Rachel Canning

Originally posted by no1marauder
You, typically, have the facts wrong.

She either A) Was thrown out of her parent's house shortly after her 18th birthday or B) Left it.

She moved in with a fellow student's (a girl) and her parents.

I wouldn't go around calling teenage girls "sluts" based on such little information. Is it your assertion tha ...[text shortened]... is type of gutter name calling. Even the people on an internet forum should be better than that.

Yes yes - you, the high-minded one. That might carry a bit more weight if you yourself hadn't stooped so low on so many occasions.

Originally posted by normbenign
How about young adults paying for their own education by working?

If college students have time to work, a better option is to shorten the duration of the curriculum and/or expand it.

Originally posted by normbenign
The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the government are all about the same. Some unknown person will pay. And how long will it be before the same attitude to free public K-12 becomes prevalent in the free college era?

I don't understand your objection. In Finland you get paid to go to college and the system works fine.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

In my first year of law school, students were prohibited from being employed even part-time except at the school. I don't know if such policies are still in effect (it was 25 years ago) but it certainly made it more difficult for those relatively few students who's family wasn't paying the bill (naturally it was routinely ignored).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If college students have time to work, a better option is to shorten the duration of the curriculum and/or expand it.

I went to a community college around the late '80s, took a full load of classes while running my business which took about 60 hours a week, in the fall and spring, I coached cross country and track as well. And I walked uphill to school, in both directions as a teenager. People can do a lot more than they think they can, or they recognize as their capabilities. The easiest thing in the world to do is make excuses.

People have little respect for things they perceive as 'free'.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't understand your objection. In Finland you get paid to go to college and the system works fine.

My college years were in my mid to late forties. In every class there were a few other adults. These adults paying their way, always outperformed the kids whose parents were paying. Forgive the always, and replace with almost always. There were a few motivated kids who didn't waste their parent's money.

I am first suspect of any it works in ________ argument. First, I disagree that every student ought to go to college, worse yet that he gets paid to go. Following that logic, the jocks ought to be the top students. They get the full ride scholarships, and the under the table money from boosters.

In the US, we produce way more college graduates than there are jobs to employ them. A lot of undergraduate degrees are simply worthless, and an apprenticeship in a trade would be far more useful.

The problem in the US, not Finland, is that the more aid is given, tuition costs always escalate faster. The universities and staff, absorb the aid money, grants etc. faster than they can increase, with the end result that students who used to be able to work their way through college now end up with 6 figure debt. Worse yet, a majority of undergraduate classes are taught by post grad students or other assistants instead of professors who are too busy doing research.

What does Finland do with the product of free or better than free education? Should they pay kids to go to school K-12? Are post graduate studies also salaried?

The system works fine, just tells me it hasn't yet reached the point where its folly is demonstrated.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That may be true, however where I attended, every credit was transferable to U of M, and in some cases I was ahead of U of M standards of curriculum, as testified to by an instructor who taught in both places.

In my first two accounting classes, only about a half dozen passed the class out of more than 40 who started. After two semesters we were half a textbook ahead of where U of M accounting students were. The community college admits everyone, but doesn't guarantee they succeed. Often the selective institutions have dropped all pretences of objectivity, and grade inflation is rampant.

Originally posted by normbenign
My college years were in my mid to late forties. In every class there were a few other adults. These adults paying their way, always outperformed the kids whose parents were paying. Forgive the always, and replace with almost always. There were a few motivated kids who didn't waste their parent's money.

I am first suspect of any it works in _______ ...[text shortened]... ystem works fine, just tells me it hasn't yet reached the point where its folly is demonstrated.

First, I disagree that every student ought to go to college, worse yet that he gets paid to go. Following that logic, the jocks ought to be the top students.

No, following that logic, the jocks don't get any preference over non-jocks. And people who don't want to go to college, or don't pass the entry criteria, don't go and do something else.

The problem in the US, not Finland, is that the more aid is given, tuition costs always escalate faster.

Of course, an easy solution for escalating tuition costs is to not ask tuition in public colleges. This will automatically put pressure on private institutions to reduce tuition fees, especially since the US has many excellent public and semi-public institutions.

Are post graduate studies also salaried?

Yes.

Originally posted by normbenign
These adults paying their way, always outperformed the kids whose parents were paying. Forgive the always, and replace with almost always. There were a few motivated kids who didn't waste their parent's money.

But how do you know that kids that pay their way will perform better than kids that don't? Or do you think people should be forced to become adults before getting an education?
What you have observed is that adults who sought out education are more motivated than the average kid. I don't think this is because they had to pay for their education, I think it is because:
1. They have enough life experience to realise the importance of education.
2. They are the motivated subset of adults that actually chose to get further education.
3. It is their choice to be educated not that of their parents.
4. They are older and generally more mature about their work ethic.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Absent a tooth fairy or Santa to do it, yes, obviously. Who else?

Society benefits from an educated populace and people benefit from getting education. It's a win-win situation.

I will try again to get an answer. You say that society should pay for the girl but not her parents? Don't her parents owe her more than society or do we ignore the fact that her parents are a part of society and will be forced to pay for it in some regard anyway?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If college students have time to work, a better option is to shorten the duration of the curriculum and/or expand it.

My daughter is a maths teacher she has three degrees,whilst at uni my wife took on a night job to help her out,my daughter had a day job in a café most days and worked in a blues bar Friday and Saturday night plus her student loan its not a given in the UK,if you are working class you have to work to get anywhere,the world dosent owe u jack.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Chinese students are known for being culturally accustomed to cheating and bribery. Asian families are also known to be intolerant of academic mediocrity. That's probably why he targeted Asians.