MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS SAY COLLEGES ARE BAD FOR AMERICA (YES, REALLY)

Bingo!

 

I studied sculptural metalworking.

The metalworking has has been useful, the sculpture has not. I wish I would've gone to a trade school.

 

Republicans are for education, but not indoctrination.

I'm glad that I was able to clear that up for ya!

 

A few degrees are worth it like engineering and medicine. Otherwise trade schools are a far better investment, statistically speaking.

 

Mad Max gets embarrased asking big banks about Student Loans....when she and her ilk were the ones that took over the business nearly a decade ago

 

That is utterly, ridiculously, patently false.

 

I doubt you know what a proper name is but alas that is education. A congressional person doesn't control the Dept. of Education the president appoints a leader and that leader is Betsy Devos..

 

Built? Or engineered? Engineers don't build things. Trust me, I wouldn't know how to build a bridge or pipeline or anything like that. I sure know how to engineer a pipeline though, some pretty good ones. But if you gave me a welding machine and a back hoe and some pipe, I would be a rank amateur.

Yep.

While yes, engineer's CAN design things, it's not their primary job. In fact, most design has already been done and engineers aren't tasked with innovating design, rather they are tasked with minimizing cost while meeting specifications. That's not really design. Design is basic stuff and when engineers do it, it's usually done by entry level or low level staff engineers in addition the actual engineering work.

Nope, not with design. If an engineer solved a problem with design, they wouldn't be called engineers.

It's you that's partially correct. Not all Engineers can stamp things. Not all are licensed for various reasons. While a non-licensed engineer may or may not oversee a technician/designer's work, it doesn't mean the engineer can be legally accountable for the design unless they have the credentials which is the PE license. Otherwise, the company they work for is liable or an engineer in that company that has the PE. The "design team" as it's referred to that was all female were NOT the ones stamping the final design as already shown above.

You mean my anecdotal comment isn't applicable to real life bridge engineering applications? Huh, crazy, and here I thought it was. You are overstating yourself. A block bridge has all the fundamentals required and if you build it outside, you sure can have all those things you listed especially when the 8 year olds bring their match box cars and push way to hard on the bridge in all forms. Again, all of this is taught in basic college level statics and dynamics classes, but the foundations can be easily represented as a block bridge model. It often is in basic elementary school and middle school classes for good reason. I wasn't trying to offend anyone who builds, designs, or engineers bridges, I was merely pointing out that the fundamentals of bridge design are not beyond the reach of women. And you can use many simple analogies for any other type of design, buildings and pipelines and whatnot. And I gladly would.

Yep.

Nope, it's sure not. How do I know it's not? Simple business practices. Often times, an engineering firm that engineer's, designs, and stamps the final drawing isn't still employed or under contract during the following construction. This can happen for many reasons. Also, no, engineers don't dictate how to construct anything. If I do that, then I'M also the construction contractor and can be held liable for those costs and any other fallout. Engineer's MAY indicate when to do that, but the construction contractor isn't obligated to follow it unless the person employing them, the same person employing the engineering firm, enforces it. Some engineering firms may TRY to enforce that and depending on the contract structure they may have that responsibility or authority, but that's not a given or obligation that comes with being an engineer. Your job ends at the engineering unless you agreed to do more per a contract.

 

You don't from a bank anymore becasue the Feds took over the business. Banks don't give out student loans anymore. Before the feds took it over you got better interest rates, deferred payments, etc...you can't get taht from a private bank anymore because the feds took over the student loan business.

A student can get a loan from a bank, but they can't defer that loan, and pay regular interest rates....

 

Says you with no support. Go on, provide the usual right wing talking points that can be shot down with simple, first grade logic. Start with college admissions please, that's my favorite. Then we can move on to jobs if you like.

 

Yes, I'm very pro-college.

 

So Congress didn't pass the law making the the Dept of Ed the run the student laon business?

I'm not sure what the point of your post is...it has nothing to do with the fact Mad Max was trying to deflect from the issue, or was too stupid to remember she voted for a law, along with her entire group of Dems, to have the feds take over the student loan business

 

The United States Department of Education (ED or DoED), also referred to as the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. It began operating on May 4, 1980, having been created after the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services by the Department of Education Organization Act, which President Jimmy Carter signed into law on October 17, 1979.

 

I was one of its first recipients with a 1,000 dollar loan at 2% interest payable on a quarterly annual payment plan.

 

There's this.

Here's another perfect example.

Here's another.

.

 

Ok....what's your point? I know what it is...and Mad Max, her Dem friends, and Obama made ti also the place were people go get Student Loans....not banks....so why was she recently bashing the banks on the issue? Did she forget she voted for the law?

 

Here is an example of someone who doesn’t understand the student loan process.

 

Not quite sure why you'd need to borrow just a grand....regardless....now the interest rate are between 4.5% up to over 7%.

 

What did I miss out on in the post 2010 world?

 

FYI, I did computer science for b.s. and m.s., I was the minority.

 

I agree it shouldn't be that way.

 

Most colleges are harmful that are taking a hard political socialist stance and then brainwashing students to follow that particular ideology. This while not only stifling conservative views but actually advocating or turning a blind eye to bullying tactics used by liberal students against others stripping them of their rights to free speech.

In other words there are NO healthy debates anymore. Either follow the administration's far left socialist ideology or be bullied and ostracised for speaking out which could also effect their grades from professors having it in for them.

 

First stop listening to people like Betsy DeVos

US Government has always backed the loans. ALWAYS. That never changed. Before 2010 they were issued as guaranteed loans. So private banks did lend at government dictated rates. If the student defaulted taxpayers still paid and the banks even got some extra money. Truly a sweet deal for the banks. That’s why it was always called Private in name only.

In 1993 is the first appearance of direct loans cutting out the banks.

In 2010 we finally cut out the sweet deal for the banks.

Student loans have always been a federal program. It’s not free market if the government is guaranteeing the loan.

There is data to show that the taxpayer was losing .20 cents on the dollar in the guarantees program. See there was no incentive for the bank to collect. Direct lost about .13 cents on the dollar. With that in mind the change in 2010 wasn’t the failure as you claimed.

 

Could you post credible evidence of this widespread policy?

 

So I couldn't read your WSJ link as I don't have a subscription so I can't comment either way on it.

And you ALMOST made a point with your firefighter example. Though what you failed to provide is the detail which is where the devil lies.

Turns out she passed the physical exam, but in 22 minutes instead of 17 and a half minutes. Whether or not that time is absolutely critical I can't say, but those who can say decided it was offset by her academic performance. So they made a judgement call on a candidate which spoiler alert, happens all the time in job hiring situations.

Case in point, my director doesn't have a 4 year college degree which is a requirement for this position, but they bent that requirement based on his experience in the industry. Of course he's a white male, so are you equally outraged at this lowering of standards to be more white and male? Probably not. So...you almost made a point today! Good work!