Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Too bad your "stratospheric" test scores haven't helped your analytical skills.
First do you know that every corporation, organization, local, state and federal government and their agencies have communications departments staffed by people who have degrees in communications? Or, the fact that every public relations company on the planet is owned or operated by individuals with degrees in communications/marketing and that NOTHING is more ubiquitous in American life than some communications person communicating somebodies spin to the media and the general public every waking moment of the day?
Do you recognize that a degree, even a lowly degree (in your estimation) in communications will cost a student in four years what one year at Harvard would cost? That regardless of degree the Cal State system is a whole lot of bang for the buck even before calculating life time earnings over those with a high school diploma much less a GED?
Now I know that you want to feel good about earning your GED and you should, but any self-esteem that you think you might earn by denigrating students who had demonstrated an ability to succeed through high school and four years of college is nothing more than false bravado. If your scores are as stratospheric as you claim, then I would suggest that you have so needlessly squandered that gift by your demonstration of a lack of discipline to stick to what should have been a very easy high school curriculum.
Also the liberals and repub's alike have designed the system so these folks are saddled with sometimes 100,000 in student loans that cannot be discharged.....
It is a choice that they make. No one has to amass that much in student loan debt. They just don't.
As for the OP, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find a single self-professed conservative who doesn't believe that their child should go to college/university as well if that child is college material.
I also believe that we would be hard-pressed to find one who was in the position to do hiring who didn't prefer potential employees to have a degree.
And as for "everything" requiring a degree, well, why not?
What employer wouldn't prefer to hire someone who has demonstrated, if not mastery then at least the attention span to complete a four year degree?
I personally don't believe that every young person should go to college and the idea that one needs a BA/BS to file is pretty ridiculous on the face of it. But, how many people are hired to just file anymore?
And, don't we hear every single day that earning minimum wage or just above, is not supposed to be one's ambition? If that is the case, then, having that degree or certificate or something is a requirement.
Or, is it actually okay that some people choose to be low achievers?
I think both parties are equally to blame for this.
Let's see now... which political party is the one that worships laissez faire, the magic perverted hand of Adam Smith, corporations regulating themselves, and Alan Greenspan? Hmmm... let me think a while...
Oh! I think I get it!!!! Let the entire country go to hell in the process of fixing the economic disaster created by you right wing nutjobs?! By Jove, I think I've got it!
I don't know if your ideology is delusional or just malicious. I'd bet for the latter.
Oh! I think I get it!!!! Let the entire country go to hell in the process of fixing the economic disaster created by you right wing nutjobs?!
Wrong premise. It had nothing to do with the right wing. The government had to bail out Wall Street and the banks because the early 1990s federal government (look up which party had the presidency, House, and Senate) was explicitly complicit in causing the financial crisis, and to NOT bail them out would have virtually wiped out everyone's savings, investments, pensions and retirement accounts. Obviously, the government would have NO way of supporting hundreds of millions of suddenly destitute people. Chaos would ensue, and life as we know it would get violently ugly very quickly.
We need to test everyone in 10th grade. If they haven't shown aptitude and attitude to succeed by then, no public funding or loans for college. Teach them a trade.
For the rest, the top 20%, give them a free ride to any college they can gain admission into. Nothing stimulates things like a dose of healthy competition.
You don't get to decide what I spend my money on.
Period.
Wrong premise. It had nothing to do with the right wing. The government had to bail out Wall Street and the banks because the early 1990s federal government (look up which party had the presidency, House, and Senate) was explicitly complicit in causing the financial crisis, and to NOT bail them out would have virtually wiped out everyone's savings, investments, pensions and retirement accounts. Obviously, the government would have NO way of supporting hundreds of millions of suddenly destitute people. Chaos would ensue, and life as we know it would get violently ugly very quickly.
Typical teabagger BS - that the banks didn't need to be bailed out to fix the economy the right wing had so nicely destroyed. Great BS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
