Is the slowly recovering economy the ...

Is the slowly recovering economy the fault of college students?

There are 41 comments on the Deseret News story from Apr 23, 2013, titled Is the slowly recovering economy the fault of college students?. In it, Deseret News reports that:

In this Friday, Oct. 19, 2012 photo, graduate student Pedro Ramirez is photographed on the campus of California State University, Long Beach in Long Beach, Calif.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Deseret News.

Libertarian Snow Bird

Kuttawa, KY

#22 Apr 29, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Jessica.
Yes. After the 60s 70s revolutionaries came to power, they convinced an entire gullible generation of Americans that they should get an expensive taxpayer funded "education" lest they were to look forward to a lifetime of productive labor. The result was that millions of Mexican Indians had to be imported to do the work that Americans no longer would do.
We see the effects today. A bankrupt nation, over 40 millions Americans on expensive taxpayer provided food stamps, social chaos, embittered racial and ethnic conflict where angry taxpayer supported Africans routinely kill their fellows, and others, at the slightest provocation, or otherwise, "just for the Hell of it".
Prior to the revolution, Americans sought out what work was available. They took those jobs not for purposes of self-gratification or personal growth, but rather, because they needed a job in order to support themselves and their family. Perhaps it's time for the heavily indebted Government "educated" young folks to seek out what work is available and begin doing honest labor once again.
Ronald
So true. We have given too many people too much education. Not just college. Tax funded "free" K-12 public education ruined the working class by sending them to high school.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#23 Apr 29, 2013
Libertarian Snow Bird wrote:
<quoted text>
So true. We have given too many people too much education. Not just college. Tax funded "free" K-12 public education ruined the working class by sending them to high school.
Libertarian Snow Bird.

I agree. Within the lifetimes of many of us still alive today, those receiving an 8th grade diploma were better educated than are those who are endowed with an expensive taxpayer funded diploma from a two year Government college today. Political indoctrination for purposes of revolutionary societal change is not education.

Ronald
Libertarian Snow Bird

Kuttawa, KY

#24 Apr 29, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Libertarian Snow Bird.
I agree. Within the lifetimes of many of us still alive today, those receiving an 8th grade diploma were better educated than are those who are endowed with an expensive taxpayer funded diploma from a two year Government college today. Political indoctrination for purposes of revolutionary societal change is not education.
Ronald
Here is an interesting read:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/...

What do you think?
Long Beach Native

Long Beach, CA

#25 Apr 29, 2013
Libertarian Snow Bird wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an interesting read:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/...
What do you think?
I can tell you why this article rings true. The children of the rich attend private schools or schools where 'diversity' is only heard of, not shoved down their throats like our schools. Networking with others of their same backgrounds, same economic status. Private schools can be selective about their students, underachieving students are kicked out. They make up their own educational goals, they do not follow mandated junk laws like 'no child left behind'.

These parents care about their children achieving a good solid education. They can afford tutors, as well as access to programs that can bolster academic achievements.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#27 Apr 29, 2013
Libertarian Snow Bird wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an interesting read:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/...
What do you think?
Libertarian Snow Bird.

Well, I needed to read your sourced reference all the way to the end to discover that the object of the article was just another effort to promote the spending of even more hard earned taxpayer money for the purpose of educating the ineducable.

First of all, we should dispense with the Orwellianisms the self-serving Government school industry regularly uses to justify spending ever more hard earned taxpayer money. Moneys expended to maintain Government schools are not "investments". That money is a cost. Failing to make that important distinction leads one to wonder just how "educated" those running the expensive Government school industry are.

I shall not address all the distortions the article contains. After all, Topix posts are limited to 3000 characters.

The writer states "...over the last few decades these differences in educational success between high- and lower-income students have grown substantially. One way to see this is to look at the scores of rich and poor students on standardized math and reading tests over the last 50 years...I found that the rich-poor gap in test scores is about 40 percent larger now than it was 30 years ago. To make this trend concrete, consider two children, one from a family with income of $165,000 and one from a family with income of $15,000."

Then the writer goes on to compare apples to oranges by writing: "In the 1980s, on an 800-point SAT-"type" test scale, the average difference in test scores between two such children would have been about 90 points; today it is 125 points. This is almost twice as large as the 70-point test score gap between white and black children." Note the writer compares 1980s "test scores" and then he goes on to invoke today's test differences between White and African students.

The writer makes his point that family income is a valid predictor of scholastic achievement, yet, the writer ignores the fact that - generally speaking - intelligence is a good predictor of family income were one to not include Government "wealth transfers".

The writer also makes reference to Professor Putnam when it serves his purpose. For example the writer states: "These widening disparities are not confined to academic outcomes: new research by the Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam and his colleagues shows that the rich-poor gaps in student participation in sports, extracurricular activities, volunteer work and church attendance have grown sharply as well."

Ignored by the writer is another important finding of Professor Putnam who argues: "...the United States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational, and political life (social capital) since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences." *
*(source: http://tinyurl.com/5xzqg8 )

That all men are "created equal" is fine 18th century poetical romanticism. The fact is, though, that some men are endowed by their creator with differing intellectual capabilities. Government ignoring this important fact benefits no one, least of all the taxpayer.

Ronald
Tea Party Libertarian

Kuttawa, KY

#28 Apr 29, 2013
I think there is something deeper in the article than just what is on the surface. I went to a Tea Party rally some months back and the speaker talked about something that he called "political economy" - the interrelated structure of society and economy - and how education had caused our's to get out of the shape that natural economic laws would otherwise have shaped it into. It's not just that the quality of education has declined. It is the fact that we have educated too many people beyond their natural place in the structure.
Micky D

Monrovia, CA

#29 Apr 29, 2013
Jessica wrote:
Sarah, as you've probably noticed, this forum is full of mean spirited right wing mouth-breathers, stuck in their little ignorant bubbles. Good for you for going after a degree you were passionate about. By the way people, a lot of the "big money making" degree people can't find work these days. Law school geeks that thought they were going to be rich are graduating with 100k in debt and flipping pizzas.
Not most of the students who attended Yale. But you wouldn't know that, since you never attended an Ivy League school. Just remain silent, you worn out weener. You know nothing.
Tea Party Libertarian

Kuttawa, KY

#30 Apr 30, 2013
Here is another article that suggests a solution:

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/03/abolish...
Jerry

Monrovia, CA

#31 Apr 30, 2013
Tea Party Libertarian wrote:
I think there is something deeper in the article than just what is on the surface. I went to a Tea Party rally some months back and the speaker talked about something that he called "political economy" - the interrelated structure of society and economy - and how education had caused our's to get out of the shape that natural economic laws would otherwise have shaped it into. It's not just that the quality of education has declined. It is the fact that we have educated too many people beyond their natural place in the structure.
The scientific testing of intelligence has been going on for about 100 years. For all that time, blacks have had a noticeable deficit in IQ as compared with whites. It has never mattered which test you use: Stanford Binet, Raven's Progressive Matrices, the SAT, the Stanford 9TA, the ACT, the CRCT, etc. It doesn't matter which part of the world you pick to do the testing: Atlanta, Detroit, Paris FR, Johannesburg SA, etc. Blacks have always trailed whites in tests of intelligence. Over the years, it has become well-documented that each race has a distribution for intelligence that is Gaussian (or normal, or bell-curved) to a very good approximation.

In the United States, black residents have a distribution for IQ having an average of 85 and a standard deviation of 12.4 points, whereas white residents have a distribution for IQ having an average of 103 and a standard deviation of 16.4 points. And the differences in those distributions explain a lot of what you blacks blame racism for.

I'm going to assume that most of you don't know calculus, so that if I were to write something like:

f(&#956;)=[&#963;& #8730;(2&#960;)]&#8315 ;¹ &#8747;(&#956;,&#8 734;) exp{ &#8722;[(x&#8722;x &#772;)/&#963;]²} dx

you wouldn't know what it means. What that equation does is find the fraction of the population of a racial group whose average IQ is above whatever minimum value is assigned to &#956;, given that the average IQ for that race is x&#772; and that the race's standard deviation in IQ is &#963;. For US-resident whites, x&#772;=103 and &#963;=16.4. For US-resident blacks, x&#772;=85 and &#963;=12.4.

Now, suppose that a certain kind of work requires that the person doing it have an IQ of 130 or more. There are jobs of this kind, which require more brains than muscle. Job applicants of every race approach the employer seeking jobs of that kind, and the employer, to stay competitive in his industry, must select only those applicants who meet the minimum IQ qualification. The question is what fraction of whites and what fraction of blacks will qualify for the job? To find the answer, carry out the integration, once for whites and again for blacks.

For whites,
W(130)=[16.4&#8730;(2& #960;)]&#8315;¹ &#8747;(130,&#8734;) exp{ &#8722;[(x&#8722;103)/ 16.4]²} dx = 0.0498467387

For blacks,
B(130)=[12.4&#8730;(2& #960;)]&#8315;¹ &#8747;(130,&#8734;) exp{ &#8722;[(x&#8722;85)/1 2.4]²} dx = 0.00014224284

You can see that whereas about 1 out of every 20 whites qualify, only 1 out of every 7030 blacks do. The fraction of all whites who qualify is about 350 times greater than the fraction of all blacks who qualify. Now, the ratio of whites to blacks in the United States is presently about five-and-a-half. If the employer isn't a racist at all, if he is completely fair about whom he hires, and if he is in a demographically "average" part of the United States, then he will hire about 1900 whites for each black he hires.

If among his hirelings there is a lower ratio of whites to blacks than 1900, then the employer is being racist in favor of blacks, though perhaps he is being forced into it because of Affirmative Action laws.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#32 Apr 30, 2013
In his May 1 2013 column entitled "Is Thinking Obsolete?" that was published by Jewishworldreview.com Thomas Sowell, distinguished senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University addresses the question of why there has been increasingly little Free Speech on Campus since the revolutionary ideologues seized control. According to Sowell:

"There is a remarkable range of ways of seeming to argue without actually producing any coherent argument.

"Decades of dumbed-down education no doubt have something to do with this, but there is more to it than that. Education is not merely neglected in many of our schools today, but is replaced to a great extent by ideological indoctrination. Moreover, it is largely indoctrination based on the same set of underlying and unexamined assumptions among teachers and institutions.

"If our educational institutions — from the schools to the universities — were as interested in a diversity of ideas as they are obsessed with racial diversity, students would at least gain experience in seeing the assumptions behind different visions and the role of logic and evidence in debating those differences.

"Instead, a student can go all the way from elementary school to a Ph.D. without encountering any fundamentally different vision of the world from that of the prevailing political correctness.

"Moreover, the moral perspective that goes with this prevailing ideological view is all too often that of people who see themselves as being on the side of the angels against the forces of evil — whether the particular issue at hand is gun control, environmentalism, race or whatever.

"A moral monopoly is the antithesis of a marketplace of ideas. One sign of this sense of moral monopoly among the left intelligentsia is that the institutions most under their control — the schools, colleges and universities — have far less freedom of speech than the rest of American society.

"While advocacy of homosexuality, for example, is common on college campuses, and listening to this advocacy is often obligatory during freshman orientation, criticism of homosexuality is called "hate speech" that is subject to punishment.

"While spokesmen for various racial or ethnic groups are free to vehemently denounce whites as a group for their past or present sins, real or otherwise, any white student who similarly denounces the sins or shortcomings of non-white groups can be virtually guaranteed to be punished, if not expelled."

Sowell gives the example of the student at one expensive taxpayer funded Government university who was threatened with expulsion because he refused to stomp on a piece of paper that had the word "Jesus" written on it:

"Even students who do not advocate anything can have to pay a price if they do not go along with classroom brainwashing. The student at Florida Atlantic University who recently declined to stomp on a paper with the word "Jesus" on it, as ordered by the professor, was scheduled for punishment by the university until the story became public and provoked an outcry from outside academia.

"This professor's action might be dismissed as an isolated extreme, but the university establishment's initial solid backing for him, and its coming down hard on the student, shows that the moral dry rot goes far deeper than one brainwashing professor.

"The failure of our educational system goes beyond what they fail to teach. It includes what they do teach, or rather indoctrinate, and the graduates they send out into the world, incapable of seriously weighing alternatives for themselves or for American society."

Source: http://tinyurl.com/bp33jke

Ronald
guest

Long Beach, CA

#33 May 1, 2013
Ronaldo your post was far too long. Please condense your content in the future. Nobody has the patience to read all the excessive content you continuously post. Thanks and have a nice day.

Sincerely,
guest
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#34 May 1, 2013
guest wrote:
Ronaldo your post was far too long. Please condense your content in the future. Nobody has the patience to read all the excessive content you continuously post. Thanks and have a nice day.
Sincerely,
guest
guest.

I am not saying you may be wrong, but answer me this one question. When you say "Nobody has the patience to read all the excessive content you continuously [sic] post", are you speaking for others, or you just speaking on your own behalf?

Ronald
guest

Long Beach, CA

#35 May 1, 2013
Are you ill? You misspelled the word SICK.
god

Monrovia, CA

#36 May 2, 2013
guest wrote:
Are you ill? You misspelled the word SICK.
Seriously... please kill yourself. You know it's the right thing to do.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#37 May 2, 2013
guest wrote:
Are you ill? You misspelled the word SICK.
guest.

Well, the title of Professor Sowell's column I quoted from was "Is Thinking Obsolete?". If Government educated readers cannot maintain a train of thought for 2000 words or so, doncha' think he has made a good point?

Ronald
guest

Long Beach, CA

#38 May 2, 2013
If all you can do is copy and paste from other sources, you obviously cannot write and should stop posting here. Thanks.
Jack

United States

#39 May 2, 2013
guest wrote:
If all you can do is copy and paste from other sources, you obviously cannot write and should stop posting here. Thanks.
You don't even post with your name, loser. All your posts are stupid. Go kill yourself.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#40 May 3, 2013
Why bother making up a fake name every time I post, like you do? That's a bit odd. And no, I don't plan to kill myself simply because some troll makes a rude comment on some random board. Have a nice day.
Jack

United States

#41 May 4, 2013
guest wrote:
Why bother making up a fake name every time I post, like you do? That's a bit odd. And no, I don't plan to kill myself simply because some troll makes a rude comment on some random board. Have a nice day.
I'm not suggesting that you kill yourself because of a rude comment. I'm suggesting you kill yourself because you have nothing to offer, and you're taking up time and space for no reason at all. You don't know who you are, and never will. Why not just stop resisting for no reason, and help unclog the existential toilet? Because you're refusing to go down, you're stinking up the bathroom
Unemployed PhD

Crofton, KY

#42 May 4, 2013

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cerritos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 4 connected in Fullerton triple homicide have t... 44 min hemetone 1
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 2 hr LM Mom 6,806
Black Girl Punches Elderly Hispanic Lady Today ... (Jul '11) 5 hr What the heck 10
Joeyann Blanco Criminal Gang moves to Long Beach 11 hr renegade detective 1
LMP gang celebrates 31 years (Jun '08) 16 hr Kanalio Indiamuzzie 1,849
U.S. Owes Black People Reparations 17 hr United Snations 1
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 21 hr Chosen Traveler 32,404

Cerritos Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Cerritos Mortgages