BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

yeah fresh graduates in their first 10 years sure make megabucks! will repay those educations in no time.

Not everyone is a hipster you know.

and math/science are all universities are about, ever.

Since the development of the sciences humanities are essentially no more than hobby subjects.

do you sometimes drool on your keyboard and hope sensical things will come out?

an ivy league education is like $60k a year, for 4 years average. show me someone in any profession that makes a quarter of a million dollars spare/to save (without considering interest) before they are 30. cause average salary info in the UK would suggest no science/math grads are making that much. save perhaps people in medicine/dentistry or very specific sub-fields of industry. most 'academic' maths/sciences students do pure math/science, not instrumental or applied. half of the disciplines make no more than humanities grads. the few that do - pure math, pure physics - are still not making so much that they'll have $250k spare by the time they're 30. and that's not even mentioning other potential savings, i.e. for your first house (a consideration i know you haven't ever had to think about in your own rich-boy lifestyle).

but yes okay, the mighty maths/sciences. so profitable. keep dreaming.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

yeah fresh graduates in their first 10 years sure make megabucks! will repay those educations in no time.

Not everyone is a hipster you know.

and math/science are all universities are about, ever.

Since the development of the sciences humanities are essentially no more than hobby subjects.

do you sometimes drool on your keyboard and hope sensical things will come out?

an ivy league education is like $60k a year, for 4 years average. show me someone in any profession that makes a quarter of a million dollars spare/to save (without considering interest) before they are 30. cause average salary info in the UK would suggest no science/math grads are making that much. save perhaps people in medicine/dentistry or very specific sub-fields of industry. most 'academic' maths/sciences students do pure math/science, not instrumental or applied. half of the disciplines make no more than humanities grads. the few that do - pure math, pure physics - are still not making so much that they'll have $250k spare by the time they're 30. and that's not even mentioning other potential savings, i.e. for your first house (a consideration i know you haven't ever had to think about in your own rich-boy lifestyle).

but yes okay, the mighty maths/sciences. so profitable. keep dreaming.

I wasn't thinking of the money, more the actual worth.

Since people realised there is no truth to be found in astrololgy, religion, poetry etc, that its in the sciences, most other subjects are utterly redundant and only kept going out of reasons of historical habit.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

yeah fresh graduates in their first 10 years sure make megabucks! will repay those educations in no time.

Not everyone is a hipster you know.


Since the development of the sciences humanities are essentially no more than hobby subjects.

do you sometimes drool on your keyboard and hope sensical things will come out?

an ivy league education is like $60k a year, for 4 years average. show me someone in any profession that makes a quarter of a million dollars spare/to save (without considering interest) before they are 30. cause average salary info in the UK would suggest no science/math grads are making that much. save perhaps people in medicine/dentistry or very specific sub-fields of industry. most 'academic' maths/sciences students do pure math/science, not instrumental or applied. half of the disciplines make no more than humanities grads. the few that do - pure math, pure physics - are still not making so much that they'll have $250k spare by the time they're 30. and that's not even mentioning other potential savings, i.e. for your first house (a consideration i know you haven't ever had to think about in your own rich-boy lifestyle).

but yes okay, the mighty maths/sciences. so profitable. keep dreaming.

I wasn't thinking of the money, more the actual worth.

Since people realised there is no truth to be found in astrololgy, religion, poetry etc, that its in the sciences, most other subjects are utterly redundant and only kept going out of reasons of historical habit.

yes the only reason anyone goes to university is to uncover positivistic truths.



and when was the last time astrology was on a university prospectus? the 17th century?

and there are plenty of 'truths' in poetry. you derp. same as all literature. when you read shakespeare are you not reading a certain sort of emotional or human truth? does it not speak of human experience or the human condition? guess not, can't be put to a graph, herp derp. life must be miserable for you, living on an existential occam's razor. bore off, troll.

yes, yes they are. for the last 4 years i've been studying robinson crusoe.

tough day at home? mom not cook you your quesadilla? you're taking the stupid to '11' today. guess you're frustrated. i would be too, if i was you.

i do go for the love of learning. my prime motivation for restricting numbers and redefining the institution is to only be surrounded by those self-same people. to not have a giant mass of people who talk about 'uni students', with it being meaningless. you don't see some of the idiot frats at low-ranking american universities and feel annoyed these people are sharing your 'lifestyle'? i do. i think it's an insult to an ancient civic institution. keep it meritocratic and keep it fittingly elitist, that's my argument. so long as everyone from all walks of life has a fair shot of making the entry exam/grade, then i am fine with universities essentially being selective and only for the "valedictorian" top 15-20% of school leavers.

my point about the job-market being confused is just talking about a wider structural malaise that has opened up in the UK over the last 10 years. i was trying to explain the wider problem that has caused this giant financial mess, i.e. a culture that promotes everyone to go to university and take exorbitant loans. that's just my attempt at an explanation. that has nothing to do with my personal motivations. i can speak for 'the situation' in the UK without necessarily having to be constantly proclaiming my own personal life story. i think a problematic amount of debt is built into the structure of higher-education precisely because higher-education has come to be seen as a loan-worthy necessity for an oversized proportion of young people. it's that simple. in my opinion the financial situation and the educational culture are inseparable.

if you could reduce the numbers who realistically hoped to go to a university to get a meaningful, decent education, then the macro-economic financing would be a lot easier to arrange and manage. it really is that simple.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-09 04:33:57)

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i do go for the love of learning. my prime motivation for restricting numbers and redefining the institution is to only be surrounded by those self-same people.

LOL OK.

Maybe they're putting the fees up to keep hipsters out and not sully ancient civic institutions with unproductive wasters?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i do go for the love of learning. my prime motivation for restricting numbers and redefining the institution is to only be surrounded by those self-same people.

LOL OK.

Maybe they're putting the fees up to keep hipsters out and not sully ancient civic institutions with unproductive wasters?

to only want to be surrounded in university by people who are interested in being there to study? yes, so hipster. i'm such an elitist, asking that universities be kept for people who are interested in intellectual matters and actual studying.

also why do you keep stereotyping hipsters as poor? hipsters are supposed to be wealthy. they are blamed for gentrifying inner-city areas. poor people don't gentrify inner cities. you keep confusing hipsters with 'struggling artists' or some old stereotype. it's fucking funny. all of my supposedly 'hipster' humanities friends have more expensive educations than you... and don't live at home. wrong stereotype, idiot.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-10 04:40:20)

you're the son of a civil servant so your 'boarding school' (which has never been named) was probably free too, let's face it.

and what are you talking about? faux-elitists? i want people who are good students to go to university. it's that simple. people who are intellectually inclined. "only the esoteric"? what the fuck are you talking about? physics, maths, engineering - are these esoteric? nowhere have i started talking about esoteric subjects. just that the bottom 50% of the UK's universities could be regraded to polytechnics giving technical diplomas or apprenticeships, and it would be more useful for employment (not to mention student debt). nobody needs a £9k a year degree from the university of worcestershire. nobody. regrade it to a polytechnic and stop deluding people who are not academically apt or 'book-ish' to study for useless degrees. that's all i am saying. right now we send too many people to university who are not 'university students' in any traditional sense, i.e. people who just want to drink for 4 years and study something like "sports science" (to continue with my worcestershire example). pointless.

but okay. wanting traditional universities with learned people at them is 'faux elitist'. what a weird world you live in. let's continue deluding ourselves by giving the non-intellectual non-academic people, who went to a university with open entry grades and no requirements, let's keep fooling ourselves that by getting a 'degree' they'll be justifying the high loans and will get a 'graduate' job. let's pretend the world of grad employment doesn't already burn their applications en mass when they receive 200 applicants per job role. O K.

where am i sneering at them? show me a quotation where i am sneering at them. every single one of my posts says they would be better put to a diploma or some sort of polytechnic qualification. i'm saying it is useless for them to get into college-levels of debt for a qualification from an institution that won't benefit them at all. nobody gives 18 year olds the honest advice they need: everyone is blithely encouraged to go to university 'just because', and a huge portion of the national student debt ends up being wracked up by less-academically inclined individuals who went to a crap university because of peer-pressure, and realistically boosted their earning potential and employment prospects by nil-%. that is not helpful for them. where am i sneering? i'd just like to see a meaningful demarcation between university and polytechnic again. the whole idea that it's 'shameful' to go to a poly rather than a university is a new labour era invention - not mine. i see no shame in it. nor am i sneering at anyone who would opt to take a decent apprenticeship or a technical diploma, rather than wasting 4 years of their life studying 'communications' at a college in the 100's on the national ranking (which the majority of UK university students do, if you look at the number spread; the bottom-ranked institutions are all fucking huge, like the aforementioned university of phoenix).

again, i never said there's anything wrong with doing something practical. never. my entire argument is that the less-inclined 20% of the 'graduate' pool would be better directed to precisely learning a practical skill. i.e. i am staking a high societal (and pecuniary) value on practical skills. do you read my posts?

and no, it's not as productive. say what you want about humanities (we all know it's the same bullshit), the simple fact is that the institution you go to and the perceived 'prestige' of your course matters 80% for your job application. in the UK/US, if you do a humanities course at a top institution and get your 2:1 or 3.5GPA, you're going to stand a reasonable chance of finding 'good' graduate-level employment. it's that simple. you can make all the arguments you want til you're (already) blue in the face about "wah wahhh ancient texts boo hoo", but these courses regularly put people onto fast-track graduate schemes. all of my 'hipster' friends who have opted to go into private-sector work are all employed at very fine companies earning a great graduate wage. it evidently works. and why is that? it's simple: because graduate recruiters and HR people have already reinstituted, ad hoc, the division between 'university' and 'polytechnic'. plenty of articles out there about grad recruiters basically filtering out their huge application lists into russell/94 group applicants above everyone else (i.e. traditional universities stay at top of pile).

the current system only benefits a political class that can meaninglessly brag they've 'widened access to higher-education'. the worst victims are the misinformed 18yo's who aren't properly wizened up to the stratification in the system. most of them are so bought into the new labour era rhetoric that 'a degree is a degree' that they don't realize their local institution's degree may not be as valuable as one a few cities over. they just aren't told. i think that's a scam, when you're taking nearly £10k a year off them. i'd like a little more honesty and clarity in the university system. no shame in practical or polytechnic. simple.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-10 05:43:45)

no i said if the university system was smaller, it would be easier to financially manage. that is the only financial principle i brought up. ditto the polytechnic system. if they were separated, funding could be sourced and apportioned more meaningfully and efficiently. i also said all university should be free - but i didn't exclude polytechnics from this. i invoked the example of several european states where both were free in the same sentence, but i guess the implication wasn't clear enough for you. nowhere am i saying that intellectual uni-students should be funded and plumbing students should get a "tough luck". i want free higher-education, period. it is perfectly possible. you just have to trim the numbers and clean up the system so funding is meaningful. polytechnics could continue the line of association taken up by many decent ex-polys now, i.e. close ties to business and industry, and could even find financing there. return a real apprenticeship model.

It would be 'fair' to just give everyone a pot of cash at 18 and let them spend it as they like, but that would mean less for your type I guess.

uh, that is what happens now? anyone going to any university, attending any course, of any merit... is dished out a huge student-loan, on a term-by-term basis. that's about £3.5k every 2-3 months. that IS a pot of free money for 18 year olds. tuition fees are automatically detracted and billed to a separate account, so no financial management is necessary at all. and most students spend it stupidly. i remember a guy from my first year at university who used his first term installment to buy a brand new macbook and a sound-system for his university room. he ate noodles for the rest of the term. the system already gives a shit-load of (borrowed) money to dumb 18 year olds, regardless of how risky a credit investment they are, or how prudential their actual university/course of instruction is (i.e. how likely is a person from university of nowheresville going to earn above the annual salary tariff to start their repayments).

and what is "my type", exactly? people who worked hard in school to get into good universities? people who worked hard in university and contributed? people who took full financial responsibility for themselves, and have a genuine interest in the system being as fair and effective as possible? oh yes, "my type" of people. horrible, aren't we. i guess it's easy to be disparaging towards students that have a vested interest in how the university admissions and financing systems works, when after all your entire affair was free and provided by the government tit already. you are a typical baby boomer who wants to talk shit about 'entitled youth' or 'hipsters', because your own life was comparatively easy, and you don't like to admit anything that doesn't flatter your own self-image or personal achievement. the simple fact of the matter is that the university admissions/finance process is a far more charged and politicized matter now: it costs a lot more money to go nowadays, and people are asking more of the university system and graduate employment prospects. something you didn't have to worry about. so kindly fuck off.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-10 06:50:06)

I wouldn't have a problem with it being put to public vote every couple of years or so in each state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opi … ted_States

The trend for support seems to be on the rise, generally. Also, look at the northeast.