Donald Trump

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Maybe we should require a 4 year degree in a STEM related major as a minimum to vote lol.

What makes you think being a STEM would make you a good lawmaker? I mean, current Communist Party in China has engineers in many positions. It works (if you ignore freedoms that have been crushed), but you have to question how the whole thing is working.

Was tongue in cheek but it would basically cut out the middle man, the politician, and go straight to their advisers and make them the policy makers. (of course the pressures facing politicians to act on the interests of big business not the middle class would just move to the adviser/lawmaker - hence tongue in cheek)

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I simply do not agree. Of course, I understand that "government can regulate anything" is the status quo.

I assumed you didn't, and also assumed you were familiar with the concept, I was just pointing it out to the thread in general.

To reiterate in a slightly different way, it's like guv'ment saying, "Yeah restaurant owner, if god forbid there's a fire, we're gonna send our non-privatized fire department to save the day, so the least you can do is let us decide who can use your bathroom."

A counter-argument is that the restaurant owner IS ALSO a taxpayer and contributor to having a public fire department, so the bathroom usage is out of bounds behind this fact because it's not a fair trade-off.

p.s. Heh, and a rebuttal to this counter is that government isn't necessarily overstepping because they're not advocating full regulation in this context; like, bathroom regulation doesn't directly affect and effect the actual running of the business.

It's a rabbit hole because it also comes down to how much a government is "of/for/by the people" as a person could say a true democratic republic should have the right to run wild with regulation but that same person would say 'aw hell no' to a theocratic dictatorship doing the same.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Well, Sanders wanted a 4-year degree to be a minimum qualification for working any job better than fast food, so I'd file your idea along with his.

He also wanted higher education to be free and open to all so that in the end it really came down to being 'qualified'... Just to nip this foxnews stink blossom in the bud.

If FOX said it, that's pure coincidence; I'm saying it. The inevitable result of "free higher education for all" is "higher education required for employment because every mediocre candidate has it." Free for all becomes mandatory for all except losers.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If FOX said it, that's pure coincidence; I'm saying it. The inevitable result of "free higher education for all" is "higher education required for employment because every mediocre candidate has it." Free for all becomes mandatory for all except losers.

On the subject of education:
The world has changed. The knowledge of facts has become less and less useful since the invention of writing. When facts are easily referenced, you dont have a need to memorize it all. Today, we have access to most of the worlds knowledge in milliseconds through our smart phones. Rote learning is just not an effective means to teach the children of the 21st century. Indeed, i would say the conditioning to silently sit in neat lines behind a desk is actually detrimental, it trains human beings into being passive observers rather than active participants.
We need a complete overhaul of the education system. Students need to be engaged with hands on applications of principles. They need to be granted the agency to deviate from the course curriculum. To be challenged to devise novel solutions to real world problems.

In short, we need to teach our children HOW to think. Not what to think.

At least in my field (IT), certs are becoming the standard. And that's a good thing.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If FOX said it, that's pure coincidence; I'm saying it. The inevitable result of "free higher education for all" is "higher education required for employment because every mediocre candidate has it." Free for all becomes mandatory for all except losers.

That's only a negative because we're jaded about what higher education has become. There's no direct downside to every candidate being uniquely qualified for every position because they went to school for it.


p.s. By Foxnews I meant the way they spin the notion of being educated as some sort of liberal elitism.

Jaded for good reason.

You can't make everyone uniquely qualified for positions. Some people, most people really, are fucking stupid, and this always will be. If you send everyone to "get smart," the only result you're going to achieve (if it hasn't happened already) is that loads of idiots will get their participation awards, and the prestige of higher education destroyed through internal corruption.

Their cannot be such a thing as popular elitism. And that is the whole point of a credential which is worth something; its purpose is to separate one from the herd.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If FOX said it, that's pure coincidence; I'm saying it. The inevitable result of "free higher education for all" is "higher education required for employment because every mediocre candidate has it." Free for all becomes mandatory for all except losers.

On the subject of education:
The world has changed. The knowledge of facts has become less and less useful since the invention of writing. When facts are easily referenced, you dont have a need to memorize it all. Today, we have access to most of the worlds knowledge in milliseconds through our smart phones. Rote learning is just not an effective means to teach the children of the 21st century. Indeed, i would say the conditioning to silently sit in neat lines behind a desk is actually detrimental, it trains human beings into being passive observers rather than active participants.
We need a complete overhaul of the education system. Students need to be engaged with hands on applications of principles. They need to be granted the agency to deviate from the course curriculum. To be challenged to devise novel solutions to real world problems.

In short, we need to teach our children HOW to think. Not what to think.

You're obviously correct, but...

I still want my brain surgeon to not be consulting wikipedia mid-surgery.

Also, rote learning and critical thinking skills do go hand-in-hand. Basically, taking a child and forcing them to use their brain in any capacity does not have a detriment. Memorizing multiplication tables does make us equipped to analyze literature much later, though it is not apparent at the time. Even before either, things like simply reading to a child has arguably the biggest impact. http://www.ask.com/world-view/ages-formative-years-child-e6eb4d1869967ad4

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Jaded for good reason.

You can't make everyone uniquely qualified for positions. Some people, most people really, are fucking stupid, and this always will be.

You're a man after my own heart.

"

If you send everyone to "get smart," the only result you're going to achieve (if it hasn't happened already) is that loads of idiots will get their participation awards, and the prestige of higher education destroyed through internal corruption.

Their cannot be such a thing as popular elitism. And that is the whole point of a credential which is worth something; its purpose is to separate one from the herd.

This HAS happened already and this what I speak to about being jaded. My conjecture is that this will slowly reverse/correct itself IF higher education is more accessible. There's no way to do this point justice without getting too long-winded, but, basically, the idiots with the participation awards will get weeded out in favor of the sharp tacks currently digging the ditches.