Quote from: Aos;271865I and many of the people i know are often asked if it's worth all the trouble to do what we do. Fucked if I know, but it's worth it to avoid all the trouble that comes with the alternative.

I don't know from your handle whether you're male or female.  Also I'm not clear on what you do, but it seems that "trouble that comes with the alternative" is trouble from your family.

So is your claim that college is worth the trouble because college guarantees that it will separate you from your family?

I don't think most college graduates become self-sufficient -- many of them seem to still depend on their families for many years.  Of course, I'm going from informal observation and anecdote, not statistical surveys.

So, clearly, rip, anecdote equals data.

Quote from: Koltar;271954Well thats a cliche....

The hypothetical daughter might just as well be a business major, and start a small business that makes oodles of money....and she winds up reluctantly voting 'republican' - because she hates taxes.


....and the woman she wants to marry watches football too much.


- Ed C.

I think I get your meaning, if what you meant was, "one should not deny non-marriage-minded women the chance to go to college because there is a possibility they might be successful entrepreneurs."

There are at least two axioms from which one could start:

1) Parents owe their children college, regardless of what children do with that opportunity.

2) Children owe their parents grand-children, regardless of how stupid the parents are.

The axioms are not necessarily exclusive.  But if we take (1) and not (2), then it's easy to prove your conclusion, and if we take (2) and not (1), it's easy to prove the opposite.  If we take both (1) and (2) presumably something else results.

What I actually wrote:

QuoteI don't think most college graduates become self-sufficient -- many of them seem to still depend on their families for many years. Of course, I'm going from informal observation and anecdote, not statistical surveys.

Note the use of "seem" and the explicitly drawn distinction between anecdotes and statistics.


Note  that people who are determined to misread will always find a way to misread:

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;271964So, clearly, rip, anecdote equals data.

This brings to mind a quote from a man whom I personally dislike, Bertrand Russell:

QuoteWhat a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires - desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.  - Bertrand Russell

I haven't studied the data in a while, but conceptually there are three reasons to go to college, from a socioeconomic standpoint (as opposed to just "finding yourself").

1. To actually learn skills and habits that are marketable. These can be as concrete as CS theory and programming syntax, or as general as abstract and critical thinking and organizing a research project.

2. Purely for the credential, which "proves" you're up to snuff even if you didn't really have to go to college to get any skills. In other words college acts as a meritocratic sieve.

3. As a way of reproducing or if possible buying into the class structure: only people with the finances and the "appropriate" set of values and behaviors can get a B.A., which is then a gateway to class-appropriate employment. Incidentally, college also gives people with similar class aspirations an opportunity to locate each other as mates.

I suppose this idea of "genital expanding" although offensive on the face of it is also worth considering; in a way it's the flip side of some of what Aos talks about. Basically I agree that college can have the social effect of freeing children from parental control without imposing actual responsibility on them. The positive aspect of this is that it encourages social mobility; the negative side is that it weakens traditional social bonds without necessarily providing a long-term replacement for the lost community. At the extreme the result could be a society of isolated, alienated "free agents".

Quote from: riprock;271943Of course, because you wish to prove that you are well-educated, you would be best served by just citing a resume of your academic or professional accomplishments.  Perhaps the prominently displayed "Hinterwelt" logo in your sig was meant to be an implicit resume.

I'm not sure whether you intended to communicate:
1) I, Bill, am a product of USA education and I have learned how to write "Fuck."
or
2) I, Bill, am a product of USA education and I have founded Hinterwelt Enterprises, an international business empire of world-shaking potency, by virtue of my educational prowess.

Nope. I simply meant Fuck You. Really, not a lot beyond that. That might be too complex a concept but try, I think you can get it.

And please, are we really comparing resumes on an RPG forum? Honestly?

Bill

Quote from: riprock;271938As an anecdote of how bad education has gotten, please consider the following horror story from ultra-elitist CMU (which, despite its snobbery, still can't compete with MIT)

So a story that someone posted to the Internet is now what qualifies as data?  Even if I accept this as showing something in general -- if you claim this shows how bad education has gotten, how well do you think college graduates used to program in C?  

Objectively, from census reports the statistics are pretty clear that college graduates make a lot more money on average than non-college-grads -- from $10k to $20k per year more.  So college will take a number of years to pay itself off, but it does on average pay off.  

(Regarding college women who become lesbians...)

Quote from: riprock;271965There are at least two axioms from which one could start:

1) Parents owe their children college, regardless of what children do with that opportunity.

2) Children owe their parents grand-children, regardless of how stupid the parents are.

The axioms are not necessarily exclusive.  But if we take (1) and not (2), then it's easy to prove your conclusion, and if we take (2) and not (1), it's easy to prove the opposite.  If we take both (1) and (2) presumably something else results.

Well, it's true that if your only goal is to have grandchildren -- especially if you want them quickly -- then by average statistics college isn't going to improve your chances.  This applies to both men and women, gay or straight.  

However, if you want your grandchildren to not live in poverty, say -- then you are better off sending them to college.  Moreover, statistics aren't the same as one's actual child.  Gay couples have on average fewer children than straight ones, but it's still common.

Quote from: jhkim;271983Objectively, from census reports the statistics are pretty clear that college graduates make a lot more money on average than non-college-grads -- from $10k to $20k per year more.  So college will take a number of years to pay itself off, but it does on average pay off.

This is why I was careful to say I hadn't studied the data recently. I'm aware of the claim that college grads make more money, but this could be a product of mere credentialing. In other words I've read claims that once you control for factors like high school performance, and possibly socioeconomic status, the economic return on college is diminished or even vanishes completely (but I haven't examined them closely). Throw in the direct and opportunity costs of college (i.e., there's four years when you could be making money and getting real-world experience) and the effective requirement that people need a BA for many jobs may be a net loss to the economy, however much it may help subsidize advanced research and give graduate students jobs.

Quote from: HinterWelt;271892Is it just me or is all this talk of "protecting" your daughter and having her "serve" her father seem a bit...creepy?

Very creepy.

In my postapocalyptic campaign, there are a heap of different towns and regions, each living by their own peculiar philosophy. There's one bunch of violent racist skinheads, one purely market economy town, and so on. There's also a bunch of fundamentalist Christians. I'd had them as a bit loopy but basically decent people.

But this thread has made me want to add a little splinter group where the daddies and daughters are very close. I think the cult leader should be called Fritzl. He wanted to protect his daughter from the world, too!

Also, this thread's title looks like pr0n spam.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;271968I suppose this idea of "genital expanding" although offensive on the face of it is also worth considering; in a way it's the flip side of some of what Aos talks about.

If I had a more charming way to express the idea, I would have used it.

I may have acquired a tin ear from listening to all the wrong college-educated people.  

I apologize for my excessively graphic wording.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;271968Basically I agree that college can have the social effect of freeing children from parental control without imposing actual responsibility on them. The positive aspect of this is that it encourages social mobility; the negative side is that it weakens traditional social bonds without necessarily providing a long-term replacement for the lost community. At the extreme the result could be a society of isolated, alienated "free agents".

I think the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were a Western society full of alienated "free agents."  I suspect the pendulum has started to swing back toward extreme loyalty to groups, even if those groups are undeserving of such loyalty.  The "quiverfull" movement and the "return of the daughters" patriarchalists are just the beginning.

By now I suspect most of us have heard of "Bowling Alone" by Putnam.  Edit: In case you haven't heard of it:
http://www.bowlingalone.com/

Sexually repressive and tribalistically-loyal societies have high social capital, especially if they're not religiously pluralistic.  AFAICT, religious pluralism went past a certain threshold and spawned various nanny-state measures - first Prohibition of alcohol, then political correctness.

The resulting social disintegration was great for the growth of government regulations, but it destroyed social cohesion for much of Western society.

Basically the "Bowling Alone" phenomenon strengthens the most radical religious fundamentalists.  The more the society provides opportunities for individualists to have loyalty only to the state and not to their tribe, the more the tribes preach radical tribalism.

Quote from: Koltar;271954Well thats a cliche....

The hypothetical daughter might just as well be a business major, and start a small business that makes oodles of money....and she winds up reluctantly voting 'republican' - because she hates taxes.


....and the woman she wants to marry watches football too much.


- Ed C.

I don't really follow American politics, but I remember who the "republicans" are.  That's the party of men who pretend to be hetero but who actually solicit gay sex by tapping their feet in airport restrooms.

The republicans who are actually out of the closet are apparently the "Log Cabin" ones.

So a publically-out, self-proclaimed lesbian could just go the the "Log Cabin Republican" booth and sign up.  No problem at all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;271878Note that in material they've produced, the literature and videos like "return of the daughters", these people go out of their way to claim that their daughters ARE intelligent and interested in learning, but that this intelligence must be directed biblically in a woman's role, that of being a helper to her father, assisting her mother in helping the household and the family, and preparing to become a future "Helpmate" to her husband.
RPGPundit

Kinder kuche kirche. Now where have we seen that before?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;271984I'm aware of the claim that college grads make more money, but this could be a product of mere credentialing. In other words I've read claims that once you control for factors like high school performance, and possibly socioeconomic status, the economic return on college is diminished or even vanishes completely (but I haven't examined them closely). Throw in the direct and opportunity costs of college (i.e., there's four years when you could be making money and getting real-world experience) and the effective requirement that people need a BA for many jobs may be a net loss to the economy, however much it may help subsidize advanced research and give graduate students jobs.

Many businessmen of my acquaintance tell me that all the money and time I spent on education was wasted in terms of financial return.

*shrug*  I don't know how scientific such tests can be.

Further, to return to sex, suppose a husband A and wife B have only one child C.  If  C has two kids who reproduce before they die, then A and B's genes are doing pretty well.  If C adopts a child because gay sex can't produce a child or because C spent too much time on career and not enough on breeding, then A and B's genes are out of luck.

So if one says, "I'd rather have a gay child who can afford to educate my grandchildren," one must wonder whether those grandchildren will have any genes in common with their grandparents.  Gay couples can "have" kids by adopting and lesbians can use donor sperm, but if one's objective is to pass on genes to grandchildren, one might decry the gay lifestyle.

Further, if one wishes to avoid complications of birth, it is important for women to respect the limitations of their ovaries.  Sarah Palin is still fertile enough to produce children, despite her career -- but if she had produced those children earlier, they would have had a lower risk of defects like Down's Syndrome.

I have had a lot of close Western friends who were highly educated, who spent years on careers, and who had heart-breaking problems conceiving children.  And they complained to *me* about it.  But apparently it was impossible for them to have simply married at 18.  

Of course, my friends from India and Pakistan have had no cultural problem marrying at 18.  Financial problems -- sometimes.  But no cultural problems.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271985Also, this thread's title looks like pr0n spam.

So kyle as a Jew do you find that most Christians think you're "smart" ?

Can you blame women for wanting to go to college ? I mean apparently some want game design to have the "14 year schoolboy" test.....sounds like trouble if you ask me.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;271984This is why I was careful to say I hadn't studied the data recently. I'm aware of the claim that college grads make more money, but this could be a product of mere credentialing. In other words I've read claims that once you control for factors like high school performance, and possibly socioeconomic status, the economic return on college is diminished or even vanishes completely (but I haven't examined them closely). Throw in the direct and opportunity costs of college (i.e., there's four years when you could be making money and getting real-world experience) and the effective requirement that people need a BA for many jobs may be a net loss to the economy, however much it may help subsidize advanced research and give graduate students jobs.

Well, I was speaking to whether college should be viewed as an investment or an indulgence that parents give to their children.  Whether credentialing is a good idea or not, it is quite real in the world today.  

Whether it is a good idea or not is questionable.  i.e. Should more companies ask for high school transcripts and hire high school grads as apprentices to work their way up, rather than requiring B.A.'s for their starting jobs?  While it sounds good in principle, I think that companies are probably making the right choice to avoid this -- as far as their own success is concerned under the present system.  Companies in modern times are investing much less in long-term research.  My take on this is that it results from a more competitive global market.  In earlier decades, there were a few companies like Boeing or AT&T who felt they had an assured future and so invested more in long-term projects.  However, that is rare these days -- and in any case happened mainly from government support of those companies.  

Universities have always been the cornerstones of basic research and broad educations.  The difference is that in today's industry, far more of our jobs are in such white-collar work rather than in manual labor.  I see them as of vital importance for both their research and broad education.  Revolutions generally come from publicly-funded basic research, like atomic power or the Internet from the military or the world-wide web from high-energy physics.