511–520 of 531 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that definition, isn't every military a socialist entity?
That's the point, isn't it? The US right holds the contradictory opinions that socialized government can't accomplish anything effective, and that the US military (which is fundamentally a socialized entity) is amazing and awesome and supremely capable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're going to really need that military when China, when we make degrees in underwater basketweaving free for everyone and China (which has a sensible approach to what education is and is not valuable) overtakes us economically and technologically.
Sure. Those invisible fighter jets that don't work were a great investment. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/ The US military is a publicly funded socialist entity. Interesting how that's ok for war but not for education.
[0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/13/uncle-sam-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. Those invisible fighter jets that don't work were a great investment. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/ The US military is a publicly funded socialist entity. Interesting how that's ok for war but not for education.
The U.S. military accepts something like 20% of its walk-in recruits. [0] When you imagine education as a "socialized entity," I strongly suspect you're not picturing an institution that rejects 80% of the population (for reasons like, say, being too fat). [0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/13/uncle-sam-d...
But also, to your point, colleges would still reject students based on grades. This happens in countries with free college education. Standards are still maintained but it doesn't depend on how much money you have. We would get the best candidates based on merit instead of their parents income.
Off topic, but I love how WSJ let's you through without a subscription as long as your referer header is set to Facebook.
how do you change the header?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. You have misread me. That language evolves is a common used argument (and there is a place for it) but often used as a catch-all argument to justify errors.
But in this case alumni is in common use in that way and has been for some time. You yourself acknowledged that by starting your comment with "Unfortunately, common or not".
I dispute that. Googling doesn't turn up many examples of official usage of alumni in the singular.
I also disagree with your second claim, which is a projection. When I said "common or not", I meant that frequency in itself does not automatically make something correct, and I gave reasons why in a follow-up comment. I didn't claim that usage was common.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but alumni really is plural. Using alumni as singular is not correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The U.S. military accepts something like 20% of its walk-in recruits. [0] When you imagine education as a "socialized entity," I strongly suspect you're not picturing an institution that rejects 80% of the population (for reasons like, say, being too fat). [0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/13/uncle-sam-d...
I don't think you understand. It's a thing we all pay for. It's a publicly funded service that defends the country. It's not about who gets in, it's about how it's paid for. We all pay together for something that is not explicitly for profit that we believe to be for the good of the country. This is socialism. But also, to your point, colleges would still reject students based on grades. This happens in countries wit…
When Stanford rejects you, you try a state school; when the state school rejects you, you go to one of the state's less prestigious satellite campuses. If they reject you (which is extremely unlikely), you go to community college.
Federal aid is available at each strata.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you understand. It's a thing we all pay for. It's a publicly funded service that defends the country. It's not about who gets in, it's about how it's paid for. We all pay together for something that is not explicitly for profit that we believe to be for the good of the country. This is socialism. But also, to your point, colleges would still reject students based on grades. This happens in countries wit…
On the contrary, I don't think you understand how college admissions work. When you're rejected by the military, there's no second- or third-tier back-up plan. But anybody who wants to go to college can go to college and they can get it paid for, no matter how unproductive or frivolous their major. When Stanford rejects you, you try a state school; when the state school rejects you, you go to one of the state's less…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banking and tech aren't guaranteed the way medicine is. Other fields are result based, and it's often easy to get fired and be replaced. A risk averse person would rather stick to what they know (student life, exams) for a guaranteed reward. The debt isn't really that much. Probably the average is 200k. You can pay that off within about 1-2 years of residency, and interest rates tend to be low since they're low risk…
> The debt isn't really that much. Probably the average is 200k. You can pay that off within about 1-2 years of residency, and interest rates tend to be low since they're low risk loans for banks to give out. Please try looking at the numbers again. Assuming you pay off undergraduate loans, a private medical school will cost $30-45k a year (not including living costs, so tack on another $30k a year), so assuming ($15…
The big downside of medicine is the time in my opinion. 7 years of prime time, but some of the med students I know are enjoying it. A former classmate said it's less work than undergrad.
Is anyone not going to med school because of debt? Not sure what problems this solves. For the long commitment that doctors make and the debt they take on, they receive basically guaranteed highly paying employment for as long as they wish. There's also a shortage of medical school spots, we can't create enough doctors. I think this is probably an attempt to compete with other medical schools for top students. NYU is…
We can't create enough doctors because medical school is prohibitively expensive. Universal healthcare and universal higher education go hand in hand.
More people want to go to medical school than there are spots open. If you create more spots, you get more doctors. Cost is not a barrier to medical school, loans for this profession are very easy to obtain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't create enough doctors because medical school is prohibitively expensive. Universal healthcare and universal higher education go hand in hand.
Wow, you are so confident saying this when you are wrong. More people want to go to medical school than there are spots open. If you create more spots, you get more doctors. Cost is not a barrier to medical school, loans for this profession are very easy to obtain.
Though that's not what I was addressing. I was addressing the criticism of universal healthcare that we'll somehow run out of doctors. The issue is it costs money for a school to run a med school. Making the government pay for it enables more med schools to be built.