I’ve noticed socially that my friends and myself that went to college are much more able to fit in with any type of person better than my friends that stayed home and worked. It does help immensely to get out of your comfort level and have to make new friends.
@RoadDawg55 that's a fair point. The intangible value of socialization and particularly in new environments helps, particularly jobs that require more people-person skills. I guess I take that somewhat for granted and the intellectual curiosity that I furthered during college that permits me to be a more well-rounded citizen and human. Plus, it makes me more chinteresting at cocktail parties!
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.
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
TLDR YMMV and correlation ain't causation.
I don’t brew anything beyond cold brew coffee. I fiddled with beer for a while. It was an interesting concept, at the time I used to drink and appreciate it, and I’m always of the notion that I can do something better than almost everyone else if I try. My beer was actually pretty good despite me humbly underselling it, but I didn’t have the passion or interest to pursue the hobby any further. Instead, I got into playing tennis. Worse for the knees, but much better for the liver.
I’m sharing this so you don’t have to feel bad about the lack of correlation between your username and the results that it yields.
I’ll give you credit for attempting to mention the hidden variables any data like this will entail. The people who get college degrees were already likelier to have higher incomes based on their socio-economic background, intelligence, ambition, primary education, desire to seek full employment, opportunity, regional differences, and a variety of other factors that are so numerous it would make creating two sets of data to compare nearly impossible.
I’ll also add that I agree that too many people are going to college, the return on a degree has declined, some degrees are not worth the opportunity cost - all these obvious things that college grads want to crown themselves as champions of the proletariat for agreeing with. As if it costs their diploma prestige points that they’re valiantly sacrificing.
I could (don’t worry, I won’t) explain the various statistics that show I’m right. We could look at the opportunity costs associated with not attending college or required of getting a blue collar job with a comparable income to a mid level bachelors degree, the time value of money, social costs such as the likelihood of marrying someone with similar educational status and the resulting doubling of what you perceive to be a small income gap, financial literacy the likelier physical toll of a blue collar job and the effect on life expectancy or healthcare costs - and many more boring things.
I never took Brevity 121, it wasn’t a required pre-req, so I suppressed my desire to explain even more. Like a Trading Places Duke Brothers style experiment I had in mind, or using Plinko as a visual example of the doors that become closed to those who don’t pursue higher education. Maybe the status quo will change in the next 20 years and you’ll be right. It’s very possible - just ask any Nebraska, Washington, or Virginia Tech fan.
I didn't read this, but are you taking the gloves off?
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
TLDR YMMV and correlation ain't causation.
I don’t brew anything beyond cold brew coffee. I fiddled with beer for a while. It was an interesting concept, at the time I used to drink and appreciate it, and I’m always of the notion that I can do something better than almost everyone else if I try. My beer was actually pretty good despite me humbly underselling it, but I didn’t have the passion or interest to pursue the hobby any further. Instead, I got into playing tennis. Worse for the knees, but much better for the liver.
I’m sharing this so you don’t have to feel bad about the lack of correlation between your username and the results that it yields.
I’ll give you credit for attempting to mention the hidden variables any data like this will entail. The people who get college degrees were already likelier to have higher incomes based on their socio-economic background, intelligence, ambition, primary education, desire to seek full employment, opportunity, regional differences, and a variety of other factors that are so numerous it would make creating two sets of data to compare nearly impossible.
I’ll also add that I agree that too many people are going to college, the return on a degree has declined, some degrees are not worth the opportunity cost - all these obvious things that college grads want to crown themselves as champions of the proletariat for agreeing with. As if it costs their diploma prestige points that they’re valiantly sacrificing.
I could (don’t worry, I won’t) explain the various statistics that show I’m right. We could look at the opportunity costs associated with not attending college or required of getting a blue collar job with a comparable income to a mid level bachelors degree, the time value of money, social costs such as the likelihood of marrying someone with similar educational status and the resulting doubling of what you perceive to be a small income gap, financial literacy the likelier physical toll of a blue collar job and the effect on life expectancy or healthcare costs - and many more boring things.
I never took Brevity 121, it wasn’t a required pre-req, so I suppressed my desire to explain even more. Like a Trading Places Duke Brothers style experiment I had in mind, or using Plinko as a visual example of the doors that become closed to those who don’t pursue higher education. Maybe the status quo will change in the next 20 years and you’ll be right. It’s very possible - just ask any Nebraska, Washington, or Virginia Tech fan.
I didn't read this, but are you taking the gloves off?
This is dumb. Tomlin literally promoted Klemm last year. If he thought he sucked, he would have shown him the door.
They have the worst OL in the NFL this season and he didn't do anything to stop him when he left. He probably knew he was on the way out.
More pertinently - where do they rank in the Mountain West?
I’m not very familiar with the NFL, maybe you can help.
* Who is this Mike Tomlin that has employed Klemm for the last three years? Is he considered a good coach? Has he won any Grey Cups or Ryder Trophys? At least a Lady Bing or a Calder?
* What criteria determines the worst OL in the NFL? I’m a bit confused, every statistic I could find that could be relevant doesn’t show me. I’ll take your word for it - I’m assuming that young, handsome potato that plays quarterback for them must be the saving grace.
* A closer look shows the Pittsburg Eaglers are starting three guys on the offensive line who have the word ROOK by their name, is that a chess reference? Like, they’re solid end pieces? That seems very bad then if they have three Rooks yet they’re still allowing the Queen (the handsome QB potato) to be sacked more often than 11 of the 31 other teams. The potato is 39 years old, I’m guessing he’s been able to use his wiles to avoid getting sacked even more often. It’s also troubling that there are five teams worse at getting rushing yards, although last season it was zero teams. I’ll chalk that up to adding the running back who averages 4.0 yards per carry.
* I’ve heard that the best offensive lines value first half play and the second half is for try hards. That must mean the Pitts are extra bad, six of their eight wins have been fourth quarter comebacks. If they were better they wouldn’t need to have all those fourth quarter come backs.
Further research shows that Adrian Klemm is a girl name, which is even worse than a child’s name like Junior Adams. Klemm received a show-cause penalty, which means improprieties occurred in recruiting. As an Oregon fan I am dismayed at the prospect of using unfair advantages to entice young men to receive degrees in journalism. I have recently read that this dooms them to a future of abject poverty.
Comments
College, we talking about College!?!!
I’ve noticed socially that my friends and myself that went to college are much more able to fit in with any type of person better than my friends that stayed home and worked. It does help immensely to get out of your comfort level and have to make new friends.
@RoadDawg55 that's a fair point. The intangible value of socialization and particularly in new environments helps, particularly jobs that require more people-person skills. I guess I take that somewhat for granted and the intellectual curiosity that I furthered during college that permits me to be a more well-rounded citizen and human. Plus, it makes me more chinteresting at cocktail parties!
расскажи мне о кроликах, Юрий!
I’m not very familiar with the NFL, maybe you can help.
* Who is this Mike Tomlin that has employed Klemm for the last three years? Is he considered a good coach? Has he won any Grey Cups or Ryder Trophys? At least a Lady Bing or a Calder?
* What criteria determines the worst OL in the NFL? I’m a bit confused, every statistic I could find that could be relevant doesn’t show me. I’ll take your word for it - I’m assuming that young, handsome potato that plays quarterback for them must be the saving grace.
* A closer look shows the Pittsburg Eaglers are starting three guys on the offensive line who have the word ROOK by their name, is that a chess reference? Like, they’re solid end pieces? That seems very bad then if they have three Rooks yet they’re still allowing the Queen (the handsome QB potato) to be sacked more often than 11 of the 31 other teams. The potato is 39 years old, I’m guessing he’s been able to use his wiles to avoid getting sacked even more often. It’s also troubling that there are five teams worse at getting rushing yards, although last season it was zero teams. I’ll chalk that up to adding the running back who averages 4.0 yards per carry.
* I’ve heard that the best offensive lines value first half play and the second half is for try hards. That must mean the Pitts are extra bad, six of their eight wins have been fourth quarter comebacks. If they were better they wouldn’t need to have all those fourth quarter come backs.
Further research shows that Adrian Klemm is a girl name, which is even worse than a child’s name like Junior Adams. Klemm received a show-cause penalty, which means improprieties occurred in recruiting. As an Oregon fan I am dismayed at the prospect of using unfair advantages to entice young men to receive degrees in journalism. I have recently read that this dooms them to a future of abject poverty.