Worthless Diplomas

[Roxanne Appleby]

PS. My BA was quite worthless in terms of giving me any preparation for a workplace, but I've always been grateful for the intellectual broadening, and given that my school was a prestigious top-tier state U, having graduated did provide a certain cachet that I've benefitted from. My MA is from a middle-tier state U, and is somewhat related to my profession. Nothing I learned getting it has directly contributed to my work, but the broadening and intellectual rigor it encouraged has been very valuable. Having the extra letters after my name hasn't hurt, either.

 

[amicus]

There have been countless and continuing discussions and debates on the efficacy of education for one of a dozen fine feathered reasons. That will no doubt continue, as it is here.

Until the social do-gooder's mindset concerning the function of education in society is revised, there will be no change and no improvement.

Without even considered the tremendous cost, beginning with Property Taxes, the burdgeoning educational lobby will continue to feather its nest with highly paid instructors, with the best benefits, fine facilities and a powerful Union to continue the scam.

Obamavision, reflective of the far left, envisions a society where every child is forced to be educated through a college degree, with two to four years mandatory national service included.

Would anyone, anyone at all, even devote a few moments to a free society where parents determined the education of their children?

Anyone?

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

Would anyone, anyone at all, even devote a few moments to a free society where parents determined the education of their children?

Anyone?

You're not talking about higher education here, are you? Because last time I looked there were very few children attending college.

And on a philosophical tangent... a free society for whom? The parents' freedom to shape their spawns into their own image, or the children's freedom to shape their own lives?

This is the dilemma that in many countries has brought forth a system of tax funded public high school and college education for all that wants it. A system that levels the field for young adults who wants to pursue their interrests into a life long career. Little Lisa can become a lawyer regardless of what Daddy's wallet thinks is proper works for wimmin folks.

As usual, when people blurt out buzzwords like freedom (or "equality" or "liberty" for that matter), they put their blinders on about that it's a complex issue, where jucidial freedom is just one small part. What I just described is a costly and imperfect (since it's not immune to people trying to politizise the curriculum) system, but one that actually adress the issue of young adults' financial shackles. This is freedom in action, not just in hollow talking points.

 

[amicus]

'Freedom', is neither a 'buzzword', or a 'talking point', as another thread on the forum demonstrates when a loss of freedom is sorely felt.

Children gain a natural joy from learning and seek it out from day one when a babies eyes can focus on a shiny toy hung over the crib, they innately are curious and attentive.

That can be enhanced, formally, at about seven or eight years of age, according to child psychologists who know about such things.

Certainly not at age five and below and certainly not in the sterile environment of most formal schools and certainly not mixed with those who do not wish to learn.

Aside from your feigned humanitarian concerns about 'educating the masses', you fail not acknowledge that the system destroys the best and brightest who are bored out of their gourds and usually end up discontent Bohemians hating everything.

Aside from the most obvious fact of all, that public education simply does not work, there is the small matter of you placing a gun to my head to force me to support your grandiose schemes of social improvement.

I do object.

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

I do object.

Amicus...

I understand that. And I even said it was costly, easy to corrupt with ideology and I'd go as far as saying it's occasionally ineffective. Your blatant "public education don't work" is hpwever just as ridiculous as hailing it as the second coming would be. And I didn't say anything about "educating the masses". But feel free to project your prjudice of me onto my posts instead of reading what I actually said.

But anyway,you didn't answer my question. Freedom for who? How does Lisa's parents dictating what she'll learn and not, make Lisa free?

And yes, "freedom" is bloody well a buzzword unless you take measures to secure it.

 

[amicus]

You inadvertently widen the discussion and yet refine the essence:

But anyway,you didn't answer my question. Freedom for who? How does Lisa's parents dictating what she'll learn and not, make Lisa free?

I guess you are raising the issue of who is responsible for a child, Lisa's parents or Big Brother?

Society has laws to protect children from physical abuse, starvation and a few other things, I suppose you, like some California regions wish to criminally charge a parent if they do not educate a child in the manner you see fit?

So, your question, is a child free if the parents control its life? I suppose not in your viewpoint if all children are actually viewed as wards of the state and the parents are just unpaid caregivers.

May your concept of freedom rest in peace, R.I.P..

amicus...

 

[Liar]

You inadvertently widen the discussion and yet refine the essence:



I guess you are raising the issue of who is responsible for a child, Lisa's parents or Big Brother?

Society has laws to protect children from physical abuse, starvation and a few other things, I suppose you, like some California regions wish to criminally charge a parent if they do not educate a child in the manner you see fit?

So, your question, is a child free if the parents control its life? I suppose not in your viewpoint if all children are actually viewed as wards of the state and the parents are just unpaid caregivers.

May your concept of freedom rest in peace, R.I.P..

amicus...

Close but not really. You obsess on the state. Forget the state. Forget what you presume is my viewpoint. (and presume wrong, by the way) Forget if there are other options.

Is a child free if the parents control its life? Or should a child have legal right to other influences outside the home?

That. Not compared to Big Brother.

I said this was a philosophical tangent. And possibly a threadjack.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Is a child free if the parents control its life? Or should a child have legal right to other influences outside the home?

You guys lost me, but this doesn't make sense. A child "free?" Of course not. The two-year-old is not "free" to play in the street, and the 15 year old is not free to get stoned and blow off school. They are children, and by definition are not competent to be "free." That's why parents have the authority to boss them around and make them do what is in their own best interest. You wanna get stoned and blow off school? Turn 18 and get your own place. In the meantime - hit the books, buster!

 

[where]

Thus, at least in the classes I took, plagerism meant automatic failure, and it was enforced

It does here in theory, but not in practice. I'm still angry now

 

[Liar]

You guys lost me, but this doesn't make sense. A child "free?" Of course not. The two-year-old is not "free" to play in the street, and the 15 year old is not free to get stoned and blow off school. They are children, and by definition are not competent to be "free." That's why parents have the authority to boss them around and make them do what is in their own best interest. You wanna get stoned and blow off school? Turn 18 and get your own place. In the meantime - hit the books, buster!

Hey look, an answer.

And under the sniper fire rethorics insinuating that there was an opinion to shoot down, and that I somehow advocate two-year-olds playing on the highway, I could even extract a straight answer: No, a child is not free, and that's ok, because kids can't handle freedom.

Right?

Well then, to steer this conversation back to sanity-land and away from the pot and the 2 y.o in the street, how about this: Yep, children are not mentally mature enough to make their own desicions. But in the eyes of the law at least, young adults from the age of 18, is. And how the child's been raised and educated up to that point plays a crucial part in whether that is actually so. In that light the question "Is a child free if the parents control its life? Or should a child have legal right to other influences outside the home?" might actually deserve a level-headed reply.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

Your parents influence you, like it or dont. So does genetic influence. Kids are influenced by whatever theyre exposed to. If you remove them from the home and cage them in an orphanage something or someone is gonna influence them. The question is, who gets to do it?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Hey look, an answer.

And under the sniper fire rethorics insinuating that there was an opinion to shoot down, and that I somehow advocate two-year-olds playing on the highway, I could even extract a straight answer: No, a child is not free, and that's ok, because kids can't handle freedom.

Right?

Well then, to steer this conversation back to sanity-land and away from the pot and the 2 y.o in the street, how about this: Yep, children are not mentally mature enough to make their own desicions. But in the eyes of the law at least, young adults from the age of 18, is. And how the child's been raised and educated up to that point plays a crucial part in whether that is actually so. In that light the question "Is a child free if the parents control its life? Or should a child have legal right to other influences outside the home?" might actually deserve a level-headed reply.

Sorry Liar, I didn't mean that as sniper fire. It's just a rhetoric/logic thing I learned decades ago, to use an extreme example to illustrate a principle, then work in to find where it no longer applies.

What JJ says is true - kids will be influenced. There's a simmering debate in our society about parents' role. Hillary, Shalala, people on the left like that want to use the state as a stand in for the traditional "village" where neighbors might step in in a case of neglect, emotional abuse, etc., or at least provide temporary sanctuaries.

Needless to say that is a slippery slope indeed, and so every nibbling away at a parent's "right" to raise their kids as they choose is subject to strict scrutiny (not using that in a legal sense but it might be). Even the extreme cases that illustrate the principle that some parents just shouldn't have this right anymore are extremely controversial and dicey - the Texas polygamists, for example.

It's just an area where all the cases are hard (almost), which makes it extremely resistant to a bureaucratic, routinization approach - each case must be judged individually, by an individual with wisdom and discretion in both senses of that word. Needless to say wisdom is always and everywhere thin on the ground, so we muddle along as best we can.

Sorry if that is somewhat rambling and "exploratory." BTW, I just don't think the concept of "freedom" has much meaning when we're talking about children. Properly defined it means freedom from coercion, and from the arbitrary power of another person. If one tries to get philosophical about what "arbitrary" means in this context it brings you back to my rambling above, because ultimately a good parent has the right and duty to just leave it at "because I said so!"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE & LIAR


Several years ago I had a client named Johnny. Johnny was 16.

Johnny's mom was mentally disabled and Johnny was the result of an instritutional rape. Johnny and Mom lived with Grandma.

But Grandma was old and everyone was on her ass to place Johnny with Disability Services. So I did the legal work and had the state take custody of him. He went to a group home supervised by the "Little Agency With The BIG Heart!."

The bottom-line was: He died there. The boys smuggled liquor into the home, the boys dared Johnny to drink a whole bottle by himself, and he died.

I ran into Grandma afterwards. She said to me: Mister Johnson, you did a much better job with Johnny than I was doing.