This is America today my Friends

[DanielVogelbach]

No I'm saying that at least 1/4 of the needless cost of college is spent on useless, irrelevant courses the students are forced to take.
This shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

I mean, you could argue that it's higher than 25% if you're looking at coursework outside the major. But, if you take off credit hours, then you're in effect lessening the accomplishment of earning a degree. If you chop off 25% of the required coursework, now all of a sudden it's a 3 year degree. Part of the whole concept is for a kid to accomplish a long term goal. Is 3 years enough? Maybe. But, I think 4 years is better, so I think reducing the number of hours they take is the wrong approach. I would rather make school more cost effective than give them less school. You can get rid of whatever classes you think are not enriching the students, and they can choose other courses instead. The curriculum is a separate issue from the cost. The cost is on a per student / per year basis. You can't just get rid of "Gender Studies" and slash costs unless you change the entire system of credit hours and attaining degrees. Some students may switch majors 5 times and spend 8 years in school. Others will finish more rapidly. But, what classes are available to them has no bearing on how many credits they need to graduate. I'm sure courses are added and dropped all the time, but there's no change to how many credits you need to graduate. Students will all choose different classes. As I recall the only required classes were like Math, English, and History. The rest was up to the student to pick.

[Moe Gibbs]

No I'm saying that at least 1/4 of the needless cost of college is spent on useless, irrelevant courses the students are forced to take.
This shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

I mean, you could argue that it's higher than 25% if you're looking at coursework outside the major. But, if you take off credit hours, then you're in effect lessening the accomplishment of earning a degree. If you chop off 25% of the required coursework, now all of a sudden it's a 3 year degree.
Well if this is what REALLY matters to you, let's make climbing Mt Everest on your knuckles part of the requirement.
If you were being honest you would admit that you want to continue with Liberal Globalist Citizen Of The Earth" Indoctrination part of the pre-reqs just to set foot on campus. Your desire to TRULY eliminate ALL the deadwood seems to be not as strong or as genuine as mine.

[DanielVogelbach]

Moe -

If you actually read my posts, you would see that I feel that the university system is a scam and a major part of why people aren't getting ahead in America.

In reference to your post, I'm just saying it's always been a 4 year degree, right? College is only partially about the curriculum, it's also about setting out to accomplish a long-term goal. Look at any professional and ask them how much of their job skills they learned in college. It's like a launching pad. You learn your trade after college.

What I'm saying is that it's two different things... The curriculum and the required credit hours are two separate things. If you want to make it a 3 year degree, then that's your idea. EVEN THEN, you should still address the cost per hour for the remaining 3 years, right? Why are you going to ignore the cost per year when that's the actual problem. The price-tag is so exorbitant the students should be getting 15 years of school for the amounts they're paying!

[Moe Gibbs]

Moe -

If you actually read my posts, you would see that I feel that the university system is a scam and a major part of why people aren't getting ahead in America.

In reference to your post, I'm just saying it's always been a 4 year degree, right? College is only partially about the curriculum, it's also about setting out to accomplish a long-term goal. Look at any professional and ask them how much of their job skills they learned in college. It's like a launching pad. You learn your trade after college.

What I'm saying is that it's two different things... The curriculum and the required credit hours are two separate things. If you want to make it a 3 year degree, then that's your idea. EVEN THEN, you should still address the cost per hour for the remaining 3 years, right? Why are you going to ignore the cost per year when that's the actual problem. The price-tag is so exorbitant the students should be getting 15 years of school for the amounts they're paying!

I'm not ignoring that the COST PER CREDIT HOUR at taxpayer funded schools should be reduced. I just wanted to bring up a no nonsense, sure fire, common sense way to reduce the costs. I also wanted to point out that much of the cost that the student pays is to have Globalist / Progressive Doctrine force fed to them. State employed teachers and schools guilty of this should lose all public monies and or be fined.
Eliminating the requirement to take unrelated courses [think about the most ridiculous courses you ever had to take] and dropping the typical 4 year programs to 3 years is a place to start.

[DanielVogelbach]

I'm not ignoring that the COST PER CREDIT HOUR at taxpayer funded schools should be reduced. I just wanted to bring up a no nonsense, sure fire, common sense way to reduce the costs. I also wanted to point out that much of the cost that the student pays is to have Globalist / Progressive Doctrine force fed to them. State employed teachers and schools guilty of this should lose all public monies and or be fined.
Eliminating the requirement to take unrelated courses [think about the most ridiculous courses you ever had to take] and dropping the typical 4 year programs to 3 years is a place to start.

Tough call reducing the 4 year to a 3 year. Similar to forgiving debt, you have to convince all the existing grads who spent the time and money on 4 years that now 3 years is just fine. Instead, I think it's probably better to emphasize the vocational schools that focus 100% on a marketable job skill.

I spent 5 years on my bachelor's, and you could make a strong case that 100% of the classes were irrelevant. And, you could make a strong case for the irrelevance of much of my high school, middle school, and elementary as well!

I graduated from the university in 2001, so I'm not sure how it works today. But, I think some of the liberal / progressive studies would have to be chosen by the student. They're not force fed. The only required classes we had were History, English, and then you had to take some arts classes, so I took Music. We also had to take some physical education classes, so I took bowling. Rolling a bowling ball down the lanes at 10am on a Tuesday morning was surely not very relevant to any job opportunity I would pursue. However, it had nothing to do with a globalist agenda.
Obviously, teaching history is a major opportunity to push an agenda. But, if you really wanted to cut 25% out, you would be talking about cutting the requirements for the basic classes like Math and English. The percentage of coursework that's related to any liberal messaging is going to be determined by which classes the student chooses to take, not by the total number of credit hours they'll need to obtain a degree.

I do have fond memories of attending the university. However, there was nothing that I learned at the university that I directly use in my current profession. Not only is it typical for professionals to learn their trade after college, it's often typical that they wind up in a profession unrelated to what they studied in college. So, the curriculum is almost irrelevant. What matters is the process of showing up for class, studying, and accomplishing your goal. If you make the goal 3 years, then you just made it 25% easier to accomplish. If you have a problem with what kids are learning at the university or high school or elementary, that's a separate discussion versus what the appropriate number of credit hours should be. I mean, based on your logic, we could just make all university degrees 6 month programs and solve the student debt crisis overnight!

[D-train]

EPjbcH4XUAA1_gB.png (313.59 KiB) Viewed 1189 times

[DanielVogelbach]

I donated to the Sanders campaign in 2016. I far prefer Yang this time, but Bernie's bots still consider me a revenue source. I will tell you that the number of text messages I receive from Bernie asking for money is astounding. I've received as many as 4 in a day, and they hit me up at least 3 times per week asking for a donation, every time stressing the importance of the immediate moment and how urgent it is do send my cash to his campaign.

Perhaps it's necessary for Sanders to get the funds, so he can be competitive. But, it feels a lot like a cash grab. I think we're nearing a point where you can simply win a campaign via Twitter. I know Sanders likes to talk about how he doesn't take money from Super PACs, but constantly asking your supporters to fork over cash is a bit of a turn-off for me. I believe a certain amount of dollars in funding is necessary to qualify for debates as well, which is unfair. If you have the popularity, you should be on the stage. The campaign funding requirement is aristocratic BS.

FYI - THE DNC BOXED ANDREW YANG OUT OF THE LAST DEBATE BUT HE WILL BE ON STAGE NEXT ROUND...FEB 7.... 7 on stage, I guess Bloomberg is trying to make it still...

Former Vice President Joe Biden
Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Billionaire investor Tom Steyer
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang

I encourage you guys to watch this thing and see just how different Yang is compared to the rest of 'em. They haven't given him much speaking time in the debates, but with only 7 on stage he should get some microphone time on Feb 7th and hopefully coming off a strong showing in Iowa where his team is pushing hard right now. He's the only one that's actually growing in popularity. He could be buzzing and peaking at the right time.

[Moe Gibbs]

Tough call reducing the 4 year to a 3 year. Similar to forgiving debt, you have to convince all the existing grads who spent the time and money on 4 years that now 3 years is just fine. Instead, I think it's probably better to emphasize the vocational schools that focus 100% on a marketable job skill.
I mean, based on your logic, we could just make all university degrees 6 month programs and solve the student debt crisis overnight!

Let's just ask 20 grads if they felt their program could have been compressed into 3 years instead of 4.
I think most would agree and I think most would agree that the most efficient use of your tuition is to concentrate ALL of your energies into learning JUST the essentials.
I can't speak for all vocational programs but the IBEW has it's apprenticeship curriculum "padded" with all sorts of useless studies that NO CONTRACTORS would ever pay a Wireman to perform for them. They took a 4 year program and turned into 5 so that the Contractors could get 1 more year of cheap[er] labor from 5th year apprentices.
I mean, based on YOUR logic you really aren't serious about making common sense reforms of what amounts to a very dishonest system. There is nothing honest about a program [mine was orthotics and prosthetics] that forced me to take useless shit like...
Anasazi Mythology
US History
Philosophy [epistemology]
Cultural Anthropology
Terrestrial Astronomy
Celestial Astronomy
Art Appreciation
English Composition [some value, but HS level should be sufficient]
Political Science
Auto Body [times 2]
I'll bet there was more flotsam and jetsam but this is all I remember from 40 years ago.

[D-train]

I donated to the Sanders campaign in 2016. I far prefer Yang this time, but Bernie's bots still consider me a revenue source. I will tell you that the number of text messages I receive from Bernie asking for money is astounding. I've received as many as 4 in a day, and they hit me up at least 3 times per week asking for a donation, every time stressing the importance of the immediate moment and how urgent it is do send my cash to his campaign.

Perhaps it's necessary for Sanders to get the funds, so he can be competitive. But, it feels a lot like a cash grab. I think we're nearing a point where you can simply win a campaign via Twitter. I know Sanders likes to talk about how he doesn't take money from Super PACs, but constantly asking your supporters to fork over cash is a bit of a turn-off for me. I believe a certain amount of dollars in funding is necessary to qualify for debates as well, which is unfair. If you have the popularity, you should be on the stage. The campaign funding requirement is aristocratic BS.

FYI - THE DNC BOXED ANDREW YANG OUT OF THE LAST DEBATE BUT HE WILL BE ON STAGE NEXT ROUND...FEB 7.... 7 on stage, I guess Bloomberg is trying to make it still...

Former Vice President Joe Biden
Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Billionaire investor Tom Steyer
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang

I encourage you guys to watch this thing and see just how different Yang is compared to the rest of 'em. They haven't given him much speaking time in the debates, but with only 7 on stage he should get some microphone time on Feb 7th and hopefully coming off a strong showing in Iowa where his team is pushing hard right now. He's the only one that's actually growing in popularity. He could be buzzing and peaking at the right time.

I think Colonel Sanders has just as good a chance to be President as Bernie Sanders but that is a good preview of what it would be like if by some miracle if he does win. Only then he won't be asking, just taking.

[DanielVogelbach]

Let's just ask 20 grads if they felt their program could have been compressed into 3 years instead of 4.
I think most would agree and I think most would agree that the most efficient use of your tuition is to concentrate ALL of your energies into learning JUST the essentials.
I can't speak for all vocational programs but the IBEW has it's apprenticeship curriculum "padded" with all sorts of useless studies that NO CONTRACTORS would ever pay a Wireman to perform for them. They took a 4 year program and turned into 5 so that the Contractors could get 1 more year of cheap[er] labor from 5th year apprentices.

That IBEW sounds like a slight cash-grab. I'm open to new ideas for the educational system. I think it's archaic and aristocratic. The way it was sold to me was that if you wanted to be a car mechanic, then you just needed to know how to fix cars. But, to be a leader, you were supposed to have exposure to all sorts of stuff, not that you would master any of it, but you would be aware of it's existence. We have the Internet now, though, so I think more vocational based training may be the best direction for a lot of kids. Time for the bachelor's degree to lose some it's luster and other certifications go gain more credibility in terms of job opportunity. The other beauty of learning a trade and making money right away is you can use the money you make to pay for more school rather than incurring massive debt.

They never teach elementary school kids about the self-made millionaire roofing companies or plumbing companies. All they want you to consider is which college you're going to apply to. Like Andrew Yang says, college is oversold. We're creating hurdles for ourselves. Jobs that should only require a HS diploma now require a college degree, and it's a self inflicted barrier we've created with the debt as a side effect. Yang is also talking about how a lot of the college grad corporate jobs are going to be automated away. Staff accountants sitting in cubicles processing invoices... gone. But, we're still going to need someone to fix our cars and refrigerators and air conditioners.

It's a brainwashing to some degree with the college sports playing a major role. Everybody wants to be a Husky or a Cougar or some other mascot. It's supply and demand, and those pieces of paper with the Olde English font that they're slangin are in high demand.