The how does anything exist thread

[deleted_user0]

Damn i think legend broke his personal record of how many correct conclusions drawn on one page in a thread.

[deleted_user0]

Thats an invalid comparison, sorry mate.

[benj89]

I'll might fully answer to your previous argument later no time atm (it's wrong on so many point especially since 2008 and even before, but as said it's also a matter of perspective and what you want/value in life).
Quickly, yes before a worker (implying physical job, do you want to do a physical all your life?) used to have between 20-35$ an hour + supp hours increased after the 41th hour + retirement pension after 15 years of contribution etc. However those type of job are harder and harder to find after the crisis, and now those so called small jobs which doesn't required qualification by degrees are jobs with service paid by "catapult" (hard to translate from french), basically without insurance, no following in medical treatments etc, so basically impossible to access from the middle class -->' Inequalities keep raising (it should be a major theme in the next presidential election).
but in your example, the employer obviously take the 60% of overall college student who already had internship (=experience) by their senior year (it's more around 95% for good schools).
It also depend which type of job, the more the job requires intellectual skills, knowledge, responsibility (=higher pay), the more the college degree will have value, as simple as that. Do you want to be a medical secretary, a plomber, a bricklayer, someone with no responsibility, very few opportunities of progression within your job?
I'm not saying it's impossible with no college degree, it will be 10x harder, and most of the time not even possible.
To make it simple, look at the Pyramid of Malsow, and check the job you listed, the job you can obtain with a college degree or more, that's it.
all big companies (or any job which imply a sense of stability and durability and possibility of progression within you field) won't even look at your resume if you don't have a college degree.
Of course, if the job is plomber, the high school student with experience will be taken, but for the huge majority of jobs which require intellectual competencies it's not the case.
In france, how much time did I heard "damn it's fkin unfair, I know how to do programing I worked 2 years in this company I know everything about the job, and the ignorant who comes out from this good school was taken instead of me" -->' yeah, welcome to the real world

* most of this is pure generalization, a consultant for Mckinsey can be fired the next day from a bad decision he took, but you have to think for employment as an economist would, using big picture to give you a realistic idea

[oxaloacetate]

^This.

+1

even with proper degrees, the amount one learns "on the job" is WAAAY more effective rather than the theoretical stuff.....

That largely depends on what you do for a living, Id say..

Electricians, sure. Doctors? Nah. Maybe Im too biased being in the line of work aforementioned, but I often observe a lack of theoretical knowledge causing potentially (and previously) non-exisiting issues.

So Id rather stick with youmeyou in da reel woorld.

[Metis]

Plz show me a utube vid that proves the importans of biologeee in da reel world

Where do you think that medicine comes from? How do you think farmers can now produce enough food to feed over seven billion people, even though the number of farmers is declining? Why aren't condors, black footed ferrets, bison, Canada geese and many other species not extinct? Why are there still forests and prairies in the West. It's all biology, dude.

[benj89]

I was talking about United states for the middle class thing, not france (even if it's comparable).
I never said there was any shame doing a physical job/low responsibility/neither working in a stable, please re-read my message and you will get the idea. your readings are wayy to selective, you are making this topic a place where everyone show his small point of view which doesn't lead to any reasonable conclusion. (you could say I just say this because you don't agree with me if at least you didn't select what you can/want to argue about).
I trust you on the facts you are stating I haven't done in real time research on that, but the issue isn't there and it still doesn't make it the most reasonable option, that's an evidence. As I said, if you are happy being a plomber/working in a stable go for it thats great, I just wouldn't recommend it if you want what I already stated 10 times probably.
I won't even respond to the "gaining enough experience and contacts to start your own business" thing, that's again so wrong if you see the issue it implies as a generalization

[benj89]

https://www.aacu.org/press/press-releas ... entsurveys
is this your link (that wasn't fully given, I had to google it)
Where do you see that employers don't require college degrees?
I stated it already (if only you read), especially in france more than in the US, barely ANY student from top school has done more than 1 internship before the job, and what's needed in the job has most of the time nothing to do with what was taught in college, but how does that even relate to your false point that employers don't require college degree? If anything, your link that I read quickly (yeah, I have stuff to do), shows that a liberal education is privileged, which is why us schools required it since many years now. (I mean seriously, just look at the website haha, "association of american colleges and universities")
For the job you listed, I already answered

[theunknownuniverse]

The Big bang solves how, not why the universe is here. Science cannot answer the why question, just the how.

Anyone who rejects the big bang is like someone who rejects evolution' its generally because of lack of exposure or just plain ignorance.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... n-nothing/

The big bang is a very interesting theory' here''s what I get so far to be the evidence behind it (please excuse my grammar, apologies in advance).

Scientists have seen through their countless pictures of the stars in the same area over a period of many years, that everything they can see is moving out from one point. The parts farthest from that point seem to be moving faster away from the point than the ones closest to the point. Kind of like this raisins in a bread demonstrates.

[img]http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/ContentMedia/990404s.gif[/img]

That point that we have just discussed as the center is our own milky way galaxy. The person who made observation of the galaxies moving away from us was Edwin Hubble. But keep in mind that he made this observation way back in 1929 without use of today''s modern technology (although our modern technology has confirmed his initial discovery).

[img style="max-width:100%'" src="http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/ContentMedia/990044b.gif" alt=""]



There is also evidence from the composition of the elements of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. In addition, evidence from cosmic background radiation supports the big bang.

If you want to continue reading the evidence on your own, here is the source.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html


From my point of view now, I think it''s pretty much a given that all of the materials in our observable view (that''s the key part, observable view) are originating out from one point. I doubt though that the milky way is the center of the universe and instead think that galaxies have a tendency to move away from each other (unless they get too close). This explains why galaxies are so far apart from another and moving away from another.

I also think our point of view and limited technology and limited knowledge makes a huge difference. I mean there might be tons of systems of galaxies moving out from one point but from our vantage point, we can only see one. So we think whatever we see, is the only thing that exists.

WHERE ARE WE KNOW?

As we speak as a human race we have shifted our efforts away from trying to look out to find the answers. Instead, we are putting more effort now on looking within. This documentary has a few flaws but overall it makes quantum physics very easy to understand so I chose it.

[video src="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkIvp71P1c"][/video]

If it doesn''t play, here is the link to copy paste. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkIvp71P1c

[Metis]

According the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the higher degree of education you have the more money you will likely make and the less likely you are to be unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

[benj89]

that's what he doesn't understand and I stopped trying to explain, see the big picture/ use your reason.
What you advance lack of rationality, you must be 40+ years old to be that disconnected (no issue with that, but am I wrong?)
And still, if you like women studies or religion, if you aren't retarded and got decent/good grades in HS, go to a liberal art college with full schoalrship (it's REALLY not hard, or at least 70%), then go to those schools like the Divinity school at Harvard for free as a phd student (or the similar ones, I'm just mentioning the most famous) which is 100 times easier to get in than it's other school, and you will have huge amount of opportunities. So even for those so called useless major, you are able to make somthing ouf of it if you are smart.
Now my question is, would you advise your son, who is relatively smart (let's say don't have incapacities and can pass pre calculus), ambitious, wants comfort later, want to have an education (no, I don't believe in self teaching for the majority of the people, because it simply doesn't work), to stop after high school? and go for the jobs you listed above, because he will have a decent salary, but all the inconvenient I already listed?
If yes, then I'm done with this conversation. If no, we were clearly not talking about the same kind of people
To your previous post, to cultivate your intellectuality you need opportunities, you need to cultivate your curiosity, which is also why college is important, and you miss the point, it's simply because unless you consider entrepreneur (I let you check the stats about entrepreneurship), the doors are closed in our world for most of the high paid jobs without a college degree

[benj89]

Did I say I look down at those type of jobs? I'm one of those who defend the french quote "there is no under jobs". I'm saying, someone who has the potential to do something more intellectually stimulating than plumber or garbageman, that would be wrong to aim him towards those jobs, but you seem to have had difficulties with college in your past, so I won't enter in your intimacy asking for more. And you are the first person who manage to select and interpret what he wants from someone's argument to this extend. have you thought abt a politician career ?
* i guess you aren't a millennial and most likely in your 40s, which confirm my previous thought

[Mr. Pecksniff]

I have already discussed that in the Welfare thread.

Second of all correlation isn''t causation. "A second way in which the high rate of return may be wrong is that it incorrectly credits education with higher earnings when they really may be due to something else. Natural intellectual ability is perhaps the most important alternative explanation for the higher earn?ings of those who graduate from college. The argument is that students with high intellectual ability will tend to stay in school longer and earn more later in life. But the higher earnings are not necessarily due to additional formal schooling' they are due to the student??s innate intellectual ability." And when you note that half of jobs held by college graduates don''t require a college degree at all, including a third that don''t require a highschool diploma, this is fairly possible.

If this was true, it wouldn''t matter what people did after high school' spending a few years in industry would be just as much of a waste of time as studying in college.

[deleted_user0]

Plz show me a utube vid that proves the importans of biologeee in da reel world

Where do you think that?medicine?comes from??How do you think farmers can now produce enough food to feed over seven billion people, even though the number of farmers is declining? Why aren''t?condors, black footed ferrets, bison,?Canada geese and many other species not extinct? Why are there still forests and prairies?in the West.??It''s all biology, dude.

If u cawnt prove it with a utube vid its not reel... Duuhhh (facepalmu)

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Why hire someone with a university degree when you can hire someone who dropped out of high school?

Say youre looking for an employee and you have a choice of two people. One is a highschool dropout but has spent the last four or five years working in the industry, gaining valuable experience, with numerous accomplishments and at least a couple employers vouching for his skill and trustworthiness. The second person is a new college graduate with no experience or accomplishments and has spent much of the last four or five years learning about social justice and Ches leadership qualities. Who do you pick?

Obviously I would pick the first one. Then, when his job becomes automated, I would fire him and leave him with a set of truly useless skills, and hire the second one for a different role instead.

My question to you is, why dont you think industrial experience and hard skills wont deteriorate in value like a college degree once a large number of people have them? And what makes you think they provide people with more earnings potential and job security, particularly when the facts indicate otherwise?

Most people clearly dont think its worth giving up college to become a plumber. They prefer to spend four entire years together with thousands of dollars to pursue a degree which you call useless. How can you be convinced that this is bad, unless you genuinely lack faith in the ability of the market to deliver efficient outcomes?

[Mr. Pecksniff]

If this was true, it wouldnt matter what people did after high school' spending a few years in industry would be just as much of a waste of time as studying in college.

Why?

Because correlation does not equal causation in this case, and success is entirely a factor of a persons intelligence. We should just leave people to do what they want to do, since whether they succeed or fail isnt going to depend on they choices they make after finishing high school.

Or have I completely misread your position?

[deleted_user0]

If u cawnt prove it with a utube vid its not reel... Duuhhh (facepalmu)

I want to know what accent youre trying to imitate.

Naww brav dis is nah immertatiyawwnnn
Ya dawnt awndastAnd, hataaaarr

[deleted_user0]

Say youre looking for an employee and you have a choice of two people. One is a highschool dropout but has spent the last four or five years working in the industry, gaining valuable experience, with numerous accomplishments and at least a couple employers vouching for his skill and trustworthiness. The second person is a new college graduate with no experience or accomplishments and has spent much of the last four or five years learning about social justice and Ches leadership qualities. Who do you pick?

Obviously I would pick the first one. Then, when his job becomes automated, I would fire him and leave him with a set of truly useless skills, and hire the second one for a different role instead.

My question to you is, why dont you think industrial experience and hard skills wont deteriorate in value like a college degree once a large number of people have them? And what makes you think they provide people with more earnings potential and job security, particularly when the facts indicate otherwise?

Most people clearly dont think its worth giving up college to become a plumber. They prefer to spend four entire years together with thousands of dollars to pursue a degree which you call useless. How can you be convinced that this is bad, unless you genuinely lack faith in the ability of the market to deliver efficient outcomes?

Obviously you pick the first one, but he just compared the best (or a good) version of the highschool drop out to the worst (or bad) version of a college student.

What if this guy shows up with his phd, shows his paper with good marks, recommedations from teachers with years of experience and knowledge, as well as a cv which include various study-related internships, again with recommedations, and this guy shows in the interview not only that he has the knowledge base, but also has the intelligence to pick up on the job fast, the choice becomes alot harder. And the question is do you want a hard amd good worker or do you want someone who might potentially take over your company when you retire.

[divine_moon]

+1

even with proper degrees, the amount one learns "on the job" is WAAAY more effective rather than the theoretical stuff.....

That largely depends on what you do for a living, Id say..

Electricians, sure. Doctors? Nah. Maybe Im too biased being in the line of work aforementioned, but I often observe a lack of theoretical knowledge causing potentially (and previously) non-exisiting issues.

So Id rather stick with youmeyou in da reel woorld.

do give us an example of a pickle uve gotten yourself into P-)

[Metis]

A good background in theory usually helps. Sure, someone with only an interest and some practical experience can oftentimes come up with a solution to a problem but having the underlying education usually means that the solution will come more quickly and efficiently. Would you rather be operated on by someone who has observed a few surgeries and tinkered around a few hours cutting up cadavers or by a board certified surgeon who has a four-year degree in biology, a four-year degree in medicine, and five years of residency?

The same thing goes for things like automotive repair. I once had the misfortune of having to have a head gasket replaced by a local mechanic because the next shop was fifty miles away. He spent four months dicking around, ordering the wrong parts, breaking things and having to order those parts and then charged me three times what he quoted. Six months later his half-assed job failed so I took the truck to a dealer whose ASE and Toyota-certified repairman took three hours to do the proper job.


Speaking of "correlation isn't causation," this statement has been thrown out far too many times by people who really have little idea how statistical analysis works. Correlation is a valid statistical method and is one tool that is used by scientists in assessing whether there is a causal relationship among variables. However, when a scientific report suggests a causal relationship they are not basing their findings on just this one test.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

There are no facts that indicate otherwise, I have already proved that. And yes everything is theoretically subject to the laws of supply and demand but you''d have a better chance getting hired if you were as skilled as the other guy than you would if you spent the last four years avoiding triggering language at Berkeley while the other guy was gaining work experience.

What exactly do you think you have proven? You''ve swung towards the extreme view that education cannot influence future earnings, even though there aren''t any studies that support this.

Most people voted for Obama. You think everyone is a financial genius?

Nobody has to be a financial genius. Unless the flow of information is incredibly distorted, there''s no reason why people can''t be expected to make good decisions for themselves. There are certainly examples of graduates who would''ve been better off not going to college, but if this was a reaction that most people experienced, then we wouldn''t be seeing an increasing number of young people investing enormous sums of time and money into their education.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Mr. Pecksniff]

>dislikes hollande
>supports obama

To be fair though, Obama would be right-wing if he was running in a country like France.

[deleted_user0]

Obviously you pick the first one, but he just compared the best (or a good) version of the highschool drop out to the worst (or bad) version of a college student.

What if this guy shows up with his phd, shows his paper with good marks, recommedations from teachers with years of experience and knowledge, as well as a cv which include various study-related internships, again with recommedations, and this guy shows in the interview not only that he has the knowledge base, but also has the intelligence to pick up on the job fast, the choice becomes alot harder. And the question is do you want a hard amd good worker or do you want someone who might potentially take over your company when you retire.

If you are actually that smart and accomplished you most likely will succeed even without any college education.

Id say theyre both smart, its just different sorts of intelligence and skillset. Both are needed.

[Metis]

People here seem to have an idea that a college education entails four years of Latin, philosophy and interpretative dance and that being a plumber requires no education whatever. This tells me that most of you have neither been to college nor have any professional certifications. I have done both.

A four-year degree doesn't just entail classes in Latin, philosophy and interpretative dance. Most degree programs give you the theoretical background needed so that you won't be totally lost when doing that much daunted OJT. Try to go get a job at Intel as an electrical engineer and just learn it via OJT without four years of mathematics, physics, electrical and circuit theory and see how far you get.

Also, many here seem to think that jobs like plumbing require no education. In order to be certified as a journeyman plumber you usually will need to attend 250 classroom hours and perform 2000 supervised hands-on experience hours a year for four to five years then pass a certification exam before you can be licensed by the state.

I've not been through a plumbing course but I have a professional certification and state license in emergency medicine so can tell you what it entails. Regardless of the fact that I was an Army medic who had served for six years, to become a Mobile Intensive Care Technician I first had to be become certified as an EMT, which entails a five-credit-hour college lab course and state practical certification, and then work full-time as an EMT for a year. Only then could I be admitted into the two-year AAS course in mobile intensive care technology. In addition to the college coursework in anatomy, physiology and medicine, I also had to work a year of rotations at a hospital and then 6-months supervised OJT as a paramedic before I could sit for two days of state medical board written and practical tests to become licensed. After that I had to take 30 contact hours of recertification courses every year.

[deleted_user0]

Id say theyre both smart, its just different sorts of intelligence and skillset. Both are needed.

Glad you finally agree.

I never disagreed with you on this. In fact ive been agreeing with half of what you say for a few pages now