Gee, it's almost as though government subsidy of an industry leads to excessive supply!
Posted at 2007-01-17 19:23:41 [PermaLink]Finding a good physician is EASY, you say? I take it you haven't recently tried to find a GP in Montreal...
Posted at 2007-01-17 19:24:23 [PermaLink]Well, the article was specifically talking about the US, not Canada. Unfortunately for you Montrealers, doctors' salaries aren't high enough to entice them to stick around.
Posted at 2007-01-17 19:58:39 [PermaLink]God forbid if the population is better educated. As for the government subsidy statement, keep in mind that many Canadians rely on government subsidization of university in order to afford to go. Oh wait, should that 15% of people who *should* go to university have to be the wealthy 15% too? Oh right of course since the rich are always smarter.
Right...
Really,how many social workers or semi educated professional students do we really need coming out of our system.(with 30 or 40 grand in student loans.)Very few of these kids are qualified to do anything after getting their sheepskins(cept barrisitng at Starbucks) and really ,about Doctors ,do you really want them to start lowering standards just to fill up empty slots. Most people don't need a university or even a colege education.If it's affordable for the family, I guess it migt impress the neighbours.....Besides probably quite a few of those kids would rather work with wood or tools and do creating and fixing things,but get derailed by family and friends preassuring them......And you can't call India for an overflowing toilet,can you?
Posted at 2007-01-17 20:28:00 [PermaLink]Let them do as they choose. As far as I am concerned, knowledge for knowledge's sake is wonderful. In addition, some training with regards to how to think critical and question everything does everyone some good.
Posted at 2007-01-17 21:37:44 [PermaLink]Murray is absolutely correct.
I have a 16 year old son who's decided he wants to be a history teacher. I suspect he's drawn to the lifestyle that teaching high school affords, more than love of the job. Especially given his disinterest in reading. He'll have substantial competition along the way, pace Murray. I'm trying to steer him toward a trade, or something in the electronics field. He has little interest, to go with plenty of excuses why it's already "too late" for him to stream into a technical course load.
I guess he'll have to find his own way. Like I did.
But Murray will still be right.
>God forbid if the population is better educated.
That's not Murray's point. Murray's point is that a properly challenging university-level education is beyond the capability of some of the people who are being channeled into universities. The course load itself should be the gatekeeper regardless whether one is rich or poor (actually, the rule of thumb used to be - maybe still is - that the third year of any given four-year program was the one which separated the eventual graduates from the drop-outs). Naturally that control mechanism is watered down if there are undemanding fluff programs into which a person can slide.
>Oh right of course since the rich are always smarter.
Not necessarily. And that suggests a sweet spot: institutions charge full (or near full) real tuition costs; there is a well-funded public financial assistance system for post-secondary education; and all programs are intellectually demanding. The rich kids pay full shot and are weeded out if they can't hack it; the poor kids who can hack it can qualify for assistance. The public doesn't subsidize two years of finishing school for dabblers, or four years in the case of read-and-regurgitate "studies" programs.
And we already have well-established technical, trade, and other less-than-degreed post-secondary programs in many institutions for the people who can't pass a university program but can add value to their paycheques through advanced work-oriented education.
Two points:
1. Where is it written that a high school student should go directly into a University without having first worked, travelled a bit, done a hitch in the military, or other life enhancing experience(s)?
If it's 'life enrichment' rather than employment skills as the goal, than take the courses in the evenings and/or on weekends rather than incurring backbreaking debt.
2. As far as Canada is concerned, our hospitalization/health care crisis is almost entirely attributable to the crippling shortage of RNs and other professionals. There's a huge backlog of student applicants trying to get into COLLEGE Nursing (and other) programs but the Professional organizations, colleges/Univs., and Provincial Govts. can't or won't do what's req'd to get the train back on the tracks.
B.C.'s RN shortage has grown to 1,900 vacancies in the past year! [External Link]
Great post! I've a university degree (Poli-sci.!) and yet occupy a "blue-collar" job. I had the option of going to teacher's college ( had been accepted), but at the last minute decided on a different path.
I've a number of teachers in my family....boring leftists most....but I make a lot more money than they do.
One other thing; I think I look sexy in a hardhat
So many people chase after white collar jobs in the belief they're more prestigious that many blue-collar jobs now pay more.
Many white-collar jobs are not more prestigious; you could even say they're for losers
Carpenters, plumbers etc are in VERY, VERY high demand. Here in North America these trades pay a lot, but if one were to take those skills to Japan or China, you'd make a million......literally!
I've a brother who did so.
A lot better than sitting around in a teacher's lounge listening to boring, selfish and not-to-bright individuals moan on about...well....George Bush and other lefty hobby-horses.
One other thing; most men look sexy in a hardhat.
Brave Mr Anonymous: ah yes, "critical thinking" -- the progressive's favourite phrase. It really means falling for the latest fashionable canards and conspiracy theories...
How pray tell does "critical thinking" fix your leaky toilet?
I've got an even better idea than Murray's: people with IQs over 115 should stop going to university, because college actually makes you stupid (see "critical thinking" above).
I would support full funding of university education provided that the funding were directed to sciences and engineering, entrance requirements were increased (in terms of skills) and there were more tiers of universities in the country. What has been happening is that the one size fits all approach has diluted the content of courses. I switched from a Canadian university to Cornell and found one course at Cornell covered about twice as much as the equivalent Canadian course. (I have studied at three Canadian universities, from which I make my comparison.)
Mainstream academic economists now pretty much agree that economic growth is fueled by technological innovation. The most obvious path is to produce more scentists and engineers. The government should therefore fully fund their education, but Charles Murray's points are valid--not everyone is cut out for science or engineering--just as I am not cut out to be a carpenter. i see little point in subsidizing people to spend 4 years in diluted university courses trying to "find themselves." I "found myself" reading philosophy and literature on my own time and nickel, much of it in the evenings in the summers I worked as a tree planter. Subsidizing university degrees for this purpose is inane. Indeed, I recall reading that U of T had a graduation rate of less than 50% within five years of enrollment as a freshman (whereas Cornell was 88%).
"... some training with regards to how to think critical ..."
Someone could use some training on how to write English.
"One other thing; most men look sexy in a hardhat."
Sorry John P. - doesn't do much for me. ;-)
"most men look sexy in a hardhat."
Right John; 'specially if their jeans are 1/2 way down their butt, with their crack showing...:)
Look, I wear a white hardhat and every time I step onto the production floor every instance of the "weaker sex" turns and eyeballs my comely visage. Some have to be fanned to prevent any fainting ;o)
There are two things women like(besides money):
1) Men in hardhats.
2) Men in uniform.
To be serious, I'm of the opinion that at least 75% of the humanities departments should be shut down. They serve no purpose, they provide no intellectual nourishment ( ie critical thinking) and, to boot, many of the their graduates emerge with an inveterate hatred of their own culture and traditions.
And like I said, I've a BA in Poli-sci.
"Some have to be fanned to prevent any fainting ;o)"
You have a fan club?! ;)
You know, DinV, working as a meat inspector/auditor has its perks.
Take poultry and female employees, for instance.
One can nonchalantly stroll past trim-tables and exclaim all sorts of things such as: "My goodness! Your breasts are just huge this morning! They look delicious!" Then, as you touch them,(not hers!) you make an oblique remark on how nice and firm they are.
It's fun!
The workforce in most poultry establishments, you see, tends to be top-heavy with females.
Critical thinking:
"It really means falling for the latest fashionable canards and conspiracy theories..."
First of all, in case you were unable to see, my initial posts have been filled with a mix of saracsm, indignation, and tongue-in-cheek remarks.
Having said that, critical thinking does neither of the two things you said. First, it is important to distinguish between critical thinking and the critical school of thought. Critical thinking simply refers to a skill people acquire to be better to discern biases and logical fallacies in arguments and thus not be easily persuaded by everything one reads. As an extension, it trains to people to question, to think outside the box, and to explore new possible alternatives to current problems. That is a very useful skill that I think everyone needs to develop to the best degree that they can.
The critical school of thought (which includes marxist and many feminist schools of thought) is probably what you were referring to. This school of thought can be charcterized by its cynicism and pessimism. I am most familiar with it in the area of foreign policy since that is what I am currently writing a thesis on (and I vigorously attack both critical and realist schools of thought); as a result, I will address it in that light. Critical scholars see everything as the cause of "western imperialism" and the oppressions of "western capitalism". World institutions and the motivations for state action are all in the name of preserving a status quo that benefits the "wealth, white, west" above the rest who are, of course, exploited. Often this leads some to buy into conspiracy theories like you mention.
I do not subscribe to that school of thought (although there are professors in our department who do). University does not make you stupid; university can make you blindly buy into different schools of thought if you fail to do the most important part: think!
Now of course, the training I get in this field will not help me with a leaking pipe or building cabinets for a home (let alone building the home). That doesn't mean it is not worthwhile. Academia has much to contribute to society, however, academics need to stop isolating themselves in their ivory towers and actually become more engaged with the public. I've heard professors sneer and mock public intellectuals as pseudo-academics but I think academia is a profession that must relate to both the public world and the academic world.
"To be serious, I'm of the opinion that at least 75% of the humanities departments should be shut down. They serve no purpose, they provide no intellectual nourishment ( ie critical thinking) and, to boot, many of the their graduates emerge with an inveterate hatred of their own culture and traditions."
While I agree that there are some rather useless programme areas in university (philosophy for example), I am not entirely sure I agree with your statement. It all depends on what you define "having a purpose" as. As someone who is majoring both in the social sciences (political science) and the humanities (history), I see that both have an important role to play and indeed contribute to each other. As for people "hating" their culture and traditions, I am of the belief that people have the right to accept or reject any culture or tradition they feel like. I will simply disagree with them passionately just as I will disagree with people who despise our political or economic systems and want to change those (I like both democracy and capitalism).
Finally:
""... some training with regards to how to think critical ..."
Someone could use some training on how to write English."
I apologize for the typo but your swipe at my intelligence is not appreciated.
My apologies. Sometimes it's a typo, other times it's simply bad grammar.
Regarding the humanities that are under discussion; some encourage genuine critical thought or debate, others seem to want the student to parrot the professor's line. Many years ago at the University of Toronto, an acquaintance of mine was studying for his masters degree in economics. One of his professors (supervisor perhaps) was Mel Watkins, well known for his Marxist views. This chap soon learned, he told me, that genuine questioning was not appreciated so he kept his head down and got his ticket punched as they say.
Well John, "top heavy" as opposed to 'bottom heavy' would certainly be MY preference...;)
I'm surprised the ladies don't cry "Fowl!"
Ouch, Dan.
John P... I thought you were an optician?
"Where is it written that a high school student should go directly into a University without having first worked, travelled a bit, done a hitch in the military, or other life enhancing experience(s)?"
Precisely. I think people have a lot more chance of developing true maturity in ways other than riding the kindergarten-to-grad-school conveyor belt without any intermediate stops.
Wasn't it Plato who said no one should be allowed to study philosophy before he is 30?
photoncourier.blogspot.com
An optician!
Geez, I'll soon be at the point where I'll need those large-print books!