|
0 members (),
398
guests, and
14
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,689
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,689 |
If it were as simple as having average lives. The trend line is declining. Isn't the bigger fear of less than average lives?
The desire for any college education rather than technical training, the push to optimize a child's talents?
But young adults cannot buy homes, financially support a family for a long time. I think many people would be happy if average was still within reach.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 69
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 69 |
I work at a university and college grads are not able to find jobs (at least not with a bachelor's degree), individuals with technical degrees are being employed at a 4 to 1 ratio over those with college degrees AND make higher salaries (even over a life time). I agree that it has not always been that way but right now it is. I think it is more of a sense of pride thing (my child is at ______ college working on ___ degree) than an actual nuts and bolts thing. OR perhaps society does not realize how worthless (financially) a college degree is quite yet. I would say if universities continue to aspire to a business model as opposed to a tradition academic model (online "universities" have completely changed the landscape)this will continue to be the case and only get worse. For now, I would say unless you just love to learn (and enjoy research) and want to earn a Ph.D. or you are going to major in healthcare, engineering,or technology and some areas of business (but not a general business degree)an undergrad degree simply is not worth the money. I love being in academia but it is not something that I would necessarily choose again in today's economy. Of course I attended state school for undergrad and grad (for free) and did not finish school thousands of dollars in debt.
Last edited by psychland; 04/04/14 04:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,489
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,489 |
I work at a university and college grads are not able to find jobs (at least not with a bachelor's degree), individuals with technical degrees are being employed at a 4 to 1 ratio over those with college degrees AND make higher salaries (even over a life time). I agree that it has not always been that way but right now it is. I think it is more of a sense of pride thing (my child is at ______ college working on ___ degree) than an actual nuts and bolts thing. OR perhaps society does not realize how worthless (financially) a college degree is quite yet. I would say if universities continue to aspire to a business model as opposed to a tradition academic model (online "universities" have completely changed the landscape)this will continue to be the case and only get worse. For now, I would say unless you just love to learn (and enjoy research) and want to earn a Ph.D. or you are going to major in healthcare, engineering,or technology an undergrad degree simply is not worth the money. I love being in academia but it is not something that I would necessarily choose again in today's economy. Of course I attended state school for undergrad and grad (for free) and did not finish school thousands of dollars in debt. Unfortunately many jobs that 25 years ago did not require more than a H.S. degree, now require a B.A. I am not kidding.. Want to be the manager at the store rather than just the cashier you better have a degree. Want to be a receptionist at an office, you need that B.A. I agree this is stupid but it's the crazy world we live in. Why, because they can hire the college grad who at least on paper looks like the better hire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
There is no way around the fact that the only thing which is going to elevate MOST of the members of the 99% into the 1% is luck combined with some extraordinary innate... something. It inherently lacks a certain predictability, however. I think it's a residency in dermatology.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 206
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 206 |
There is no way around the fact that the only thing which is going to elevate MOST of the members of the 99% into the 1% is luck combined with some extraordinary innate... something. It inherently lacks a certain predictability, however. I think it's a residency in dermatology. I am surprised you didn't say being a partner at big law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
We have the thing where jobs you needed 6th form science now require a degree. The jobs are repetitive and pay badly and less educated people are actually a lot better at them so both groups lose out. They also don't pay well enough to justify the effort and cost to get a degree. I simply cannot do repetitive work unless I can turn my brain off. Also I second quess myelf and worry about whether I missed something when my brain wandered.
Last edited by puffin; 04/04/14 07:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 480
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 480 |
So unless you schedule things, or plan playdates, it is hard to let them just go out and play. Which means you have to be out and about with them. I think finding that compromise without the activities to fill their time, because my kid will watch Disney reruns, is hard. She cannot just go out and play.
Attitude is a different story but I don't have a kid with an IQ of 121. I have a kid that is fully capable of being on Harvard's screen and has legacy. So where does that leave me in terms of being a Tiger Mom?
Shades of grey or gray? Why can't she have free play? Your backyard. A playground with you sitting on the bench. Your house without the TV on? But, Wren, haven't we had this discussion before and you proudly describe yourself as one of these high pressure parents? Your priorities are for structured activity and a lot of academics from a young age, aren't they? Ouch. We go for 2 hour walks with the dog along the lake and find mink etc. And we are in an apt, no backyard. And playdates are structured activities. They are not, running out the back door like I did and into the woods with friends or alone and finding something to occupy myself. And DD is an extrovert. TV off, she goes into her room and sometimes plays with Barbies but sometimes the technology goes on. She is not great without friends. Either was I. I was always looking for someone in the neighborhood to play with. And in a neighborhood full of kids, you could find someone. That is hard today. Your kid wanders around alone, a parent will call you, like are you crazy? And being on the park bench is time consuming. Perhaps you have hours of time to sit on a bench while your child explores the park, how many can do that everyday. Because a kid is like a dog, it needs that play/social interaction everyday, not once a week. So if not structured, what is your solution, you with the political sense and judgement of a --- fill in the blank. But don't you have to sit on a bench outside the piano lesson or swimming lesson or whatever? No different from sitting at the park. Yes, lots of kids are in school/afterschool until 6, but afterschool doesn't take them around to various lessons. In terms of time, and the specific reasons you gave for why your child can't have play time, if you're taking her somewhere, why not the park? I disagree that a playdate is structured. Yes, it's scheduled, but once the other child arrives, don't they just play? I'm not trying to attack you or anything, but you said unstructured play was important to you, and I'd like to help troubleshoot to figure out how you can make it happen.
Last edited by Tallulah; 04/05/14 09:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
There is no way around the fact that the only thing which is going to elevate MOST of the members of the 99% into the 1% is luck combined with some extraordinary innate... something. It inherently lacks a certain predictability, however. I think it's a residency in dermatology. I am surprised you didn't say being a partner at big law. You aren't really protected by a strong guild that effectively excludes competition in law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
There is no way around the fact that the only thing which is going to elevate MOST of the members of the 99% into the 1% is luck combined with some extraordinary innate... something. It inherently lacks a certain predictability, however. I think it's a residency in dermatology. I am surprised you didn't say being a partner at big law. You aren't really protected by a strong guild that effectively excludes competition in law. Sure you are-- law societies who determine law school enrollment and whose membership is required to practice law are just that.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
I am surprised you didn't say being a partner at big law. You aren't really protected by a strong guild that effectively excludes competition in law. Sure you are-- law societies who determine law school enrollment and whose membership is required to practice law are just that. This is not "protection by a strong guild that effectively excludes competition": "Law school applications and enrollments have fallen in the past couple of years, but the absolute numbers in the pipeline are still absurdly high. For the class entering last fall, there were 68,000 applications for 50,000 law school seats, and when those students graduate, they’ll compete for 25,000 jobs." http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-01/the-case-against-law-school
|
|
|
|
|
