Pell Grants are already done---if anything, subsidize math and science classes, make sure more people are graduating with useful degrees and skills, rather than a general sense of accomplishment, and a poignant opinion on Vonnegut's life, or something as equally search-able on Wikipedia.
Right, cuz who needs to be able to form her own opinions when she can just get them free off the internetz?
If you need four years of structured classes in order to form your own opinions on matters that, to be perfectly honest, are empirical questions that may be self-actualizing, but have little practical effect for others, do it on your own money. I love the idea of Pell Grants, and yes, a liberal arts education can have wonderful effects, especially for the disenfranchised, however, if I had my druthers, I'd make sure the biggest amounts were available to science, economics, math, engineering, medicine---we have a lot of challenges that we must confront, and we need as many people as possible in these fields. The problems we have are, by and large, not going to be solved by philosophy majors.
Is this an argument? I think you need some more structured classes to learn how to write a coherent sentence. There's something wrong with your reasoning here. Fortunately, as a philosophy major, I might be able to help. Your symptoms indicate a classic case of circular reasoning, brought on by exposure to a confused tangle of subjectivity. I have prepared a rigorous course of treatment for your condition; it will require you to think about the following: 1) What problems do we need to solve? 2) Who is this "we" that needs to solve them? 3) For whom are "we" solving them? Note that my prescription is to "think about" these questions, not necessarily answer them. If you come out of this with a "general sense of accomplishment," you're doing it wrong.
THE job of the government is promoting the greater good for the most people while protecting the basic rights of the minority. Why do you think Faux News is a 24 hour one way propaganda machine? If they don't brainwash the majority into protecting the top 1%, then there is no limit to the redistribution of tax burden that can be legislated. The majority can drink all their milkshake. They know that. But but but, why should the rich pay all the taxes? Because they have all the money. The elected elite, and make no mistake the Senate and for the most part the House are millionaires's clubs ,they are the people that set up the system. They voted to fight two wars on credit, they set up the tax laws on corporations, they enacted the free trade laws, they shout down national health care, they legislate away the strength of the unions. Why? because it serves to make them richer. There has always been class warfare, there will always be class warfare. Hell, the whole reason the USA revolted against the King of England was class warfare, The French revolution, The Magna Carta, the fall of the Roman empire, the slaves out of Egypt, hell the fall of the Neanderthals, are all class warfare. And if you don't have the numbers you better a have a strategy to control the masses. By the way, I would vote for Juan Valdez.
If this are the brackets, almost every person I know in the tri-state area is in the top 20%, including my aunt who is a freaking elementary school teacher in CT, and my neighbor who has been driving a bus for Metro for 20 years. I was sort of thinking the top 20% make a lot more.
A subjugated colony, with more people than the King had soldiers, decided to direct their taxes for their own purposes. Which illuminates the perverse psychological strategy being directed in this country today. The "Tea Party" consists of people who don't pay exorbitant tax rates and enjoy the services of perhaps the best civil system in the world crying out about government spending. It's Orwellian.
So did anyone find out how the top 1% did in the first time frame because for reference, it'd be pretty helpful for the purposes of this thread
Alright, well, to make it blunter, if your degree is useless, don't expect the state to subsidize it. From an economic viewpoint, disincentives should be applied on less functionally useful degrees, period. If I can be just as blunt, if you think you're going to solve the world's problems without a functional knowledge of math, statistics, systematic modeling, science, or technology, you're doing it wrong. That delves into every problem humanity will face---from climate change, to economic crisis, to mass starvation. You're missing a crucial side of the story in all cases, and if you're graduating with a liberal arts degree, you won't be able to fully comprehend any issue of any significance. You might be well acquainted with the soft side of the story, but the hard side of numbers and models will escape you. The soft side is easier to teach, and easier to learn, which is probably why the current state of affairs puts way too many people into degrees where they can only understand one side of the coin. Which is too bad. Now, like I said, a liberal arts education can do wonderful things, especially for the marginalized. I respect the arts---I take my electives in sociology, philosophy etc. The thing is though, unlike pure arts students, I, and others who are graduating in the fields I mentioned, can grasp both sides of the coin. We're allowed to take arts classes with no worries, because, let's be honest, advanced calculus and probability are a hell of a lot harder than anything an arts class can throw at you. In fact, this is how it works in all universities---science majors, and engineering majors, and math majors, can take their pick of arts electives. People who take majors in these fields can use both sides of the coin to analyze whatever problem they choose to solve. It is just sad that the current system of incentives (including how most undergrad engineering/math based schools are set up as "fail factories") are pushing people towards the easier path that will see them learn less, and be not as able to solve or think about the biggest issues facing mankind. General business at least has some statistics to chew on, but by and large, it just repackages intuitive concepts that don't really need to be taught about human nature. I would add law, finance, and accounting to the list, even though law and accounting don't really grasp too much of the statistics, and math, they are functionally useful in terms of employ-ability, and understanding the system really well.
Allow me to be blunt as well, if I may. You have made an breathtakingly broad statement that I can only assume is driven by your limited life experience and your need to make breathtakingly broad statements, and then defend them tooth and nail, putting aside the possibility that you just might be wrong as an inconvenience. Honestly, I'm surprised that you, a person who is clearly intelligent, could uncork such a sweeping statement on this topic. If you have a broader brush in your mental tool box, please keep it there. Over many years I've known many, many liberal arts majors who have had tremendous success, people who have multiple liberal arts degrees that are in executive positions, with science majors, and engineering majors, and math majors working for them. I wish I could name some of them, but I don't do that here. My private life, and their private lives, are just that. Private. Were they to read that post, they would shake their heads and laugh. Laugh at the idea that liberal arts classes are easy. Laugh at the idea that "a liberal arts education can do wonderful things, especially for the marginalized," followed by the equally hilarious "I respect the arts." What bull ****. Your entire post damns the arts and completely disrespects them. This statement takes the cake... "if you're graduating with a liberal arts degree, you won't be able to fully comprehend any issue of any significance. You might be well acquainted with the soft side of the story, but the hard side of numbers and models will escape you. The soft side is easier to teach, and easier to learn, which is probably why the current state of affairs puts way too many people into degrees where they can only understand one side of the coin. Which is too bad." Could you possibly make a more condecending, egotistical statement? If you try really hard, perhaps you can. After reading your post, I can see that you're capable of anything. Seriously, get a grip. All aspects of education, of learning, have value. Someday, I hope, you will come to understand that, understand it and free your mind. Right now, it's a closed box of your own construction.
I think the chart should be shown for particular age brackets at each income level. The life expectancy from 1980-2007 would be higher, so the bottom 20% could reflect many senior citizens on fixed incomes. The first chart would have a younger overall population during their prime working years with few people living long enough to collect on Social Security. Life expectancy back then was was 71 or less. The 2nd chart would be skewed by the geriactic population that is living longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_expectancy_1950-2005.svg
The tri-state area incomes are much higher than most of the USA, especially rural middle America and in the south.
Nobody's saying that liberal arts majors can't have success, or that they can't be highly intelligent or motivated. Obviously the President, and numerous other successful people have graduated with liberal arts degrees. All education has value, just some has more value than others, and government support of educational programs should reflect that. Sure, there will always be people who buck the trend, just like there are high school dropouts who earn multi-millions, but on aggregate, people graduating with math skills/science knowledge/the ability to model systems have more potential to contribute in the world we live in. This isn't a factor of intelligence or a reflection on the character of those pursuing liberal arts degrees, it is a simple fact that stems from the fact that most, if not all world problems require a strong grasp of mathematics, technology or science. There's a skills mismatch---the world increasingly needs more people who understand numbers, and there are fewer and fewer people who are willing to go to the effort to do so (at least in the developed world). The point is, the world needs more graduates who can see both sides of the coin, or hell, even just the harder side. The world needs more engineers, scientists, mathematicians, and doctors. I will never waver from that belief. If that comes at the expense of being perceived as condescending of the arts, or of being accused of being too broad on the subject, well, so be it.
This sums up my viewpoint perfectly--- <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NK0Y9j_CGgM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
there's an editorial in the morning paper on the education subject. it specifically addresses colleges lack of teaching critical thinking as a problem. i tend to agree. i went to ut and uofh business undergrad. i can't really say which is better because business classes should be universal, specifically accounting, finance, etc. the rules don't change, its just math. when i transferred i was very disappointed for not complteting ut. also, uofh required a minor in a liberal arts study. that pissed me off even more. i ended up minoring in international business, but the liberal arts class i took were extremely valuable. they were particularly valuable in forcing me to think critically. also, even though i know i don't show it on this site, i think i had a writing advantage over some of my fellow young co workers when graduating. in business, communicating your idea is essential to your success. being able to prove your argument is also essential, it isn't just essential in the law.
