

Torie, you realize you are describing exactly class privilege exactly, and nothing more.

Yes, probably, but it is by far the best way for parents with the dough to spend it. That is why I am of the opinion that the "privileged" should open their wallets for their kids to take a long educational ride (assuming it is productive and they perform), and then you close the wallet, never to open it again (except maybe for a down payment on a first house or something), unless your kid has serious problems beyond their control, like mental illness or something.

Most of my money will be going to charity or into a foundation, or both. I need to begin to think about that more seriously. I really don't spend that much money on myself. It bores me, and does nothing for me.

You do know by now, that all your attempts to get under my skin are just an epic fail don't you opebo?  :P

I make those attempts for my own edification, not yours, Torie.  After all, you can afford to be exactly as you like.

I don't think anyone intends to offend you.  Personally I am offended by writing $1200+ checks for every class I take at the University of Memphis.


I congratulate you on having all of those opportunities and making the most of them. I do not disagree that there is value in a liberal arts education; I just dispute the value that it should have to one's ability to get a decent job and participate fully in society.

Our current system of 4-year post-secondary education has not necessarily existed since the days of Aristotle, in fact its a rather modern creation.  Harry Truman had no college degree yet even as a Republican I'd say he was a damn good President.  Abraham Lincoln had no formal education at all...thank God for the sake of our sacred Union that we didn't have diploma snobs back then.

My question is - how much is a University education really worth?  Is it worth four years of one's life?  Is it worth $30,000?  $60,000?  $100,000?

It takes a degree in finance or accounting to get a job at a bank providing financial advice. Is a young man who has enslaved himself to decades of debt really worthy of providing such advice just because he paid tens of thousands of dollars for a piece of paper to hang on his wall?  Isn't the young man who went to work at a business after his high school graduation, gaining real experience, not truly more qualified to make fiscally responsible decisions?

You know, that "little paper" you keep talking about does actually prove a degree of education. I know a lot of Republicans dislike that concept, but someone that has not studied usually does not have the degree of knowledge in that particular subject.

It proves you can follow instructions, write un-necessarily lengthy papers, and either sign checks or loan documents.  It may or may not prove someone has a skill that is useful to themselves or society.

Again, I do not mean to completely dismiss the positive properties of higher education.  I have followed instructions, written un-necessarily lengthy papers, and written checks that I really couldn't afford.  I've sat in classrooms and paid thousands of dollars to practice skills that I had already developed on my own years before.  I've sat in political science and sociology classes where students could quote Marx or Hobbes or Locke but could not name their United States Senators.  I will say that at least I was always given the opportunity to present an opposing viewpoint to those of the professors -- whether it was defending the Bush administration to a liberal Democrat audience or writing a scathing paper defending the rights and humanity of LGBT Americans in response to an assignment from an African-American Democrat who compelled us to watch a video of her pastor's vile hate speech. (I just can't seem to get along with Democrats...)

I am all for education and believe it is a lifelong experience.  Yet it is time we wake up and demand reform.  There is no excuse for a college education costing four times more than it did in our parents' generation.  We must accept that the electrician is equal to the physician, the plumber is equal to the lawyer, and the lawn care expert is equal to the scientist.  And the soldier, who has learned more than any classroom could ever teach, may be the only one who can claim to be better than us all.

Nothing is being said about what people are worth. Education obviously doesn't have anything to do with that.

And we're discussing education per se, right? Obviously the American higher education system is absurd, in particular the debt students get themselves into, but that doesn't say anything about the education itself. People study here virtually for free funded by general taxation. (Not that that's entirely fair either, as lower classes are still less likely to attend higher education), but it works.

Education itself is worthwhile and useful, how can anyone claim otherwise?

Franzl has hit the main point... this isn't about education, nor the nature of it... it's about the US education system which sees it as a product, and not an investment.
 

Would like to point out that there are obvious (and very, very similar!) issues with viewing it as an investment as well, but then I stumbled out of a time machine while very drunk.

Though why would there be such a dichotomy between them? Perhaps this can be seen throughout many cultures and ages? For example, there are scholarly texts about the Confucian scholars and bureaucrats in constant clash with the Aristocracy and their eunuchs.