search results matching tag: Higher Education

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (20)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (4)     Comments (153)   

Beau schools on schooling: why 'FREE' scares Biff & Babs

bobknight33 says...

Truly there should be a helping hand to bright students who can't get a scholarship, loans to to to higher education.


I was poor student , didnt care about it got low grades. -- A year of washing dishes made me think find a white collar job. Dad refused to pay / help. I ended up getting student loans.

Dads motto -
IF you want something bad enough you will find a way.

Dad was a HS grad and was writing quotes for Navy Nuclear and many other million $ bids. Smartest man I know.

Paid my way through Penn State, slept on the floor, no heat 1/2 year ---- but I did it . Paid back my student loans and I am a better person for it.

higher education should place a finical burden on you - You will work harder because you can't afford to fck around.

That being said college / universities are over charging and raping students more and more every year.

? do college charge more because they know that the student can get the loan? I think so.

I think If you drop the amount a student can get in loans I sure tuition will drop to that level --- Supply and demand.

Beau schools on schooling: why 'FREE' scares Biff & Babs

spawnflagger says...

I think there should be free Community College for anyone that wants to go, but I also think college isn't for everyone, and Trade schools should also be free (I've seen plenty of plumbers that charge hourly rates more than lawyers).

As far as other colleges, there should be merit scholarships for anyone who does well at Community College can transfer to those for years 3 & 4.

I had a merit-based scholarship for my undergrad, but it was conditioned on maintaining a 3.0 GPA (B average or higher). If it went under 3.0 for two semesters, scholarship gone. Also required finishing in 4 years, so I had to take 15-18 credits every semester. I also worked part-time during semester and full-time in summers to pay down the loans (that the grants & scholarship didn't cover), so graduated debt free. I also can see I'm an exception rather than the norm.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone getting higher education. I also think some people who drop out when they are 18-22 years old, could go instead when they are older and more mature and totally succeed, so don't force it immediately after high school. Part of that is pressure from being allowed on your parents health insurance if you're in school up to a certain age... universal health care coverage (public option) would fix that and should be a higher priority than universal college. I voted for Bernie.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Aaaaahahahaha! Stop projecting, Bob.

ROTFLMFAHS!!! 139 IQ Bob. Excelling in college level classes at 6th grade. Over 10 years of higher education….including critical thinking. I know you wouldn’t post your actual IQ score because it’s double digits, and the first digit is not 9.

You know full well you’re the uneducated ignoramus living in a fantasy world here, still spreading the big lie with no evidence, just like 99% of what you’ve said in the last 13 years (yes, you lost your mind over Obama and have only gotten worse under The Biggest Loser, the convicted con man and consummate liar.)

MY head is up MY ass!?! LMFAHS!!! You have the long term verified clinical diagnosis of cranial rectosis….I know it colors your viewpoint, but that shit you see is in your eyes, not on me. Too funny, Ms Iknowyouarebutwhatami.

Bob, you know how often the partisan nonsense you spout is wrong, verifiably and definitely wrong, based on blatant lies? More than 9/10. You still think Trump won, or at least that there was massive democratic fraud last election, despite no evidence, despite a dozen times you were told the evidence would be released tomorrow, but when tomorrow came there was nothing, despite multiple audits, including the hyper partisan unofficial biased vote review that found hundreds of votes for Biden but zero evidence of vote fraud, despite 62 failed attempts to prove any fraud in court, despite dozens upon dozens of accusations that all turned out to be misrepresentation, misunderstandings, and outright lies, but not evidence, despite Mike Pillow, crazy moronic crackhead that can’t produce a cogent thought much less evidence of fraud being the failed clearly insane spokesman for the movement. (He now claims he has proof every American over 7 committed vote fraud that can put us all in prison for life)

You like to spout insanity, see it debunked with facts figures and citations, and slink away so you don’t have to try to defend the indefensible or admit you were w-w-w-wrong. When I make a claim, you rebut it with a “nuh-uh…your dum!” and think you won an argument when you haven’t offered one….and I still bother to verify them with facts, figures, and often multiple citations to prove my point anyway.

Tesla stock was a good deal 3 years ago, not today. It’s a bubble, one day it will pop. Better get out before then. My increases came largely from a ton of S&P, various energy stocks and medical stocks, and some tech. I sold my J&J before their vaccine flopped, knowing they have billions in lawsuits to lose soon. My one account went up >30% this year. I made more than if it was all in Tesla (> 30% vs Tesla at 24% for the year)….and I don’t have a PE ratio of 360 indicating a major correction in the future, and I get dividends. If China comes up with a better battery, you better sell immediately. They’ve done well, but are unstable, randomly fluctuating, not secure, and run by a nut that doesn’t care about hurting his own stock prices (or manipulates them for his own gain, I can’t be sure).

Please name these failures, I don’t think you can. You’ve listed the economy, insanely better under Biden, unemployment, insanely better under Biden, immigration, still using the Trump era rules and methods (so there’s one), Inflation, Trump devalued the dollar by 30% and only paused inflation for a year by halting the economy, actually making it a negative growth. Covid, lol. The people responsible for the lack of Covid response are your people, the people who are still unvaccinated and still having problems are idiot Republicans. Covid was, and is a right wing caused issue, fortunately it now effects mostly right wing morons, they should be banned from hospitals, they chose to be vulnerable.

He has failed to remove disastrous Trump appointees, projects, policies, and programs. He’s failed to pass more thorough infrastructure (build back better) but has gotten infrastructure funding. He’s going to fail to secure voting rights thanks to 100% Republican obstructionism, true, unless there’s a miracle in November.

CNN leader in fake news? WHAT?! I suppose maybe, because OAN, Newsmax, and Fox along with all the other right wing media aren’t news at all, they’re dishonest propaganda channels that lie to you daily….and you just fucking love it, you love the lies, and because you love them you believe them, and for no other reason because there’s never evidence for your lies….that’s why you disappear so often, caught in too many lies and called out on them, proven wrong, and you don’t have the spine to admit it. Coward. Use the same criteria and CNN beats every right wing outlet for honesty, correctness, willingness to correct mistakes, and their lack of involvement in a violent attack against the country and democracy, you fool.

bobknight33 said:

You such a tool.

Stupid as shit . Guess thats because you head is up your ass.

Reality and you are never in the same room.

Have you bought any Tesla stock?
Biden is a absolute disaster. Even CNN leader in fake news cant lover for his failures anymore. WOW

New Rule: Words Matter | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

newtboy says...

There’s a difference between “racist” and “biased”. IMO, that’s what Bill is saying.

(To be clear, the difference I’m standing on here is racist implies it intentionally targets one race, biased in this context means while it may inadvertently impact one group, that is not the intent.)

Standardized testing is biased towards those with better educational opportunities….not any particular race. It just so happens one “race” is far more likely to have fewer educational opportunities on average….but that’s not the test’s fault or design, nor the student’s, and is not MEANT to target anyone by race. It just measures what you know….what you’ve been taught.

When it comes to SATs, they don’t take into account the educational opportunities people may not have had, and so aren’t a great measure of a student’s ability to learn, but are a measure of what they’ve learned. As such, they are a good metric for colleges to use in admissions, but are also sorely lacking when it comes to identifying ability. That means they should not be the ONLY measure used in admissions, but are still a useful tool for colleges.

I’m all for color blind admissions, if they measure ability as well as wrote knowledge, finding a way to measure how well they made use of the opportunities to learn they were presented….no matter what their skin color or economic status. So far, I don’t believe any such measure exists.

Really, I’m all for free jr college for anyone. It’s cheap, $150 a semester the last time I went, probably double that now, still a bargain. Most people drop out before year 3, so that’s a great way to allow everyone the opportunity for higher education without the expense…and frees up 4 year colleges to eliminate year 1&2 and teach more people who might graduate.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy,

One of Mayers examples is calling out headlines about SAT's being inherently racist as false. Isn't that something you've told me you felt strongly about? I know we had discussion on including race in college admissions, and you against a race/color blind admission process as that was too pro-white. Seems it's not wrong on at least that point to say Maher's ruffling feathers with the left?

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

newtboy said:

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

Acceptable, Under the Circumstances

luxintenebris says...

pretty fair.

rather have competent, caring, compromising (to get problems addressed), near-the-center leadership. rid america of crazed, corrupt, callous, craven cowards that prefer power over contentment.

tho' seeing higher education, sane healthcare, and a tax structure that provides for all the necessities of running a country...if that's a revolution - then joe missed the mark.

(see there? complaining about joe & ain't in office yet! not about the party, it's about feeling good enough to want to party!)

problems want to have...
- road surfaces so smooth, have to fight the impulse to nap
- primary education so effective, 8yr-old takes over doing the taxes after seeing last year's submitted forums
- healthcare so affordable, have no reason to see doctor...when too broke, embarrassed, or there are needles!
- an employer that pushes you to work harder w/"are we paying you too much?" & you know the bastard is right.
- hoping your mandated paid vacation time isn't so long you forget how to say 'you want fries w/that'
- keeping your voting selection secret because you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings 'it was so hard! all were so worthy! have to choose someone?!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klUweWE-u6A

Stay In School, Kids...

newtboy says...

Bullshit you liar.
Trump blocked relevant witnesses, not the house. He had no credible witnesses on his behalf because none exist. The witnesses he wasn't allowed were the Bidens, because even if every baseless accusation he made against them was true (spoiler, not one is) it's 100% irrelevant. What HE did is the issue.

Bob, you and Trump's position on anyone not kowtowing sufficiently and loudly exclaiming how amazing his (non existent) clothes are is "fuck them". Always has been. Hardly possible to represent America when you say 2/3 are America haters that should be hanged for treason.

The democrats wanted more evidence from day one, and the Whitehouse used every possible excuse to deny them ANY. I can't wait for 2021 when republican control is lost, barring more massive Republican voter fraud (which has been perpetrated by a republican in every intentional case found this century- including all actual examples Trump's investigation found from 2016; Terri Lynn Rote, Phillip Cook, Audrey Cook, Gladys Coego, and worst ever-Leslie McCrae Dowless who collected hundreds of absentee ballots and filled them out for Republican candidates, forging the signatures of hundreds of voters in her position as paid political operative for the Trump supported Republican candidate Mark Harris). When the house, Senate, and executive are all democratic and republicans are silenced with their sycophantic and cowardly abdication of duty, civility, and sanity to someone who doesn't comprehend one of those concepts a whit, I'm sure you'll finally understand how bad that is.

The Senate didn't listen to shit. Republicans, save one, were prepared to acquit without any evidence or testimony. Liar.

The theatrics are from Republicans....all non cult members see that clearly, that's why 2/3 of Americans supported his removal, and the other 1/3 wouldn't convict him of murder if he shot Romney in cold blood during the state of the union. The president being an unimpeachable king is what the constitution was designed to prevent, and the precedent the Republicans set here will end our country if it's the new norm. Start learning Mandarin....oh sorry, forgot that the "L" word is a swear word to your ilk.

It's the entire US that lost, something you'll understand when the next president breaks the law and Republicans are ignored when they complain. The state of the union is "crumbling into dust". The divider in chief has seen to that. "Winning!". *facepalm

BTW, you're also wrong about the dumbasses (again, one word not two). Trumpsters are the uneducated by and large, and a vast majority of them (59%bad/33%good) believe higher education is a bad thing.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education/ It's likely that statistic is due to the fact that most of today's Republicans couldn't get into college because most of you are too dumb to meet the requirements, and those who aren't, like my family, have left the party in disgust.

Republicans are the moronic anti American anti education anti fact anti science anti fiscal responsibility anti choice bigots too stupid and gleefully ignorant to know they're stupid ignorant morons. There's absolutely no question or doubt among those who aren't willfully ignorant, who believe in fact, or who believe in education.
Sad.

bobknight33 said:

The house screwed Trump during their investigation and did not allow any credible witness on his behalf. Now in the Senate Democrats beg for fairness. Fuck them.

The House in gathered enough evidence to bring forth article of impeachment. Democrats now want more evidence.? The Senate listen to their evidence and found it lacking.

Just a theatrical show by Democrats because they have nothing . And they LOST ..............AGAIN

Students Support Socialism. Until It's Applied To Their GPA

bobknight33 says...

Why should some one work hard supplement someone who didn't work hard or tried hard and came up short?


Swap out "GPA" with "Hard Earned Money" and these people are capitalists 100%!


Also higher education shouldn't be funded with tax dollars.

What does Trump have to do with this? His dad paid for his schooling and gave him $ to start his life on. He did not squandered the $. And you look at this as evil or such?

You want all to be dependent on government cheese or self sustaining?

American Government programs are 1 thing. Socialism as the main form of government is another.

newtboy said:

Asinine.
Assessment of ability is not the same as having your needs met. Also, it's like he doesn't know public colleges are socialist concepts, paid for with tax money for everyone's benefit because it's good for everyone to help people be educated.

Like many rich people, Trump was given his money by daddy....do right wingers believe they get to add their parent's GPA to theirs, and add points based on who they know and how unethical they can be? That's how they "earn" money, so that must be the argument.

This is just dumb, the right wing version of Jaywalking....ask a loaded, ridiculous question then edit your footage down to make your targets look dumb....it's a stupid comedy bit that's not funny, not a thoughtful political observation.

The Real National Emergency Is Climate Change: A Closer Look

Mordhaus says...

http://archive.is/4CVqH

10 year plan. Twice as effective as the USSR's 5 year plans

...Fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems (needed), dramatically expanding renewable power generation (needed, but it also doesn't mean we should be throwing money away on stupid shit like solar roadways), overhauling our entire transportation system (regional flights, which sort of make up around 70% of total flights, would be targeted for elimination and massively expensive (slower) electrical trains would be put in their place), upgrading all our buildings (most businesses are already moving to green solutions) , jumpstarting US clean manufacturing (see highly expensive and non-competitive with cheaper overseas mfg), transforming US agriculture (forcing a move from cows/pigs/chickens to plant based proteins)...

While we are at it, might as well do the following:

A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security (Nice, but you can't just make these jobs available. They are supply and demand.)

High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools (Needed)

High-quality health care (Needed)

Clean air and water (Needed)

Healthy food (Subjective, is meat considered healthy?)

Safe, affordable, adequate housing (because this works, ie Projects...)

An economic environment free of monopolies (Technically this exists already, except in countries outside of the USA and EU)

Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work (SWEET! SIGN ME UP FOR THAT CHECK!!!)

I get that his spiel is comedy based, but the GND is about half reality and half looney tunes.

The Wallrider

BSR says...

He broke not only the bike but also first rule of cycling. Wear a HELMET!.

One way or another you'll have to pay for a higher education.

The Check In: Betsy DeVos' Rollback of Civil Rights

newtboy says...

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

bcglorf said:

. I get that you disagree vehemently......

John Oliver - Mike Pence

bcglorf says...

One of Jordan Peterson's claims, that the left has settled into higher ed and wants to shutdown debate in favor of indoctrination, is openly on display in the video. All 3 staff from Wilfrid Laurier state it as contrary to the university environment to present a debate on use of pronouns, or to allow the subject to be debated, save that student's are FIRST taught and thoroughly prepared to know which side of the debate is right before hand.

One of them even dismisses Peterson's claim that you can be convicted for failing to use the pronouns requested by others as baseless and contrary to all evidence. Mean while the Ontario human rights tribunal clearly states that is exactly the case. link below.

If you are find with higher education abandoning reasoned debate in favor of indoctrination then you don't need to care. Of course, here in Canada we aren't facing the same risk you American's are of finding the tables turning and the indoctrination landing in the hands of tea party or trump types.

Still, keeping free speech and reasoned debate a cornerstone of education is extremely important to maintaining a free society in my opinion and the video is a window into dark corners hell bent on shutting that down.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

ChaosEngine said:

I fail to see the relevance of that. Whether the staff are right or wrong only changes my opinion of the staff, not of Peterson.

If I tell you I hated Hitler because he was a vegetarian, I'd imagine you think that was a pretty stupid reason to hate Hitler, but I doubt you'd change your own opinion on Hitler just because I'm being unfair about one thing.

Just how smart is Donald Trump?

notarobot says...

@moonsammy:

Have a look at this interview from 1980. Pay attention to the patterns of his speech. Notice how they are different than the example used in the Nerdwriter analysis I posted above.

http://www.msnbc.com/documentaries/watch/today-show-1980-with-donald-trump-589527619719

At a later interview (1988?) you can hear that the patterns in his speech are a bit closer to the Nerdwriter. You can hear how he occasionally repeats words. He has had more practice with interviews here than in 1980 and it shows. How he crafts his speech is not a product of an untrained mind--it is intentional.

The way he dodges the "are you smarter than other people?" question is also interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmClYIQqEn8

Again, I'm not arguing that he's a genius. Just that assumptions of his intellect based on the choice to use simple language have been mistaken. His choice to use simple language is a big part of what gave him broad appeal among voters for whom higher education was out of reach. It may have won him the presidency.

I don't like him, but he isn't stupid.

"We'll Sing in the Sunshine" Gale Garnett 1964

BSR says...

Really?

My daddy he once told me
"Hey, don't you love you any man"
"Just take what they may give you"
"And give but what you can"

I guess he realized a higher education wasn't in his paycheck.

Why Isn't Communism as Hated as Nazism?

enoch says...

@kir_mokum has a point.this is dennis prager,from the illustrious (sarcasm) prager university.

you are not entirely incorrect when you state that this appears to be "fact-based",and it is..up to a point,because those 'facts' have been carefully cherry-picked to lead you to a pre-determined conclusion.

this video,in a nutshell,is propaganda.

he uses the word 'evil" as if somehow it is representative of communism.this is a canard,communism is not "evil",those who wielded power in their respective communist systems,perpetrated those "evil" acts.

communism itself,is not inherently evil.
failed and ultimately destructive and oppressive,but not inherently evil.

we can apply pragers logic to our own economic system of capitalism and come to the exact same conclusion that he did with communism.capitalism also causes immense hardship and suffering,and also death.deaths by the tens of thousands.

is capitalism "evil"?
of course not.

he also states without evidence,or supporting sources,that the "liberal" intelligencia from our higher educational system refuse to admonish communism as "evil".of course they don't,because communism is not inherently "evil",but stalin and moa WERE despotic tyrants,who were responsible for perpetrating immense hardship,suffering and death.a.k.a=evil.

i find it interesting how prager will state,and with zero sense of irony,how communism is "evil" and yet ignore how capitalism,and america's neoliberalsm policies across the globe kill millions.how even here in america,we have cities and towns laid waste by these policies of capitalism.they are called "sacrifice zones",and they look like beruit more than an american city.

i mean,if you are going to blame an economic system for being "evil",at least be philosophically consistent.

but no mention of that at all.
because prager is an ideologue who prays at the altar of neoliberalism and capitalism.he has an agenda,and manipulates facts to fit his own narrative to convince you that his argument is righteous.

it is not.
it is propaganda.

NaMeCaF said:

I thought it was very rational, with fact-based evidence and was in no way "drivel". If you honestly cant see past your own prejudices, then that's on you mate.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon