Page 3 of 5

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:58 pm
by Kriegsspiel
Great video of high school students in 1958 discussing college. The usual cast of characters shows up. The guidance counselor seems like a jerk.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:31 pm
by Kriegsspiel
WSJ article about college enrollment. Interesting throughout. It's heartening to see that the idea that college is a necessity is fading away, at least among males. Still sad that so many people, especially girls, are wasting their time with it. I suspect that a major reason girls want to go to college is to find collegiate guys.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 5:59 pm
by Mark Leavy
This sentence was pretty funny:
American colleges, which are embroiled in debates over racial and gender equality, and working on ways to reduce sexual assault and harassment of women on campus, have yet to reach a consensus on what might slow the retreat of men from higher education.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:48 pm
by Maddy
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:31 pm
I suspect that a major reason girls want to go to college is to find collegiate guys.
Yup.

In evangelical circles, it's common for kids to go to bible college. There's an inside joke among the parents of girls, who commonly refer to it as "bridal college."

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:01 pm
by SomeDude
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:31 pm
WSJ article about college enrollment. Interesting throughout. It's heartening to see that the idea that college is a necessity is fading away, at least among males. Still sad that so many people, especially girls, are wasting their time with it. I suspect that a major reason girls want to go to college is to find collegiate guys.
Higher interest rates and the government not backstopping student loans would help solve this quickly.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:44 am
by sweetbthescrivener
I think young men are much smarter than they are given credit for, even than they give themselves credit for, and that they are just doing a simple cost/benefit analysis.

In the sixties you could get a job and raise a family straight out of high school.

In the seventies and eighties there were good jobs out there for college graduates, and even if you didn't use your degree your education was affordable enough that you could graduate with a small amount of debt.

It was a low risk proposition. You could even attend college just 'for the college experience,' and not end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole.

Even before Covid, the college fees have been scandalous for a long time now, and you can pay a heavy price for going to college just because everyone else is doing it.

So why would you pay what a private school used to cost to graduate in debt without any really good jobs waiting for you? (Unless you are in a STEM field, obviously, and most aren't able to do the work.)

And yet you are pressured to go to college your whole life, like it is the only option, and it is like you are being railroaded into a really bad deal.

Now Covid comes along, and, at least in the case of my local university, you are paying the very same fees to sit in your dorm and take classes by Skype, and will become public enemy number one if you attend a party. You don't even get the social benefits of living the college life.

We don't even get to the part where if you are just an everyday heterosexual guy you have been made to feel like a villain since you were a kid.

How does it even make sense to go to college if you are a young dude who isn't good at science?

These young guys are smart.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:08 pm
by D1984
SomeDude wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:01 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:31 pm
WSJ article about college enrollment. Interesting throughout. It's heartening to see that the idea that college is a necessity is fading away, at least among males. Still sad that so many people, especially girls, are wasting their time with it. I suspect that a major reason girls want to go to college is to find collegiate guys.
Higher interest rates and the government not backstopping student loans would help solve this quickly.
What would really help is making student loans non-Federally backed and immediately dischargeable in bankruptcy....or at the very least copying SC/Pennsylvania/TX law as regards wage garnishment (hint: in those states the anti-garnishment laws are such that God himself pretty much couldn't garnish somebody's wages), codifying it into the USC and CFR as Federal law, and applying it to both Federal and private student loans. At that point, "student debt" would become essentially meaningless and toothless as (even assuming you couldn't discharge it in bankruptcy) all they could do is ruin your credit and even that would eventually drop off after seven years and one day when the debt was fully defaulted (i.e. usually after it became 180 days from making your last on-time payment).

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:15 pm
by Xan
D1984 wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:08 pm
SomeDude wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:01 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:31 pm
WSJ article about college enrollment. Interesting throughout. It's heartening to see that the idea that college is a necessity is fading away, at least among males. Still sad that so many people, especially girls, are wasting their time with it. I suspect that a major reason girls want to go to college is to find collegiate guys.
Higher interest rates and the government not backstopping student loans would help solve this quickly.
What would really help is making student loans non-Federally backed and immediately dischargeable in bankruptcy....or at the very least copying SC/Pennsylvania/TX law as regards wage garnishment (hint: in those states the anti-garnishment laws are such that God himself pretty much couldn't garnish somebody's wages), codifying it into the USC and CFR as Federal law, and applying it to both Federal and private student loans. At that point, "student debt" would become essentially meaningless and toothless as (even assuming you couldn't discharge it in bankruptcy) all they could do is ruin your credit and even that would eventually drop off after seven years and one day when the debt was fully defaulted (i.e. usually after it became 180 days from making your last on-time payment).
There would be effectively no student lending, then. I'm not sure whether that's part of your plan or an unintended consequence?

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:16 pm
by D1984
sweetbthescrivener wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:44 am
I think young men are much smarter than they are given credit for, even than they give themselves credit for, and that they are just doing a simple cost/benefit analysis.

In the sixties you could get a job and raise a family straight out of high school.

In the seventies and eighties there were good jobs out there for college graduates, and even if you didn't use your degree your education was affordable enough that you could graduate with a small amount of debt.

It was a low risk proposition. You could even attend college just 'for the college experience,' and not end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole.

Even before Covid, the college fees have been scandalous for a long time now, and you can pay a heavy price for going to college just because everyone else is doing it.

So why would you pay what a private school used to cost to graduate in debt without any really good jobs waiting for you? (Unless you are in a STEM field, obviously, and most aren't able to do the work.)

And yet you are pressured to go to college your whole life, like it is the only option, and it is like you are being railroaded into a really bad deal.

Now Covid comes along, and, at least in the case of my local university, you are paying the very same fees to sit in your dorm and take classes by Skype, and will become public enemy number one if you attend a party. You don't even get the social benefits of living the college life.

We don't even get to the part where if you are just an everyday heterosexual guy you have been made to feel like a villain since you were a kid.

How does it even make sense to go to college if you are a young dude who isn't good at science?

These young guys are smart.
The only issue is that nowadays with the automated resume pre-scanning that virtually all major companies (and plenty of mid-sized and small ones as well) do, not having a college degree pretty much means that for 95% or so of non-menial jobs you may not even get to the point of being called for an interview even if you are otherwise very well qualified for the job (and don't even get me started on companies that--even when promoting from within--will only promote BA'd or BS'd people--even if the degree they got has little or nothing to do with the actual position--regardless of whether the position actually requires college degree-level qualifications and/or whether OTJ experience actually has prepared a non-college educated employee just as well if not better than someone who has a degree). Unless we are willing (despite potential inflation risks) to run the economy really hot for an extended period of time (think unemployment at sub 4% like it was in 1968-69, 2019, and 2000) such that employers have no choice but to not be so damned picky and choosy about meaningless degree requirements then I can't see this changing.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:26 pm
by D1984
Xan wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:15 pm
D1984 wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:08 pm
SomeDude wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:01 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:31 pm
WSJ article about college enrollment. Interesting throughout. It's heartening to see that the idea that college is a necessity is fading away, at least among males. Still sad that so many people, especially girls, are wasting their time with it. I suspect that a major reason girls want to go to college is to find collegiate guys.
Higher interest rates and the government not backstopping student loans would help solve this quickly.
What would really help is making student loans non-Federally backed and immediately dischargeable in bankruptcy....or at the very least copying SC/Pennsylvania/TX law as regards wage garnishment (hint: in those states the anti-garnishment laws are such that God himself pretty much couldn't garnish somebody's wages), codifying it into the USC and CFR as Federal law, and applying it to both Federal and private student loans. At that point, "student debt" would become essentially meaningless and toothless as (even assuming you couldn't discharge it in bankruptcy) all they could do is ruin your credit and even that would eventually drop off after seven years and one day when the debt was fully defaulted (i.e. usually after it became 180 days from making your last on-time payment).
There would be effectively no student lending, then. I'm not sure whether that's part of your plan or an unintended consequence?
One, it would effectively deal with the current student loan debt mess.

Two, student lenders would still make loans to students who took good degrees (i.e. STEM or at least business degrees or econ or finance or medicine or the like....not stuff like "ethnic studies", or underwater basket weaving, or recreation) and whose credit score actually indicated a chance of them paying it back. Consider that even though credit card debt is unsecured, fully dischargeable in bankruptcy, and (at least in those three states) unrecoverable by garnishment (and actually in almost every state if the person is below 13K or so a year in income unsecured debt is also ungarnishable; some states go up to 15K or 20K a year before you can start being garnished), credit card lenders still issue credit cards in said three states.

Three, if not everyone goes to college (because not anyone who can fog a mirror gets a student loan anymore) employers will have little choice but to be less picky about requiring degrees unless it really is absolutely necessary for the job.

Four, I admit that what I proposed is a Rube-Goldberish kluge Charlie Foxtrot pasted together redneck-engineered duct-taped Mickey Mouse half-solution (as indeed our entire system of governance is at this point, sad to say) but my preferred choice (full public funding of 2-yr and 4-yr public college for academically qualified students just like K-12 is funded today) is politically out of reach at the moment. This is the next best thing.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:52 am
by Kriegsspiel
The 37-Year-Olds Are Afraid of the 23-Year-Olds Who Work for Them

It’s a fault line that crisscrosses industries and issues. At a retail business based in New York, managers were distressed to encounter young employees who wanted paid time off when coping with anxiety or period cramps. At a supplement company, a Gen Z worker questioned why she would be expected to clock in for a standard eight-hour day when she might get through her to-do list by the afternoon. At a biotech venture, entry-level staff members delegated tasks to the founder. And spanning sectors and start-ups, the youngest members of the work force have demanded what they see as a long overdue shift away from corporate neutrality toward a more open expression of values, whether through executives displaying their pronouns on Slack or putting out statements in support of the protests for Black Lives Matter.
. . .
Ziad Ahmed, 22, founder and chief executive of the Gen Z marketing company JUV Consulting, which has lent its expertise to brands like JanSport, recalled speaking at a conference where a Gen Z woman, an entry-level employee, told him she didn’t feel that her employer’s marketing fully reflected her progressive values.

“What is your advice for our company?” the young woman asked.

“Make you a vice president,” Mr. Ahmed told her. “Rather than an intern.”
. . .
Ms. Rodriguez’s co-founder at Unbound, which sells vibrators, called to say that their social media manager, a younger employee, wanted to know what the company planned to do to support the protests. Ms. Rodriguez didn’t usually receive calls on the weekend; she knew that for her employees this signified a state of emergency. But she also wanted time to plan the team’s response. Within days, her company hired a diversity, equity and inclusion firm to offer employee trainings and started a fund-raiser for a group supporting sex workers of color.
link
Horrifying throughout. Combine this trend with the push for ESG and DIE from large investment firms and the country might be doomed.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:48 pm
by dualstow
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:52 am
The 37-Year-Olds Are Afraid of the 23-Year-Olds Who Work for Them

link
Horrifying throughout. Combine this trend with the push for ESG and DIE from large investment firms and the country might be doomed.
I feel like torturing myself and I don’t have a loose tooth, so i think I’m going to read this article in full. O0

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:43 pm
by Kriegsspiel
Then again, you see something like this and you could see all hope is not lost. The huge number of kids who've been failed by the adults in their lives is fucking sad, man.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:56 pm
by dualstow
That Ziad Ahmed guy in the article (your earlier link, NYT) is the, ahem, bright spark, who wrote “Black Lives Matter” 100 times as his college entrance exam essay, and Stanford welcomed him in.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 9:46 am
by Kriegsspiel
More than 1 million fewer students are enrolled in college now than before the pandemic began. According to new data released Thursday, U.S. colleges and universities saw a drop of nearly 500,000 undergraduate students in the fall of 2021, continuing a historic decline that began the previous fall. link
:)
"The phenomenon of students sitting out of college seems to be more widespread. It's not just the community colleges anymore," says Shapiro. "That could be the beginning of a whole generation of students rethinking the value of college itself. I think if that were the case, this is much more serious than just a temporary pandemic-related disruption."
:D :D :D
Before the pandemic, the country already had a skills gap, with jobs sitting empty because businesses couldn't find workers with the proper credentials. In the past decade, community colleges have worked to close that gap, partnering with local businesses to pair training with employer needs.
According to their own link to Deloitte, 8/10 of the most common unfilled jobs don't even require college. They don't say it, but I'd bet that most/all of the manufacturing jobs they talk about not being able to fill don't require anything more than a high school education and some OJT, either. The tide seems to be turning against dumbass high school guidance counselors and teachers who brainwash students into thinking they have to to go college.

Diversity and inclusion continues to be an anchor on productivity and human happiness. Also
A majority of manufacturers have included DEI training in talent management programs, though fewer than one-fourth of respondents find these programs impactful in actually retaining employees.
Despite that stat, Deloitte goes on to advise them that they should "Tie leadership performance to DEI metrics." LOL, fucking derps.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 10:15 am
by Cortopassi
MangoMan wrote:
Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:55 am
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:43 pm
Then again, you see something like this and you could see all hope is not lost. The huge number of kids who've been failed by the adults in their lives is fucking sad, man.
That video was so awesome. I loved seeing the cognitive dissonance developing on their faces. ::)
1) Sorry if there are any Florida alums here but I am really glad my kids never showed interest there! Dude. Let's Party.
2) I can only hope they had to cull out a lot of more reasonable response interviews than they ones highlighted here. I would imagine my daughters would support diversity on campus and would not immediately flip to no, but it should be talent based for sports!

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:02 pm
by Cortopassi
I'm saying the kids on the interview should have been smarter to either be consistent, or say no comment.

I was not putting my opinion out there

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:23 pm
by Hal
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:08 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:02 pm
I'm saying the kids on the interview should have been smarter to either be consistent, or say no comment.

I was not putting my opinion out there
No one said you have to be smart to attend college. :P

Okay, then I'll ask you point blank for your opinion:
Do you think admissions should be based on identity rather than merit, but that sports should not?
If you support diversity on campus, what about diversity in sports? Small Asian guys generally don't have body types that are large enough for football, but if they want to play, should they be excluded?

Btw, Apple is adding an emoji with a pregnant man in the next release. Good to know that I can carry a baby if I want to, per Apple.
Ronald Ermey's opinion 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78ICiQKdO-Q

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 5:41 pm
by dualstow
For what it’s worth, here’s an explanation of the pregnant man emoji. But yeah, it’s weird.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01 ... -man-emoji
I know this is the internet, and outrage is the currency. At the end of the day, we're just talking about a digital stacking system to build multiple emoji from core elements instead of a custom element for each of the thousands of emoji that now exist.
If you see someone out there get angry because a pregnant man "isn't scientific!" then link them to this article. If you see someone blaming Apple for pushing an agenda, then show them this article. If you see someone praising Apple for pandering or being forward-thinking, then link them to this article.
No outrage here, but I’m linking the article.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:21 pm
by dualstow
The commenter is an idiot and missed the explanation (probably because he didn’t read any of the thousand words). It’s basically a logistics glitch.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:36 pm
by vnatale
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:15 pm

dualstow wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 5:41 pm

For what it’s worth, here’s an explanation of the pregnant man emoji. But yeah, it’s weird.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01 ... -man-emoji

I know this is the internet, and outrage is the currency. At the end of the day, we're just talking about a digital stacking system to build multiple emoji from core elements instead of a custom element for each of the thousands of emoji that now exist.

If you see someone out there get angry because a pregnant man "isn't scientific!" then link them to this article. If you see someone blaming Apple for pushing an agenda, then show them this article. If you see someone praising Apple for pandering or being forward-thinking, then link them to this article.

No outrage here, but I’m linking the article.


The first comment sums it up nicely.
There is nothing logical about a pregnant man. Nice attempt to write thousands of words to legitimize it, but a pregnant man emoji is as useful as a emoji of a fish riding a bicycle. Both are pure fantasy.




That brings up memories of a bumper sticker I'd often see in the 70s:

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

Looks like that saying is still around 50 years later!

Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (26.41 KiB) Viewed 3255 times

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2022 8:30 am
by dualstow
Maybe glitch is the wrong term. It’s more about the quote I pasted earlier, building the digital stacking system instead of customization.

Personally, I wish we could stick to Simpsons yellow and none of this BS, no bearded woman, no man with veil. But, it’s easy enough to ignore. I just hope it doesn’t take up too much space on our phones.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2022 10:26 am
by Cortopassi
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:08 pm


Okay, then I'll ask you point blank for your opinion:
Do you think admissions should be based on identity rather than merit, but that sports should not?
I believe everything in life generally should be based on merit.

Where it gets somewhat hazy for me is because of location, economic conditions, access to good education, etc., in no way does every child start out the gate on a level playing field.

I always wonder, if there’s some kid on the south side, or in a slum in India that if given the opportunities I have had, could grow up to be the next Einstein, but instead is selling drugs or picking garbage in a dump because that’s what they were born into.

I don’t know how to fix that part.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2022 10:43 pm
by Mark Leavy
Cortopassi wrote:
Sun Jan 30, 2022 10:26 am
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:08 pm


Okay, then I'll ask you point blank for your opinion:
Do you think admissions should be based on identity rather than merit, but that sports should not?
I believe everything in life generally should be based on merit.

Where it gets somewhat hazy for me is because of location, economic conditions, access to good education, etc., in no way does every child start out the gate on a level playing field.

I always wonder, if there’s some kid on the south side, or in a slum in India that if given the opportunities I have had, could grow up to be the next Einstein, but instead is selling drugs or picking garbage in a dump because that’s what they were born into.

I don’t know how to fix that part.
There's no fixing that part. The idea that everyone should have an equal chance and start on a level playing field is as realistic as saying that we should all be born good looking and tall.

That is child like thinking. Step away from being an idiot.

Everyone has a different starting point and different abilities and different resources. Embrace that. It's always refreshing to embrace reality as opposed to mourning it.

Re: Kids: Then and Now

Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:20 am
by Cortopassi
Mark Leavy wrote:
Sun Jan 30, 2022 10:43 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Sun Jan 30, 2022 10:26 am
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:08 pm


Okay, then I'll ask you point blank for your opinion:
Do you think admissions should be based on identity rather than merit, but that sports should not?
I believe everything in life generally should be based on merit.

Where it gets somewhat hazy for me is because of location, economic conditions, access to good education, etc., in no way does every child start out the gate on a level playing field.

I always wonder, if there’s some kid on the south side, or in a slum in India that if given the opportunities I have had, could grow up to be the next Einstein, but instead is selling drugs or picking garbage in a dump because that’s what they were born into.

I don’t know how to fix that part.
There's no fixing that part. The idea that everyone should have an equal chance and start on a level playing field is as realistic as saying that we should all be born good looking and tall.

That is child like thinking. Step away from being an idiot.

Everyone has a different starting point and different abilities and different resources. Embrace that. It's always refreshing to embrace reality as opposed to mourning it.
The problem is, that is what's driving these diversity / affirmative action type admissions, right? Universities are trying to help fix a problem that is mostly unfixable once a kid has already gone through a system that didn't allow them to be the best they could be?

Embrace the suck? :-) Not saying I know how to fix it, but I'd also rather not just shrug my shoulders either.