Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

he gone

1121315171820

Comments

  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 6,011

    dtd said:

    I see all these new posts about Junior Adams and I’m relieved to see that it’s just hot talk on the value of a college degree.


    Oh no - wait... Oregon hired him? Well. Fuck. Why would we(?) want him(?)



    My two thoughts:
    1. A college degree is definitely worth it. Even if we forego all the non-tangible benefits of college and just use the raw averages readily available - with the hypothetical $100k of debt, it’s worth it. Unless you plan on living under ~12 years after graduation. Save your outlier examples, we do averages like civilized people.

    2. Some of Lanning’s hires don’t make sense. But after Scott Frost all of Oregon’s WR coaches have been shitty, he’s the sixth one since 2016, so it might not matter. If he’s shitty like the rest have been at least its another notch on Oregon’s dicking-of-other-Pac-12-schools belt and a step up from hiring away Leach’s assistants.

    1. Just not true, not today. Using averages from 2 decades ago when people made money writing for newspapers makes no sense. The cash me ousside girl made a million in a weekend showing her meth boobs. Trade schools make way more sense for the vast majority of people.

    2. Memphis of the West
    1. Your observational data aligns with teachers telling kids to learn how to add fractions or they’ll end up as plumbers digging in toilets - but fail to mention that the plumbers make twice as much money as them. However the data I’m referring to is new and shows that based on earnings just two years after graduation 76% of BA/BS degree holders are earning enough to where ten years after graduation they should have recouped their investment.
    This doesn’t take into account the higher employment rates, health insurance rates, and the rates of not being in poverty. The study is from 2020/21 and didn’t take the rocketing inflation into consideration.
    The 24% of those who don’t recoup in ten years should still come out ahead in the long run and the numbers are skewed by more expensive private and for profit institutions. The obvious majors are the ones with poor return: religious studies, anthropology, film, etc.

    It’s still true, maybe not as obvious as in the past, but go to a state school and get a degree that isn’t 100% fluff and you’re going to be better off than most people without one.

    2. I wish, Memphis had some monster offensive numbers. This feels more like an amalgamation of a watered down, poor man’s Saban/Kirby recruiting wins system, with a strong Jim Mora flavor Jr and Todd Graham aftertaste.
    *sigh

    Re: data

    Yes, let's normalize our inherently non-normal data for kurtosis and skew. The overwhelming majority of wealth made that drives up the averages is made by less than 5% of graduate earners.

    Odds are those guys were going to be successful anyways so it's opportunity cost as I mentioned.

    Use the mode instead of the mean.



    Now reverse the process for non-graduates to adjust for people that college would have never benefited anyways.

    Aka you can't fix stupid.

    We haven't even talked about market projection and demographics out over tim.

    TLDR YMMV and correlation ain't causation.
    I have come around to agreeing with this view, overcoming a huge emotional bias on my part in the process. But at today's prices it's hard to justify for at least 50% of the college-attending population.

    There is too much money in financial aid right now that draws too many people into the game. Then again, you don't want it to be a rich man's game either. There is a rough cut people use to describe what it used to be and what it is now by referencing Harvard: 50 years ago Harvard was 75% rich kids of varying degrees of intelligence (see the Kennedys) and 25% brilliant kids. Today, it's flipped, and even Harvard admissions references the "happy bottom 25%", meaning wealthy and hooked kids who will graduate in the bottom 25% and be happy just to have the degree as a social credential.

    I often wonder if we need to go back to that. Let the rich have their spots because in the end they pay for everything, but make sure there is a mechanism to find and develop talent coming from various socio-economic backgrounds. There are too many "middle bell curve" kids spending money - the government's or their parent's - going to college and barely getting anything out of it.

    The thing that makes this topic difficult is the same thing that makes most topics difficult: subtlety. There are soft reasons for getting an education that goes beyond ROI. There's the experience of it and the other things that are harder to pinpoint. If you go to school with smart kids, that will rub off too. There's little question that it can make you better all around even if you're not that gifted to begin with. But at what cost?

    There are legions of kids going to college on mom & dad's dime who are entirely checking the box. I mean, check the fucking box and are barely more intellectually developed than when they got there. Education can be a great thing but you have to actually get one and you have to make it so that it is economically feasible. I myself don't care about the 4-year ROI measure. I play the the long game. But you can't be saddled with six-figure debt for a bachelor's degree.

    College is also preferable for middle-class mating.

    Lastly, the environment of college is considered inherently pleasurable by many people.

    I think most of us enjoyed the middle-class mating, but let’s not bash the lower-class banging that direct-to-workforce teens partake in.

    Being around a bunch of 18-24ish year olds who are living away from their parents for the first time is an education in social development and teaches you important life skills. You don’t have to go to a four year university to get them all, but it’s an unspoken part of the package. Most middle-class American 18 year olds are sheltered, naive, and don’t understand shit about how the world works - college is like the real world, but with training wheels and re-dos.
    Not sure how everyone gets an A…here is your safe space…mom, dad, and the govt foot the bill for you to eat, drink, and be merry without putting any real work in…just sign some papers and somebody will pay it back later…is anything like the real world, although some think they can print their way into changing the world into that…but that’s a topic for the tug.
  • ntxduck
    ntxduck Member Posts: 6,232

    dtd said:

    I see all these new posts about Junior Adams and I’m relieved to see that it’s just hot talk on the value of a college degree.


    Oh no - wait... Oregon hired him? Well. Fuck. Why would we(?) want him(?)



    My two thoughts:
    1. A college degree is definitely worth it. Even if we forego all the non-tangible benefits of college and just use the raw averages readily available - with the hypothetical $100k of debt, it’s worth it. Unless you plan on living under ~12 years after graduation. Save your outlier examples, we do averages like civilized people.

    2. Some of Lanning’s hires don’t make sense. But after Scott Frost all of Oregon’s WR coaches have been shitty, he’s the sixth one since 2016, so it might not matter. If he’s shitty like the rest have been at least its another notch on Oregon’s dicking-of-other-Pac-12-schools belt and a step up from hiring away Leach’s assistants.

    1. Just not true, not today. Using averages from 2 decades ago when people made money writing for newspapers makes no sense. The cash me ousside girl made a million in a weekend showing her meth boobs. Trade schools make way more sense for the vast majority of people.

    2. Memphis of the West
    1. Your observational data aligns with teachers telling kids to learn how to add fractions or they’ll end up as plumbers digging in toilets - but fail to mention that the plumbers make twice as much money as them. However the data I’m referring to is new and shows that based on earnings just two years after graduation 76% of BA/BS degree holders are earning enough to where ten years after graduation they should have recouped their investment.
    This doesn’t take into account the higher employment rates, health insurance rates, and the rates of not being in poverty. The study is from 2020/21 and didn’t take the rocketing inflation into consideration.
    The 24% of those who don’t recoup in ten years should still come out ahead in the long run and the numbers are skewed by more expensive private and for profit institutions. The obvious majors are the ones with poor return: religious studies, anthropology, film, etc.

    It’s still true, maybe not as obvious as in the past, but go to a state school and get a degree that isn’t 100% fluff and you’re going to be better off than most people without one.

    2. I wish, Memphis had some monster offensive numbers. This feels more like an amalgamation of a watered down, poor man’s Saban/Kirby recruiting wins system, with a strong Jim Mora flavor Jr and Todd Graham aftertaste.
    *sigh

    Re: data

    Yes, let's normalize our inherently non-normal data for kurtosis and skew. The overwhelming majority of wealth made that drives up the averages is made by less than 5% of graduate earners.

    Odds are those guys were going to be successful anyways so it's opportunity cost as I mentioned.

    Use the mode instead of the mean.



    Now reverse the process for non-graduates to adjust for people that college would have never benefited anyways.

    Aka you can't fix stupid.

    We haven't even talked about market projection and demographics out over tim.

    TLDR YMMV and correlation ain't causation.
    I have come around to agreeing with this view, overcoming a huge emotional bias on my part in the process. But at today's prices it's hard to justify for at least 50% of the college-attending population.

    There is too much money in financial aid right now that draws too many people into the game. Then again, you don't want it to be a rich man's game either. There is a rough cut people use to describe what it used to be and what it is now by referencing Harvard: 50 years ago Harvard was 75% rich kids of varying degrees of intelligence (see the Kennedys) and 25% brilliant kids. Today, it's flipped, and even Harvard admissions references the "happy bottom 25%", meaning wealthy and hooked kids who will graduate in the bottom 25% and be happy just to have the degree as a social credential.

    I often wonder if we need to go back to that. Let the rich have their spots because in the end they pay for everything, but make sure there is a mechanism to find and develop talent coming from various socio-economic backgrounds. There are too many "middle bell curve" kids spending money - the government's or their parent's - going to college and barely getting anything out of it.

    The thing that makes this topic difficult is the same thing that makes most topics difficult: subtlety. There are soft reasons for getting an education that goes beyond ROI. There's the experience of it and the other things that are harder to pinpoint. If you go to school with smart kids, that will rub off too. There's little question that it can make you better all around even if you're not that gifted to begin with. But at what cost?

    There are legions of kids going to college on mom & dad's dime who are entirely checking the box. I mean, check the fucking box and are barely more intellectually developed than when they got there. Education can be a great thing but you have to actually get one and you have to make it so that it is economically feasible. I myself don't care about the 4-year ROI measure. I play the the long game. But you can't be saddled with six-figure debt for a bachelor's degree.

    College is also preferable for middle-class mating.

    Lastly, the environment of college is considered inherently pleasurable by many people.

    I think most of us enjoyed the middle-class mating, but let’s not bash the lower-class banging that direct-to-workforce teens partake in.

    Being around a bunch of 18-24ish year olds who are living away from their parents for the first time is an education in social development and teaches you important life skills. You don’t have to go to a four year university to get them all, but it’s an unspoken part of the package. Most middle-class American 18 year olds are sheltered, naive, and don’t understand shit about how the world works - college is like the real world, but with training wheels and re-dos.
    Not sure how everyone gets an A…here is your safe space…mom, dad, and the govt foot the bill for you to eat, drink, and be merry without putting any real work in…just sign some papers and somebody will pay it back later…is anything like the real world, although some think they can print their way into changing the world into that…but that’s a topic for the tug.
    Lol. Jesus christ
  • BleachedAnusDawg
    BleachedAnusDawg Member Posts: 13,741 Standard Supporter




    Just in case anyone was wondering, this guy is taking the coaching change in a very calm and reasoned manner
    Is there a fan more racist than SubK?
    Has anyone met him in real life? I will assume anyone who has was only a visitor at the mental institution.
  • LawDawg1
    LawDawg1 Member Posts: 3,945




    Just in case anyone was wondering, this guy is taking the coaching change in a very calm and reasoned manner
    Is there a fan more racist than SubK?
    Has anyone met him in real life? I will assume anyone who has was only a visitor at the mental institution.
    I think we have a few residents here.
  • FireCohen
    FireCohen Member Posts: 21,823




    Just in case anyone was wondering, this guy is taking the coaching change in a very calm and reasoned manner
    Is there a fan more racist than SubK?
    Yes, but he is the most suicidal/racist. He takes the cake for that category
  • HFNY
    HFNY Member Posts: 5,515
    The trades are great and so are the people who work in the them. Many of them went into the military after HS. Plumbers, basement flood mitigation, electricians, welders, flooring guys, carpenters, concrete / pavers etc etc. Apprentice and have no debt with the potential to start their own company by age 30.

    One of the larger educational mistakes the USA made was, when Teachers Unions became greedier and more powerful, they took money / space away from the shop class teachers (and phys ed) to give it to themselves. That coincided with the SJW push of the last 20-25 years. So people like the Garfield Teacher who tried to do a Citizens Arrest on the WA State Legislature a decade ago and then wrote in the Seattle Times in 2020 that we need to defund the SPD by 50% get much more visibility while many of the kids he allegedly wants to help get the shaft because they aren't introduced to shop classes in HS. It's totally screwed up and unjust / unethical.

    Most people aren't suited to code and coders invariably need someone to help them with their houses. Certain identity warriors talk about how there aren't enough CEOs who look like them but what about not enough tradespeople who look like them? They need to be the change they would like to see. It's so FS.

    As for Junior Adams, Husky Football now has the chance to hire a better, more well-rounded coach. DeBoer better have the resources to do whatever it takes to upgrade the position because it is a vital part of DeBoer's offense vs. Jimmy Fake's 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense.