2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

[Javi]

If you increase entrance requirements it will be even less fair for "poor" people to get in.

I think the system is fair now though. I mean, to me, nothing is more fair than getting what you paid for. If you want a cheap education you can get one (you can get a four year degree in New York State 4 year college for less than $20,000 (with no scholarships or financial aid) and a 2 year degree for less than $10,000) or, you can go to a private school and pay whatever you want. That seems fair to me.

No, it's not going to be less fair for the poor, because fairness is about having the opportunity. Of course people with better educated parents will have an advantage but that's a structural thing you cannot influence.

Imo education shouldn't be about what you paid for but what your abilities are. The best people in the best schools.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

What value does it actually bring though? How am I actually better off to society that I have a degree in history?

Seriously? In this election year, the one where we have a candidate's spokesperson saying that Obama invaded Iraq in 2004, you're asking that? History, and the utter flouting of it, could not be more important in this election.

 

[129104946]

No, it's not going to be less fair for the poor, because fairness is about having the opportunity. Of course people with better educated parents will have an advantage but that's a structural thing you cannot influence.

Imo education shouldn't be about what you paid for but what your abilities are. The best people in the best schools.

And we have that with scholarships. But, we also have he option to go to the best schools even we aren't the smartest, we just have to pay for it. I think that's fair.

 

[129104946]

Seriously? In this election year, the one where we have a candidate's spokesperson saying that Obama invaded Iraq in 2004, you're asking that? History, and the utter flouting of it, could not be more important in this election.

Good point. But what I was getting is at is that I've been graduated for a year now and have contributed much less to society with the "skills" I've learned in school than all of my friends who have gone to trade schools.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Good point. But what I was getting is at is that I've been graduated for a year now and have contributed much less to society with the "skills" I've learned in school than all of my friends who have gone to trade schools.

Sure, they'll be able to build something, but the research and analytical skills you've gained, not to mention project management, organisation etc, you've to potential to achieve much more than them. I'd wager that you'd be able to learn what they're able to do, but they wouldn't be able to learn what you're able to do. Long term, you've more potential to contribute.

In other words, we're counting on you to safeguard history against revisionists. No pressure.

 

[Javi]

And we have that with scholarships. But, we also have he option to go to the best schools even we aren't the smartest, we just have to pay for it. I think that's fair.

Yes, free college is just like having more scholarships. Then we clearly have different opinions on what is fair and what not, so let's leave it at that.

 

[Nobby style]

Good point. But what I was getting is at is that I've been graduated for a year now and have contributed much less to society with the "skills" I've learned in school than all of my friends who have gone to trade schools.

Maybe that´s more a reflection of you personally, and not university education.

 

[129104946]

Maybe that´s more a reflection of you personally, and not university education.

Nope, not me personally. I'll ask more generally then. How do the skills one learns in a history degree add more to society than the skills one gains on a practical trade like masonry or electrical contracting?

 

[Nobby style]

Nope, not me personally. I'll ask more generally then. How do the skills one learns in a history degree add more to society than the skills one gains on a practical trade like masonry or electrical contracting?

Well, for one thing you could become a teacher, make a decent wage and have great vacation time. A teacher is a very noble pursuit. A history education often leads to good writing skills and investigative skills which in turn could become very marketable. A great base for a political career. Being educated in history could add to society as a proper educated citizen and all the choices a good citizen can make to improve or just get along civilly in society. Gives you an intellectual sense to not be fooled by numpties like Trump.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Nope, not me personally. I'll ask more generally then. How do the skills one learns in a history degree add more to society than the skills one gains on a practical trade like masonry or electrical contracting?

I thought I answered that one...

 

[Nobby style]

Not true at all. There is nothing wrong with having a strong working class, even uneducated. If everybody has access to a degree the the value of a degree is going to plummet more so than it is. I also highly doubt giving free college is going to change things like people voting for Donald Trump. That's ridiculous to say. And even if it did, why is that necessarily a good thing? Does the opinions of working class America not count for anything?

And to the point in "rise of awareness."
There is no data that proves education is a strong means to elevate people from poverty. Furthermore, with the dilutment of the American education system college doesn't even make people any smarter than when they go in. It just makes them better at taking college exams and studying. Yes, a graduate degree is now the equivalent of a bachelors etc, but that only further proves my point because that only happened because so many more people have become educated. And we're not better off because of it.

Well, there´s this:
The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) analyzes employee earnings data biennially according to education level. These findings indicate that workers with college degrees earn significantly more than those without; they also emphasize how lower education levels tend to correspond with higher unemployment rates. In 2015, adults with bachelor's degrees took home more than those with high school diplomas. Degree holders earned $48,500 a year, while diploma holders earned $23,900.

As for your statement: . . . with the dilutment of the American education system college doesn't even make people any smarter than when they go in. It just makes them better at taking college exams and studying.

Do you have any data on this, or did you just pull that out of your ass?

 

[129104946]

Sure, they'll be able to build something, but the research and analytical skills you've gained, not to mention project management, organisation etc, you've to potential to achieve much more than them. I'd wager that you'd be able to learn what they're able to do, but they wouldn't be able to learn what you're able to do. Long term, you've more potential to contribute.

In other words, we're counting on you to safeguard history against revisionists. No pressure.

I'm not sure that's true. My degree was four years. The apprenticeship program at my dads company is 6 years. I think "college makes people better and smarter" is a way for people with degrees feel better about themselves.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I'm not sure that's true. My degree was four years. The apprenticeship program at my dads company is 6 years. I think "college makes people better and smarter" is a way for people with degrees feel better about themselves.

Ok, get them to write an academically-acceptable thesis then and let me know how they get on.

I'd wager you'd be able to pick up their skills (with your research skills and analytical ability) faster than they'd be able to pick up yours. There might be a reason why the apprenticeship is 2 years longer...

 

[129104946]

Well, there´s this:
The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) analyzes employee earnings data biennially according to education level. These findings indicate that workers with college degrees earn significantly more than those without; they also emphasize how lower education levels tend to correspond with higher unemployment rates. In 2015, adults with bachelor's degrees took home more than those with high school diplomas. Degree holders earned $48,500 a year, while diploma holders earned $23,900.

As for your statement: . . . with the dilutment of the American education system college doesn't even make people any smarter than when they go in. It just makes them better at taking college exams and studying.

Do you have any data on this, or did you just pull that out of your ass?

Yes. There are plenty of studies that show college doesn't make people smarter.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110118/news/110119429/

Being in college the last 6 years I have seen first hand at 4 different universities how terrible it really is.

 

[129104946]

Ok, get them to write an academically-acceptable thesis then and let me know how they get on.

I'd wager you'd be able to pick up their skills (with your research skills and analytical ability) faster than they'd be able to pick up yours. There might be a reason why the apprenticeship is 2 years longer...

I don't think that's true. The reason the apprenticeship is longer than two years is because there is a lot to learn. Trust me, I have done both. College is easier.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Yes. There are plenty of studies that show college doesn't make people smarter.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110118/news/110119429/

Being in college the last 6 years I have seen first hand at 4 different universities how terrible it really is.

Why does the study stop at sophomore year? That's usually when generalised subjects end and real specialisation begins.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I don't think that's true. The reason the apprenticeship is longer than two years is because there is a lot to learn. Trust me, I have done both. College is easier.

Wellllllll no, I won't. If we're doing this academically, I'm going to need a lot more than your word

 

[129104946]

Why does the study stop at sophomore year? That's usually when generalised subjects end and real specialisation begins.

I'm not sure. But that's not true anyway. Junior and senior year are more about applying what you've learned, the first two years are about learning everything.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I'm not sure. But that's not true anyway. Junior and senior year are more about applying what you've learned, the first two years are about learning everything.

Is that not what I said?

By the way, I see a flaw - we're missing a control. Where the comparison with people who aren't in education of the same age (i.e. after leaving school) to show that their faculties have improved/haven't improved/have degraded. I'd be very interested in that and would wager it'd be degradation that would be the observed result.

This is getting away from the election too. If you want to keep it going, make a new thread.

 

[Nobby style]

Yes. There are plenty of studies that show college doesn't make people smarter.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110118/news/110119429/

Being in college the last 6 years I have seen first hand at 4 different universities how terrible it really is.

4 different universities in 6 years? Sounds more like personal problem.

I had a fantastic experience in university and felt it was a massive cultivating intellectual, social and sexual experience. Perhaps the greatest time of my life and properly prepared me professionally for a very fulfilling career.

. . . and being it was the 80s, university in California was dead cheap so I had zero debt and a nice financial base to begin real adulthood.

Except for maybe the debt part, I would venture to say most university graduates have more in common with my experience than your 4 unitversities in 6 years with a bitter pill stuck in their gob and a educational chip on their shoulder.

 

[129104946]

4 different universities in 6 years? Sounds more like personal problem.

I had a fantastic experience in university and felt it was a massive cultivating intellectual, social and sexual experience. Perhaps the greatest time of my life and properly prepared me professionally for a very fulfilling career.

. . . and being it was the 80s, university in California was dead cheap so I had zero debt and a nice financial base to begin real adulthood.

Except for maybe the debt part, I would venture to say most university graduates have more in common with my experience than your 4 unitversities in 6 years with a bitter pill stuck in their gob and a educational chip on their shoulder.

Stop it with the "personal problem" stuff. I have been to many different schools because I have a few different degrees. Associates degree from a state school. 4 year degree from a private college. Masters from a state school now I'm at law school.

I had an awesome time at school too! I just don't think it makes me smarter than people that didn't go to school.

College has changed since the 80s.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Shall we get back on track?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0826/812271-clinton-trump-poll/

US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads her Republican rival Donald Trump by five percentage points among likely voters, down from a peak this month of 12 points, according to the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll released today.

The 22-25 August opinion poll found that 41% of likely voters supported Mrs Clinton ahead of the 8 November presidential election, while 36% supported Mr Trump.

Some 23% would not pick either candidate and answered "refused," "other" or "wouldn't vote".

In a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll that includes candidates from small, alternative parties, Mrs Clinton leads the field by a smaller margin.

Some 39% of likely voters supported Mrs Clinton in the four-way poll, compared with 36% for Mr Trump, 7% for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and 3% for Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

Both polls were conducted online in English, in all 50 states. They included 1,154 likely voters and have a credibility interval of three percentage points.

The results may differ from the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project, which includes a separate weekly tracking poll that measures support for the major party candidates in every state and Washington DC.

The States of the Nation, released on Wednesday, estimated that if the election were held now Mrs Clinton would have a 95% chance of winning by a margin of about 108 votes in the Electoral College, the body that decides the election through a count of the candidates' wins in each state.

 

[PedroMendez]

The majority of higher education especially in social science has little practical value outside academia/research. I am in favor of having good researchers in all areas, but the majority of people (fortunately) still leave the university behind. Those skills that you pick up on your way (e.g. writing, researching, organizational stuff) could be taught way more efficiently. Sure, if you are becoming a lawyer, doctor or chemist, university makes a lot of sense. For many jobs university adds very little and an extra year on the job training would be 1000x more useful.

Many people just study for the sake of it, because they don´t know what else to do. That’s fine with me, but why should other people pay for that?

If you want to improve your “general intelligence”, you probably should study math and languages, not history, economics, psychology, arts or sociology/social studies. That would be actually a quite interesting debate to have, because it could influence what we teach children in primary schools.

In general I agree that we need better educated people (due to technological change), but the current university model isn´t the only way to achieve that, because for many careers it is horrendously inefficient. A degree shouldn´t be the be-all-end-all in most professions (again, I am not questioning the usefulness of university education for specialists, who really use their learned knowledge in their job). We´d need a much more flexible approach after finishing your high school education, but universities, the states and businesses are not doing a particularly good job to change the institutions of learning. Due to path-dependency we are still stuck with 18th/19th/20th century institutions.

Currently everyone expects you to have a degree (or be able to build up something on your own) and you are handicapped without it (=> you earn less), but that makes no sense at all. The idea that a teacher needs a university degree is mental. The same applies for many jobs.

We should teach kids in the last years of high school/secondary school a set of practical skills (e.g. how to write a business plan; how to organize; how to educate yourself) and after that we should aspire a much more flexible approach that combines university, work and different forms of learning.

That would increase social mobility in a way that state-sponsored universities will never be able to.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Donald Trump doctor admits writing health note in five minutes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37203285

Donald Trump's doctor has said he spent just five minutes on a letter endorsing the Republican candidate's health, while Mr Trump's car waited outside.

"In the rush I think some of those words didn't come out exactly the way they were meant," Dr Harold Bornstein told NBC News.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/27/12670280/donald-trump-dwyane-wade-tweet

 

[Nobby style]

Stop it with the "personal problem" stuff. I have been to many different schools because I have a few different degrees. Associates degree from a state school. 4 year degree from a private college. Masters from a state school now I'm at law school.

I had an awesome time at school too! I just don't think it makes me smarter than people that didn't go to school.

College has changed since the 80s.

Well, you didn´t really sound like you had an awesome time at school. Sounds like you´re pretty bitter about the university schtick. But that´s cool.

And I realize college has changed since the 80s . . . low education costs made for a much more debt free (or less debt) experience. It was a good thing. See, free or cheap college can work and it´s a very good thing, financially speaking.

 

[berbatrick]

Not true at all. There is nothing wrong with having a strong working class, even uneducated. If everybody has access to a degree the the value of a degree is going to plummet more so than it is. I also highly doubt giving free college is going to change things like people voting for Donald Trump. That's ridiculous to say. And even if it did, why is that necessarily a good thing? Does the opinions of working class America not count for anything?

And to the point in "rise of awareness."
There is no data that proves education is a strong means to elevate people from poverty. Furthermore, with the dilutment of the American education system college doesn't even make people any smarter than when they go in. It just makes them better at taking college exams and studying. Yes, a graduate degree is now the equivalent of a bachelors etc, but that only further proves my point because that only happened because so many more people have become educated. And we're not better off because of it.

Not necessarily poverty alleviation but it seems to have a strong correlation with your chance of getting a job

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

 

[unchanged_lineup]

The majority of higher education especially in social science has little practical value outside academia/research. I am in favor of having good researchers in all areas, but the majority of people (fortunately) still leave the university behind. Those skills that you pick up on your way (e.g. writing, researching, organizational stuff) could be taught way more efficiently. Sure, if you are becoming a lawyer, doctor or chemist, university makes a lot of sense. For many jobs university adds very little and an extra year on the job training would be 1000x more useful.

Many people just study for the sake of it, because they don´t know what else to do. That’s fine with me, but why should other people pay for that?

If you want to improve your “general intelligence”, you probably should study math and languages, not history, economics, psychology, arts or sociology/social studies. That would be actually a quite interesting debate to have, because it could influence what we teach children in primary schools.

In general I agree that we need better educated people (due to technological change), but the current university model isn´t the only way to achieve that, because for many careers it is horrendously inefficient. A degree shouldn´t be the be-all-end-all in most professions (again, I am not questioning the usefulness of university education for specialists, who really use their learned knowledge in their job). We´d need a much more flexible approach after finishing your high school education, but universities, the states and businesses are not doing a particularly good job to change the institutions of learning. Due to path-dependency we are still stuck with 18th/19th/20th century institutions.

Currently everyone expects you to have a degree (or be able to build up something on your own) and you are handicapped without it (=> you earn less), but that makes no sense at all. The idea that a teacher needs a university degree is mental. The same applies for many jobs.

We should teach kids in the last years of high school/secondary school a set of practical skills (e.g. how to write a business plan; how to organize; how to educate yourself) and after that we should aspire a much more flexible approach that combines university, work and different forms of learning.

That would increase social mobility in a way that state-sponsored universities will never be able to.

Why this came up in this thread has kinda been lost. While all that your saying might be true, the original discussion was whether it makes you smarter, and by extension consider your vote a lot more carefully, and by extension extension not get fooled by pants-on-fire Trump. And I'd still say it does. What you've written above, for me, is still missing the holistic element I mentioned of being in an environment of higher learning for an extended period of time, and all those institutions have going for them.

I reckon you could make a new thread on the bold part that would be interesting.

 

[berbatrick]

The majority of higher education especially in social science has little practical value outside academia/research. I am in favor of having good researchers in all areas, but the majority of people (fortunately) still leave the university behind. Those skills that you pick up on your way (e.g. writing, researching, organizational stuff) could be taught way more efficiently. Sure, if you are becoming a lawyer, doctor or chemist, university makes a lot of sense. For many jobs university adds very little and an extra year on the job training would be 1000x more useful.

Many people just study for the sake of it, because they don´t know what else to do. That’s fine with me, but why should other people pay for that?

If you want to improve your “general intelligence”, you probably should study math and languages, not history, economics, psychology, arts or sociology/social studies. That would be actually a quite interesting debate to have, because it could influence what we teach children in primary schools.

In general I agree that we need better educated people (due to technological change), but the current university model isn´t the only way to achieve that, because for many careers it is horrendously inefficient. A degree shouldn´t be the be-all-end-all in most professions (again, I am not questioning the usefulness of university education for specialists, who really use their learned knowledge in their job). We´d need a much more flexible approach after finishing your high school education, but universities, the states and businesses are not doing a particularly good job to change the institutions of learning. Due to path-dependency we are still stuck with 18th/19th/20th century institutions.

Currently everyone expects you to have a degree (or be able to build up something on your own) and you are handicapped without it (=> you earn less), but that makes no sense at all. The idea that a teacher needs a university degree is mental. The same applies for many jobs.

We should teach kids in the last years of high school/secondary school a set of practical skills (e.g. how to write a business plan; how to organize; how to educate yourself) and after that we should aspire a much more flexible approach that combines university, work and different forms of learning.

That would increase social mobility in a way that state-sponsored universities will never be able to.

I read that in Germany there is an option between a 2-year practical training-like course, and a 3/4-year Bachelors, and, unlike in the US (or AFAIK India) 2-year degree holders don't have a big disadvantage in the job market.
D'you think that's better model? (and is it true at all!)

 

[Nobby style]

The majority of higher education especially in social science has little practical value outside academia/research. I am in favor of having good researchers in all areas, but the majority of people (fortunately) still leave the university behind. Those skills that you pick up on your way (e.g. writing, researching, organizational stuff) could be taught way more efficiently. Sure, if you are becoming a lawyer, doctor or chemist, university makes a lot of sense. For many jobs university adds very little and an extra year on the job training would be 1000x more useful.

Many people just study for the sake of it, because they don´t know what else to do. That’s fine with me, but why should other people pay for that?

If you want to improve your “general intelligence”, you probably should study math and languages, not history, economics, psychology, arts or sociology/social studies. That would be actually a quite interesting debate to have, because it could influence what we teach children in primary schools.



In general I agree that we need better educated people (due to technological change), but the current university model isn´t the only way to achieve that, because for many careers it is horrendously inefficient. A degree shouldn´t be the be-all-end-all in most professions (again, I am not questioning the usefulness of university education for specialists, who really use their learned knowledge in their job). We´d need a much more flexible approach after finishing your high school education, but universities, the states and businesses are not doing a particularly good job to change the institutions of learning. Due to path-dependency we are still stuck with 18th/19th/20th century institutions.

Currently everyone expects you to have a degree (or be able to build up something on your own) and you are handicapped without it (=> you earn less), but that makes no sense at all. The idea that a teacher needs a university degree is mental. The same applies for many jobs.

We should teach kids in the last years of high school/secondary school a set of practical skills (e.g. how to write a business plan; how to organize; how to educate yourself) and after that we should aspire a much more flexible approach that combines university, work and different forms of learning.

That would increase social mobility in a way that state-sponsored universities will never be able to.

So we don´t saddle our youth with debt and give greater opportunities to more of the less fortunate in society to a higher education, and besides, one becomes a serious tax payer and contributes down the line for others. Or how about cutting business tax benefits and tax shelters and sweet sweet loopholes and corporate welfare to subsidize higher education? Have business invest much more in their employees skills and knowledge instead of getting all that sweet professional baggage for free.

In America, most older generations got great educational deals and are now helping to pay that back with taxes from their professional careers.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I read that in Germany there is an option between a 2-year practical training-like course, and a 3/4-year Bachelors, and, unlike in the US (or AFAIK India) 2-year degree holders don't have a big disadvantage in the job market.
D'you think that's better model? (and is it true at all!)

Austria and Switzerland too, as far as I know. Quite a large number of students I taught from those countries had done 2 year professional apprenticeships (with placements) before going on to university. Noone I can recall spoke badly of it, but they were all glad that they were past it and getting into university.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

So we don´t saddle our youth with debt and give greater opportunities to more of the less fortunate in society to a higher education, and besides, one becomes a serious tax payer and contributes down the line for others. Or how about cutting business tax benefits and tax shelters and sweet sweet loopholes and corporate welfare to subsidize higher education? Have business invest much more in their employees skills and knowledge instead of getting all that sweet professional baggage for free.

In America, most older generations got great educational deals and are now helping to pay that back with taxes from their professional careers.

That point there is one I hadn't thought about at all. If you think like that, then it makes tax evading companies even more galling.

 

[Nobby style]

That point there is one I hadn't thought about at all. If you think like that, then it makes tax evading companies even more galling.

Especially Facebook and Google and all their tax evading. Nice to let other people pay for their workers´training and education and then profit handsomely from it. Talk about free stuff!

 

[JustAFan]

No, it's not going to be less fair for the poor, because fairness is about having the opportunity. Of course people with better educated parents will have an advantage but that's a structural thing you cannot influence.

Imo education shouldn' be about what you paid for but what your abilities are. The best people in the best schools.

Problem is what about some one who does great in high school but totally bombs out of college (happens quite often) or the kid who really hits their stride once they hit college. One takes up valuable space at a top school the other is denied opportunity to get into a top school. Point being there will always be unfair situations in life.

 

[Stanzin Lama]

Not true at all. There is nothing wrong with having a strong working class, even uneducated. If everybody has access to a degree the the value of a degree is going to plummet more so than it is. I also highly doubt giving free college is going to change things like people voting for Donald Trump. That's ridiculous to say. And even if it did, why is that necessarily a good thing? Does the opinions of working class America not count for anything?

And to the point in "rise of awareness."
There is no data that proves education is a strong means to elevate people from poverty. Furthermore, with the dilutment of the American education system college doesn't even make people any smarter than when they go in. It just makes them better at taking college exams and studying. Yes, a graduate degree is now the equivalent of a bachelors etc, but that only further proves my point because that only happened because so many more people have become educated. And we're not better off because of it.

Perhaps your idea of education differs from mine but the critical element behind education for me is that it teaches one to pursue rationality opposed to blind faith and that can never be a wrong thing. One can debate on the merits of current education system but learning anything can never be a bad thing. And yes there is a problem with having an uneducated working class. While few people can be smart and stand out among crowd, law of averages would suggest that for most lack of education breeds orthodoxy and conservatism. I don't really know which data you are looking at but going globally there is actually strong evidence that education can actually have a strong negative impact on poverty (unsure of US's results) but my point is that an educated society goes beyond a "non-poor" society. The value of education should be looked beyond the "human capital" approach that economists tend to use. Morality, ethics, rationality, learning about other's cultures can never be a bad thing. It teaches people to look beyond their box of values and to re-examine their principles and priorities. Once again you could argue that smart people can already do it on their own but for normal people, learning these values is essential.

Which is precisely why I find the bold part problematic. The opinion of working class of America shouldn't be promotion of a xenophobic racist sociopath who in fact is a billionaire that has benefitted from their own taxes time after time. It in fact speaks volumes on their education level if the poor can't find the irony in electing Trump as their president.

 

[129104946]

Perhaps your idea of education differs from mine but the critical element behind education for me is that it teaches one to pursue rationality opposed to blind faith and that can never be a wrong thing. One can debate on the merits of current education system but learning anything can never be a bad thing. And yes there is a problem with having an uneducated working class. While few people can be smart and stand out among crowd, law of averages would suggest that for most lack of education breeds orthodoxy and conservatism. I don't really know which data you are looking at but going globally there is actually strong evidence that education can actually have a strong negative impact on poverty (unsure of US's results) but my point is that an educated society goes beyond a "non-poor" society. The value of education should be looked beyond the "human capital" approach that economists tend to use. Morality, ethics, rationality, learning about other's cultures can never be a bad thing. It teaches people to look beyond their box of values and to re-examine their principles and priorities. Once again you could argue that smart people can already do it on their own but for normal people, learning these values is essential.

Which is precisely why I find the bold part problematic. The opinion of working class of America shouldn't be promotion of a xenophobic racist sociopath who in fact is a billionaire that has benefitted from their own taxes time after time. It in fact speaks volumes on their education level if the poor can't find the irony in electing Trump as their president.

If people are conservative and then go to college and become liberal then it's not education it's indoctrination. You can discount the opinions of almost half our population because 1) they like trump and 2) they didn't go to college.

 

[Javi]

Problem is what about some one who does great in high school but totally bombs out of college (happens quite often) or the kid who really hits their stride once they hit college. One takes up valuable space at a top school the other is denied opportunity to get into a top school. Point being there will always be unfair situations in life.

Yeah sure, but that shouldn't stop us from seeking the fairest solution possible.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

If people are conservative and then go to college and become liberal then it's not education it's indoctrination. You can discount the opinions of almost half our population because 1) they like trump and 2) they didn't go to college.

Kinda feel you've missed the point they were getting at there... in fact, it was the total opposite of indoctrination.

 

[Raoul]

Drumpf getting roasted on Twitter for attempting to use the murder of Dwayne Wade's cousin to suggest Hillary doesn't care about Blacks.

 

[Fener1907]

Drumpf getting roasted on Twitter for attempting to use the murder of Dwayne Wade's cousin to suggest Hillary doesn't care about Blacks.

How does her being killed mean Hilary doesn't care about blacks? Or is this just another moment where his lack of a filter has been badly exposed again, using Twitter like a notepad to document every single incoherent thought.