So people who will spend a year after high school to learn enough about a subject to legitimately meet the requirements to enter university shouldn't be allowed to go to university? There are community college courses that are entirely for that purpose. Their entire purpose is to make students meet university prerequisites. Some universities (MIT) even teach these courses online or during summer break, when regular courses (that require the prerequisites) are not in session.
Not everyone has a good library. Not everyone has a high school that teaches the subject they want to specialize in, and some subjects heavily benefit from having a person who knows it helping. I'd much rather people who are sure they want to learn a subject and will spend the time than someone who takes a university course because they want a degree, without caring about the subject or intending to do it professionally.
You're hitting on a different, but related, problem. That high school is dramatically insufficient to prepare most people for higher education. And this is the case because, again, we have this stupid policy of not "leaving behind" the chronically inadequate.
Public school, and having public-ized the college system, is an invalid paradigm.
No, I've been talking about the same thing this entire time. Some people don't meet the requirements for a university course for whatever reason. As long as they spend the time and effort to legitimately meet the requirements, they should be accepted. I'm not talking about accepting them when they don't meet the standards. I'm talking about accepting them after they've proved they meet the standards.
They're rejected > they take a year to meet the standards > they're accepted the next year after meeting the standards
Don't enroll them if they don't meet the standards. If they do meet the requirements, even if they take a program somewhere else to do it, why the fuck shouldn't they?
even if they take a program somewhere else to do it
Because this is going to be another avenue to not solving the problem. First we're paying for a dozen years of schooling and then the taxpayer is on the hook for student loans funding worthless degrees, and now we're going to invent catch up programs and pay for that too?
The solution is to STOP the gravy train. To cut off colleges from this endless source of funding, and force them to be selective or else die off.
Not to keep finding more and more ways to make it "equal".
I really don't care if someone's highschool sucked, or about any of these "opportunities" lines. I'm tired of paying nearly half of my earnings because the parasite class thinks they're entitled to a free ride at my expense. I'd rather see the entire education system collapse than tack on another "program" to guzzle tax dollars.
student loans are the one debt that even bankruptcy can't remove. Democrats keep promising they'll remove student debt, but I haven't seen it happen.
"catch up programs" have existed for decades. Thomas Sowell used one. The current university "diversity" focus, means unqualified students aren't using these cheaper programs, and are instead going directly into university. If students had to enter these courses if they don't properly qualify, any who aren't serious or are definitely incapable of going into university would stop there, instead of spending years in a much more expensive university program and graduating still without competency.
I agree that government should cut off universities. The costs to students have only increased the more government has funded them. They have also proven they don't care about free speech, and fine treating people differently based on race, and don't produce graduates who are actually capable for in-demand fields.
In the hypothetical situation where the government should still provide funding, it should only be based on the above. Payment should only be provided if the school does not violate the constitution, and only for in demand fields. The university should also provide a guarantee for the quality of education and graduate capability (what a degree is supposed to be). Possibly even bring in some of those standardized tests teachers hate so much. Students who have benefited from government funds should also have to remain in the industry for a minimum number of years. I don't trust the current government not to fuck this up, or that what I wrote would be enough even if government was more competent.
That said, I feel that most of academia is currently is too rotten to be revived. Maybe if concerned citizens enter local school boards. Clear out useless policies and teachers. Bring back shop class, and bring in new programs like financial literacy. Try to get students to actually find what they're good at before they even think about university, and learn some skills that are actually necessary. Also get rid of teaching degrees, they're worthless, and often keep out competent people with relevant up-to-date skills. There should be a focus away from universities and degrees in general. Not every one benefits from academia, and a degree should be treated as worthless if there's no competency to back it up.
As long as they spend the time and effort to legitimately meet the requirements, they should be accepted. I'm not talking about accepting them when they don't meet the standards. I'm talking about accepting them after they've proved they meet the standards.
I realize I've responded to several of your comments (sorry for the notification spam!), but you need to understand that a significant part of the population will never be able to meet those requirements because they don't have mental horsepower to do so. I'm all for allowing anyone who's capable into university programs, even if they show that they're capable in a nontraditional manner. But there are people who will never be able to do that no matter how much they try and they need to be able to make a living as well. Right now the only jobs they can do are minimum wage because corporations are importing an endless supply of third worlders. Fixing that problem would go a long way towards helping without further degrading the quality of a college education.
There is an overvaluing of university degrees. The idea that everyone needs a degree is idiotic. You have people taking programs don't teach any usable skills, or are in oversupplied fields (if there is any demand to begin with). Small companies I know don't want university grads because they're arrogant, and need to be retaught to become competent in the subject they have a degree for. Corporate still uses it as a minimum requirement.
There is a need for more trades, something that is undervalued in society, or at least in metropolitan areas and academia. Students don't have to take on much, if any debt, and they start earning much faster. Trades also pay well, are in demand, and it's nice to be able to fix your own things. Not that people that go into trades are dumb or less capable, it's a different skill set. One that many people who graduate university are completely incompetent in. And people in trades don't have university debt while they work as a "journalist" or a cashier.
Academia has been in control of public perception for too long, and the result has shown itself. People need to get into local government, or onto local school boards and bring back shop class, or programs that teach other necessary fields that. Education, and education spending should be about filling the needs of society, and ensuring everyone can succeed (to the extent they can) in the field best for them (if there's demand), even if that success isn't academics.
I agree that corporations are often abusing immigration rules to bring in people in, although I see that as a separate issue from university enrollment. Corporations should have to work harder to prove they can't get workers locally. Do they actually need the high qualifications they advertise locally (that prevent applicants), and can they pay more, and advertise to the local community better. Can they train local people. Unless it's a highly technical field, or the individual is of special importance (like a known artist) there probably isn't a legitimate reason not to use local people.
So people who will spend a year after high school to learn enough about a subject to legitimately meet the requirements to enter university shouldn't be allowed to go to university? There are community college courses that are entirely for that purpose. Their entire purpose is to make students meet university prerequisites. Some universities (MIT) even teach these courses online or during summer break, when regular courses (that require the prerequisites) are not in session.
Not everyone has a good library. Not everyone has a high school that teaches the subject they want to specialize in, and some subjects heavily benefit from having a person who knows it helping. I'd much rather people who are sure they want to learn a subject and will spend the time than someone who takes a university course because they want a degree, without caring about the subject or intending to do it professionally.
You're hitting on a different, but related, problem. That high school is dramatically insufficient to prepare most people for higher education. And this is the case because, again, we have this stupid policy of not "leaving behind" the chronically inadequate.
Public school, and having public-ized the college system, is an invalid paradigm.
No, I've been talking about the same thing this entire time. Some people don't meet the requirements for a university course for whatever reason. As long as they spend the time and effort to legitimately meet the requirements, they should be accepted. I'm not talking about accepting them when they don't meet the standards. I'm talking about accepting them after they've proved they meet the standards.
They're rejected > they take a year to meet the standards > they're accepted the next year after meeting the standards
Don't enroll them if they don't meet the standards. If they do meet the requirements, even if they take a program somewhere else to do it, why the fuck shouldn't they?
Because this is going to be another avenue to not solving the problem. First we're paying for a dozen years of schooling and then the taxpayer is on the hook for student loans funding worthless degrees, and now we're going to invent catch up programs and pay for that too?
The solution is to STOP the gravy train. To cut off colleges from this endless source of funding, and force them to be selective or else die off.
Not to keep finding more and more ways to make it "equal".
I really don't care if someone's highschool sucked, or about any of these "opportunities" lines. I'm tired of paying nearly half of my earnings because the parasite class thinks they're entitled to a free ride at my expense. I'd rather see the entire education system collapse than tack on another "program" to guzzle tax dollars.
student loans are the one debt that even bankruptcy can't remove. Democrats keep promising they'll remove student debt, but I haven't seen it happen.
"catch up programs" have existed for decades. Thomas Sowell used one. The current university "diversity" focus, means unqualified students aren't using these cheaper programs, and are instead going directly into university. If students had to enter these courses if they don't properly qualify, any who aren't serious or are definitely incapable of going into university would stop there, instead of spending years in a much more expensive university program and graduating still without competency.
I agree that government should cut off universities. The costs to students have only increased the more government has funded them. They have also proven they don't care about free speech, and fine treating people differently based on race, and don't produce graduates who are actually capable for in-demand fields.
In the hypothetical situation where the government should still provide funding, it should only be based on the above. Payment should only be provided if the school does not violate the constitution, and only for in demand fields. The university should also provide a guarantee for the quality of education and graduate capability (what a degree is supposed to be). Possibly even bring in some of those standardized tests teachers hate so much. Students who have benefited from government funds should also have to remain in the industry for a minimum number of years. I don't trust the current government not to fuck this up, or that what I wrote would be enough even if government was more competent.
That said, I feel that most of academia is currently is too rotten to be revived. Maybe if concerned citizens enter local school boards. Clear out useless policies and teachers. Bring back shop class, and bring in new programs like financial literacy. Try to get students to actually find what they're good at before they even think about university, and learn some skills that are actually necessary. Also get rid of teaching degrees, they're worthless, and often keep out competent people with relevant up-to-date skills. There should be a focus away from universities and degrees in general. Not every one benefits from academia, and a degree should be treated as worthless if there's no competency to back it up.
I realize I've responded to several of your comments (sorry for the notification spam!), but you need to understand that a significant part of the population will never be able to meet those requirements because they don't have mental horsepower to do so. I'm all for allowing anyone who's capable into university programs, even if they show that they're capable in a nontraditional manner. But there are people who will never be able to do that no matter how much they try and they need to be able to make a living as well. Right now the only jobs they can do are minimum wage because corporations are importing an endless supply of third worlders. Fixing that problem would go a long way towards helping without further degrading the quality of a college education.
There is an overvaluing of university degrees. The idea that everyone needs a degree is idiotic. You have people taking programs don't teach any usable skills, or are in oversupplied fields (if there is any demand to begin with). Small companies I know don't want university grads because they're arrogant, and need to be retaught to become competent in the subject they have a degree for. Corporate still uses it as a minimum requirement.
There is a need for more trades, something that is undervalued in society, or at least in metropolitan areas and academia. Students don't have to take on much, if any debt, and they start earning much faster. Trades also pay well, are in demand, and it's nice to be able to fix your own things. Not that people that go into trades are dumb or less capable, it's a different skill set. One that many people who graduate university are completely incompetent in. And people in trades don't have university debt while they work as a "journalist" or a cashier.
Academia has been in control of public perception for too long, and the result has shown itself. People need to get into local government, or onto local school boards and bring back shop class, or programs that teach other necessary fields that. Education, and education spending should be about filling the needs of society, and ensuring everyone can succeed (to the extent they can) in the field best for them (if there's demand), even if that success isn't academics.
I agree that corporations are often abusing immigration rules to bring in people in, although I see that as a separate issue from university enrollment. Corporations should have to work harder to prove they can't get workers locally. Do they actually need the high qualifications they advertise locally (that prevent applicants), and can they pay more, and advertise to the local community better. Can they train local people. Unless it's a highly technical field, or the individual is of special importance (like a known artist) there probably isn't a legitimate reason not to use local people.