The American Public Has Gotten the Message on College Degrees

[Lurker123]

Someone with the credentials doesn't necessarily mean they know what they're talking about. There are plenty of doctors or other professionals you wouldn't want to take advice from, for example.

Agree. I should have added before, the Argument from Authority is often considered a logical fallacy for a reason. And you stated that well.

The expert, or degree, can be flawed at the source, or flawed in delivery if there is an agenda clouding the discourse.

But facts are facts.

 

[DannyTree1]

Maybe Professor Thompson wanted to encourage everyone to think it through and not just accept everything as gospel.

I've read articles supporting a view that FDR may have had advance knowledge of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. I'm going to neither flat-out agree nor deny it.

I have read enough about the Civil War to conclude that while the South's rebellion was not 100% over slavery, slavery was the driving force, and if slavery was not an issue, I doubt the reballion would have happened at all.

Maybe- but my recall of Dr. Thompson was he believed it. He could get sidetracked and would go off on things- then finally swing it back around to the subject of the lecture. He was an interesting guy. He took every lecture very seriously.

I could see how someone in the internet age could take what he said and ascribe all sorts of motivations to him and opinions he would give. But the more innocent explanation was more likely: He was a bit strange on certain topics, but a good professor who liked to offer his opinions on things.

He, nor any of my professors were coercing anyone either. As was the case with every professor I had, none of us spent more than 2 mins of time with a professor outside of the class- and the only coercion they attempted was trying to get us to turn in our work on time- which had varying levels of success.

 

[DannyTree1]

And I bet those with opposing view points were not ostracized or their grade impacted by that opinion.

Well, I have no idea. I didn't know anyone else's grades, only my own.

I would not be surprised if some ClAIMED their grades were impacted by their opinion. Students do tend to blame anyone/everyone/anything if they don't do that well on a grade or on their work- from their dog messing up their work to "the professor just doesn't like me," which is not exactly a rare statement from certain students going back over 100 years.

But plenty of work in college is not based on one's opinion, at least in the classes I took.

 

[DannyTree1]

Government Student Loan Program was the money grab forerunner to NIL for ''Institutions of Higher Learning'' and all promoted by government.
Stealing money from the government/taxpayers is now the ultimate international criminal enterprise.

Some states started cutting funding for universities. At the same time, many of them sat by while even many state jobs were requiring college degrees that didn't really need such a requirement. Which made parents and students have to borrow money.

To answer that need, the feds and others started offering loan products to fill that gap. Meanwhile, state funding continued to be cut for schools as a percentage of the school's budget.

State politicians could run around touting tax cuts, while in reality they were shifting the burden of funding to parents and students. It's easier to win an election promising tax cuts but if you do that, you can't tell the voters that expenses for going to college will skyrocket because with those tax cuts, they are also going to cut funding for certain things.

Then the lottery came along- pushed by certain politicians-which also provided politicians a way to further cut higher ed funding while shifting more of the burden over to students and parents. After all, you are now "getting a tuition scholarship to help you" - (while not telling them the colleges will off-set that by raising tuition because the politicians cut the funding more.

 

[DannyTree1]

I am going to admit a slight bias that I have- and I am trying to overcome it

When I see someone that has a degree (Associates, Bachelor's, etc) or a particular professional certification (HVAC Tech, Master Electrician, Master Plumber, etc) I typically offer them more respect in terms of knowledge. I usually offer them that right away without question unless evidence is obvious that they can't be correct in their statements, work or assessments. I think most people do, whether they admit it or not.

I will also admit that it's not always a sign of respect for their knowledge, but in my case it's usually an offer of respect from me that they were able to enroll in a program of study or certification program and graduate the program of study and fulfil the requirements that are required.

So many people I have known over the years started college or a certification course and quit, dropped out, couldn't finish, or simply gave up. There might be a health reason or a reason such as "their dream job came along, and they really had to quit to take it" and I will acknowledge that and won't hold that against them.

But when they just quit, or can't finish, or give up, I do admit I do find myself holding that against them a bit. It's not that I don't like them or anything like that. All I am saying is a part of me will look at them as giving up or quitting.

I am proud that I was able to finish college. I was fortunate enough to have my employer even pay for most of my graduate degree. I am proud because it was important to my parents.

I am proud of two of my children for finished college. One has a B.A. degree. The other got an Associates, and then transferred to USC and got his B.A. and I have one more getting ready to start college in August.

I have two nephews who earned their Associates degrees and I am very proud of them for sticking that out - while both worked full time. One is now an electronics technician and the other is a firefighter.

 

[Lurker123]

I am going to admit a slight bias that I have- and I am trying to overcome it

When I see someone that has a degree (Associates, Bachelor's, etc) or a particular professional certification (HVAC Tech, Master Electrician, Master Plumber, etc) I typically offer them more respect in terms of knowledge. I usually offer them that right away without question unless evidence is obvious that they can't be correct in their statements, work or assessments. I think most people do, whether they admit it or not.

I will also admit that it's not always a sign of respect for their knowledge, but in my case it's usually an offer of respect from me that they were able to enroll in a program of study or certification program and graduate the program of study and fulfil the requirements that are required.

So many people I have known over the years started college or a certification course and quit, dropped out, couldn't finish, or simply gave up. There might be a health reason or a reason such as "their dream job came along, and they really had to quit to take it" and I will acknowledge that and won't hold that against them.

But when they just quit, or can't finish, or give up, I do admit I do find myself holding that against them a bit. It's not that I don't like them or anything like that. All I am saying is a part of me will look at them as giving up or quitting.

I am proud that I was able to finish college. I was fortunate enough to have my employer even pay for most of my graduate degree. I am proud because it was important to my parents.

I am proud of two of my children for finished college. One has a B.A. degree. The other got an Associates, and then transferred to USC and got his B.A. and I have one more getting ready to start college in August.

I have two nephews who earned their Associates degrees and I am very proud of them for sticking that out - while both worked full time. One is now an electronics technician and the other is a firefighter.

I dont think anyone will begrudge you for an initial first impression influenced by having a degree or not. Human nature. That is a bit different from the tone earlier in the thread where someone would refuse to listen to you on any topic if you didn't have a degree they deemed appropriate.

 

[atl-cock]

...and that is okay. I need to know where that informal training came from? What are the Certifications or Accreditations of that training. I am just not going to accept someone telling me things "off the cuff" with no backing behind it just because it sounds good to me.

Yes, prove/show me your competence, one way or the other.

 

[Lurker123]

Yes, prove/show me your competence, one way or the other.

Is a degree the ONLY way to show that competence?

 

[adcoop]

I think we agree...I'm not saying we should accept something because it sounds good, I'm saying judge the merits of what is being said. Someone with the credentials doesn't necessarily mean they know what they're talking about. There are plenty of doctors or other professionals you wouldn't want to take advice from, for example.

To be clear, I think the better term for what I am saying is show me "Tangible Results" of your knowledge. For example, with Charlie Kirk, I would be the first to buy a ticket if he was holding a seminar on building and growing a Podcast. However, miss me with all that other stuff. Charlie Kirk had absolutely no background to be talking about the educational qualifications of anyone.

 

[will110]

To be clear, I think the better term for what I am saying is show me "Tangible Results" of your knowledge. For example, with Charlie Kirk, I would be the first to buy a ticket if he was holding a seminar on building and growing a Podcast. However, miss me with all that other stuff. Charlie Kirk has absolutely no background to be talking about the educational qualifications of anyone.

With Charlie Kirk, can you point to a specific position he held on a particular issue that you believe was factually incorrect?

Just because he didn't have the specific education qualifications doesn't mean he didn't know what he was talking about. I take it you have a very different view of the world politically than he did, but that's not because he didn't go to college.

I have a BA in English and a JD from USC; that doesn't mean I can't discuss American history or politics or sports or the weather if I've done my own research into these different categories. You don't have to take my word on any of it, but just throwing out what a person says because they don't have letters behind their name seems extremely pretentious.

 

[adcoop]

With Charlie Kirk, can you point to a specific position he held on a particular issue that you believe was factually incorrect?

Just because he didn't have the specific education qualifications doesn't mean he didn't know what he was talking about. I take it you have a very different view of the world politically than he did, but that's not because he didn't go to college.

I have a BA in English and a JD from USC; that doesn't mean I can't discuss American history or politics or sports or the weather if I've done my own research into these different categories. You don't have to take my word on any of it, but just throwing out what a person says because they don't have letters behind their name seems extremely pretentious.

I don't see the need to go back and forth about Charlie Kirk. There is nothing you can say to change my mind. There is nothing I can say to change yours. We will just have to agree to disagree about that.

However, I think you do have a background to talk about politics if you have a J.D. The law is the root from which politics grows. So, I think you may have more knowledge in that area than you are giving yourself credit for. As for talking about sports, I see that more of a non-serious past-time that most anyone could talk about. Now, I may take the opinion of a former player in a sport more seriously than someone that got cut from his Junior Varsity team, but I don't see that as a subject that should be left to experts.

 

[will110]

I don't see the need to go back and forth about Charlie Kirk. There is nothing you can say to change my mind. There is nothing I can say to change yours. We will just have to agree to disagree about that.

However, I think you do have a background to talk about politics if you have a J.D. The law is the root from which politics grows. So, I think you may have more knowledge in that area than you are giving yourself credit for. As for talking about sports, I see that more of a non-serious past-time that most anyone could talk about. Now, I may take the opinion of a former player in a sport more seriously than someone that got cut from his Junior Varsity team, but I don't see that as a subject that should be left to experts.

And that's kind of my point here. As far as foreign policy, international relations, economic policy, defense spending, etc, my JD gives me no more authority to speak from than someone who works in a gas station. None of those are topics discussed in law school, or at least not discussed in any of my law school classes or the bar exam. There could easily be less educated folks with far more practical knowledge of these topics than me.

Now if you wanted to talk about tort "reform" or civil procedure, for example, I can speak from a position of authority.

Ultimately, taking anyone's word on any subject without doing your own research and investigation is unwise, but accepting someone's position merely because he or she has a degree is also a fallacy.

 

[atl-cock]

Is a degree the ONLY way to show that competence?

Of course it isn't.

 

[atl-cock]

Ultimately, taking anyone's word on any subject without doing your own research and investigation is unwise, but accepting someone's position merely because he or she has a degree is also a fallacy.

Exactl;y.

 

[adcoop]

And that's kind of my point here. As far as foreign policy, international relations, economic policy, defense spending, etc, my JD gives me no more authority to speak from than someone who works in a gas station. None of those are topics discussed in law school, or at least not discussed in any of my law school classes or the bar exam. There could easily be less educated folks with far more practical knowledge of these topics than me.

Now if you wanted to talk about tort "reform" or civil procedure, for example, I can speak from a position of authority.

Ultimately, taking anyone's word on any subject without doing your own research and investigation is unwise, but accepting someone's position merely because he or she has a degree is also a fallacy.

...and I am not proclaiming to take someone's word because they have a degree. However, if someone is spouting off about the educational qualifications of people, you could at least have your Associate's Degree, come on. It's like someone spouting off about who should be tenured as professors and they dropped out of school after their second class. I know you guys like Charlie Kirk and I am trying not to bash the man, but there are a lot of holes in his personal resume if you dig deep enough.

 

[Lurker123]

Of course it isn't.

Thank you. Just making sure you were distinguished from others for that stance.

 

[Lurker123]

And that's kind of my point here. As far as foreign policy, international relations, economic policy, defense spending, etc, my JD gives me no more authority to speak from than someone who works in a gas station. None of those are topics discussed in law school, or at least not discussed in any of my law school classes or the bar exam. There could easily be less educated folks with far more practical knowledge of these topics than me.

Now if you wanted to talk about tort "reform" or civil procedure, for example, I can speak from a position of authority.

Ultimately, taking anyone's word on any subject without doing your own research and investigation is unwise, but accepting someone's position merely because he or she has a degree is also a fallacy.

Thank you very well put, especially the bolded part.

Places like this board would be pretty barren if people only spoke on topics they had a degree in.

And in his instance in particular, Kirk's lack of degree is being used to dismiss his opinions by people who dont really know much about him and his opinions other than snippets his political opponents put together. A prime example of what goes wrong when you let your political party tell you who to hate.

 

[will110]

...and I am not proclaiming to take someone's word because they have a degree. However, if someone is spouting off about the educational qualifications of people, you could have at least have your Associate's Degree, come on. It's like someone spouting off about who should be tenured as professors and they dropped out of school after their second class. I know you guys like Charlie Kirk and I am trying not to bash the man, but there are a lot of holes in his personal resume if you dig deep enough.

And that's why I asked you what you (factually) disagree with Charlie Kirk about. Writing off his opinions because of his lack of a degree comes across extremely pretentious unless you can point to an actual position he had that was factually incorrect because of his lack of education.

 

[adcoop]

And that's why I asked you what you (factually) disagree with Charlie Kirk about. Writing off his opinions because of his lack of a degree comes across extremely pretentious unless you can point to an actual position he had that was factually incorrect because of his lack of education.

In order to do that, I would go into what I feel is bashing the man and I don't think it's necessary to do that. My point is Kirk has questioned the education qualifications of people or in some cases groups of people. Well, what about when the finger points back at him. Am I wrong? Or was he wrong for doing the exact same thing to others.

 

[Lurker123]

And that's why I asked you what you (factually) disagree with Charlie Kirk about. Writing off his opinions because of his lack of a degree comes across extremely pretentious unless you can point to an actual position he had that was factually incorrect because of his lack of education.

I admit to being morbidly curious about this as well. Its a discussion that has been had countless times before and after his death. Almost every single time I've been a part of the discussion, the detractors were misinformed or just completely unaware of Kirk's actual stance.

In this very thread, in one of the first posts about Kirk, a detractor disagreed with Kirk's stance on college, only to turn around and say exactly what Kirk says about college.

The poster agreed with Kirk while saying he disagreed. I admit to finding g a bit of humor there.

But it drives home the point that often times, people need to actually research the subject for themselves, rather than listen to what other people tell them about a subject. ESPECIALLY if it has any taint of politics in it.

 

[will110]

In order to do that, I would go into what I feel is bashing the man and I don't think it's necessary to do that. My point is Kirk has questioned the education qualifications of people or in some cases groups of people. Well, what about when the finger points back at him. Am I wrong? Or was he wrong for doing the exact same thing to others.

I'm not familiar with the accusations you're saying he made, but I appreciate you not wanting to bash him

I have no problem with critiquing his (or any other person's) views, opinions, and beliefs, but do it based on the substance of what is said, not the person's education (or lack thereof).

 

[DannyTree1]

I admit to being morbidly curious about this as well. Its a discussion that has been had countless times before and after his death. Almost every single time I've been a part of the discussion, the detractors were misinformed or just completely unaware of Kirk's actual stance.

In this very thread, in one of the first posts about Kirk, a detractor disagreed with Kirk's stance on college, only to turn around and say exactly what Kirk says about college.

The poster agreed with Kirk while saying he disagreed. I admit to finding g a bit of humor there.

But it drives home the point that often times, people need to actually research the subject for themselves, rather than listen to what other people tell them about a subject. ESPECIALLY if it has any taint of politics in it.

I think there is (and was) a tendency to lionize the man and my personality is not one that lionizes anyone. So I will always have a problem with people that do that with anyone.

I am as likely to criticize someone I agreed with as I am someone I didn't agree with. I am that way even with sports coaches- when I like them, I will criticize them probably more than someone I don't like.

There are those that attacked him for some of his comments- or the way he made those comments- fair or not, and there are those that seemingly defend everything he ever said as if he couldn't be wrong- and attack everyone that criticized him as if they couldn't possibly have a fair point about him.

 

[Lurker123]

I think there is (and was) a tendency to lionize the man and my personality is not one that lionizes anyone. So I will always have a problem with people that do that with anyone.

I am as likely to criticize someone I agreed with as I am someone I didn't agree with. I am that way even with sports coaches- when I like them, I will criticize them probably more than someone I don't like.

There are those that attacked him for some of his comments- or the way he made those comments- fair or not, and there are those that seemingly defend everything he ever said as if he couldn't be wrong- and attack everyone that criticized him as if they couldn't possibly have a fair point about him.

I would agree, but tend to think a lot of the lionization comes from being assassinated. That elevates things, imo.

What i found so interesting is what went on in this very thread. People literally not knowing what he said, going around saying why they didn't like him. It was a fascinating exercise to actually discuss his full, in context, comments with those people. (Those very few who were open minded enough to actually discuss)

But you are right, he was human, so flawed, like all of us.

 

[Tngamecock]

I will never agree with this. I think the problem with America right now is this movement to dumb down too much. People want to talk about medicine with no training. They want to be psychologists with no degrees. I have had experience with guys that barely have a high school diploma want to argue with me about the Constitution. Everyone wants to jump on a podcast spouting nonsense. Now, getting a degree in Interdisciplinary Studies may be worthless. However, these are the decisions that grown-ups have to make in life. Do your research on the job market, where is it going, what jobs are going away, and finally look within on what your interests are. A person that does what they love will most likely be able to make money with it. If you are not passionate, you will probably be mediocre at whatever you are doing and earn less.

So what is your opinion on gender studies degrees? Asking for a friend. The myth is that a degree allows you to understand the constitution. I knew more about the Constitution in high school than 80% of today’s college graduates. I think Charlie Kirk would gladly debate you on the Constitution and he had a hs diploma.

Do you work for a college?

I think years ago college was a great value and was many of the things it should be. Not seeing it today. It started with the government getting into the student loan system. Anyone with a brain will understand this point. Others will make it political. It was both sides that took us down that road until it was too late. Now it’s just your typical money grab with little in return.

 

[CreekSnake]

If your goal is to increase your son/daughters general knowledge and make them a better more rounded person then send them on an extended trip during the summer to Europe and Asia.They’ll learn a hell of a lot more than in a gender study course.

 

[atl-cock]

If your goal is to increase your son/daughters general knowledge and make them a better more rounded person then send them on an extended trip during the summer to Europe and Asia.They’ll learn a hell of a lot more than in a gender study course.

But taking courses in European / Asian history prior to that journey will make that trip more impactful and meaningful.

 

[CreekSnake]

Or you could read a book.I love history and would have totally enjoyed that as a major however a business degree stood me in better stead as a future business owner

 

[atl-cock]

Or you could read a book.I love history and would have totally enjoyed that as a major however a business degree stood me in better stead as a future business owner

Goes back to learning vs job training.

 

[DannyTree1]

So what is your opinion on gender studies degrees? Asking for a friend. The myth is that a degree allows you to understand the constitution. I knew more about the Constitution in high school than 80% of today’s college graduates. I think Charlie Kirk would gladly debate you on the Constitution and he had a hs diploma.

colleges have many different degrees because people have different interests.

I've never heard anyone claim that a college degree allows someone to understand the constitution. I supposed a law degree might, or someone that studies the history of the constitution might understand it better than someone off the street.

If I want to hear opinions on the constitution (which I really don't), I would try to find a few experienced constitutional scholars or attorneys and listen to their opinions and the constitutional basis of those opinions - better yet if they have different views on it.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

I supposed a law degree might, or someone that studies the history of the constitution might understand it better than someone off the street.

It is written in English.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

A ''man on the street question'' on the Constitution would be enlightening but not shocking, particularly near a HS or college campus.

 

[Lurker123]

A ''man on the street question'' on the Constitution would be enlightening but not shocking, particularly near a HS or college campus.

Thise "man on the street" videos are scary at times. Granted, they only show the worst answers.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

Thise "man on the street" videos are scary at times. Granted, they only show the worst answers.

True, but that's the enlightening part.

 

[vacock]

True, but that's the enlightening part.

I’m already enlightened. There are a lot of stupid people out there.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

I’m already enlightened. There are a lot of stupid people out there.

It's not the quantity but the level of stupidity that is enlightening.

 

[vacock]

It's not the quantity but the level of stupidity that is enlightening.

And proud of it!

 

[JohnnySolo]

Took a summer Econ course. The professor talked more about dumb stuff like how to get around town during rush hour than the course material. I enjoyed it then because I just needed the passing grade to move on.

 

[adcoop]

I admit to being morbidly curious about this as well. Its a discussion that has been had countless times before and after his death. Almost every single time I've been a part of the discussion, the detractors were misinformed or just completely unaware of Kirk's actual stance.

In this very thread, in one of the first posts about Kirk, a detractor disagreed with Kirk's stance on college, only to turn around and say exactly what Kirk says about college.

The poster agreed with Kirk while saying he disagreed. I admit to finding g a bit of humor there.

But it drives home the point that often times, people need to actually research the subject for themselves, rather than listen to what other people tell them about a subject. ESPECIALLY if it has any taint of politics in it.

Actually, you are wrong in your assessment of my statements. I was disagreeing with the original poster's statement about the cost of college, woke professors, and no job guarantee. Charlie Kirk's name just happened to be in the post I replied to. When asked about Charlie Kirk I said I disagreed with him too because I just don't think he is qualified to be questioning the educational achievements of anyone given that he has very little in the way of tangible educational achievements himself.

For the record, getting a degree in Transgender studies can be profitable depending on your location. It can at least be rewarding in that you may be equipped to help people. Everyone doesn't go into a profession for the money. There are very educated people out there that sincerely want to help people and the money is a secondary interest to them.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Or you could read a book.I love history and would have totally enjoyed that as a major however a business degree stood me in better stead as a future business owner

I can relate. I love history, but went on to get a business degree. However, I decided to go ahead to pursue and receive my minor in U.S. History.

 

[Lurker123]

Actually, you are wrong in your assessment of my statements. I was disagreeing with the original poster's statement about the cost of college, woke professors, and no job guarantee. Charlie Kirk's name just happened to be in the post I replied to. When asked about Charlie Kirk I said I disagreed with him too because I just don't think he is qualified to be questioning the educational achievements of anyone given that he has very little in the way of tangible educational achievements himself.

For the record, getting a degree in Transgender studies can be profitable depending on your location. It can at least be rewarding in that you may be equipped to help people. Everyone doesn't go into a profession for the money. There are very educated people out there that sincerely want to help people and the money is a secondary interest to them.

You know the posts are still there on the first page of this thread that contradict this, right retard?

I'll help you out since you're too stupid to read English.

Now, getting a degree in Interdisciplinary Studies may be worthless. However, these are the decisions that grown-ups have to make in life.

You substituted Transgender Studies for Interdisciplinary Studies and then proceeded to make the same argument Kirk does. You're just too stupid to realize you were agreeing with him, because your political party told you he was a mean person that you're not allowed to listen to.

Skuddy even spelled it out for you nicely, and you ignored that and doubled down.

Good to see you couldnt go a few days without whining and crying to me for attention.

Lol