Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Student Question of the Day

Just to fairly turn the tables for a minute...

On one of my first job interviews for a Pre-K classroom, I was asked how my former school handled discipline.

I said, "The policy there was redirection. Capital punishment was never an option."

I didn't realize, until I got home, I had misspoke corporal.

Then it was clear why the interviewer looked at me like I had two heads after that. :lol:
 
And that is basically what my situation is. I was simply too stupid when I was 18. More interested in getting into trouble and letting the world adapt to suit my needs. Four years later and I am slightly more mature about such matters. I have officially no education. Meaning anyone with GCSE's even can pre-empt me in the search for a job. Which is just laughable since even without any formal pieces of paper I am still way and beyond the capabilities of most bottom-feeder, grunge laden teenagers who just happened to finish school.

I can handle myself well enough in debate my general knowledge is sound and I have more than your average grasp of Politics, History, Sciences, Literature ect...

I would perhaps be a little rusty geting back into the groove of studying, learning and producing results but I would not be afraid of the work in University. I have self taught myself for years out of sheer personal interest.
 
Unfortunately, more credibility is given to someone with a sheepskin to hang. Someone wthout any formal education, but with tons of life experience, is genuinely looked upon as inferior.

I'm a firm believer that life learnin' is as valuable, if not more, than book learnin'.
 
Yeah, but the thing is I have done a lot of book learnin' as well. Just out of personal interest. Not in a formal setting.
 
Then you are way ahead of the game.

Apply for a job where a degree is not mandatory, and blow them away at the interview with your knowledge and life experience.

Walk in the room as if you already have the job, and the interview is just a formality. You'd be surprised how far that takes you. :)

And if going back to school is something you're toying with, then just do it. Once you get over the initial awkwardness, you'd fall right into the routine as if it were a second skin. Especially with your propensity for self-education.
 
Number_6 said:
...and ways to make math and all the other subjects multicultural (whatever the fuck multicultural math means).
Click to expand...
I think 6 is referring, specifically, to the Paideia Curriculum:

Paideia Philosophy

The school stresses the same integrated core curriculum for all students, including fine arts, music, foreign language, and the manual arts, giving students the opportunity to explore these areas as they relate to the core academic subjects.
Click to expand...

This is a curriculum I've used in the past, and have found it to be extremely effective.

This is an overview...

Welcome To Paideia
 
If students aren't interested in what they're studying and aren't serious about their education, they probably shouldn't be in college, but I haven't kown many people like this. The vast majority of people I knew as an undergraduate--even the 18-year-old freshmen--were very interested in their education. It's probably true that, all other things being equal, an 18-year-old is never going to be as intellectually mature as a 22-year-old, but there are advantages to teaching people who aren't fully formed adults. Students who are still in the process of forming their ideas about the world and who haven't yet taken on serious financial obligations are generally more open to new ideas and new modes of thinking than people who have moved fully into the adult world.
 
Number_6 said:
They also bring with them valuable life experience that the 18-year-olds simply lack, and really contribute to discussion.
Click to expand...


This is the only problem I have when debating Wordin on issues of taxes, economic reform, etc. Based on his own admission, Wordin has never held a job of any sort. Thus, he has no immediate, first-hand knowledge of giving up a large portion of your wages to various goverments.

Wordin, you can certainly cite economic theory very eloquently. I'll freely admit that, being well over 10 years removed from University, you have a much better grasp on economic theory than I do, given the fact that it's largely unnecessary for me to be intimately aware of, say, Adam Smith's ideas, at least in my day-to-day life. I've found that you take what you need from your education, use it in your daily life, and discard what you don't need.

That being said, the economic concepts we sometimes argue about are merely abstractions to you; they affect my daily life. That's why I tend to devalue your opinion of certain subjects. You may decide that being economically liberal is the right thing to do morally, but your decision is based solely on your studies, not on any real-world experience. When you've been responsible for supporting a family (or at leas co-responsible, my wife happily shares the duties with me), making mortgage payments, buying Christmas presents for your kids, your views may change. You may change your views, like I did.

I find that, for the most part, young college students are far to quick to simply parrot back that day's lesson as absolute truth, without truly understanding what it means.

I refer you to the very excellent "Good Will Hunting" for a great example of that!
 
This is the only problem I have when debating Wordin on issues of taxes, economic reform, etc. Based on his own admission, Wordin has never held a job of any sort. Thus, he has no immediate, first-hand knowledge of giving up a large portion of your wages to various goverments.
Click to expand...

Of course I've had jobs, and I've told you so on numerous occasions.

That being said, the economic concepts we sometimes argue about are merely abstractions to you; they affect my daily life. That's why I tend to devalue your opinion of certain subjects. You may decide that being economically liberal is the right thing to do morally, but your decision is based solely on your studies, not on any real-world experience. When you've been responsible for supporting a family (or at leas co-responsible, my wife happily shares the duties with me), making mortgage payments, buying Christmas presents for your kids, your views may change. You may change your views, like I did.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you know that I don't know? Be specific.
 
^^What it's like to actually live under the theoretical models created in the academy.

You've had minor jobs, and I don't think you've ever been completely independent and responsible for your own upkeep. There's a huge difference between working 20-30 hours a week at some part time job, with 75-100% disposable income and working full time while trying to keep a roof over your head (as well as in good repair), put food on the table, etc.

Someday, should you ever be so unfortunate as to live through several months in a row where the money actually runs out, then come back here and let me know what you think about paying even more taxes than you already do.

That, I think, is the point BDM is trying to make. When you start raising taxes and playing the income redistribution game, it's people like us, the middle class, who get fucked the worst.
 
^^Yup, that's my point. My wife and I don't "receive" an income merely because we've had the "priviledge" of higher education. We work our asses off to remain solidly middle-class, and we resent someone who is being supported by Mom & Dad telling us we're not paying enough taxes. I worked my way through college, Wordin, I assume you didn't. Try working 20-30 hours a week AND dealing with a professor who actually resents the fact that you're not making his class the #1 priority in your life. I swear to god, some of the professors I had were like fuckin' Gollum with "their preshussss" class.

Again, my point is that when you work a combined 100 hours per week (not including housework, repairs, and child-rearing, of course), it's damned insulting for some kid to tell me that it's morally wrong to want to keep as much of our income as humanly possible. It's also a slap in the face to be working so hard and know that some of your dollars are going to "help" people that have no desire-none-to improve their situation.
 
^^Yeah, I worked 32 hours a week through the B.A. (which was as many hours as the county would give me--yep, I was a part-time civil servant), and then taught high school full time to pay for the M.A. I only borrowed for the Ph.D., and I'm regretting that.

Now, what with a mortgage, car payments, student loan payments, utilities, etc., there are some months where the well literally runs dry, particularly if something goes wrong with the house or the car, and the bill runs upwards of $500.

Somehow, I suspect Wordin will never have to deal with this problem, which is why he can be so callous about spending my money on social programs and such.
 
Or...

Once one is placed in a position to struggle, one appreciates the struggles of other lower income citizens. Living in need enables one to see what social programs need to be encouraged (i.e. Head Start, subsidies and incentives for single mothers, etc.).

Yes, it's a pain to tax the middle class. However, if this didn't happen, there would be a lot more hungry folk in this country.
 
^^Right. So as soon as I finish struggling, I need to go back to struggling, because I'll have entered the next tax bracket and the government will take more money away from me.

That's bullshit. People who live paycheck to paycheck should not be forced to burden to the responsibility for those who do not work, whether by choice or not. At a certain point, you turn off the incentive to work, because it's not worth the effort just to see your money go into someone else's hands, someone else whose government aid appears to be paying for a nice car, a big-screen TV with cable, and a cell phone, all luxuries, not necessities. The people who lived in the government subsidized housing near my former apartment complex had more disposable income than we did. Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

You want to pay? Go for it. But keep your motherfucking hands off what little I have left each month.
 
Friday said:
Yes, it's a pain to tax the middle class. However, if this didn't happen, there would be a lot more hungry folk in this country.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps if people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi paid their fair share, the burden on the middle class wouldn't be so great.
 
Big Dick McGee said:
It's also a slap in the face to be working so hard and know that some of your dollars are going to "help" people that have no desire-none-to improve their situation.
Click to expand...
BDM, don't generalize. Yes, there are some who abuse the system. There are countless others, however, who genuinely need a helping hand. They shouldn't be penalized because they weren't given the same capacity for self support that the rest of us share.

I've been known, on occasion, to resent supporting those who are able to do for themselves. It is frustrating as hell to work so hard, and see others get a free ride. If those programs weren't in place, tho, the truly needy would be disenfranchised.

What we need is an effective method to weed out those that take advantage of the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top