It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Aww poor college students boo hoo!

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:00 AM
a reply to: TDawgRex

I didn't say it was perfect, and yes Brazil and Greece have had their fair share of riots over the issue.

Doesn't detract from the fact that there are plenty of nations who offer their citizens free education.

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:01 AM
a reply to: TDawgRex
and aren't we also having financial problems as a country also??
our only saving grace has been it's our currency that's been forced upon the world to use for the international trade of oil. and well you can thank bush and company for us losing that honor! The housing scam kind of proved to the world that we really don't deserve the honor!

Really with the internet our educational system ( both on the high school and college level) could be much cheaper as well as more effective! Just have the lectures online and well quarterly testing to make sure that the kids are learning. Sure some courses would need some time in a classroom setting (chemistry lab work and such) but there is no reason why history couldn't be done entirely online! but then there wouldn't be the opportunity to earn salaries like this would there?

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:04 AM

originally posted by: Metallicus
It doesn't hurt to have some empathy for your fellow humans. One thing I think we as a society should pay for is the education and betterment of our fellow man (or woman).

c''s hurts the corporations making profits off of the student loans...profits trump "betterment of our fellow man" here in's been like this for a while.

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:05 AM
Most of the millionairs I know never went to college or their degree has nothing to do with what made them their millions.

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:18 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

I agree that the internet has expanded educational opportunities. But all to often, that sheet of paper is meaningless. I think that I have actually expanded my education due to the members of ATS and the links they provide on the many forums. Some of it is dry reading though...LOL.

Very few people actually work the degrees they have earned. It's almost a cliche. Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, LEO's, etc.

I know many people with no degrees who run companies or own their own business and who are successful. Nothing was handed to them.

Even the GI Bill is not handed to a Vet. They must keep a certain grade point percentage in order to keep receiving those benefits. If they drop below that, it is no longer a benefit, but now a bill as the Government wants their money back.

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:37 AM

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Most of the millionairs I know never went to college or their degree has nothing to do with what made them their millions.

Funny you say that because I have the complete opposite experience. In fact the "millionaires" I know went to some very prestigious universities (specifically for those 40 years old and under). Perhaps the ones you know who didn't go, "turned down" a guaranteed admission to a good college, but choose to do something else instead or perhaps the most likely scenario is that they made their "millions" before the mid 90's and were already on track to do so from the previous decades.

Before Junior High School I lived in a low income city, but went to a good Catholic school, where poor kids had informed and supportive parents. When I was in Junior High school my mom got remarried and I then attended a good public high school, with rich kids that had informed and supportive parents (the richest kids being there purely for exposure in Athletics because the local private schools were all in small divisions at the time and would affect the chances of getting into division I college sports).

Here is what I have concluded based on that experience:

When I look at the Forbes 400, I see 350+ people whom came from wealthy families. Note, some of them certainly acquired more wealth than their parents had given them to begin with, but VERY FEW, if any, came from what I would consider a Lower Middle class backgrounds or less. I would even ague that to get on the Forbes 400 list, coming from “at least” an Upper Middle class family is the BARE minimum requirement.

I typically use four well known examples, where being from the Upper Middle class was a base requirement to enter a particularly new and burgeoning industry, with even an inklings chance for financial success:

1) Bill Gates had access to a mainframe computer, housed at his High School in 1969. My parents of same age didn’t use or see a computer until the early 1980′s and even then, it was something they only experienced and got trained to use at their jobs. Is it really that surprising that Bill Gates was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

2) Mark Zuckerberg got his first computer around 12 years old and at some point his father hired someone to tutor him in computer programing. That computer adjusted for inflation would probably be worth close to $3,000-$4,000 today, not including tutoring costs. To put things into perspective my father had a computer in the early 1990′s, in his home office, that cost him about $3,000 and I was not allowed to ever touch it. My used car in high school cost less than half that, to buy at the time. Is it really that surprising that Mark Zuckerberg was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

3) Jeff Bezos claims he paid for college on his own dime and at some point started Amazon with his own money, HOWEVER, he admits there was a point where he needed financial help, in the form of a loan, to keep the business afloat. Eventually he went to his parents who then loaned him $300,000, after taking out a second mortgage on their home. How many parents posting comments here, would give their children a $300,000 loan, leveraged against their previously paid off home, for a questionable start-up business? Is it really that surprising that Jeff Bezos was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

3) Donald Trump, well what do I need to say here, he inherited his fathers $40 million dollar real estate business and got to learn the business under the guidance of his highly experienced father. Its certainly not surprising that he was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying any of the above people were not smart, hard workers, whom to date, have not earned their “keep”, but lets also not also fool ourselves about the financial FOUNDATION they came from.

If ANY of the above people had come from a lower class background than they actually did, their greatest achievements in life would have been inversely diminished because their “spring boards” would be lowered. They all started out on third base, but are credited with Home Runs today.

Bill Gates at best would be a 6 figure VP or President at a software company today, Mark Z would be a 6 figure star programmer at Google or Riot games etc, Jeff Bezos would be a top Costco regional or district manager pulling in 6 figures and Donald Trump would be a small time developer working with much less capital.

I’ve seen this play out many times in life, you can’t be a dummy and turn inherited wealth into more wealth; but being smart, in turn, also won’t allow to you to rub two nickels together, with no family connections, nor any financial support, therein, turning those two nickels into a multi-million dollar company in some number of years. Certainly not circa 1999-2013.

Now, I do believe a person certainly could have done the above after the war in 1945, but that was a TOTALLY different world in terms of codes, regulations and financial polices. We don’t live in that world anymore. If you want to see how money is actually made today, look up how the “Riot Games” founders got their first $1 million via venture capitalist investor. I’ll give you a hint, it was just like the way Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg Donald Trump way and Jeff B did it, via family help.

If a rich kid has one lick of ambition and knows how to work MODERATELY, hard they can achieve almost anything they want, with the way the current economy is set up. Starting from nothing today means something very different than it meant 20+ years ago. If you come from a family that does not have a "pot to #$%$ in" in 2014, you're likely to be going nowhere fast and no amount of ambition is going to change that.

What that means is that there is a clearly defined age range where family wealth has a greater influence over a person ability to become a millionaire later in life, DUE to the increasing costs of starting up a successful modern business. If a Boomer, for example, started a hardware sales operation in the 1970's, that persona had a MUCH greater chance of becoming a millionaire, 30+ years later by 2014, than say an X'er starting a similar business in the 1990's or Millennial starting one today.

Bank of America has published a white paper outlining EXACTLY what I have described. So even though the report is generated by a corrupt corporation, you can guarantee it has a certain degree of accuracy, due to the type of customers they are targeting with the message it contains. Its highly doubtful, that Bank of America would do poor research on one of their target high income customer demographics, most likely to generate profits and buy shares.

The studies title is:

"2013 U.S. TRUST INSIGHTS ON WEALTH AND WORTH Annual survey of high net worth and ultra high net worth Americans"

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:21 PM
a reply to: boohoo

The Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans combined. They didn't do an ounce of work in their entire lives.

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:34 PM

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: boohoo

The Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans combined. They didn't do an ounce of work in their entire lives.

How does that refute any of my points?

I’ve seen this play out many times in life, you can’t be a dummy and turn inherited wealth into more wealth; but being smart, in turn, also won’t allow to you to rub two nickels together, with no family connections, nor any financial support, therein, turning those two nickels into a multi-million dollar company in some number of years. Certainly not circa 1999-2013.

Some of the Waltons did work in and learn the family business, the others just spend their inheritance.

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:03 PM
a reply to: boohoo

I come from a lower middle class background. Most of the people I know that are millionairs were people a person from a lower middle class background would be exposed to. SO all the ones I met made their millions starting up their own businesses. Often with no financial backing. That being said I was going to add to my original post a whole bunch about nepotism = millionairs as that is mostly the case. But education didn't have anything to do with it. Most of those folks got rich because of family money, and being associated via nepotism with money and the high paying job environment. It's wrong and I agree with your post. Nepotism in America (well most places) = money and upper class. It all stays in small circles. But every now and then a lower class rogue breaks into the system. Those are the ones I've been exposed to.

It's sad. I went to a music conservatory. My best friend went to an Ivory league school. We were similar personalities before. Met him after college and was disgusted (still am) with his view on life and what's important. the worst part is the guy fails at every man skill there is except how to make money screwing over other people. Can't nail two pieces of wood together. can't navigate a map. can't drive a car proficiently, lost all of his martial arts skills. doesn't know how to fish, doesn't know crap about the outdoors. doesn't know how to use tools. basically a pathetic excuse for a man. But he makes lots of money.

But the people I do kick it with that are millionairs did it the hard way. and they are in their mid 30's.

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:39 PM

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GreenMtnBoys

one has to wonder :

what mr houninan`s first degree is in

why he is only now age 23 - " applying to law school "

WTF ??????????????

A bachelor's degree in any number of disciplines can get you into law school. If you graduate high school at 18 then go right into college and get that four year degree you would still be 22 or 23 when you apply to law school. He seems the right age to me.

Not, mind you, that we really need any more lawyers but if that was his plan he is on track. The field is oversaturated right now, so the OP may have the right of it and he would be better off sticking with what he's got and maybe getting a degree in business management and crawl up that corporate ladder.

I can't say I agree with the judgey attitude from the OP. Employers are looking for those pieces of paper as an indication of stick-with-it-ness (among other things). Somehow these degrees are supposed to indicate general capability and that particular job-market "sensibility" is only getting worse. These days you need a four year degree to be a secretary and the way things are going you'll need at least a 2 year degree to be qualified to flip burgers before too long. Jumping up and down about one kid looking to get a law degree is a foolish waste of time. It's like beating the saddle because the horse is dead. The system is broken and will only get more so, bi*ch about that instead.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 09:16 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

This is not an answer. This only pushes what teachers are already doing to an even further more lazy extent. The problem with teachers is their inability to effectively pick up on learning habits.

Teaching someone anything requires a dynamic setting. A dynamic environment.

The very thought about cutting a corner with teaching kids from an instructional video is not the way to go. Even those stupid online college grads know this. They have a lot more questions when watching a video than being in a class room. That is why most people with an online college degree usually don't get the positions they applied for. Sociopaths aren't accepted, nor integrated well in this society. When you lack social skills you lack customer service.

That is not an answer bud.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 05:29 PM
a reply to: onequestion

We find a severe shortage of capable, reliable, and trustworthy tradespeople. Had to wait 9 months to have central heat and air installed. Contacted four companies and only one showed up for a bid and then they were so backlogged that it took months to get the job accomplished. Roofing jobs -- done by mexicans who speak little English. One construction company will do small jobs off the books, but time can not be a factor. Saying you are a plumber/carpenter/electrician is one thing. Really being a tradesman is a wonder to behold.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 09:30 PM
a reply to: searching411
Well in my area is mostly blue collar people and there are tons of tradesman.

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:30 AM
a reply to: GiulXainx
well neither is hiking up the cost of that education even higher so that the administrative big wigs can have more money!
And why do you chose to call a person a sociopath because they refuse to ring up a bunch of debt in your quest for knowledge??
Would a person who is working 40 hours a week at a low paying job and then coming home to spend some time reading and studying to improve their family's future be considered a sociopath?? Really?? This in a nation where the white house and congress is filled with college educated sociopaths and psychopaths?
I am over 50 years old and unable to continue in the field that I've been working in. And I don't expect to live long enough to pay off a mass of student loan debt! And I would just about consider anyone of my age nuts for putting themselves in that kind of debt! Heck I wouldn't advise my kids to do it! More then likely they'd end up worse off than they are now running the cash register at convenience stores!

And by the way. Many of those "lazy" teachers left the classrooms during the pre housing bubble and joined the wall street con game. Mainly because their student loans were too much for their teaching salaries to pay while still providing for them and their families. You don't see the increasing cost of educating those teachers (as well as many other occupations) as having an inflationary effect on your school taxes along with the cost of everything else? It will!

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 10:35 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

Giving students a book only teaches them what is inside the book. The only books that can teach students are math fundamental books. But even then the books do not have dynamic situations. The stock market is layers of math. It is following curves, trends, public image, social acceptance, and the reason behind most price hikes. When it comes to physics you have to learn about weather, atmosphere, propultion, chemistry, and several other boundaries. But if you have the fundamentals down then you just have to figure out what each value needs to be set to. However if something new comes along like sudden atmosphere changes or gases then most students won't know how to find the solution. They freeze up. They stall. Some students over compensate. Most of the time they are unprepared. This is why teachers need to get away from books, create their own problems, help students identify the proper methods to use, and execute them.

Books are only HALF of the knowledge students need. The teacher is supposed to help them see problems and assess them properly. They are supposed to create an environment that engages their students. Instead of being brought to class to read and carry around a book, they need to be able to leave the book behind without fear of not knowing everything.

Science on paper doesn't work. Understanding the table of elements can be taught on paper, but add in true problems of our scientific methods of today would engage students to better themselves. You can tell them how to identify molecules, but it is another to produce them effectively. Spending less on education makes me think of these schools as future wal mart employment centers.

You can continue to think that books are everything when they are only HALF of what students need. Teaching them through a tv show in school rooms is about as effective as watching tosh.0.

Without HANDS ON experience these kids will freeze up. I have seen it to many times in my many years of doing odd jobs. People with degrees freeze up and don't know what to do when a simple computer virus hits their entire center of operations. I do my own tech support and fiddle around with my tools enough to know how to handle most security issues. I'm not a pro. I have no college degree, I'm not a geek squad fake techie. I operate on my own and have retrieved data from a computer that someone spent more than 800 dollars and 3 weeks to obtain. I did it in 1 hour and didn't ask for a dime. She published her book and my name is in the thank you credits. She tried geek squad, three computer repair shops, and one person from dell to get this info and I do it in an afternoon.

That is just one example of many. What was wrong with her computer? Boot file and bios became currupt. Would not start up. What is the fix? Simple..... boot disc and bios update. Fixed the computer. Nothing else was wrong with it. How could 3 computer shops and geek squad not figure this out? It surprised me. I was able to notice the issue because I had to deal with it myself. All signs pointed to it.

The people who go through high school come out of it angry because they push students to only learn about what they deem knowledge worthy. Another two cases would be the managers I have met at two different jobs. Excellent and knowledgeable on philosophy. But because they weren't busy learning what they deemed acceptable at their school they quit. They did not make it encouraging. Instead they became arrogant with them.

I even lived with a K-12 math and science teacher. He took a lot of different courses on how to engage students in learning and even obtained his masters degree. But because of voters saying they need to spend less on education because their own children aren't engaged enough, he found himself being out of a job after graduation. His name is Robert Pearlman. Taught in oregon, Colorado, and Washington. After his masters degree..... substitute teacher.

He got to the highest point in his life only to be let down.

The real problem with education is the parents who create children that don't want to learn. Meanwhile they think it is the teachers fault when in reality it is their own fault. They never spent any time engaging their kids in a learning environment. And instead told them to "shut up," "I don't know," "ask your teacher," "I need to sleep," "go to your room," "I can't help you," " "look online."

When your child asks you to help them, then #ing help them. A sad but true statistic is that parents who never went to college will have their own children following their footsteps. Especially if when they were raised you didn't teach them yourself some of the most fundamental parts of learning. Which is to ask questions. If you kept telling your kids to shut up your entire life because you thought they were being annoying, then you are creating a huge problem in society. Your children need to be learning, and not being told to shut up. No matter what never tell your kids to shut up. Help them learn. Teach them things. Get to actually know your children and help them learn. If you are too lazy about helping your own kids to succeed then they will become a money pit. If they keep trying to get your attention and you yell shut up.... you forever ruin it for that child later on in life. It is a psychological science that has yet to be studied. Only because of people's fear in their own wrong doing.

Most people on this planet have children thinking that they only need food and water to be successful. It is a whole lot more than that. So they send them off to school with no fundamentals what so ever and they fail miserably. Only because parents have become more lazy and making it more difficult for future citizens.
edit on 10102014 by GiulXainx because: stupid spell correction on my tablet screwing up my sentencese.

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 11:48 PM
a reply to: GiulXainx

Every part of American culture including school is designed to create generations with increasingly smaller ability to think or question. Out of my entire 250 person grade I'm the only one who hasn't fallen for it. Even many of my friends who used to think for themselves fell into the system.

One of the smartest girls I know went to Smith and NYU. She was very counterculture back in high school and now is just a blinded ultra liberal who lives in her own little bubble.

I teach for a living. The kids get more and more knowledgeable as they get younger but they also get less and less able to think. Even the smartest ones just spew out whatever inputs they got. I always thought the younger the more open minded but all the most TRULY open minded people I've met to date were older. The only ones younger then me who don't buy into the mainstream are the worst of all. They are by and large broken by our merciless drone producing culture.

I even see this in myself. I lost a huge amount of my ability to think for myself during my period of trying to be mainstream. Thank God that's over now. Sadly my brain needs to work back to its former strength.

Forgive my overgeneralizing. I deal primarily in generalizations as I'm a big picture type. If I offended you at all remember generalizations are exactly that, generalizations.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 05:41 AM
a reply to: tavi45

No. Delve into it much further. I can sort of sense that you have a lot more to say than you are letting on. And almost as toxic as the standard was to teach, you seem to have a bitter taste left in your mouth. You only conformed so much but it seems like you are a chimera between a free thinker, and the teacher they want you to be. Don't be scared, and at the same time, BE HUMAN. What I am tired of is seeing information getting skewed.

For example: In our history books we hear about George Washington and his war to fight against Britain for our independence. We hear of his death. But not of his presidency. What he established in his presidency is crucial to know in History but for some reason it is forgotten. Or deemed not worthy of teaching. Even though he set up major parts and functions of our society with his ideas. The problem was that some were great, and some needed finishing touches.

Same goes for Thomas Jefferson. We all know he signed the Declaration of Independence but what about his presidency? Most kids know he is our Third President. We know he helped in the Louisiana Purchase. But his entire political campaign was about limiting the Federalists grasp on the US. Then later Helping Andrew Jackson. With the whole Central Banking System. Even Abraham Lincoln realized the central banking system was making a comeback and helped put into law the Green Backs. Why is it that certain information is always suppressed and hidden from us? Why do our teachers hold this back from us? Why do we only know that Abraham Lincoln helped to free slaves in the US? He did so much more than that! Even before his presidency we could learn that he wanted to wage war on Mexico. He is the reason why the Confederacy was made.

I always questioned everything including Religion as a kid but why is there so much hidden? I used to have a set of history books that inscribed 14 colonies instead of the original 13. They were strange books because what I read in them I could remember. But these new history books are so horrible compared to them. It is an atrocity that so much information is held back. This is why I say learning from a book is only HALF of what kids need. Because the other half has to come from the teacher. I find it sad that so much is held back from us as kids. Especially when the ground rules for teachers are so spread thin it's not even funny. It's sad.

edit on 10112014 by GiulXainx because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 08:47 AM
a reply to: GreenMtnBoys
Which attitude all goes to explain why a once proud America now has to hitchhike to the space station. Folks that actively promote the dumbing down of its population. Meanwhile, in other news, Germany scraps tuition fees. Whose star do you think is in the ascendent?

edit on 11-10-2014 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 09:39 AM
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
catching a ride to the space station has nothing to do with dumbing down the population. that has everything to to with greed and crooked politicians.
as a matter of fact there has been a new contract awarded for a new rocket to carry U.S. astronauts to the space station and if memory serves it starts next year.

here is the NASA press release for it.

U.S. astronauts once again will travel to and from the International Space Station from the United States on American spacecraft under groundbreaking contracts NASA announced Tuesday. The agency unveiled its selection of Boeing and SpaceX to transport U.S. crews to and from the space station using their CST-100 and Crew Dragon spacecraft, respectively, with a goal of ending the nation’s sole reliance on Russia in 2017.

The companies selected to provide this transportation capability and the maximum potential value of their FAR-based firm fixed-price contracts are: -- The Boeing Company, Houston, $4.2 billion -- Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California, $2.6 billion

NASA Chooses American Companies to Transport U.S. Astronauts to International Space Station

edit on 11-10-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 10:44 AM

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
catching a ride to the space station has nothing to do with dumbing down the population. that has everything to to with greed and crooked politicians.

If the population still demanded excellence, it would not have come to be in the first place. A very specific degree in the Humanities may limit one's employment prospects outside of academe, but it still represents an ability to think and reason critically. If education is limited to job skills as the OP and so many others advocate, then society cannot help but dumb down.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in