Republicans are perceived as not caring about society.

[iuwclurker1]

With all the bad news such as the hike in Obamacare rates and the drab economy, if Hillary wins, it's really simply a repudiation of the Party of No Solutions. It's easy to blame it on Trump, but that's not what's really happening. The predominance of people prefer some solution to no solution, even if it costs them something. Most people, despite the nonsense droned by some here, actually care enough about society to pay some cost. Put differently, they view society as theirs, just as they view family as theirs, so they're willing to invest in it. If the pragmatic choice were between Obamacare and Republicare, people would obviously take Republicare because it would appear to save money. Since the Republicans are offering no pragmatic choice, people resign themselves to Obamacare.

Republicans need to step out of their self-centered box and realize that the reality of life is that we live in a society and I am my society and my society is me. This is not a socialistic concept and thinking that would be pure ignorance of reality. The point is I am responsible for my society. I need to create solutions for my society. I can't pollute my drinking water and I can't pollute my society. Any solution is better than no solution, contrary to the conservative small-government trope. The real reason minorities don't vote Republican in larger percentages is because Republicans offer no societal solutions, only self-serving solutions. Republicans are perceived as not caring about society.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So those who vote for Democrats -- minorities or otherwise -- aren't doing so out of self-interest?

Hmm, interesting notion. Laughably wrong, of course. But interesting.

 

[twenty02]

With all the bad news such as the hike in Obamacare rates and the drab economy, if Hillary wins, it's really simply a repudiation of the Party of No Solutions. It's easy to blame it on Trump, but that's not what's really happening. The predominance of people prefer some solution to no solution, even if it costs them something. Most people, despite the nonsense droned by some here, actually care enough about society to pay some cost. Put differently, they view society as theirs, just as they view family as theirs, so they're willing to invest in it. If the pragmatic choice were between Obamacare and Republicare, people would obviously take Republicare because it would appear to save money. Since the Republicans are offering no pragmatic choice, people resign themselves to Obamacare.

Republicans need to step out of their self-centered box and realize that the reality of life is that we live in a society and I am my society and my society is me. This is not a socialistic concept and thinking that would be pure ignorance of reality. The point is I am responsible for my society. I need to create solutions for my society. I can't pollute my drinking water and I can't pollute my society. Any solution is better than no solution, contrary to the conservative small-government trope. The real reason minorities don't vote Republican in larger percentages is because Republicans offer no societal solutions, only self-serving solutions. Republicans are perceived as not caring about society.

What a load of gibberish.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Any solution is better than no solution, contrary to the conservative small-government trope.

"Hey, the house is on fire. Do something"

"I have no fire extinguisher."

"Dump the Gasoline on it!"

"How will that help?"

"We have to do SOMETHING!"

 

[zeke4ahs]

"Hey, the house is on fire. Do something"

"I have no fire extinguisher."

"Dump the Gasoline on it!"

"How will that help?"

"We have to do SOMETHING!"

That sounds just like Trump supporters. We hate everything that's happening. We have to tear it down. Trump has no solutions, but at least he isn't Washington elite.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

"Hey, the house is on fire. Do something"

"I have no fire extinguisher."

"Dump the Gasoline on it!"

"How will that help?"

"We have to do SOMETHING!"

Yeah, that's pretty much the problem with the whole "at least we're doing **something**!!!" defense.

Using this logic, we can defend most any policy decision in history.

The early Fed "did something" in response to the stock market bubble in the late 20s -- and to the crash in 1929.

Congress and Hoover "did something" in response to the pressures on the American labor market from imports in 1930.

LBJ "did something" to combat the threat of China and Russia expanding communism in Southeast Asia.

LBJ also "did something" to eradicate the scourge of poverty in America.

Nixon "did something" to respond to high rates of inflation in 1971 -- and, along with Ford and Carter, continued to "do something" to combat (curiously resilient) high oil/gas prices throughout the decade.

It's pointless to get into these kinds of discussions with iuwclurker. But I would use the occasion to reiterate what COH has said about just how much some people misunderstand the general conservative philosophy. To many people, conservatism is tantamount to "doing nothing" to improve society, or people's lives, etc. or even worse, some even see it as willfully harming society in order to benefit rich people (or, at best, standing in the way of improving society in order to protect rich people).

Thomas Frank, who is a genuinely thoughtful and inquisitive liberal, wrote a best-selling book pondering why more lower-income people didn't vote (what he saw as) their self-interest. His basic conclusion was that it was for cultural reasons -- and I'm sure there's something to that. But I also think that a whole lot of people have no interest in gaining at somebody else's expense. Low-income people could improve their condition by burgling homes and robbing banks, too. But few chose to do so.

Anyway, I agree with the basic point you're making. And Obamacare is a great and timely example: healthcare was obviously a mess in 2010 and the Democrats certainly "did something" about it.

But (a) I'd argue that it was only a mess because of decades of interventionist policies, and (b) I can't imagine even its most ardent supporter would say that it's lived up to its sales pitch....while those of us who thought it would only exacerbate the problems would point to it and say "Told you so."

Most social engineering projects don't help society "progress" towards anything but the proverbial cliff.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's only because they get into the government and shut it down.

"The house is on fire. Do something."

"Fvck it."

Personally, I'm more interested in determining why it caught fire to begin with and not doing things which either grow the current fire or ensure future ones.

We've got some almost certain huge fires coming down the pike in the form of mass defaults in pensions and student loans (not to mention the massive shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare).

These fires will not be the consequences of conservative public policies.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Personally, I'm more interested in determining why it caught fire to begin with and not doing things which either grow the current fire or ensure future ones.

We've got some almost certain huge fires coming down the pike in the form of mass defaults in pensions and student loans.

These fires will not be the consequences of conservative public policies.

Finding out how the fire started is all well and good. Republicans like investigating things over and over and over and over, so that shouldn't be a problem. We'll tell them Hillary probably started it so we can be sure it will be investigated thoroughly. However, you still need to put out the fire that's currently burning.

 

[iuwclurker1]

So those who vote for Democrats -- minorities or otherwise -- aren't doing so out of self-interest?

Hmm, interesting notion. Laughably wrong, of course. But interesting.

The problem is the definition of "self." Your definition is limited to your body. Your body needs a street, so you vote for a street. Also needs sewage, so you vote for that. Your body doesn't need clean water in Flint, so you vote against it. Your definition of "self" is almost as limited as someone living on the dark side of the moon. In fact, in terms of orders of magnitude, probably the same.

 

[iuwclurker1]

What a load of gibberish.

Your blindfolds are appropriate.

 

[twenty02]

The problem is the definition of "self." Your definition is limited to your body. Your body needs a street, so you vote for a street. Also needs sewage, so you vote for that. Your body doesn't need clean water in Flint, so you vote against it. Your definition of "self" is almost as limited as someone living on the dark side of the moon. In fact, in terms of orders of magnitude, probably the same.

Nobody in Indiana is voting on anything that is happening with Flint water systems. What a ridiculous red herring.

Nothing you've written on this thread is the least bit coherent.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Most social engineering projects don't help society "progress" towards anything but the proverbial cliff.

You're the one who's pointless to discuss things with because you use "epithets" like social engineering. And you go off on your "you don't understand conservatism" rant.

I deliberately clarified that I'm talking about individual responsibility in the first post to force you to face that. Plus I deliberately wrote about pragmatic solutions, because your "conservatism" is useless if it's not put into practice.

Hank's post and your "social engineering" are examples of you using strawmen to avoid the truth that "conservatism" is doing nothing in reality to address our health care crisis. You probably don't even "see" a crisis.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Nobody in Indiana is voting on anything that is happening with Flint water systems. What a ridiculous red herring.

Nothing you've written on this thread is the least bit coherent.

You just don't get it. You're intelligent, so I assume you don't choose to get it.

The relevance of Flint is clear. I, as an individual, can take as much responsibility for my world as I choose. It's a matter of individual choice. I can stop at myself, at my family, at my neighborhood, at my city limits, at my state limits, at my national border, at the edge of the earth's atmosphere, and so on.

Not caring about Flint (not casting a metaphorical vote for flint) is not taking responsibility for Flint. Crazed's thing is that every individual cares only about his self-interest. That's only true if you realize that each individual defines self for himself and many define it far more broadly that Crazed's obviously limited definition.

For Hank, taking responsibility means acting reeeeaaaaaalllllly stupid. Well...okay then. For me, it means using my brains and science and others to figure out how to make the world better. Guess that falls under different strokes for different folks.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The problem is the definition of "self." Your definition is limited to your body. Your body needs a street, so you vote for a street. Also needs sewage, so you vote for that. Your body doesn't need clean water in Flint, so you vote against it. Your definition of "self" is almost as limited as someone living on the dark side of the moon. In fact, in terms of orders of magnitude, probably the same.

1) There aren't varying definitions of the term "self."

2) Who in the world ever "voted against" clean water in Flint?

 

[Hank Reardon]

Right! Given no science, believe the nearest idiot!

Hey, I admit my post was childish and pointless, but given your OP I though that was the purpose of the thread. I'm just trying to fit in.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Personally, I'm more interested in determining why it caught fire to begin with and not doing things which either grow the current fire or ensure future ones.

We've got some almost certain huge fires coming down the pike in the form of mass defaults in pensions and student loans (not to mention the massive shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare).

These fires will not be the consequences of conservative public policies.

There are two basic solutions to our debt: 1) make more money or 2) spend less. If you take a clear-headed look around the US, what you see is a huge surplus of manpower. Our focus should be on putting it to work and expanding our economy.

Using health care as an example, the basic problem is that MBAs have taken the industry over and are trying to maximize the number of customers, aka patients, to maximize profits. That's absurd. The mission of medicine is to create well people not permanent patients. Our creative energy should focus on creating goods and services that lead to a more ideal society, however you define that, not a more sick society, which is what we're currently doing.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Hey, I admit my post was childish and pointless, but given your OP I though that was the purpose of the thread. I'm just trying to fit in.

You were wrong.

 

[iuwclurker1]

1) There aren't varying definitions of the term "self."

Okay, what's your definition of self as you use it in self interest?

I already gave you mine, clearly demonstrating that there are varying definitions.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

We've got some almost certain huge fires coming down the pike in the form of mass defaults in pensions and student loans (not to mention the massive shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare).

These fires will not be the consequences of conservative public policies.

Explain

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Crazed's thing is that every individual cares only about his self-interest.

I've never said that.

I do think people are primarily driven by their self-interest. In fact, I can't even see how that could be refuted. But they're not entirely motivated by self-interest. Lots of people contribute lots of their resources (time, skills, money/goods, etc) to pursuits which carry no tangible benefit for them. This obviously wouldn't be the case of people only applied their resources to their own gain.

Beyond that, I don't think too many people generally object to paying taxes for collective benefit. It seems pretty obvious that there are certain things necessary for a functioning, civilized society that are best tended to in this fashion.

All I said here is that it's naive to think that Republicans vote out of self-interest and Democrats don't. Why do you think Democratic politicians are always telling people that Republicans will take away their Medicare and Social Security? You don't think the voters who respond to that appeal are doing so because they believe it's in their self-interest?

This conversation reminds me of that video of Phil Donahue grilling Milton Friedman about the "greed" inherent in capitalism. Friedman actually granted the premise (I wouldn't have -- because I make a clear distinction between greed and self-interest). But he challenged Donahue to name a society where greed was absent and altruism reigned.

In other words, he told Donahue that his gripe really wasn't so much with capitalism as it was human nature.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I've never said that.

I do think people are primarily driven by their self-interest. In fact, I can't even see how that could be refuted. But they're not entirely motivated by self-interest. Lots of people contribute lots of their resources (time, skills, money/goods, etc) to pursuits which carry no tangible benefit for them. This obviously wouldn't be the case of people only applied their resources to their own gain.

Beyond that, I don't think too many people generally object to paying taxes for collective benefit. It seems pretty obvious that there are certain things necessary for a functioning, civilized society that are best tended to in this fashion.

All I said here is that it's naive to think that Republicans vote out of self-interest and Democrats don't. Why do you think Democratic politicians are always telling people that Republicans will take away their Medicare and Social Security? You don't think the voters who respond to that appeal are doing so because they believe it's in their self-interest?

This conversation reminds me of that video of Phil Donahue grilling Milton Friedman about the "greed" inherent in capitalism. Friedman actually granted the premise (I wouldn't have -- because I make a clear distinction between greed and self-interest). But he challenged Donahue to name a society where greed was absent and altruism reigned.

In other words, he told Donahue that his gripe really wasn't so much with capitalism as it was human nature.

I don't disagree that people primarily do things out of self-interest. I just see that each individual defines self-interest differently and by that I mean more or less broadly. You somehow separate self-interest from collective benefit. I don't because collective benefit is in one's self-interest so it's part of self-interest. China, among other countries, is currently polluting the livin' bejesus out of Southeast Asia. That's a problem for me. It affects my self-interest. If it doesn't affect your self-interest, that's because you define your self-interest more narrowly. I don't see how that can be refuted because it's simply a matter of definitions applied to reality.

I could see you not caring about other galaxies, but we are all quite connected on planet earth.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You somehow separate self-interest from collective benefit.

Er, no I don't. If I thought that, then I would never understand why anybody would concede to paying taxes for roads, defense, law enforcement, etc. What the heck ever gave you the idea that I separated self-interest from collective benefit? I benefit from, say, roads and bridges -- and so do lots of other people. And I fully realize that nothing comes for free. As such, few people object to the idea of paying taxes to have roads.

Now, it obviously can and will be the case that what one person sees as a "collective benefit", another person does not. And this is when this starts getting hairy. As a general (but admittedly unattainable) ideal, I think societies should strive to not force somebody pay for something that they object to or even just derive no value from.

Maybe your confusion about this comes from my oft-stated gripe against "collectivism" (as opposed to "individualism"). But collectivism is a basic moral framework predicated on the subjugation of the individual to the collective. Rejecting that paradigm doesn't mean rejecting the idea that we all pool our resources together to pay for roads and police and such.

I don't because collective benefit is in one's self-interest so it's part of self-interest.

It can be, sure. But I wouldn't say that it necessarily always is. I suspect all of us could easily list some things that our taxes pay for that we don't see as benefitting us directly or indirectly.

China, among other countries, is currently polluting the livin' bejesus out of Southeast Asia. That's a problem for me. It affects my self-interest. If it doesn't affect your self-interest, that's because you define your self-interest more narrowly. I don't see how that can be refuted because it's simply a matter of definitions applied to reality.

Well, I'm not sure I see how the air quality in Southeast Asia has any bearing on your self-interest. But I would also say that it doesn't have to in order for you to have a problem with it. I have a problem with it -- but I can't say with a straight face that I have a dog in that hunt.

Let me put it this way: which would you devote more effort to stopping....China polluting the environment in Southeast Asia, or a proposed egg-processing facility a half-mile away from your house? It's not the least bit surprising to me that lots of residents who live near the proposed facility (in a suburb east of the city) in that piece showed up to voice their opposition. It's also not the least bit surprising to me that virtually nobody who lives on the far west side of town showed up.

The reason for this isn't complicated: people near the proposed facility naturally care a lot more about it than people who live 30+ miles away.

I could see you not caring about other galaxies, but we are all quite connected on planet earth.

I care about planet earth. We all have a vested self-interest in earth's well-being -- and you don't have to make a huge stretch to say that you have a particular interest in the air quality in Laos to demonstrate this.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Explain

Well, with regards to the looming student loan debacle, the basic conservative approach to higher ed finance would be that the risk of lending somebody money to pay for a college education should be limited to a person or institution willing to assume it. If you want to buy a car and don't have the cash to do it, find a bank (or credit union, etc.) willing to lend you the money. The same should go for college education. If a lender approaches a prospective student/borrower, and knows that they either have to carry their note on their own books or else find somebody else willing to buy it from them, they're clearly going to be deliberate about appropriately pricing the loan commensurate with their estimate of the default risk.

What kinds of mechanisms are in place to ensure that the borrower will be holding up their end of the bargain? What is their likely value in the job market upon graduation and is that rational to the cost of the degree? What happens if they drop out after two years?

Now, you might look at this and say: Crazed, if we financed college this way, far fewer people would qualify for student loans! Probably. But, for starters, is that really worse than the situation we're approaching? Moreover, wouldn't this force colleges and universities to figure out ways to offer better values? And, lastly, how much value (in whatever form) have we gotten from the trillions we've put on the line financing student loans?

The situation we're facing now is (a) a very high likelihood of a large number of defaults on the ~$1.5T in outstanding student debt, and (b) a clear divergence between the monetary value of a college degree and the cost to obtain one.

So where did this come from? Well, for starters, we've developed a strong bias towards saying that "everybody can and should go to college." Why? Now, that's not me doing a Judge Smails thing ("well, the world needs ditchdiggers, too!"). Rather, it just seems increasingly obvious to me that, aside from professional courses of study like engineering, medicine, law, and accounting or something like the physical sciences, a college degree is a poor value.

And the other side of this same coin is that access to a college degree should be freed from the bounds of money. The recent move having taxpayers' assuming the risk of student loans is clearly another step in this direction.

I'll talk about the pension shortfall in another post. Got a meeting.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So where did this come from? Well, for starters, we've developed a strong bias towards saying that "everybody can and should go to college." Why? Now, that's not me doing a Judge Smails thing ("well, the world needs ditchdiggers, too!"). Rather, it just seems increasingly obvious to me that, aside from professional courses of study like engineering, medicine, law, and accounting or something like the physical sciences, a college degree is a poor value.

It is interesting how the degrees people find "important" today are so different, and it is conservatives who seem to have this opinion. Look back through our founding fathers. You will find a lot of philosophy degrees, religion degrees, literature. Yet all of those traditional concepts are viewed harshly by conservatives now. Is it that philosophy makes people more liberal? Whatever it is, the old Arts and Sciences degree does not seem popular on the right.

I am a big believer that we need people more well rounded. Heck, I sure wish my grammar and punctuation were better. But for whatever reason it seems we want to turn out folks much more narrowly trained. Taking a class is philosophy or religion is a waste of time.

As I like pointing out, the guy that saved the Union flank on Little Round Top was a professor of rhetoric. Being widely learned isn't bad.

 

[twenty02]

It is interesting how the degrees people find "important" today are so different, and it is conservatives who seem to have this opinion. Look back through our founding fathers. You will find a lot of philosophy degrees, religion degrees, literature. Yet all of those traditional concepts are viewed harshly by conservatives now. Is it that philosophy makes people more liberal? Whatever it is, the old Arts and Sciences degree does not seem popular on the right.

I am a big believer that we need people more well rounded. Heck, I sure wish my grammar and punctuation were better. But for whatever reason it seems we want to turn out folks much more narrowly trained. Taking a class is philosophy or religion is a waste of time.

As I like pointing out, the guy that saved the Union flank on Little Round Top was a professor of rhetoric. Being widely learned isn't bad.

There is nothing wrong with a liberal arts education. But it's a relative luxury item.

By itself, it has little value in the job marketplace.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There is nothing wrong with a liberal arts education. But it's a relative luxury item.

By itself, it has little value in the job marketplace.

I'm just not sure why, it seems our forefathers valued it. If there is one thing a visit to the message boards of the world, critical thinking skills are in desperately short supply.

 

[twenty02]

I'm just not sure why, it seems our forefathers valued it. If there is one thing a visit to the message boards of the world, critical thinking skills are in desperately short supply.

In the era of our forefathers, almost nobody went to college. And those that did were from the elite of society, those that could afford sending their young adults away for education.

In 1875, one could attend Harvard for $3k (in current inflation adjusted dollars).

Doesn't really compare to today's situation.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

There is nothing wrong with a liberal arts education. But it's a relative luxury item.

By itself, it has little value in the job marketplace.

It's a very valuable bolt-on education that creates, in theory, a far more rounded out worker than such a narrowly trained one.

One of the biggest issues facing our country, in my opinion, is the inability to think critically and use logic to flush out BS. The issue is prevalent in the workforce, but blue and white collar, and is glaringly obvious in this political season.

Lessons in philosophy and logic would go a long way to helping this major problem.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Well, with regards to the looming student loan debacle, the basic conservative approach to higher ed finance would be that the risk of lending somebody money to pay for a college education should be limited to a person or institution willing to assume it. If you want to buy a car and don't have the cash to do it, find a bank (or credit union, etc.) willing to lend you the money. The same should go for college education. If a lender approaches a prospective student/borrower, and knows that they either have to carry their note on their own books or else find somebody else willing to buy it from them, they're clearly going to be deliberate about appropriately pricing the loan commensurate with their estimate of the default risk.

What kinds of mechanisms are in place to ensure that the borrower will be holding up their end of the bargain? What is their likely value in the job market upon graduation and is that rational to the cost of the degree? What happens if they drop out after two years?

Now, you might look at this and say: Crazed, if we financed college this way, far fewer people would qualify for student loans! Probably. But, for starters, is that really worse than the situation we're approaching? Moreover, wouldn't this force colleges and universities to figure out ways to offer better values? And, lastly, how much value (in whatever form) have we gotten from the trillions we've put on the line financing student loans?

The situation we're facing now is (a) a very high likelihood of a large number of defaults on the ~$1.5T in outstanding student debt, and (b) a clear divergence between the monetary value of a college degree and the cost to obtain one.

So where did this come from? Well, for starters, we've developed a strong bias towards saying that "everybody can and should go to college." Why? Now, that's not me doing a Judge Smails thing ("well, the world needs ditchdiggers, too!"). Rather, it just seems increasingly obvious to me that, aside from professional courses of study like engineering, medicine, law, and accounting or something like the physical sciences, a college degree is a poor value.

And the other side of this same coin is that access to a college degree should be freed from the bounds of money. The recent move having taxpayers' assuming the risk of student loans is clearly another step in this direction.

I'll talk about the pension shortfall in another post. Got a meeting.

What on earth makes risk-appropriate decision making a conservative principle?

 

[twenty02]

It's a very valuable bolt-on education that creates, in theory, a far more rounded out worker than such a narrowly trained one.

One of the biggest issues facing our country, in my opinion, is the inability to think critically and use logic to flush out BS. The issue is prevalent in the workforce, but blue and white collar, and is glaringly obvious in this political season.

Lessons in philosophy and logic would go a long way to helping this major problem.

That type of critical thinking/logic is somewhat required of all college degrees. Every 4 year degree still requires a decent amount of arts and sciences.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That type of critical thinking/logic is somewhat required of all college degrees. Every 4 year degree still requires a decent amount of arts and sciences.

I don't think so. I have one daughter with a degree that is from some school north of indianapolis that Noodle likes. Her program out of engineering required virtually nothing but math. My youngest is in Informatics, there is nothing out of any of the classics in her path.

 

[twenty02]

I don't think so. I have one daughter with a degree that is from some school north of indianapolis that Noodle likes. Her program out of engineering required virtually nothing but math. My youngest is in Informatics, there is nothing out of any of the classics in her path.

At IU, all the B.S. degrees required about about 40 hours min of general education credits. I believe that's still the same, including the B.S. in Informatics.


Updated....here are the Gen Ed Reqs for all undergrads.

http://gened.indiana.edu/Students/requirements.html

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

At IU, all the B.S. degrees required about about 40 hours min of general education credits. I believe that's still the same, including the B.S. in Informatics.


Updated....here are the Gen Ed Reqs for all undergrads.

http://gened.indiana.edu/Students/requirements.html

Yeah I had virtually no liberal arts classes as a Kelley student. I did take bowling...so I've got that going for me...which is nice.

 

[twenty02]

Yeah I had virtually no liberal arts classes as a Kelley student. I did take bowling...so I've got that going for me...which is nice.

Not sure how that's possible....unless it was intentional. I was in Kelley too, and definitely took some (certainly not a lot). They required a certain amount from each area (some science and math too, not just LA)....pretty similar to what is in that link.

I recall a couple music classes, History of Rock, Jazz Appreciation. A poli-sci class about Latin America, a Caribbean History course.

COAS courses....we all had them.


I also took bowling....and billiards.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Not sure how that's possible....unless it was intentional. I was in Kelley too, and definitely took some (certainly not a lot). They required a certain amount from each area (some science and math too, not just LA)....pretty similar to what is in that link.

I recall a couple music classes, History of Rock, Jazz Appreciation. A poli-sci class about Latin America, a Caribbean History course.

COAS courses....we all had them.


I also took bowling....and billiards.

Right. my point is that I'd like schools to take a look at a mandatory philosophy or logic class when you go for a business or STEM degree. You can't rely on business students to know this ahead of time, because we will just F off and take bowling.

 

[UncleMark]

There is nothing wrong with a liberal arts education. But it's a relative luxury item.

By itself, it has little value in the job marketplace.

Which is a problem with the marketplace. No one wants to hire a COAS graduate and train them up. They want plug and play bodies from day one.

 

[twenty02]

Which is a problem with the marketplace. No one wants to hire a COAS graduate and train them up. They want plug and play bodies from day one.

Certainly not all....many large cap companies have the resources to train in-house.

But yes, once you get mid market and smaller....why would they, when they can have the college system do it with federally backed dollars?

 

[twenty02]

Right. my point is that I'd like schools to take a look at a mandatory philosophy or logic class when you go for a business or STEM degree. You can't rely on business students to know this ahead of time, because we will just F off and take bowling.

Agree.....but did remember that bowling actually didn't count towards anything as far as the Gen ed reqs, it was just a something you could throw in for 1 credit that didn't cost extra with the flat fee system IUB uses.

I think you could count 2 or 3 hours of those HPER classes towards your 128 total, or whatever the number was for undergrad degree.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It is interesting how the degrees people find "important" today are so different, and it is conservatives who seem to have this opinion. Look back through our founding fathers. You will find a lot of philosophy degrees, religion degrees, literature. Yet all of those traditional concepts are viewed harshly by conservatives now. Is it that philosophy makes people more liberal? Whatever it is, the old Arts and Sciences degree does not seem popular on the right.

I am a big believer that we need people more well rounded. Heck, I sure wish my grammar and punctuation were better. But for whatever reason it seems we want to turn out folks much more narrowly trained. Taking a class is philosophy or religion is a waste of time.

As I like pointing out, the guy that saved the Union flank on Little Round Top was a professor of rhetoric. Being widely learned isn't bad.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with importance, Marvin. It has to do with the numbers.

We've long ignored the numbers. And I'd say we're on the verge of paying a big price for that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What on earth makes risk-appropriate decision making a conservative principle?

When the federal government steps in as the (effective) underwriter of virtually all student loans, do you think it gives a hoot about the risk? What about when a bank finances something?

The best that can be said about this is that they're trying to get out ahead of this risk bubble before it bursts just like the housing bubble did -- which was also the result of a breakdown of risk management...getting people into homes they couldn't afford. Well, a whole lot of our outstanding student loans are similarly going to prove unaffordable.

If we'd have treated education financing the same as we treat finance for virtually anything else, we wouldn't be facing this. But, like healthcare and housing, education is one of the things cited in FDR's "Second Bill of Rights". As such, we approach it as something everybody must have access to, without appropriate consideration of things like value and risk.