Obama to Propose 2 Years of Community School for 'Free'

Scholarships and student aid come to mind.

If you go to college and get a degree in something worthless it's your own fault.

Spoiler

This isn't the subject, and I wasn't gonna post in this thread at all, but this just hits too close to home for me to just let it slide.

It's my fault that I'm just conditioned to hate everything related to STEM.
Everything.

I'd rather be miserable doing something that I love, than be miserable and doing something that I hate.
Either way, I'm going to be miserable. It's not like I'm ever going to avoid it.

"But you'll make more money with a STEM degree."

Money for what? Money for what.
I don't give a FUCK about money.

So tell me--yes, I realize the "jobs" are gonna come only with difficulty if I continue majoring in the subject that I'm passionate in. I'd just like one reason why I should conceivably give a fuck. In a PM, please, because I don't wanna derail this thread. I should've PM'd you first, but your post pissed me off too much.

OT:

You know, it seemed like a good idea at first, but I mean... of course, there's always something wrong with it. What works? Nothing. What doesn't work? Everything. I'm so lost and jaded towards all this shit.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

And if people go to school and get a useless degree, then they're going to be back where they started, minus the two years they could've spent moving up in a company or acquiring experience.

any degree is better than no degree, though. And not everyone is required to get a degree directly related to their field of work. Plenty of people I know have an English or history degree and work in accounting or payroll or something.

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

I'm sure there are already ways of acquiring financial assistance.

of course. But the people who qualify for free community college probably don't know how to go about getting such assistance.

Plenty of people I know have an English or history degree and work in accounting or payroll or something.

And that doesn't strike you as part of the whole problem?

Plenty of people I know have an English or history degree and work in accounting or payroll or something.

And that doesn't strike you as part of the whole problem?

Well, considering the average person changes careers a few times in their life, it's silly to expect someone to do exactly what they have a degree in for their whole life. People change and maybe they tire of the field they're in. Not everyone works in such a specialized field that they need a degree in exactly that.

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

I'm sure there are already ways of acquiring financial assistance.

of course. But the people who qualify for free community college probably don't know how to go about getting such assistance.

If they can't even apply for financial aid correctly, why are we wasting tax paper money on college courses that they will fail....

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

I'm sure there are already ways of acquiring financial assistance.

of course. But the people who qualify for free community college probably don't know how to go about getting such assistance.

If they can't even apply for financial aid correctly, why are we wasting tax paper money on college courses that they will fail....

I have to agree with PSU here.

The solution, clearly, is to make sure people know how to apply for financial aid.

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

I'm sure there are already ways of acquiring financial assistance.

of course. But the people who qualify for free community college probably don't know how to go about getting such assistance.

If they can't even apply for financial aid correctly, why are we wasting tax paper money on college courses that they will fail....

which is likely the fault of their previous (lack of) education. Poor schools don't exactly provide the best guidance. Does that mean we shouldn't try to help them? It's beneficial to break the cycle of poverty and poor education, for both them and us.

Obviously this isn't the only step we need to take.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

which is likely the fault of their previous (lack of) education.

Which is precisely what we are arguing in response to. I think we all want to improve primary and secondary education, it's just that you don't seem to place much importance on maintaining the ratio of people who go into higher education.

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

I'm sure there are already ways of acquiring financial assistance.

of course. But the people who qualify for free community college probably don't know how to go about getting such assistance.

If they can't even apply for financial aid correctly, why are we wasting tax paper money on college courses that they will fail....

which is likely the fault of their previous (lack of) education. Poor schools don't exactly provide the best guidance. Does that mean we shouldn't try to help them? It's beneficial to break the cycle of poverty and poor education, for both them and us.

Obviously this isn't the only step we need to take.

Or you know just kill off the poor and put the blame on someone we don't like. And I know exactly how we could do it. We start by putting a chemical in the water supply that's poisonous to humans. We then tell the public by the internet not to drink from the water supply. The poor people without internet then die and we blame it on the terrorists.

I laughed, but this is still the serious board dustin. I *hope* this was meant in jest.

which is likely the fault of their previous (lack of) education.

Which is precisely what we are arguing in response to. I think we all want to improve primary and secondary education, it's just that you don't seem to place much importance on maintaining the ratio of people who go into higher education.

And I don't disagree that primary and secondary education also need work, but I disagree that providing access to community college isn't beneficial.

Fixing primary and secondary education will be great...for those who are still in it, or yet to go through it. But there's the problem of the people who have already been through it, which is what needs the more immediate attention.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Point is, if people don't intelligently choose a degree, they shouldn't be surprised when they're jobless in the future. And the government shouldn't be helping out people who can't bother to do that.

This is about people who can't afford to go to school in the first place.

I'm sure there are already ways of acquiring financial assistance.

of course. But the people who qualify for free community college probably don't know how to go about getting such assistance.

If they can't even apply for financial aid correctly, why are we wasting tax paper money on college courses that they will fail....

which is likely the fault of their previous (lack of) education. Poor schools don't exactly provide the best guidance. Does that mean we shouldn't try to help them? It's beneficial to break the cycle of poverty and poor education, for both them and us.

Obviously this isn't the only step we need to take.

Or you know just kill off the poor and put the blame on someone we don't like. And I know exactly how we could do it. We start by putting a chemical in the water supply that's poisonous to humans. We then tell the public by the internet not to drink from the water supply. The poor people without internet then die and we blame it on the terrorists.

I laughed, but this is still the serious board dustin. I *hope* this was meant in jest.

Is it even immoral though? It's not like society needs them or anything. And if no one finds out about it then no one's feelings are hurt.

Now really, stop it dustin.

Spoiler

I agree though, if we kill off all of the poor then everyone is rich and happy.

Is it even immoral though? It's not like society needs them or anything. And if no one finds out about it then no one's feelings are hurt.

It's immoral to the counterfactual of not killing them and allowing them to facilitate value.

The whole point of objective morality is that--even if everybody's brainwashed or ignorant--it's still wrong.

it's silly to expect someone to do exactly what they have a degree in for their whole life. People change and maybe they tire of the field they're in. Not everyone works in such a specialized field that they need a degree in exactly that.

That's one of my biggest issues with tertiary education currently.  I'm a CIS major (hue) with a minor in business, and I'm having to take a history class, multiple science classes, and other electives to get my degree.  The core classes relevant to my degree could be completed in three years (two and a half if you count summer school).  Sure, I would probably take Music Theory II anyway, because I'm a musician, and foreign language might be useful in the technology sector, but I don't understand why they're required for a degree that's there to attest to my knowledge in computer information systems and business.

idk, I'm just kind of jaded because I have to go to uni on a Saturday this semester for U.S. History 112. >_>

Dustin, you would be a decent comic book villain.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

But do the ends not justify the means? If society is much better after that, then how could it not be worth doing?

First of all you have no proper way of calculating that, and it seems fairly clear to me that it's a cop-out course of action. There are things you could do with these poor people from a governmental perspective which allows them to facilitate more value as a whole and improve socioeconomically--without murdering them all.

There is a difference between theoretical morality and real morality. In theoretical morality you never have to make an immoral choice to satisfy a moral outcome. But in real morality you're forced to make choices that will have you act immorally whether you like it or not.

This is just a non-assertion. There's no such thing as an "immoral choice" which facilitates a moral consequence; all moral choices are judged by their circumstance and consequences.