In article ,
says...


I am a firm believer that you should acquire the level of education that
best utilizes the capabilities you were born with and then make the most
of it. The world is full of examples of successful, contributing
members of society who don't have degrees from prestigious schools. In
fact, the networking and peer connections that Wayne speaks of is
probably why we have so many incompetents in high places.

Networking and peer connections work well when working with good, honest
people. Nobody who is competent and honest recommends the opposite.
Of course "birds of a feather" works both ways.
It's always a judgment call.

On 10/1/2014 11:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
In
fact, the networking and peer connections that Wayne speaks of is
probably why we have so many incompetents in high places.


Isn't that what I just said? Good for the rich kids, not so good for
society....??

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 22:41:26 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/1/2014 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



I know very few who could send their kids to an Ivy League college just
by "forgo-ing a few luxuries"... but then again, most of the folks I
know are middle and upper middle class, no uber rich since I left Essex...

===

My wife and I lived no more than an upper middle class life style and
we sacrificed a lot to send our kids to top schools. I used to have
this battle with my younger son all the time when he was in high
school. We had high expectations for him and insisted that he apply
himself, study hard and do his best to get into a top school. I'd be
rewarded for that effort by him telling me that it would be a lot
cheaper for me if he did something less. I told him that he didn't
understand teamwork: His job was to get into the best school
possible and my job was to figure out how to pay for it. He's now
earning 3 or 4 times more than I ever did as a VP at a first rate
firm.

On 10/1/2014 11:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 22:41:26 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/1/2014 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



I know very few who could send their kids to an Ivy League college just
by "forgo-ing a few luxuries"... but then again, most of the folks I
know are middle and upper middle class, no uber rich since I left Essex...

===

My wife and I lived no more than an upper middle class life style and
we sacrificed a lot to send our kids to top schools. I used to have
this battle with my younger son all the time when he was in high
school. We had high expectations for him and insisted that he apply
himself, study hard and do his best to get into a top school. I'd be
rewarded for that effort by him telling me that it would be a lot
cheaper for me if he did something less. I told him that he didn't
understand teamwork: His job was to get into the best school
possible and my job was to figure out how to pay for it. He's now
earning 3 or 4 times more than I ever did as a VP at a first rate
firm.



So, you gave up more than a "few luxuries"... in fact by your own words
you "sacrificed a lot"... again, exactly what I said 5 posts ago but
some are just too eager to contradict me even when the eventually get to
agreeing with me after a few posts... lol. Again, the problem with "old
boys networks"... snerk

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 22:31:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".


===

Yes, and if it even appears to be free, it cheapens the value.

On 10/1/14 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



Where did I say or imply college should be free? I didn't. I simply
reported that in Germany, students don't have to burden themselves with
tuition fees. Obviously, the costs are spread out over society as a
whole, which benefits from having a highly educated citizenry. Society
also benefits from having a healthy citizenry. Interesting to me, at
least, how society is moving forward in some parts of the free world and
is moving backwards in our part of the free world.

On 10/2/2014 10:49 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 07:41:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/1/14 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



Where did I say or imply college should be free? I didn't. I simply
reported that in Germany, students don't have to burden themselves with
tuition fees. Obviously, the costs are spread out over society as a
whole, which benefits from having a highly educated citizenry. Society
also benefits from having a healthy citizenry. Interesting to me, at
least, how society is moving forward in some parts of the free world and
is moving backwards in our part of the free world.

You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.



A system that would never work in the USA. A federally funded college
program would result in "approved" courses of study and standardization
of all syllabi. (had to look up the plural) :-)

May as well issue everyone size 10 and a half sized shoes and issue
federally funded cars. Need them to survive in the world too.

On 10/2/2014 10:49 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 07:41:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/1/14 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



Where did I say or imply college should be free? I didn't. I simply
reported that in Germany, students don't have to burden themselves with
tuition fees. Obviously, the costs are spread out over society as a
whole, which benefits from having a highly educated citizenry. Society
also benefits from having a healthy citizenry. Interesting to me, at
least, how society is moving forward in some parts of the free world and
is moving backwards in our part of the free world.

You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.


Germany also has (or had anyway) a mandatory 2 year military service
requirement.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:49:42 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 07:41:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/1/14 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



Where did I say or imply college should be free? I didn't. I simply
reported that in Germany, students don't have to burden themselves with
tuition fees. Obviously, the costs are spread out over society as a
whole, which benefits from having a highly educated citizenry. Society
also benefits from having a healthy citizenry. Interesting to me, at
least, how society is moving forward in some parts of the free world and
is moving backwards in our part of the free world.

You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.

That's true in much of Europe, but here the liberals would be the
first to whine about the loss of civil rights if we made 'free'
college dependant upon achievement.

My Dutch friend's grandson finished his big tests last spring for the
university. He didn't do well enough. He gets one more chance, after a
lot of summer school, which is not free.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:19:19 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:49:42 -0400, wrote:


You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.

That's true in much of Europe, but here the liberals would be the
first to whine about the loss of civil rights if we made 'free'
college dependant upon achievement.

My Dutch friend's grandson finished his big tests last spring for the
university. He didn't do well enough. He gets one more chance, after a
lot of summer school, which is not free.


Oh no!
Not the "T" word.
The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Guess they don't trust you to measure performance. Hardly surprising.