[eavesdropper]

[quote=poorgradstudent]I think on a whole women (especially young women) are a lot more likely to listen to the advice others give them, fall in line, and go for “safe” options. So as a whole women went after more steady and growth industries, while many men kept chasing their dreams. Globalization also has hit men a lot harder than women. Teaching and Nursing, two traditionally female dominated professional fields, can never be outsourced.

Although teen girls still have an achievement gap in math and science, teaching boys is actually a huge issue. Boys are far more likely to have behavioral problems, and started struggling academically as a whole a while ago.[/quote]

I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal. Newspapers, almost without exception, had separate “Help Wanted: Men” and “Help Wanted: Women” sections. The men’s section had listings for accountants, draftsmen, engineers, construction foremen, welders, chemists, architects, and on and on. The women’s section, on the other hand, had listings for clerks, receptionists, secretaries, and waitresses. The only professions that required post-high school education were teachers, nurses, and bookkeepers. Occasionally, you’d see an ad for a female medical technician, but it was rare. Women were pushed into teaching and nursing because they were the only professional positions that a college-educated female could be assured of getting. The men who “chased their dreams” were actually just going after what was considered their due.

For those women who decry the feminists of the late 60s and early 70s, I say they’re the reason we’re able to apply for, and have a good chance of getting, professional jobs in all fields for which we are qualified. Once those barriers were down, women grabbed up those majors in college, and the myth that they did not possess the intelligence or capability to do the classwork was dispelled. Women have flooded those fields formerly dominated by white males because they wanted the intellectual stimulation, professional fulfillment, and monetary rewards of those jobs. As the sociological landscape changed, and divorce became much more commonplace, there were more and more women in the role of single mother, and better pay became a necessity, not simply a luxury.

As for the differences in teaching girls vs. boys, there is evidence of a disparity. However, we are doing a great disservice to male students, and to ourselves as a country, by failing to adjust our instructional methods to meet the needs of both sexes. Part of that adjustment will require a serious change in the attitudes of the parents of those students.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=poorgradstudent]I think on a whole women (especially young women) are a lot more likely to listen to the advice others give them, fall in line, and go for “safe” options. So as a whole women went after more steady and growth industries, while many men kept chasing their dreams. Globalization also has hit men a lot harder than women. Teaching and Nursing, two traditionally female dominated professional fields, can never be outsourced.

Although teen girls still have an achievement gap in math and science, teaching boys is actually a huge issue. Boys are far more likely to have behavioral problems, and started struggling academically as a whole a while ago.[/quote]

I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal. Newspapers, almost without exception, had separate “Help Wanted: Men” and “Help Wanted: Women” sections. The men’s section had listings for accountants, draftsmen, engineers, construction foremen, welders, chemists, architects, and on and on. The women’s section, on the other hand, had listings for clerks, receptionists, secretaries, and waitresses. The only professions that required post-high school education were teachers, nurses, and bookkeepers. Occasionally, you’d see an ad for a female medical technician, but it was rare. Women were pushed into teaching and nursing because they were the only professional positions that a college-educated female could be assured of getting. The men who “chased their dreams” were actually just going after what was considered their due.

For those women who decry the feminists of the late 60s and early 70s, I say they’re the reason we’re able to apply for, and have a good chance of getting, professional jobs in all fields for which we are qualified. Once those barriers were down, women grabbed up those majors in college, and the myth that they did not possess the intelligence or capability to do the classwork was dispelled. Women have flooded those fields formerly dominated by white males because they wanted the intellectual stimulation, professional fulfillment, and monetary rewards of those jobs. As the sociological landscape changed, and divorce became much more commonplace, there were more and more women in the role of single mother, and better pay became a necessity, not simply a luxury.

As for the differences in teaching girls vs. boys, there is evidence of a disparity. However, we are doing a great disservice to male students, and to ourselves as a country, by failing to adjust our instructional methods to meet the needs of both sexes. Part of that adjustment will require a serious change in the attitudes of the parents of those students.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] I think the converse to this, just don’t think that not having a college degree is going to be ok for people these days also. It’s not just about getting a degree, it a lot of time is also important in
1) what you get it in
2) if what you get it in needs a degree.

I don’t think you will find too many un-degreed doctors…And while generally you might find some folks who don’t have degrees in engineering, those are usually the exception than the norm….

I don’t understand a lot of these fly by schools like University of Phoenix, Kaplan Devry,etc. A lot of them are a waste of money imho…

I think you’re oversimplying this and overgeneralizing that college/university is not necessary. It depends on what. If at all, in the right programs/career selections, it opens doors rather than shuts them. And of course, there are just some programs that are just waste of time.[/quote]

flu, I agree with the necessity of a college degree. Indeed, it may not prepare one to do anything but excel at beer pong, but it opens doors. Postgraduate experience is essential (as bearishgurl points out), but people with 10 or 20 years of solid experience can be locked out of even applying for a position (on online HR/application sites) for which they are qualified, because of that lack of a degree. In my humble opinion, that constitutes discrimination (at least in job where the essential tasks are not taught in any college curriculum) because there are still many in this country who cannot afford to finance a college education. But apparently the Feds don’t see it as such, so, as things stand, the college degree is a necessity in most job searches.

As for the “fly-by-night schools” you mention, I agree wholeheartedly, and wish they could be closed down. They target the poor and uneducated, and lure them into signing up for a lot of courses that will not be of help to them, so that the schools can get the tuition money from the Federal government. When the students fail, they (and the taxpayer) are left holding the bag. As you can imagine, it is extremely lucrative to these “institutions of higher learning”. The sad part is that funds for deserving students attending legitimate schools are in rapidly decreasing supply, and taking a big hit from these crooks. I don’t expect anything to change, however, since they tend to be generous contributors to political candidates.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] I think the converse to this, just don’t think that not having a college degree is going to be ok for people these days also. It’s not just about getting a degree, it a lot of time is also important in
1) what you get it in
2) if what you get it in needs a degree.

I don’t think you will find too many un-degreed doctors…And while generally you might find some folks who don’t have degrees in engineering, those are usually the exception than the norm….

I don’t understand a lot of these fly by schools like University of Phoenix, Kaplan Devry,etc. A lot of them are a waste of money imho…

I think you’re oversimplying this and overgeneralizing that college/university is not necessary. It depends on what. If at all, in the right programs/career selections, it opens doors rather than shuts them. And of course, there are just some programs that are just waste of time.[/quote]

flu, I agree with the necessity of a college degree. Indeed, it may not prepare one to do anything but excel at beer pong, but it opens doors. Postgraduate experience is essential (as bearishgurl points out), but people with 10 or 20 years of solid experience can be locked out of even applying for a position (on online HR/application sites) for which they are qualified, because of that lack of a degree. In my humble opinion, that constitutes discrimination (at least in job where the essential tasks are not taught in any college curriculum) because there are still many in this country who cannot afford to finance a college education. But apparently the Feds don’t see it as such, so, as things stand, the college degree is a necessity in most job searches.

As for the “fly-by-night schools” you mention, I agree wholeheartedly, and wish they could be closed down. They target the poor and uneducated, and lure them into signing up for a lot of courses that will not be of help to them, so that the schools can get the tuition money from the Federal government. When the students fail, they (and the taxpayer) are left holding the bag. As you can imagine, it is extremely lucrative to these “institutions of higher learning”. The sad part is that funds for deserving students attending legitimate schools are in rapidly decreasing supply, and taking a big hit from these crooks. I don’t expect anything to change, however, since they tend to be generous contributors to political candidates.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] I think the converse to this, just don’t think that not having a college degree is going to be ok for people these days also. It’s not just about getting a degree, it a lot of time is also important in
1) what you get it in
2) if what you get it in needs a degree.

I don’t think you will find too many un-degreed doctors…And while generally you might find some folks who don’t have degrees in engineering, those are usually the exception than the norm….

I don’t understand a lot of these fly by schools like University of Phoenix, Kaplan Devry,etc. A lot of them are a waste of money imho…

I think you’re oversimplying this and overgeneralizing that college/university is not necessary. It depends on what. If at all, in the right programs/career selections, it opens doors rather than shuts them. And of course, there are just some programs that are just waste of time.[/quote]

flu, I agree with the necessity of a college degree. Indeed, it may not prepare one to do anything but excel at beer pong, but it opens doors. Postgraduate experience is essential (as bearishgurl points out), but people with 10 or 20 years of solid experience can be locked out of even applying for a position (on online HR/application sites) for which they are qualified, because of that lack of a degree. In my humble opinion, that constitutes discrimination (at least in job where the essential tasks are not taught in any college curriculum) because there are still many in this country who cannot afford to finance a college education. But apparently the Feds don’t see it as such, so, as things stand, the college degree is a necessity in most job searches.

As for the “fly-by-night schools” you mention, I agree wholeheartedly, and wish they could be closed down. They target the poor and uneducated, and lure them into signing up for a lot of courses that will not be of help to them, so that the schools can get the tuition money from the Federal government. When the students fail, they (and the taxpayer) are left holding the bag. As you can imagine, it is extremely lucrative to these “institutions of higher learning”. The sad part is that funds for deserving students attending legitimate schools are in rapidly decreasing supply, and taking a big hit from these crooks. I don’t expect anything to change, however, since they tend to be generous contributors to political candidates.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] I think the converse to this, just don’t think that not having a college degree is going to be ok for people these days also. It’s not just about getting a degree, it a lot of time is also important in
1) what you get it in
2) if what you get it in needs a degree.

I don’t think you will find too many un-degreed doctors…And while generally you might find some folks who don’t have degrees in engineering, those are usually the exception than the norm….

I don’t understand a lot of these fly by schools like University of Phoenix, Kaplan Devry,etc. A lot of them are a waste of money imho…

I think you’re oversimplying this and overgeneralizing that college/university is not necessary. It depends on what. If at all, in the right programs/career selections, it opens doors rather than shuts them. And of course, there are just some programs that are just waste of time.[/quote]

flu, I agree with the necessity of a college degree. Indeed, it may not prepare one to do anything but excel at beer pong, but it opens doors. Postgraduate experience is essential (as bearishgurl points out), but people with 10 or 20 years of solid experience can be locked out of even applying for a position (on online HR/application sites) for which they are qualified, because of that lack of a degree. In my humble opinion, that constitutes discrimination (at least in job where the essential tasks are not taught in any college curriculum) because there are still many in this country who cannot afford to finance a college education. But apparently the Feds don’t see it as such, so, as things stand, the college degree is a necessity in most job searches.

As for the “fly-by-night schools” you mention, I agree wholeheartedly, and wish they could be closed down. They target the poor and uneducated, and lure them into signing up for a lot of courses that will not be of help to them, so that the schools can get the tuition money from the Federal government. When the students fail, they (and the taxpayer) are left holding the bag. As you can imagine, it is extremely lucrative to these “institutions of higher learning”. The sad part is that funds for deserving students attending legitimate schools are in rapidly decreasing supply, and taking a big hit from these crooks. I don’t expect anything to change, however, since they tend to be generous contributors to political candidates.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] I think the converse to this, just don’t think that not having a college degree is going to be ok for people these days also. It’s not just about getting a degree, it a lot of time is also important in
1) what you get it in
2) if what you get it in needs a degree.

I don’t think you will find too many un-degreed doctors…And while generally you might find some folks who don’t have degrees in engineering, those are usually the exception than the norm….

I don’t understand a lot of these fly by schools like University of Phoenix, Kaplan Devry,etc. A lot of them are a waste of money imho…

I think you’re oversimplying this and overgeneralizing that college/university is not necessary. It depends on what. If at all, in the right programs/career selections, it opens doors rather than shuts them. And of course, there are just some programs that are just waste of time.[/quote]

flu, I agree with the necessity of a college degree. Indeed, it may not prepare one to do anything but excel at beer pong, but it opens doors. Postgraduate experience is essential (as bearishgurl points out), but people with 10 or 20 years of solid experience can be locked out of even applying for a position (on online HR/application sites) for which they are qualified, because of that lack of a degree. In my humble opinion, that constitutes discrimination (at least in job where the essential tasks are not taught in any college curriculum) because there are still many in this country who cannot afford to finance a college education. But apparently the Feds don’t see it as such, so, as things stand, the college degree is a necessity in most job searches.

As for the “fly-by-night schools” you mention, I agree wholeheartedly, and wish they could be closed down. They target the poor and uneducated, and lure them into signing up for a lot of courses that will not be of help to them, so that the schools can get the tuition money from the Federal government. When the students fail, they (and the taxpayer) are left holding the bag. As you can imagine, it is extremely lucrative to these “institutions of higher learning”. The sad part is that funds for deserving students attending legitimate schools are in rapidly decreasing supply, and taking a big hit from these crooks. I don’t expect anything to change, however, since they tend to be generous contributors to political candidates.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jpinpb] As far as consumer spending, we’ve discussed this. One of the greatest expenses is housing. If that is factored out, you have extra money, discretionary spending. That is one of the biggest reasons our economy is doing as well as it is.

Should be interesting to see what’s going to happen when people are forced out of their free-living situation and have to start digging in their pockets for housing again.

Even if they manage to get loan mods, that’ll mean less money eating out and/or shopping.[/quote]

That’s a salient observation, jp. Even people who aren’t being affected, either by being in a comfortable financial position, or having purchased a house at a greatly reduced price courtesy of the meltdown, are going to find significant reductions in their disposable income levels. Property tax rates are rising rapidly, as states and municipalities try to compensate for the loss in Federal aid, and reductions in their own tax revenues resulting from foreclosures and lowered property values in their areas.

A side observation: I can’t imagine that the banks are going to allow this “free living” situation to go on much longer without imposing harsh penalties on their mortgagors. Any thoughts on this?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jpinpb] As far as consumer spending, we’ve discussed this. One of the greatest expenses is housing. If that is factored out, you have extra money, discretionary spending. That is one of the biggest reasons our economy is doing as well as it is.

Should be interesting to see what’s going to happen when people are forced out of their free-living situation and have to start digging in their pockets for housing again.

Even if they manage to get loan mods, that’ll mean less money eating out and/or shopping.[/quote]

That’s a salient observation, jp. Even people who aren’t being affected, either by being in a comfortable financial position, or having purchased a house at a greatly reduced price courtesy of the meltdown, are going to find significant reductions in their disposable income levels. Property tax rates are rising rapidly, as states and municipalities try to compensate for the loss in Federal aid, and reductions in their own tax revenues resulting from foreclosures and lowered property values in their areas.

A side observation: I can’t imagine that the banks are going to allow this “free living” situation to go on much longer without imposing harsh penalties on their mortgagors. Any thoughts on this?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jpinpb] As far as consumer spending, we’ve discussed this. One of the greatest expenses is housing. If that is factored out, you have extra money, discretionary spending. That is one of the biggest reasons our economy is doing as well as it is.

Should be interesting to see what’s going to happen when people are forced out of their free-living situation and have to start digging in their pockets for housing again.

Even if they manage to get loan mods, that’ll mean less money eating out and/or shopping.[/quote]

That’s a salient observation, jp. Even people who aren’t being affected, either by being in a comfortable financial position, or having purchased a house at a greatly reduced price courtesy of the meltdown, are going to find significant reductions in their disposable income levels. Property tax rates are rising rapidly, as states and municipalities try to compensate for the loss in Federal aid, and reductions in their own tax revenues resulting from foreclosures and lowered property values in their areas.

A side observation: I can’t imagine that the banks are going to allow this “free living” situation to go on much longer without imposing harsh penalties on their mortgagors. Any thoughts on this?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jpinpb] As far as consumer spending, we’ve discussed this. One of the greatest expenses is housing. If that is factored out, you have extra money, discretionary spending. That is one of the biggest reasons our economy is doing as well as it is.

Should be interesting to see what’s going to happen when people are forced out of their free-living situation and have to start digging in their pockets for housing again.

Even if they manage to get loan mods, that’ll mean less money eating out and/or shopping.[/quote]

That’s a salient observation, jp. Even people who aren’t being affected, either by being in a comfortable financial position, or having purchased a house at a greatly reduced price courtesy of the meltdown, are going to find significant reductions in their disposable income levels. Property tax rates are rising rapidly, as states and municipalities try to compensate for the loss in Federal aid, and reductions in their own tax revenues resulting from foreclosures and lowered property values in their areas.

A side observation: I can’t imagine that the banks are going to allow this “free living” situation to go on much longer without imposing harsh penalties on their mortgagors. Any thoughts on this?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jpinpb] As far as consumer spending, we’ve discussed this. One of the greatest expenses is housing. If that is factored out, you have extra money, discretionary spending. That is one of the biggest reasons our economy is doing as well as it is.

Should be interesting to see what’s going to happen when people are forced out of their free-living situation and have to start digging in their pockets for housing again.

Even if they manage to get loan mods, that’ll mean less money eating out and/or shopping.[/quote]

That’s a salient observation, jp. Even people who aren’t being affected, either by being in a comfortable financial position, or having purchased a house at a greatly reduced price courtesy of the meltdown, are going to find significant reductions in their disposable income levels. Property tax rates are rising rapidly, as states and municipalities try to compensate for the loss in Federal aid, and reductions in their own tax revenues resulting from foreclosures and lowered property values in their areas.

A side observation: I can’t imagine that the banks are going to allow this “free living” situation to go on much longer without imposing harsh penalties on their mortgagors. Any thoughts on this?

[eavesdropper]

Don’t always agree with her, but leaning in the direction of her observations and predictions here. The business sector, the government officials, and the population in general just keep looking for signs that the economy has reversed course, and they’re basing those hopes on the model that prevailed in the late 90s and the early and mid-oughts. I rarely see anyone offering comprehensive analysis of the dire situation we’re in, and taking a broad-based look at all of the contributing factors. People are seizing on what might be interpreted as a positive sign in one sector, and basing predictions of a full and permanent recovery on it.

The economy tanked because there were problems with the basic business model being utilized by the financial institutions. Continuing to use a broken model, while blaming the meltdown on any one of a variety of contributing factors (depending on your political outlook), will not result in recovery. It will almost assuredly delay it, and make it a more painful and difficult process.

[eavesdropper]

Don’t always agree with her, but leaning in the direction of her observations and predictions here. The business sector, the government officials, and the population in general just keep looking for signs that the economy has reversed course, and they’re basing those hopes on the model that prevailed in the late 90s and the early and mid-oughts. I rarely see anyone offering comprehensive analysis of the dire situation we’re in, and taking a broad-based look at all of the contributing factors. People are seizing on what might be interpreted as a positive sign in one sector, and basing predictions of a full and permanent recovery on it.

The economy tanked because there were problems with the basic business model being utilized by the financial institutions. Continuing to use a broken model, while blaming the meltdown on any one of a variety of contributing factors (depending on your political outlook), will not result in recovery. It will almost assuredly delay it, and make it a more painful and difficult process.

[eavesdropper]

Don’t always agree with her, but leaning in the direction of her observations and predictions here. The business sector, the government officials, and the population in general just keep looking for signs that the economy has reversed course, and they’re basing those hopes on the model that prevailed in the late 90s and the early and mid-oughts. I rarely see anyone offering comprehensive analysis of the dire situation we’re in, and taking a broad-based look at all of the contributing factors. People are seizing on what might be interpreted as a positive sign in one sector, and basing predictions of a full and permanent recovery on it.

The economy tanked because there were problems with the basic business model being utilized by the financial institutions. Continuing to use a broken model, while blaming the meltdown on any one of a variety of contributing factors (depending on your political outlook), will not result in recovery. It will almost assuredly delay it, and make it a more painful and difficult process.

[Author]

Posts