The Purpose Of Higher Education

I am noticing a very strange attitude that people display in their interpretations of the purpose of higher education.  Specifically, they have established a weird little DICHOTOMY that has the contenders as Higher Education *versus* Working.

This would by necessity delve into the reasons whyyyy people pursue higher education.  Is it to secure their futures by training for complex jobs?  Or it is just to learn random stuff, factoids, tidbits??

[[[[sniff haughty disapproval
in the process of obtaining a college degree
That's so plebeian.     ((((VOICE MEMO look at))

With the tooootally astounding! shocking!, completely unexpected! end goal of actually getting a freakin' job.  (In place of the exclamation points, picture those old onomatopoeia interjections from the 1960s Batman TV show.)

mind-bending purpose of____

unforeseen
heretofore unseen end goal
of actually *getting* a job.]]]]]]

They think that concrete disciplines necessitate the characteristic of simplicity.  Like the skilled labor trades___

two different weird little [[[interpretations]]]]] that combine into a double whammy to make middlle class whites entirely unemployable.
[[two diff weird little [[subconscious that unintentionally repels them away from ,__ that attack from differne angles of their psyche, which converge to make them avoid liearning the skilled labor trades.
they think it is too gross and too much hard work; why suffer through that indignity if they don't have to;
and they think it is much too simple, and their bourgeoisie minds are far too valuable to waste on that plebeian trivia.
------
...Learn one of the skilled trades...
They think they are too good to work with their hands___  Eeeeeeeeewwwwyooooouuuuuu, touching a carburetor?  Gross.  Touching a patient?  Gross.
They think that they are above doing any physical labor.

On The Subject Of Student Loans- And A Realistic Solution

 About student loans and kids complaining that they racked up tens of thousands of dollars of student loans.  And now they can’t afford to pay back those loans.  What's really bad is when it is for an essentially useless major, such as communications, philosophy, marketing.

Here is what I don't get.  Why in the world would you pursue a useless liberal arts major like that in the first place?  Why would you actively seek student loans for something like that and make yourself horribly indebted?  Why would you create a bad entry on your credit history -- which will do nothing but increase your debt to the federal government?

Why would you screw up your credit history like that?  Reasons not to are Twofold:  1) it is a lot of money in debt for something that is frankly useless, and 2) you are never going to be able to pay that off.  You know why?  Because of reason number one -- it is a liberal arts degree.  It is not teaching you any marketable skills.  It is not increasing your employability.

Because... the economy.  The economy is always blamed as the scapegoat for the students' inability to pay back their student loans.  The news talking heads claim that in this economy it's just so haarddd to find a job.  So the recent college graduates have to accept jobs as grocery store cashiers and restaurant waiters and stuff.

The economy....  uh, no it really is not.  The economy has nothing to do with it.  What is causing your lack of being able to find a job and your lack of being able to pay back your student loans is-- your lack of employability.

They are not going to college to learn anything.  They are just going to drink and party and screw around.  So... you spent ten thousand dollars per year... to go on spring break.  To get drunk and party, to get pregnancy scares, to get date rpddd, to have an affair with the professor for a course you are failing.

Here is what I think is the best solution -- if you are going to be a liberal arts major.  You know what really would have prevented you from racking up student loan debt out the wazoo?

The best *preventative solution* is to take the first two years of college courses at a local community college.  General education courses are all introductory courses, those at the 100-level and 200-level.  They are pretty standard across the board from one college to another.

I see that an awful lot of middle-class white kids screech in stuck-up conceited disapproval at this proposal.  They think they are way too good for community college.  I have even seen in some articles that these kids are worried a community college will not offer the same level of intellectual rigor as that of a regular college.

The curriculum at one of these two-year colleges is every bit as good as that of a major university.  I know this for a fact because college courses at the one hundred and two hundred levels are transferable to most standard four-year colleges.  The community college courses have been evaluated for their course competencies.  The curriculum, syllabus, topics, and lesson plans have all been compared to those of four-year universities.  They have determined the standard equivalency exchange rate for general education courses.  This means they retain and maintain the same standards of general education as four-year colleges.

So, academic demand, rigor, standards.  Check.

Also, didn't we already establish that you do not know what your major is going to be?  Either that or you picked a fluff liberal arts major.  So why are you screeching and lambasting a community college education when you do not even know what you are getting an education for?

This is what kids should do, especially when they no idea what major they will choose.  Let's be honest; an awful lot of college kids do precisely that.

The Overhyped Middle Class

All over the news, you hear that the
Driving force for the economy__
The backbone of this country____

I was quite surprised by the way middle-class whites treat service workers.  Or the way the middle-class whites regard anyone else they consider beneath them.  They think they are too good to say "Hi" or make eye contact with a store cashier.  They think they are too good to look a post office clerk in the eye.  The middle-class whites think they are above the station of that of hourly wage workers.

Let me repeat the catch phrase once again for emphasis.  These are not "upper-class" people in the definition that most people think of:  money wise.  These people are staunchly middle-class, money wise.

Vegetarians- A First-World Affectation

I have stumbled upon a strange theory.  The peculiarity of refusing to eat meat is a distinctively white upper-middle-class phenomenon.  Declaring oneself a vegetarian is a status symbol.  In the western world, we have so much abundance of food that we have the luxury and privilege to turn down an offer of food.  Unless one is Hindu and must refuse to eat meat upon threat of eternal hellfire, there is no realistic reason to eat only foliage.

This is not when I first realized that vegetarians irritate me.  But it is when I shaped coherent opinions that dug a little deeper than "vegs suck."  This is my first foray into observing their behavior, studying motivations and social cues.

Let me ask you something.  Do you think starving people in third world countries are vegetarians?  If they are, do you honestly think they made the decision consciously on purpose to be vegetarian?  Nope.  They are vegetarian because they cannot afford to buy meat.

Do you think poor Appalachian white families are vegetarians?  Do you think poor lower-class black people living in government subsidized housing projects are vegetarians?  Do you think that anyone born into poverty in this country would ever choose to be vegetarian?

Vegetarianism is a distinctly first-world affectation.

Whether the proponents consciously are aware of this or not, this is a status symbol.  It is a way of signaling to others that, "we are living steeped in luxury and in the ability to be choosy.""  They have the privilege of being picky, finicky eaters.  There is so much food, that they don't have to worry about missing out on vital nutrition or sustenance.

"There is such an abundance and such a variety, that the exact thing I want will be in there somewhere.  I don't have to eat something I am not totally crazy about.  There is bountiful plenty.  So what if there is a bunch of food that might go to waste because people are not eating it?  I have a craving for a particular nibble, and if I act fastidious enough, it is bound to show up."

It is a sign that they are so comfortable and cushy, that they have the realistic option to turn _down_ an offer of food.  You think a brown-skinned anybody living in abject poverty in slums of a third-world country is a vegetarian?  By choice?  You think a poor white person living in a trailer park is a vegetarian?

I realized this because I have been taking Environmental Science this fall semester.  I think that the topic change from environmentalism to this realization about vegetarians should be obvious.  Come on, environment => salads.  The transition is natural and self-evident.

I walked into class the first day of the semester -- and saw that it was populated by all these middle-class white kids.  I could infer that the majority of the kids were there because they thought it would be an easy class.

My first question was, 'Hey, wait a minute, where are all the rednecks?'  My second reaction was, 'Oh good Lord, really?'  When I walked into class that first day, I almost had a stroke trying to keep my eyes from rolling.  It was pretty obvious they were mostly enrolled in this course because they thought it would be an easy A.  Like it would be comprised of a bunch of pot-smoking hippies sitting around wailing “save the rainforest” or something.

The class started with more than thirty kids enrolled.  Now it is past the halfway point of the semester, and almost two-thirds of students have dropped the course.  So as per usual, I was right.

Socioeconomic Classes, Or Is It Social -Or- Economic Classes?

I have to clarify a few things.  When I use the phrases "working class," "middle class," and "upper class," I do not mean what most people mean when they use these phrases.

To me, these distinctions have very little to do with money.  I make these demarcations along the basis of psychology.  There is quite a bit of background information that I am trying to convey when I utilize these descriptives.  A world of pathos and ethos are packed into those little innocuous words.

The social class differences are about behavior.  This is about how one conducts oneself in public, how one regards himself or herself, how one perceives others, how one interacts with others.  it is education and attitude that determine these designations, not money.

Perhaps this is a reflection of how I was raised.  My family instilled certain values and priorities in me.  I believe that education and cultural development, and contributing something useful and positive to the world, are far more important than only worrying about money.

Don't get me wrong.  Money is essential and always will be -- to a certain extent.  People have to be able to afford mortgages and bills.  People also have to be able to support their families.  But beyond the basic necessities, possession of extra money on top of that does not automatically qualify one as being "upper class."

I feel that this distinction should be reserved only for the truly worthy.  I truly feel that if people are to be placed in these categories, it should be in terms of education as well as degree of difficulty of their chosen profession.

Here is an example.  I very much regard teachers as being upper class.  Yes, I know teachers are some of the most overworked, underpaid employees around.  Anyone over age twelve that had ever picked up a newspaper is acutely aware of this distressing fact.

However, they are obviously highly educated.  That is the foremost job requirement!

They have devoted their lives to the quest for knowledge.  They are selflessly, tirelessly guiding and coaching the future generations, OUR future generations.  Teachers impart to their students the abilities of literacy, deductive reasoning,

They are ushering a new generation into adulthood by bestowing qualities of critical thinking and analytical abilities.

So perhaps they are not socio-<economic> class, as in "show me the bucks."  But most certainly in social class.  They are educated, they have morals, they uphold their values.  As opposed to actors and singers and pro athletes -- they all belong to the highest economic class in this country.  But that does that automatically mean they conduct themselves with dignity or self-respect.

One little note:  not all teachers are automatically what I regard as upper-class.  This distinction depends on the ability, skill, talent, and dedication of the teacher.  A crappy teacher that misses more than a month's worth of class days throughout the school year, due to "sick days" or whatever else, is pretty low.  A teacher that just mumbles passages out loud from the textbook, or does not go through step-by-step instructions for math courses, or just sits at the desk and read magazines while telling the kids to read the chapter and figure it out themselves, is pretty low.  But again, this depends on the ability, skill talent of the teacher.

Working Class White People Who Make Good Decisions

So where did my interpretation of social classes of white people originate?  I was reading one of my Mom's library books on psychosocial development.  Unlike a lot of psychology books out there, this one was useful.  Unlike a lot of books out there, this one was realistic.  It was not engorged with empty philosobabble.  It was filled with facts.

,,the working class white guy's adolescent days are a distant memory.

Whereas, the middle-class guy is *still* stuck in his adolescent days.  He went to a four-year college, majored in some sort of liberal arts, and then could not find a job.  And then he moved back in with his parents.  His parents cook all his food, do all his cleaning and laundry and clean up after him, and pay all his bills.

Upon reading that passage, I combed back through my mind ___

This was a revelation to me.  I am currently attending a two-year technical college myself.  I mentally scanned what I know of my many classmates.  ...And it dawned on me that this was all true.  This revelation hit me like a ton of asphalt.  This author guy was right.  I witnessed it in my everyday life.

Many of the technical college students are married.  They have their own households that they head as the responsible adult together with their wives or husbands.  They did not whine about student loans that parents pay for while simultaneously pursuing degrees in philosophy.
Far more responsible, far more grown up than the other.  Therefore, in many ways, the working class young man is leaps and bounds higher in class than the so-called middle class young man.

Social Classes, or a Study of the Difference Btw Upper Class Whites & Middle Class Whites

About my **consternation** upon learning that typical college life is not necessarily particularly enlightening.  College kids are Not ANY more mature, smarter, or more grown up than high school kids.  I was severely dismayed to learn this fact.

I first became aware of their existence way back in my freshman year of college, good ole Fall 1998.  I was actually very surprised to learn this unfortunate fact.
   
All my life, the TV and the teenage girls' magazines had been sermonizing that when students finally leave their comfy little cocoon of grade school and childhood, they will learn how the "real world" is.  You know how people say that when students go away to college, it opens their eyes?  It expands their horizons, broadens their viewpoints?  The college experience supposedly makes students aware of diversity, and/or of different cognitive processes, all of which are equally valuable and special in their own unique way?

Well, let me tell you something.  Attending a small private women's college mostly populated by white suburban middle-class kids certainly opened my eyes ---

It opened my eyes to just how <bland> and <uninspiring> people can be.

I absolutely do not mean to malign women's colleges in the grand concept.  Back in my senior year of high school, I had also been accepted into another college, one of the leading women's colleges in the nation.  That one kicked ass.  I loved the atmosphere there.  The current students, the potential students, the "prospects" as they called them, were all really friendly and wanted to get to know each other, probably because there was a good chance they would be classmen together.  The professors that I got to know were very nice and helpful.  Unfortunately, it was out-of-state, which meant that I could not qualify for state student loans.  And it was private and quite expensive, and my scholarships just did not cover it all. 

So I ended up attending an in-state women's college.  This college turned out to be very densely populated by cutesy cheerleaders that were all English majors.  The reps at this one did NOT present themselves that way when I had visited it back in high school.  So I had gone in with the impression and expectation that it would be a wonderful intellectual environment wherein the students would be serious about their coursework, where the students would challenge themselves with majors and with classes that tested their academic mettle.  I expected an atmosphere in which it would be exhilarating to learn from the professors.

Understand, I attended a mostly upper-middle-class-white high school, and it was an excellent environment in which to grow up.  These kids were extraordinary.  They were accomplished, they were intelligent, they were talented, they were motivated to succeed, they were enthusiastically preparing for their futures.

Re:  the college, I honestly did not go in with any sort of chip on my shoulder against white people.

Sometimes I hear people on TV or in books describe a kid as being "just an average kid."  Growing up, I truly had not been acquainted with such a specimen.  Believe me when I say this:  the high school I attended was leagues ahead in many categories compared to the inhabitants at the little women's lib-arts college.

I was flabbergasted at the stark contrast in atmosphere, in attitude and in general disposition, betwixt that of the high school from whence I graduated -- and the shockingly cold, apathetic, unconcerned-with-bettering-themselves-or-the-world, indifferent unfriendliness that ambushed me at the college.

It had descended upon me, lying in wait.

Whiny-ass, middle-class (emphasis on middle-class and not necessarily rich), pain-in-the-ass, racist, spoiled, pampered white kids.  **Let me emphasize that these were not "rich" girls.  They were distinctly, specifically middle class.  And yet they still acted conceited, stuck up, racist. 

Much to my shock, there were guys as well that were ____.  He is the equivalent of the ___ whiny, stuck-up, anal-retentive__ (biotch.)  I didn't think they existed.  But now I know.

--ths was quite a shock to me for many reasons.  I thought all us women were in this together.  I thought there was supposed to be a strong sense of camaraderie, a sisterhood that was supposed to unite us all in this fight for equality together.
---although it did introduce me to a hilarious little list titled, "Signs you were a child of the 80s."

The reason I thought college would be a wonderful enlightening experience is that I grew up in a New England college town.  It was a wonderful environment in which to grow up.
--grew up ensconced in the international graduate student society of Rhode Island.