• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

 
 
 
Politesse said:
bilby said:
Emily Lake said:
Again, at no point have I suggested that any majors should be disallowed.
Click to expand...
If they are not funded, they are disallowed for anyone who isn't rich.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Not even a little bit.

Why do you think that programs must be discontinued if they aren't funded by taxpayer money? Why do you think that having fewer students in some fields means that the knowledge ceases to exist?
 
Emily Lake said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even I'm getting frustrated by how people here are treating you. And I'm not the only one.
 
Emily Lake said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought I was more than clear that I disagree with that also. No, you are wrong. No, you as a taxpayer don't have a right to decide what programs are "supported" (funded) by those dollars and which are punished. You never had. You still do not. You fund the students and the school, you do not fund or manage the program. Partly because such a policy would be a disaster, and partly because until two years ago, that simply wasn't how public funding worked in the United Syates, and trying hamfistedly to transform the role of the federal government from normal-ish support to Maoist style state control is going fucking disastrously so far. The federal government should not micromanage the universities, because it is completely incapable of doing so responsibly or in an informed way. The average citizen can't even accurately describe the difference between most degree programs, which normally is fine because there's no reason why they would ever need to. That's the job of a lot of highly educated people - their states' board of education, the university board of regents, the academic Senate of the school, its counseling services, its periodic curriculum review process, its faculty union, and state accreditation agencies all play an important role in what programs a university offers. An entire system of checks and balances. This works. What you are proposing would not.
 
Toni said:
Are you familiar with the notion that to maintain proficiency, one must keep in practice?
Click to expand...
Why do you think that practice is only available in a formalized degree program rather than in, you know, actual practice in the real world? Do you think people forget how to read once they're no longer taking classes that require them to read?
Toni said:
Are you under the illusion that high school English classes are the apex of mastering or enjoying writing and reading.
Click to expand...
This doesn't even make sense. High school english is pretty much beyond the basic standards required to function. It covers the necessities for good communication and composition that meets the needs of probably around 90% of people.

You also seem to be assuming that nobody is capable of enjoying writing and reading unless they get a college degree in it, and that makes no sense to me at all. Most of us here don't have literature or writing degrees.
Toni said:
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?
Click to expand...
Do you think that because I don't have a government subsidized college degree in those fields I'm not capable of doing those things?
Toni said:
You realize that almost everything we enjoy in this modern world involves reading and writing, right?
Click to expand...
You realize that almost everything we enjoy in this modern world doesn't require a college degree to enjoy, right?

I'm challenging your logic here, Toni. Your argument above rests upon the false assumption that reading for pleasure, enjoying TV or film or play, or even participating on this forum in this very discussion requires college degrees in literature or writing. I don't see any good reason for your assumption.

Furthermore, I don't see how not using taxpayer money to fund literature or writing degrees somehow translates into nobody being able to read for enjoyment.
 
Politesse said:
Emily Lake said:
Politesse said:
Emily Lake said:
I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.
Click to expand...
Universities are public services, but they cannot operate without funding. Yes, you are arguing for mass program cancellation, whether or not you understand that.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
No. I have no objection to the existence of private universities, provided an equivalent public university system is also available to all citizens.
Click to expand...
Do you think that having a public university system requires that all possible fields of study be government subsidized at the same level? To be more blunt, do you think that public universities cannot exist unless both medicine and russian literature have the same amount of federal grants and subsidization?

ETA: I'll also point out that public universities aren't all identical. It's fairly common for some schools to have really strong programs in one field, but not another. The undergrad school I went to had excellent agriculture and veterinary science programs, and a solid engineering program. They had a mediocre art program and a sub-par medical program. I don't even think they offered more than pre-med. A different public school on the other side of the state had well-ranked medical programs and mediocre engineering.
 
Emily Lake said:
Politesse said:
I'm all for putting pressure on predatory lenders.

Eliminating the humanities does not accomplish this. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
Please go reread all of my posts, and kindly come back with which one you think represents me suggesting that we eliminate the humanities.
Click to expand...

While you did not explicitly suggest eliminating the humanities, it is a very real possibility of your proposal for student loans.

If students are induced to choose programs based on loan availability and loan availability is based on marketability or suitability, then enrolment in the omitted programs fall. Falling enrolment inevitably leads to program cancellation.

The humanities as a group fall in the lower marketability/suitability catered, hence they are likely victims of your proposal.

As a case in point, the private university in my town has discontinued a number of humanities programs ( including history, english and art) in order to obtain a large influx of cash from a donor who espouses your views.
 
Last edited:
Emily Lake said:
laughing dog said:
Your view is narrow by definition if you only exclude non-monetary benefits from your view of benefits.
Click to expand...
Demonstrate where I've done this.
Click to expand...
Do you recall writing 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.

Emily Lake said:
I don't believe I've ever suggested that social benefits are only available in high paying fields.
Click to expand...
Okay. I know I didn't suggest that you did.
 
Politesse said:
Emily Lake said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am trying to point out, in the smallest words I can find,
Click to expand...
That's rude and uncalled for. You know it's rude, and I'm certain you intended it to be rude. Don't do it.
Politesse said:
that trying to abuse the federal aid system
Click to expand...
This is also rude.
Politesse said:
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your slippery slope argument.

Let's take this from a different perspective. Let's take a couple of degrees that I think we both think are useful, but where I think we might also agree that society as a whole doesn't need the same volume of graduates. I could be wrong, but humor me anyway please.

Let's talk about doctors and lawyers. Both are difficult degrees to get, both require a lot of effort and time investment. Both degrees are expensive to attain. Both are available from public universities, but tend to be more highly regarded from private universities. Both fields have high incomes that are more or less comparable to each other.

That said, I also think that as a society, we need more doctors (especially primary care). It's observably difficult to find a primary care doctor that's accepting new patients, and it's observably difficult to get an appointment in a short amount of time.

I don't think we need more lawyers. That isn't the same as saying we don't need any lawyers, only that we have a pretty good saturation of lawyers already. As evidence of this, I would point out that billboards and ads for lawyers are all over the place, where the same is not true of doctors.

For argument's sake, let's say that both doctors and lawyers are completely subsidized by federal grants that cover 75% of the tuition. They'll still need to pass exams and show competency, but this is a thought experiment so we'll assume everyone involved has the same degree of capability. Let's assume that 50% of prospective students will choose to study law, and 50% will choose to study medicine.

Now, let's assume that a generally beneficial government that wants the country to thrive looks around and says "hey, we need more doctors, but we don't need as many lawyers". So they change the incentive. Now they offer grants that cover 100% of tuition for medicine, but only 50% for law.

Do you think this will result in law degrees no longer being offered?
 
laughing dog said:
Emily Lake said:
laughing dog said:
Your view is narrow by definition if you only exclude non-monetary benefits from your view of benefits.
Click to expand...
Demonstrate where I've done this.
Click to expand...
Do you recall writing 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.
Click to expand...
You've conflated my view on whether loans should be given with whether or not there's a non-monetary benefit to society.

We have plenty of evidence that when loans are given to people who have a low expected ability to pay their debts, things go wrong in ways that affect far more than the individual who defaulted on their loan. Why do you think we should throw that knowledge and observation out the window when it comes to educational loans? Additionally, although it might not be clear from that specific isolated excerpt, I think contextually it's clear that I'm talking about federally guaranteed student loans.
laughing dog said:
Emily Lake said:
I don't believe I've ever suggested that social benefits are only available in high paying fields.
Click to expand...
Okay. I know I didn't suggest that you did.
Click to expand...
It seemed as though you were.
 
I think you have no idea how financial aid works. Or degree programs. Your proposal makes no sense. No agency awards funds based on what "percentage of a program" those funds support, nor would that work, because student needs vary considerably, as do program requirements.
 
Last edited:
Emily Lake said:
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.
Click to expand...
Most in need? That sounds like a decent standard until one asks the question "By who?" ("By whom?")

Sure, we need doctors, nurses, nursing aids/assistants, lab techs, teachers, scientists, trade workers, engineers. We also need people good at finance, accounting. Social workers, goodness help us.... lawyers. Math matters. History doesn't pay the bills, but we need people that know it. Computer sciences. The list actually grows quite a bit... explaining why these majors are offered in the first place. In a society with over 325 million people, we need people that are trained and educated in a large amount of things. And preferably we want the people with an affinity to those things to be the ones doing it.

Honestly, just how many college graduate jobs in this country are not needed? If we set quotas, how is that gonna work?
 
Emily Lake said:
laughing dog said:
Emily Lake said:
laughing dog said:
Your view is narrow by definition if you only exclude non-monetary benefits from your view of benefits.
Click to expand...
Demonstrate where I've done this.
Click to expand...
Do you recall writing My only consideration
from a monetary perspective is whether or not the student's field of studyis likely to result in them being able to pay back their student loan.
Click to expand...
You've conflated my view on whether loans should be given with whether or not there's a non-monetary benefit to society.
Click to expand...
Nope.
I suggest you reread that quote, paying attention to the bolded part. And, recall that federal student debt cannit be discharged via bankruptcy.
 
Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
Are you familiar with the notion that to maintain proficiency, one must keep in practice?
Click to expand...
Why do you think that practice is only available in a formalized degree program rather than in, you know, actual practice in the real world? Do you think people forget how to read once they're no longer taking classes that require them to read?
Toni said:
Are you under the illusion that high school English classes are the apex of mastering or enjoying writing and reading.
Click to expand...
This doesn't even make sense. High school english is pretty much beyond the basic standards required to function. It covers the necessities for good communication and composition that meets the needs of probably around 90% of people.

You also seem to be assuming that nobody is capable of enjoying writing and reading unless they get a college degree in it, and that makes no sense to me at all. Most of us here don't have literature or writing degrees.
Toni said:
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?
Click to expand...
Do you think that because I don't have a government subsidized college degree in those fields I'm not capable of doing those things?
Toni said:
You realize that almost everything we enjoy in this modern world involves reading and writing, right?
Click to expand...
You realize that almost everything we enjoy in this modern world doesn't require a college degree to enjoy, right?

I'm challenging your logic here, Toni. Your argument above rests upon the false assumption that reading for pleasure, enjoying TV or film or play, or even participating on this forum in this very discussion requires college degrees in literature or writing. I don't see any good reason for your assumption.

Furthermore, I don't see how not using taxpayer money to fund literature or writing degrees somehow translates into nobody being able to read for enjoyment.
Click to expand...
Do you realize that in the US, the government is of and by and FOR the people, right? That the government exists to provide that which makes our lives better.

I will wager a decent amount of money that I've read more college freshmen writing than you have and I can tell you for certain that most students who are admitted to state universities really don't write very well. In my experience, being able to write well is a good predictor of how well you understand a subject or an issue. And I've seen very intelligent, very competent adults held back in their professions because they did not have great writing skills. Although my career path did not predict that I would need to know how to write well, indeed I was asked to do a fair amount of writing in my job because I could write well: clearly, concisely, accurately. Which I get is a surprise to people reading my posts but hey, it's true.

I don't think many of us on this forum are unaware that a significant portion of our population does not read much and does not read well and does a piss poor job of being able to evaluate what is written or said for accuracy, much less fairness.

Do you not think that people today still have stories to write? Whether it is a novel or a letter to the editor or a post on an internet forum, people do try to communicate with each other. Being able to read well and to write well certainly are useful skills in those endeavors.

And yeah, not every college grad is good at writing novels, as I've had the occasion to learn when an old friend asked me to read his (self published on Amazon) novel. It was not good but it had the kernels of some very good writing and very good storytelling.
 
Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
You seem to not be a fan of courses which are dense in reading and writing, and openly oppose public funding of such courses.

I get that not everyone is consciously a great fan of liberal arts. I also am more than a little aware of the fact that many math and science oriented people look down on liberal arts as being not very rigorous. Trust me liberal arts majors are well aware of being looked down on by people who prefer math and science.
Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t require a degree in writing. One dues not need to sit through a calculus course to learn calculus. Look at what Copernicus and Galeleo did withoutv
Emily Lake said:
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.
Click to expand...
Emily: we understand your position.

We do not agree with it.

For one thing, in my view, and in the view of many, education is a public good and a public necessity.

In my opinion, the government t has no business telling people what they can and what they cannot study at a university or college or any public school.

We do not exist to serve the government.

The government t exists to serve us.
 
Emily Lake said:
bilby said:
Emily Lake said:
I haven't attempted to manipulate what majors are available. Only which are subsidized or backed by taxes.
Click to expand...
Why is your opinion on which should be subsidized or backed by taxes better than anyone else's?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Sure. But your "solution" entails the elimination of things you think are overrepresented. It's zero-sum thinking, and you appear oblivious that you are even doing it.
Emily Lake said:
I know that we need more skilled trades - do you think I'm wrong about that and we have a glut of tradesmen?
Click to expand...
No. But you are wrong to imply that we have a glut of artists, and even more wrong to imagine that making it harder to obtain degrees in the fields you denigrate would create more tradesmen.
Emily Lake said:
I know that we need more primary care doctors and nurses - do you disagree and think we have too many?
Click to expand...
Again, no. But the cause is not that we have too many fine art or literature graduates; A far more important cause is the very high barriers of gruelling hours and low income placed at the start of careers in medicine. Nurses never get past that stage; Doctors do, but they have to get through the medieval training regimen of junior doctors to get there - a regimen that was developed primarily to defend senior doctors from competition, thereby enhancing their incomes and prestige.

And not that I am not using the word 'medieval' figuratively here. Doctors (like lawyers) are literally still operating like the medieval guilds from which their professions arose.
Emily Lake said:
bilby said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a misrepresentation of what I've said, and of things I've clarified repeatedly.
Click to expand...
No, it really isn't. You appear unaware of this, but it is the root of all you are saying here.
Emily Lake said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, I am trying to point out the actual implications of your proposals.
Emily Lake said:
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?
Click to expand...
I am simply extrapolating what you ask for (a change in funding) to its inevitable consequences. That you can not see those consequences is my motive; That you do not intend them is one of your reasons for being annoyed by my pointing them out.

It is well known which road is paved by good intentions.
 
Toni said:
Do you realize that in the US, the government is of and by and FOR the people, right? That the government exists to provide that which makes our lives better.

I will wager a decent amount of money that I've read more college freshmen writing than you have and I can tell you for certain that most students who are admitted to state universities really don't write very well. In my experience, being able to write well is a good predictor of how well you understand a subject or an issue. And I've seen very intelligent, very competent adults held back in their professions because they did not have great writing skills. Although my career path did not predict that I would need to know how to write well, indeed I was asked to do a fair amount of writing in my job because I could write well: clearly, concisely, accurately. Which I get is a surprise to people reading my posts but hey, it's true.

I don't think many of us on this forum are unaware that a significant portion of our population does not read much and does not read well and does a piss poor job of being able to evaluate what is written or said for accuracy, much less fairness.

Do you not think that people today still have stories to write? Whether it is a novel or a letter to the editor or a post on an internet forum, people do try to communicate with each other. Being able to read well and to write well certainly are useful skills in those endeavors.

And yeah, not every college grad is good at writing novels, as I've had the occasion to learn when an old friend asked me to read his (self published on Amazon) novel. It was not good but it had the kernels of some very good writing and very good storytelling.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you about the importance of reading and writing. My disagreement is around whether college degrees in reading and writing are a plausible solution to the dearth of skills among college freshmen. And I fail to see how having more people with degrees in literature and writing will address that deficit.
 
Toni said:
You seem to not be a fan of courses which are dense in reading and writing, and openly oppose public funding of such courses.
Click to expand...
Why are you assuming this? I like reading, and I have no opposition to classes that include it. I don't even object to degrees in eastern yugoslavian literature being available. I just don't think that investments in them are the best use of public funds.

Less isn't none. Not free on someone else's dime isn't unavailable.
Toni said:
I get that not everyone is consciously a great fan of liberal arts. I also am more than a little aware of the fact that many math and science oriented people look down on liberal arts as being not very rigorous. Trust me liberal arts majors are well aware of being looked down on by people who prefer math and science.
Click to expand...
Well, they aren't as rigorous. But they also don't need to be as rigorous. I don't look down on liberal arts at all. But liberal arts is a very, very big umbrella, and I simply don't think that all of them are as useful for society as a whole as some other degrees.

Did you miss where I said I'm not necessary? My degree is in math. It's nice and all, math is great and useful. But I don't think that degrees in math and physics should be as subsidized by the public as they are either. Basic math and sciences should be common prerequisites for a variety of degrees in engineering, computer science, data science, etc. But the reality of the world is that we need good engineers far more than we need mathematicians. We need enough mathematicians to have math teachers, and a small handful left over to be engaged in higher level academic work. But we have a much greater need as a society for engineers.
Toni said:
It doesn’t require a degree in writing. One dues not need to sit through a calculus course to learn calculus. Look at what Copernicus and Galeleo did withoutv
Click to expand...
If it doesn't require a degree in writing... why should the public be expected to pay for degrees in writing?

Toni said:
Emily: we understand your position.

We do not agree with it.

For one thing, in my view, and in the view of many, education is a public good and a public necessity.

In my opinion, the government t has no business telling people what they can and what they cannot study at a university or college or any public school.

We do not exist to serve the government.

The government t exists to serve us.
Click to expand...
Based on the red statement, you fundamentally don't understand my position. You're disagreeing with a strawman.
 
There's a core concept (yes, Archer) here that is either being missed or being ignored. So let me change gears and try it another way.

Postulate: People having houses is good for society.

I am going to assume that all of you agree with that. It seems pretty straightforward and apparent to me, it seems rational.

Inference: Taxpayer money should be used to give everyone a house.

I'm going to assume that most of you don't agree with that, but some will.

Conclusion: Taxpayer money should be used to give everyone a house of their choosing.

I really hope that none of you agree with that conclusion. I hope that all of you see that the conclusion doesn't have a good outcome, despite the intention inherent in the postulate.

Challenge: do you see the parallel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom