Posted on 12/28/2008 5:57:02 AM PST by reaganaut1
...
As president, Mr. Obama should use his bully pulpit to undermine the bachelor’s degree as a job qualification. Here’s a suggested battle cry, to be repeated in every speech on the subject: “It’s what you can do that should count when you apply for a job, not where you learned to do it.”
The residential college leading to a bachelor’s degree at the end of four years works fine for the children of parents who have plenty of money. It works fine for top students from all backgrounds who are drawn toward academics. But most 18-year-olds are not from families with plenty of money, not top students, and not drawn toward academics. They want to learn how to get a satisfying job that also pays well. That almost always means education beyond high school, but it need not mean four years on a campus, nor cost a small fortune. It need not mean getting a bachelor’s degree.
I am not discounting the merits of a liberal education. Students at every level should be encouraged to explore subjects that will not be part of their vocation. It would be even better if more colleges required a rigorous core curriculum for students who seek a traditional bachelor’s degree. My beef is not with liberal education, but with the use of the degree as a job qualification.
For most of the nation’s youths, making the bachelor’s degree a job qualification means demanding a credential that is beyond their reach. It is a truth that politicians and educators cannot bring themselves to say out loud: A large majority of young people do not have the intellectual ability to do genuine college-level work.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“It’s what you can do that should count when you apply for a job, not where you learned to do it.”
That is so correct.
The obama generation probably will drop out...
You’re right. But I agree with the larger point of this editorial- that there should be alternatives to expensive college degrees for people who want to move up in the job market. Their eilgibility should be based on their abilities, not by being forced to spend money to study a lot of things that have nothing to do with their chosen profession.
I think they’re staying liquid. That is what I would recommend to anyone right now. And it might be stranger than that.
Ironically, we could end up with a split currency.
This is an odd phenomenon that comes about for two reasons. The first is that for all intents and purposes, the US has a fixed amount of paper currency and coins. We have only two printing offices (D.C. and Fort Worth), and they operate at 100% capacity, but only produce enough paper money to back 5% of daily US retail. Paper money has only about a six month life before it must be replaced.
So if paper money is seen apart from virtual money, it is already terribly deflated, in a 1 to 20 ratio of face value. That is, it is worth 20 times more than face value, if it is the only currency. And importantly, this cannot be changed within months, because to print more money means a new money printing facility and all that entails.
Importantly, paper money and coins also have one other distinction. By law, they are good for “all debts, public and private”. This cannot be said for virtual money.
So if the USG monetizes the debt, nobody has to accept that hyperinflating virtual money as valid US currency. They do however, have to accept cash.
This results in a “cash run” on the banks. A person may have $100k in the bank, but not be able to withdraw it except electronically, because they don’t have, and cannot get, the physical paper. And if nobody is accepting electronic cash, there is a problem.
The end result is that virtual money hyperinflates, while at the same time, cash money assumes its deflated value, and then some.
The failure of electronic funds happens in several ways. To start with, there is a collapse of the credit card companies. Some hints of this are already taking place, such as the failure of a CC bond issue, to underwrite cardholder debt. Immediately, the CC companies reacted by canceling many cards and slashing the limits on others.
Banks start to fail beyond the capacity of the FDIC to cover losses. Retailers refuse personal checks because there is a huge surge in check frauds. This leaves debit cards and cash.
Most American retail will have to be done by debit card, because of the scarcity of cash. And this will put tremendous pressure on the USG to *not* monetize the debt, as it will destroy the value of all savings in the US.
Yet cash is king. This is the “iron rule of currency” in economics, that “bad money pushes out good”, because everyone wants to spend the bad money and save the good money.
So the real winners here are those who have kept “mattress money” in a safe place at home. In Weimar Germany, this was seen as well with US dollars vs. hyperinflating German Papiermarks.
The Papiermark was a post-WWI currency not backed by gold, used to pay off massive war reparations. As such, it was debt monetization, just as what the USG will likely do once the T-bill bubble bursts. And it horribly hyperinflated.
But some Germans were able to get US dollars from relatives in the US, and even a few German US Civil War veterans as pensions. At some points, with US dollars, a new luxury car could be purchased for as little as $200.
A good lesson to learn if you have a few thousand in “mattress money” at home, instead of in the bank.
“A good lesson to learn if you have a few thousand in “mattress money” at home, instead of in the bank.”
Our recent snow (uncommon in this area) showed how fast mundane items like flat shovels (any size!), sand, deicer, etc. go when lots of folks want the same thing. Luckily I was prepared for the snow - and whatever else, for awhile.
Having a stash of suitable supplies for various circumstances may seem a bit “selfish” to some. But I tell them - hey, it is one less person competing with you at the store for that last loaf of bread (or whatever).
Rush Limbaugh used the term “Big Education” as compared to “Big Oil Companies” etc.
Obama will NOT do as the author suggests because Obama wishes to reward the “Big Education Industry” that awarded him soooooo many votes. Expect the “Big Education Industry” to grow and grow and grown under Democratic-Marxist **rule**.
Thank you for your very interesting and informative post.
We can certainly agree that the most unimaginable "gimmie gimmie" scenario will soon be witnessed. All of the groups conned into voting for the Obamessiah will want to be 'saved'.
At first glance, the “it’s-what-you-do-not-where-you-learned-it” position of this editorial sounds agreeable. But, notice who the author is: Charles Murray.
Murray is author of “The Bell Curve”, and he believes people are determined by nature, not nurture. Last I heard him interviewed, he wants tests administered to children and then, based on those tests, each child steered through a particular type of government-run education system. In a word, he’s a socialist. (He has been weighing his words more carefully in recent years.)
I agree with him on certain points: that “what-you-know” is what counts, that a four-year college degree should not be required for most professions, and that too many students in college lowers the standards. But, I disagree with Murray’s real plan which is to expand (not limit) the government’s role in education. And, as a homeschool mom, I believe nurture determines how a child will turn out; otherwise, why would I bother homeschooling?
Murray has been a socialist parading as conservative. He has been peddling his social engineering agenda for years.
I have to laugh at the notion that those abilities aren't very malleable. Does Murray actually believe the best athletes and musicians weren't nurtured in their abilities? The truth is, it's all about nurture, including linguistic and logical-mathematical ability. However, the nurture required cannot be given by the government; it comes from a stable family where children are encouraged to excel.
No, it's not ALL about nurture. A stable family and good schools will not enable every child to master calculus. Many kids are just not smart enough. Even siblings who share the same home environment and go to the same schools can differ drastically in academic achievement. Here is a personal example. I am a very good chess player and a terrible baseball player. My hand-eye coordination is simply bad, and no amount of parental support would have made me a good ballplayer. Parental support (taking me to chess tournaments, buying me books) did help me become a chess master.
But, I disagree with Murray’s real plan which is to expand (not limit) the government’s role in education.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you are absolutely right.
Murray’s plan is government tracking of children from very early ages. He is really a socialist. Actually, he reminds me of the book, “Brave New World” where children are raised in test tubes and genetically programed to have a certain IQ.
Murray’s goal is not to help individual children ( regardless of IQ) achieve the maximum development of their God given gifts.
That's how I see it, too. Murray is in favor of labeling and sorting children in a factory-like government-funded education setting. (Btw, a quote from BNW is on my profile page. Huxley himself probably had no idea how close he was to predicting our future.)
I am a very good chess player and a terrible baseball player. My hand-eye coordination is simply bad, and no amount of parental support would have made me a good ballplayer.
Hogwash! :-) All children have an athletic ability that can be nurtured. Our sons have been involved in little league since they were small. Where we live, little league sports are highly competitive, and the best players not only practice constantly but their parents put them in sports camps all year long. Behind all the best athletes is a lifetime of time and effort and expense.
We don't put our sons into sports camps all year long, but we have invested in some training for one of them, and it shows. (And he's very bookish - not someone people would guess plays sports.) Not everyone can be the best. But, barring some real physical disability or illness, we're each capable. Is it necessary to play baseball? Or chess? Not really. But we're each capable. One skill doesn't rule the other out.
Thanks, Happy New Year!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.