US lawmakers introduce bill to ban TikTok
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
Students? Where are the Marxists students? Can you point to a specific Marxist teacher for these students?
I don't mean the made up Fox/ Jordan Peterson 'Marxists' thing
Marx shows up in Philosophy as part of a course. Not the whole course but maybe a couple of weeks in a four year degree. And that's about it. Most universities don't devote a course to him
There aren't Marxist students. It's made up. And Marxist teacher are generally blacklisted from universities
The protesters are being arrested for asking universities to make sure they aren't funding the IDF and staying on university property until they do
What else more does one need to learn about Marxism? College is supposed to prepare you for a job, what job is Marxism enabling you to do but teach about Marxism?
They are taking over buildings and property, why shouldn't they be arrested?
Say you don't know what Marxism is without actually saying what Marxism is
Do you think Marxism and Capitalism is mutually exclusive?
I'm fine with sit ins. Eg. I remember the sit in with Michigan (I think) house of reps from before covid. Maybe banning all guns from such a sit in would be good
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,032
- 2,415
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
College isn't supposed to "prepare you for a job." College is supposed to teach you skills and knowledge above what you would learn in high school. If college was supposed to prepare you for a job they would only provide courses for specific marketable skills. That's not what colleges or universities do, that's the job of trade schools.
There's not much of a job market for people who study Greek mythology, Egyptology, or bowling, but these were all classes that I took for fun when I was in college. Knowledge doesn't have to be actively useful and marketable to be worthwhile.
No, it's supposed to be an IQ, and socioeconomic class separator at least it used to be before. Now anyone with around 102 IQ can get a degree so employers are looking for skills now. This means you need to either go get your AB or BS AND a master's since fewer people have those. Or an AB or BS with certifications AND OR boot camps.
Everyone else can either go to trade school to ruin their knees or get a job in retail, restaurants, or hospitality.
Edit or do a small business or be a social media person but there are long odds on those.
I don't think this has ever really been the case. There are specific schools within the umbrellas of universities that prepare people for specific jobs, but practically anywhere that's the case, you'd rarely describe the student as "going to college", they go to "medical school", "pharmacy school", "law school", etc. It's like we categorically distinguish between college and programs that prepare for a specific career. Cause that's not what college is for.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,032
- 2,415
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I wouldn't even necessarily say that. College was cheap as fuck in the 60s and 70s. You could have waited tables for a summer and paid for a year of classes (which is what all the boomers complain about when they talk about how hard they worked to earn their way though college).
College should cost less, but be more selective...
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,032
- 2,415
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I'm not sure that your source says what you think it says.
It says that college students' IQ has fallen, not college graduates.
Your claim was
Which is directly contradicted by what your own source is saying.
It looks like you read this quote
and interpreted it to mean that the curriculum in colleges has already been adjusted to the lowest common denominator so that average students can attain degrees. That's not what the article is actually saying. The article is saying that college is now prohibitively more expensive than it used to be, but more average IQ people are going to college, which is causing a higher proportion of people to drop out of school without degrees, essentially wasting their money.
The article doesn't claim that there are more graduates with lower IQs, it's saying that there are more students being accepted to universities with lower IQs, and that universities aren't adjusting their curricula and academic standards, which causes more of those people with average IQs to end up in debt and without degrees.
I do agree with you that college should cost less, however I disagree that it needs to be more selective. I think education is important for personal growth and should be attainable for anyone who wants it, and I don't think that people should have to go into ruinous debt if they fail in their attempt to get a college degree. College standards should be high for graduation, and employers shouldn't expect a degree as a baseline for employment in jobs where a degree is unnecessary. There's too many jobs that just want you to have a college degree of any kind to be considered for a role, which is silly and doesn't indicate any specific useful knowledge on the part of the applicant as it applies to the job. Most jobs are not exceptional and do not need exceptional people to do them.
Huh?
It wasn't a sit in.
Everyone thinks college is some requirement to get a decent job, that's why most everyone goes to college. I was told ad nauseum as a kid by my parents and high school guidance counselors that you kinda have to go to college. You think people are getting into massive debt for learning something they can't really use in the real world and to take some "fun" classes? They are taking on massive debt because they will earn a degree that will help them get a high paying job to make a good amount of money and also repay the debt. I've told people ever since I went to college (to learn computer skills for a job) that you don't really learn anything in college and it's like the most inefficient way to learn anything, but I've also not told anyone not to go to college because employers do require degrees for most jobs.
Loading…
www.cnbc.com
The problem is (won’t go into the tangled yarn ball of why) increasing numbers of kids aren’t getting the personal growth needed to succeed in college in the first place. Maybe if we started there then they’d be more able to discern between whether pursuing a degree or trade is better for them personally. Because now, we don’t prepare them for that basic choice. The reason why circles back to the tangled yarn ball.
Getting arrested for doing things that you get arrested for isn't some thing to get upset about...
So there waa a person who was arrested who the police claimed was an outside organizer that was making these students riot
Turns out, it was just a mum checking on their kid. The police lied
This picture about MLK was to exemplify that some people are being arrest for maybe up charges. There was damage caused by protestors. But any damage was overblown so they could scoop up plenty of innocent people
Like how during these protest the Anti-Palestiaprotestors have been incredibly violent at some sites. But, guess who is getting locked up? The Pro-Palestian side. Because the police lied
Or how the Anti-Vietnam protestors were so vilified that most Americans thought the National Guard killing students at Kent State was justified.
It's exact same tactic as the CCP, Putin, Jakarta against the Papuans, the Ayattolah and what's happening righ now in Sudan. You lie about protestor and then the populace thinks you can kill them.
And this is incredibly galling once you find out that Hamas was originally funded by the Israel so they could take out the PLA becuase Arafat was so influential. Mossad lied is literally caused the problem they are dealing with today
I could not find that story about a mom. Were the police making any more wrongful/mistaken arrests than usual is a similar type event? Funny how you don't make a post of the people wrongfully arrested on Jan 6th. Why are the police locking up the pro-palestian side when like nobody really even cares about Israel/Palistine as that came out as the 15th most important issue among 16 when young people were polled? If anything, the news making such a big deal out of something that really isn't a big deal (as far as the public is concerned) is making it a bigger story than it should be. Why isn't the government then telling the news to shut up about this if they have the police purposefully arresting only one side of the protest and don't want this issue getting bigger? This doesn't pass the basic logic test.
In large part due to the support of various Western powers the media is based on, and thus is particularly interested in.
Before the predictable mention of some other genocide that gets less press, to prove that people aren't allowed to care about this one.
