MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Toni]

I think that most people absolutely are injured to the impact art has on our lives. We need to encourage more art and more literature.

Do you think we need more art at the expense of more plumbers?

If you had to read what passes for writing of many university students, you’d really want to invest heavily in literature and writing degrees.

I don't think degrees in literature is the solution for primary school failures to teach basics.

I don't think that we are drawing from the same pool, so that's not a good question.

My observation is that people who read good writing tend to become better writers. And I've witnessed people held back professionally because they were not good writers--and also because they felt they weren't good at it and that it wasn't much use to try.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that most people absolutely are injured to the impact art has on our lives. We need to encourage more art and more literature.

Do you think we need more art at the expense of more plumbers?

If you had to read what passes for writing of many university students, you’d really want to invest heavily in literature and writing degrees.

I don't think degrees in literature is the solution for primary school failures to teach basics.

I don't think that we are drawing from the same pool, so that's not a good question.

I think when we're talking about incentives, we are talking about the same pool. If we incentivize ALL degrees and fields equally, people will tend to disproportionately choose those that are easier to get and result in nicer jobs. I think if we incentivized trades, we'd have more tradesmen.

My observation is that people who read good writing tend to become better writers. And I've witnessed people held back professionally because they were not good writers--and also because they felt they weren't good at it and that it wasn't much use to try.

You're not wrong, exactly. I'm just saying that the failure point is far upstream of college. And if someone has writing and reading competence at a high school level, they're unlikely to be held back by that. Most of the effort in jobs is to get people to write with clarity and concision. For some people that means they need to learn to compose their thoughts in a more linear fashion, use basic grammar correctly, and check their spelling when there's a squiggly line under a word. For some, it means walking themselves down from jargon, prosaic word choices, and mini-novels.

 

[bilby]

Do you think we need more art at the expense of more plumbers?

Do you really think that's a choice anyone is making?

Are there large numbers of eighteen year olds who are genuinely uncertain which of those two careers they are best suited for?

Do we really want our sewer lines installed by someone who wants to make a creative statement about modern society, or are we better off having them done by people who just want the shit to go where it needs to go with a minimum of fuss?

Are we going to have the asthetics of our cities determined by people who like pipework? (they tried that in the '70s, and it resulted in the Pompidou Centre. Have we learned nothing?).

Whether we want more plumbers, or more artists, it's a shoo-in that we don't want either being forced into the other person's job.

 

[Politesse]

Look, FHA offers better interest rates and lower down payments for first time homebuyers. You understand why, don't you? Because owning a home is the absolute best way to build financial security, and financial security is good for the individuals and the country as a whole. Nothing in that program suggests that selling your current home and buying a different one is bad, nor does it discourage doing so. Nothing in that program suggests that renting is bad and should be avoided. Those are still reasonable and appropriate options that are available for people. But the government has decided (and I agree) that encouraging and incentivizing people to buy their first home is a good thing.

A policy commitment that, famously, resulted in extremely risky loans being offered, the sale of known risky debts as a tradable commodity, and directly caused a foreclosure crisis leading to the second most severe economic recession of the last century...

You know they still exist, right? They're just not as generous as they used to be.

But you raise an interesting connection point. Risky home loans led to risky debt which wasn't repaid and resulted in a recession. Seems like risky student loan have a similar exposure. Although I tend to think they've contributed to tuition being far too high and jobs requiring degrees for work that really doesn't need a degree - the combination of tuition inflation and degree inflation.

I'm all for putting pressure on predatory lenders.

Eliminating the humanities does not accomplish this. Quite the opposite.

 

[Toni]

I think that most people absolutely are injured to the impact art has on our lives. We need to encourage more art and more literature.

Do you think we need more art at the expense of more plumbers?

If you had to read what passes for writing of many university students, you’d really want to invest heavily in literature and writing degrees.

I don't think degrees in literature is the solution for primary school failures to teach basics.

I don't think that we are drawing from the same pool, so that's not a good question.

I think when we're talking about incentives, we are talking about the same pool. If we incentivize ALL degrees and fields equally, people will tend to disproportionately choose those that are easier to get and result in nicer jobs. I think if we incentivized trades, we'd have more tradesmen.

My observation is that people who read good writing tend to become better writers. And I've witnessed people held back professionally because they were not good writers--and also because they felt they weren't good at it and that it wasn't much use to try.

You're not wrong, exactly. I'm just saying that the failure point is far upstream of college. And if someone has writing and reading competence at a high school level, they're unlikely to be held back by that. Most of the effort in jobs is to get people to write with clarity and concision. For some people that means they need to learn to compose their thoughts in a more linear fashion, use basic grammar correctly, and check their spelling when there's a squiggly line under a word. For some, it means walking themselves down from jargon, prosaic word choices, and mini-novels.

I’m not sure that there is a category of work where it is easy to get the degree abd you get a nice job. I missed that path.

Writing is a good way to organize your thoughts and to help you better understand a topic.

Yes, much of the writing at work is technical and involves using good grammar, precision and concussion

But writing is used for many other purposes - and gas value beyond turning a buck.

 

[Politesse]

I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.

Universities are public services, but they cannot operate without funding. Yes, you are arguing for mass program cancellation, whether or not you understand that.

 

[bilby]

I don't think degrees in literature is the solution for primary school failures to teach basics.

How do you think primary school teachers become qualified to teach the basics? Do primary schools just go out and pluck new teachers from the English Teacher trees?

 

[bilby]

I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.

Why is your opinion on which should be subsidized or backed by taxes better than anyone else's?

It sounds to me like you are making the exact error that led to the planned economies of Eastern Europe in the C20th - you are deciding in advance how much of everything society must need, and refusing to supply anything else on the grounds that if it were necessary, you would have thought of it.

That did not end well last time out.

 

[bilby]

Again, at no point have I suggested that any majors should be disallowed.

If they are not funded, they are disallowed for anyone who isn't rich.

 

[Politesse]

Again, at no point have I suggested that any majors should be disallowed.

If they are not funded, they are disallowed for anyone who isn't rich.

Even rich people can't choose to pursue a major that has been discontinued. And that is what happens to programs whose enrollment vanishes. This is an argument about what kinds of knowledge should be passed on to future generations, and which domains should be extinguished.

 

[Toni]

I think that most people absolutely are injured to the impact art has on our lives. We need to encourage more art and more literature.

Do you think we need more art at the expense of more plumbers?

If you had to read what passes for writing of many university students, you’d really want to invest heavily in literature and writing degrees.

I don't think degrees in literature is the solution for primary school failures to teach basics.

I don't think that we are drawing from the same pool, so that's not a good question.

I think when we're talking about incentives, we are talking about the same pool. If we incentivize ALL degrees and fields equally, people will tend to disproportionately choose those that are easier to get and result in nicer jobs. I think if we incentivized trades, we'd have more tradesmen.

My observation is that people who read good writing tend to become better writers. And I've witnessed people held back professionally because they were not good writers--and also because they felt they weren't good at it and that it wasn't much use to try.

You're not wrong, exactly. I'm just saying that the failure point is far upstream of college. And if someone has writing and reading competence at a high school level, they're unlikely to be held back by that. Most of the effort in jobs is to get people to write with clarity and concision. For some people that means they need to learn to compose their thoughts in a more linear fashion, use basic grammar correctly, and check their spelling when there's a squiggly line under a word. For some, it means walking themselves down from jargon, prosaic word choices, and mini-novels.

Are you familiar with the notion that to maintain proficiency, one must keep in practice?

Are you under the illusion that high school English classes are the apex of mastering or enjoying writing and reading.

Don’t ever read for pleasure? Enjoy a film or television show? A play? A greeting card? A training manual? A news story? Comics? Advice columns? Online forums? Does your work require reading?

You realize that almost everything we enjoy in this modern world involves reading and writing, right?

 

[laughing dog]

My only consideration from a monetary perspective is whether or not the student's field of study is likely to result in them being able to pay back their student loan.

Then you exclude any positive externality or pubic good from education in your analysis.

If you can make the case that some fields produce such an enormous public good that they entirely offset the costs accrued and support those fields being perpetually supported by other people's money, go for it. Perhaps you'll convince me.

As to loans, if student lians were treated like other loans (i.e dischargeable in bankruptcy), I’d have little problem with them.

I’m not trying to persuade you. Your view excludes the possible non-pecuniary benefits accruing to others from a more educated populace. IMO it is an extremely narrow viewpoint.

It’s been my limited experience that people holding narrow viewpoints are typically unwilling to widen them.

I notice that you didn't bother to even try to make a case.

I am heartened that you got my point.

All you've done is declare that my view is narrow... because I don't think all degrees are equally valuable to society as a whole, and I think we should only incentivize with tax money those that are needed.

Your view is narrow by definition if you only exclude non-monetary benefits from your view of benefits. The part in bold-face is a straw man because I did not address any of that.

BTW, if it having your view described as narrow, I suggest you either widen it or get a thicker skin, because flinging those straw men may be therapeutic for you, they are neither as authoritative nor convincing as you seem to hope.

Like I said... make your case. Or refrain from insinuating that I'm close minded because I don't think artists are as necessary for a well-functioning society as plumbers and doctors and nurses are.

I insinuated nothing. I explicitly wrote "Your view excludes the possible non-pecuniary benefits accruing to others from a more educated populace. IMO it is an extremely narrow viewpoint." Notice there is no mention of artists or plumbers or doctors or nurses or which professions are more valuable than others.

 

[Emily Lake]

Whether we want more plumbers, or more artists, it's a shoo-in that we don't want either being forced into the other person's job.

I don't know how many ways I can possibly say this, so I'm starting to feel like this is willful misunderstanding.

Nobody is being FORCED into any jobs at all. INCENTIVIZING something that we want as a society is not at all equivalent to FORCING people to do that things.

 

[Emily Lake]

Look, FHA offers better interest rates and lower down payments for first time homebuyers. You understand why, don't you? Because owning a home is the absolute best way to build financial security, and financial security is good for the individuals and the country as a whole. Nothing in that program suggests that selling your current home and buying a different one is bad, nor does it discourage doing so. Nothing in that program suggests that renting is bad and should be avoided. Those are still reasonable and appropriate options that are available for people. But the government has decided (and I agree) that encouraging and incentivizing people to buy their first home is a good thing.

A policy commitment that, famously, resulted in extremely risky loans being offered, the sale of known risky debts as a tradable commodity, and directly caused a foreclosure crisis leading to the second most severe economic recession of the last century...

You know they still exist, right? They're just not as generous as they used to be.

But you raise an interesting connection point. Risky home loans led to risky debt which wasn't repaid and resulted in a recession. Seems like risky student loan have a similar exposure. Although I tend to think they've contributed to tuition being far too high and jobs requiring degrees for work that really doesn't need a degree - the combination of tuition inflation and degree inflation.

I'm all for putting pressure on predatory lenders.

Eliminating the humanities does not accomplish this. Quite the opposite.

Please go reread all of my posts, and kindly come back with which one you think represents me suggesting that we eliminate the humanities.

Alternatively, you're welcome to realize that you're exaggerating and misrepresenting my view, and attacking a strawman. I won't even ask you to publicly admit to it, just stop doing it.

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m not sure that there is a category of work where it is easy to get the degree abd you get a nice job. I missed that path.

Writing is a good way to organize your thoughts and to help you better understand a topic.

Yes, much of the writing at work is technical and involves using good grammar, precision and concussion

But writing is used for many other purposes - and gas value beyond turning a buck.

Having good writing skills doesn't require a degree in writing, and certainly not in literature. Sheesh, as a math major, I still had to take composition and speech courses.

Honestly, what have I said that gives you the impression that I oppose kids and young adults learning to write effectively?

 

[Emily Lake]

I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.

Universities are public services, but they cannot operate without funding. Yes, you are arguing for mass program cancellation, whether or not you understand that.

Are you arguing that in order for a university to be able to operate, it requires that ALL programs be publicly funded, and no steerage can possibly be allowed?

 

[Politesse]

I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.

Universities are public services, but they cannot operate without funding. Yes, you are arguing for mass program cancellation, whether or not you understand that.

Are you arguing that in order for a university to be able to operate, it requires that ALL programs be publicly funded, and no steerage can possibly be allowed?

No. I have no objection to the existence of private universities, provided an equivalent public university system is also available to all citizens.

 

[Emily Lake]

NOTE TO EVERYONE

Look, this is where I end up getting extremely frustrated, with a whole lot of you.

I have a position, and I think it's a reasonable position. I've given it a fair bit of thought, I've tried to weigh the pros and cons, and I've thought through the longer term consequences. I've tried to consider the dynamics between many different related aspects of the situation.

I don't need any of you to agree with me, but it is fairly important to me that you understand my perspective.

And I don't think most of you do. The reason I don't think you do is that nearly all of you keep exaggerating and misrepresenting my view. I say that the public shouldn't be expected to back or fund all fields equally, and that the government has a duty to incentivize those that are most in need. Somehow that gets turned into me wanting to eliminate fields of study, to prohibit some degrees, or to force people into fields they don't like.

I have said none of that, nor have I implied it in any way at all. At this point, I've clarified this repeatedly. I have not been unclear about it at all. Either you are all failing to understand or you're intentionally twisting what I say for some reason or you're so stuck in your own beliefs that you aren't even trying to consider where I'm coming from.

We're right at the edge of where our various discussions start to go awry. It's a repeated pattern. I can speak to the ones I've been subjected to, but I've observed it with others as well.

This is the point where my continued attempts to civilly correct your misrepresentations starts to annoy youse. And at least some of you are likely to start taking it personally... and to start getting nasty because I won't give up my position to you. This is the juncture where some of you historically start being right proper pricks about the fact that I disagree with you, and that I won't just accept your view and roll over.

So how about we try to avoid that? How about some of you actually take some time to think about what I've said before responding - not what you think I might secretly mean in some coded language way, but what I've actually said. Think about the reasoning I've presented, not what buried belief you think I'm hiding from you. Think about the dynamics I'm addressing rather than what you want to be true.

At least have the decency to accept that what I'm saying is what I mean, and address my actual points. If you disagree with what I'm actually saying, fine. But for the love of reason, stop disagreeing with things I haven't said. It's fallacious, and it's very annoying.

 

[Politesse]

And I don't think most of you do. The reason I don't think you do is that nearly all of you keep exaggerating and misrepresenting my view. I say that the public shouldn't be expected to back or fund all fields equally, and that the government has a duty to incentivize those that are most in need. Somehow that gets turned into me wanting to eliminate fields of study, to prohibit some degrees, or to force people into fields they don't like.

I am trying to point out, in the smallest words I can find, that trying to abuse the federal aid system to play favorites with academic programs would result inevitably in canceled programs. I understand that you did not write that, and have apparently not thought far enough ahead to realize what you are demanding. But reality exists. If we turned your ideas into public policy, program cancellation and reduced student freedom will be the result. There is no hypothetical scenario in which this would not be true.

 

[Emily Lake]

I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.

Why is your opinion on which should be subsidized or backed by taxes better than anyone else's?

I haven't suggested that I know everything. I've already admitted a couple of times that I can only speak to a few items that I know are underrepresented.
I know that we need more skilled trades - do you think I'm wrong about that and we have a glut of tradesmen?
I know that we need more primary care doctors and nurses - do you disagree and think we have too many?

It sounds to me like you are making the exact error that led to the planned economies of Eastern Europe in the C20th - you are deciding in advance how much of everything society must need, and refusing to supply anything else on the grounds that if it were necessary, you would have thought of it.

That did not end well last time out.

This is a misrepresentation of what I've said, and of things I've clarified repeatedly.

Are you doing this on purpose with the intent of irritating me?
Do you think this wins you points with other posters somehow?
Do you think your false insinuation will make me feel ashamed or embarassed and that I'll change my mind in order to avoid your judgement based on things I've never said or implied?

What do you think you're accomplishing by not just distorting my view, but by radicalizing it to this extent? What's so hard about sticking with what I've actually said?