I don't get it. Rape, and other varieties of sexual assault, are felonies. Such crimes should be the purview of the police, not some stupid college faculty committee. Students who are assaulted should go directly to the police — not the campus police, but the real police. If they are so misguided as to go to college authorities instead of the real police, the college should bring in the real police, and then get out of the way. Why should Congress have to enact special legislation to deal with nationally recognized felonies?
Frequently, it seems, the felons are frat boys and/or athletes. Money and reputation are involved, so colleges are hesitant to do anything at all. Well, sexual predators are present at all levels of society. Let's just have the cops do their jobs.
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Trickle Up
No, it's not money trickling up. Money is rushing up with an audible whoosh.
What's trickling up are jobs — crappy jobs. All those asshole talking heads telling you how what young people need today is "more education" to qualify for "so many jobs" employers "can't fill" because they can't find "qualified" workers are, pretty much, full of shit. These days, jobs that used to require a high school diploma — secretaries, sales reps, waiters and waitresses at upscale restaurants — are going to young people with four year college degrees. Why? Because they can't get anything better.
A 2-year degree might give you an edge up for a job at Hooters, provided your hooters make the grade, but you'll still be living on sub-minimum wage plus tips. Unless your hooters are fantastic, don't expect the tips to be too great unless you can get those drooling bastards really drunk.
Then there are the famous "STEM" jobs — science, technology, engineering, and math. Recently, I met a young man with a four-year degree in physics, but he couldn't even find a teaching job at a high school. He had attended a well respected state university, and his grade point index was better than 3.5. Yes, if he'd earned a 4.0 from an Ivy, he might have been recruited by Wall Street. Too bad, kid.
As for all those "STEM" jobs, expect most of them go to immigrants with H-1B visas, who are accustomed to earning a lot less than native born "STEM" workers. The main reason there is so much "bipartisan" enthusiasm for immigration reform is to keep wages low.
Will there be some young people who do well? Of course, if their pedigree is sufficiently correct. As Billie Holiday sang, "them that's got shall get..."
What's trickling up are jobs — crappy jobs. All those asshole talking heads telling you how what young people need today is "more education" to qualify for "so many jobs" employers "can't fill" because they can't find "qualified" workers are, pretty much, full of shit. These days, jobs that used to require a high school diploma — secretaries, sales reps, waiters and waitresses at upscale restaurants — are going to young people with four year college degrees. Why? Because they can't get anything better.
A 2-year degree might give you an edge up for a job at Hooters, provided your hooters make the grade, but you'll still be living on sub-minimum wage plus tips. Unless your hooters are fantastic, don't expect the tips to be too great unless you can get those drooling bastards really drunk.
Then there are the famous "STEM" jobs — science, technology, engineering, and math. Recently, I met a young man with a four-year degree in physics, but he couldn't even find a teaching job at a high school. He had attended a well respected state university, and his grade point index was better than 3.5. Yes, if he'd earned a 4.0 from an Ivy, he might have been recruited by Wall Street. Too bad, kid.
As for all those "STEM" jobs, expect most of them go to immigrants with H-1B visas, who are accustomed to earning a lot less than native born "STEM" workers. The main reason there is so much "bipartisan" enthusiasm for immigration reform is to keep wages low.
Will there be some young people who do well? Of course, if their pedigree is sufficiently correct. As Billie Holiday sang, "them that's got shall get..."
Monday, December 5, 2011
Occupy CUNY
I'll start with a complaint. Why am I making contributions to an alumni association that did not inform me of the November 21st "Occupy CUNY" march on Wall Street? I'd have been there, and so would a lot of other long-ago graduates who went to CUNY... those of us who went for FREE.
We geezers who attended the schools of the City University of New York before 1976 paid no tuition. Why, I have to wonder, was New York City able to do it then, but not now?
Well, the city has lost a hell of a lot of state aid over the years — but where did that money go? I'm still not sure. Also, I'm not sure where the federal money went, specifically, except that the later seventies were the time that tax rates on the rich began their precipitous fall.
College should be free. It's hard enough to make it out of the working class — and if you have to put yourself in ridiculously crazy debt you can't even shed in bankruptcy court to get a little bit beyond where your parents were, it may never happen. (Are there any corporate debts that can't be shed in bankruptcy? I can't think of any.)
Back in the sixties, I'm sure I could have qualified for some financial aid, and probably won a scholarship or two, but I doubt it would have been enough to get me all the way through a private college. It's certainly not enough for many students today, especially since jobs for those without college degrees are in such short supply and pay so poorly (and since full-time work and full-time school really are incompatible.)
The Occupy movement is about economic inequality — but also points out how generally screwed up our priorities have been for the past few decades. It's really time to get them straightened out.
We geezers who attended the schools of the City University of New York before 1976 paid no tuition. Why, I have to wonder, was New York City able to do it then, but not now?
Well, the city has lost a hell of a lot of state aid over the years — but where did that money go? I'm still not sure. Also, I'm not sure where the federal money went, specifically, except that the later seventies were the time that tax rates on the rich began their precipitous fall.
College should be free. It's hard enough to make it out of the working class — and if you have to put yourself in ridiculously crazy debt you can't even shed in bankruptcy court to get a little bit beyond where your parents were, it may never happen. (Are there any corporate debts that can't be shed in bankruptcy? I can't think of any.)
Back in the sixties, I'm sure I could have qualified for some financial aid, and probably won a scholarship or two, but I doubt it would have been enough to get me all the way through a private college. It's certainly not enough for many students today, especially since jobs for those without college degrees are in such short supply and pay so poorly (and since full-time work and full-time school really are incompatible.)
The Occupy movement is about economic inequality — but also points out how generally screwed up our priorities have been for the past few decades. It's really time to get them straightened out.
Monday, August 9, 2010
College Graduation Rates?
According to recent news reports, the per capita college graduation rate in the United States has slipped from first in the world to number twelve. The President says that's a cryin' shame, and that we ought to do something about it. Okay. I agree. But, what should we do?
Since I am an old fart, I am entitled to talk about "the good old days," and you young folks are entitled to ignore me, so I'd better grab your interest pretty fast.
I went to college for free. It wasn't because I was valedictorian of my high school graduating class (not even close), or because my family was particularly disadvantaged (it wasn't). It was because the colleges of the City University of New York did not charge tuition.
Back in the sixties, there was real interest in helping qualified students complete college. Presumably, it had something to do with the Cold War — competing with the Soviet Union — but more than that, it was the FDR-inspired attitudes that emerged from the Great Depression and World War II.
Granted, not everybody was admitted to CUNY, but if you were in New York City's top 25%, it was pretty much automatic. Since the children of the more affluent usually went to private colleges, there usually was a place for you if your grades and SAT scores put you in the top 35%. Most of us couldn't have afforded college if the tuition were much higher than free — credit was a lot harder to get in those days.
We lived with our parents. We traveled by bus and subway. We got part-time and summer jobs to earn some spending money. We graduated with Bachelor's degrees and no debt.
Was it a perfect system? Of course not. Truly poor and minority students, from the city's crappier ghetto high schools, found it hard to make the cut — but for sons and daughters of the lower middle class who had some talent and ambition, it was an amazing opportunity. Our parents looked on with pride as we pulled ourselves up onto the next step of the socio-economic ladder.
So, how did government afford it? America was flushing money down the Vietnam toilet then just as fast as it's flushing money down the Afghanistan toilet today — but our values, in those days, were different. The tax code had not been Reaganized. Middle class incomes and standards of living were still moving upwards, and taxation was not a dirty word. People were willing to share the burdens, and they did. The United States was a lot more egalitarian in those days, despite the discrimination, segregation, and many other problems.
And so, Mr. President, how shall we solve our college graduate deficit? Well, we can't go back to the sixties.
Maybe we can go forward, though. If college really is that important, let's find a way to make it free again.
Since I am an old fart, I am entitled to talk about "the good old days," and you young folks are entitled to ignore me, so I'd better grab your interest pretty fast.
I went to college for free. It wasn't because I was valedictorian of my high school graduating class (not even close), or because my family was particularly disadvantaged (it wasn't). It was because the colleges of the City University of New York did not charge tuition.
Back in the sixties, there was real interest in helping qualified students complete college. Presumably, it had something to do with the Cold War — competing with the Soviet Union — but more than that, it was the FDR-inspired attitudes that emerged from the Great Depression and World War II.
Granted, not everybody was admitted to CUNY, but if you were in New York City's top 25%, it was pretty much automatic. Since the children of the more affluent usually went to private colleges, there usually was a place for you if your grades and SAT scores put you in the top 35%. Most of us couldn't have afforded college if the tuition were much higher than free — credit was a lot harder to get in those days.
We lived with our parents. We traveled by bus and subway. We got part-time and summer jobs to earn some spending money. We graduated with Bachelor's degrees and no debt.
Was it a perfect system? Of course not. Truly poor and minority students, from the city's crappier ghetto high schools, found it hard to make the cut — but for sons and daughters of the lower middle class who had some talent and ambition, it was an amazing opportunity. Our parents looked on with pride as we pulled ourselves up onto the next step of the socio-economic ladder.
So, how did government afford it? America was flushing money down the Vietnam toilet then just as fast as it's flushing money down the Afghanistan toilet today — but our values, in those days, were different. The tax code had not been Reaganized. Middle class incomes and standards of living were still moving upwards, and taxation was not a dirty word. People were willing to share the burdens, and they did. The United States was a lot more egalitarian in those days, despite the discrimination, segregation, and many other problems.
And so, Mr. President, how shall we solve our college graduate deficit? Well, we can't go back to the sixties.
Maybe we can go forward, though. If college really is that important, let's find a way to make it free again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)