"I am a dean’s list student, I am at the top of every class I take, and I am going into one of the best paid professions there is. What exactly do you think I have to prove? "
I will not speak for Rainjack but I will tell you my guys like me take issues with the statement you wrote above. You have not proven anything but the ability to go to school.
It’s great that you are in school. It’s very nice that you are pursuing an advanced degree. You shouldn’t assume nobody else has done it before you. You also shouldn’t assume that your education is complete by simply attending a university and pursuing a degree or advanced degree. When kids or young folks attempt to lecture men about things like school, work, marriage and families we take it with a grain of salt and a lot of doubt. We were all young and arrogant at one time. Experience tends to show you what you “don’t know”. That’s how people acquire wisdom. It replaces idealism and sometimes ignorance.
So it’s not that we belittle your education. It’s just that men who have families and work or run a business just can’t find value in being lectured by college kids. Dean’s list or not.
I’ll give you an example. When I got out of B-school I thought I knew all there was to know about the real world. Made about what you think you’ll earn my first year. What I found out is that I worked for men who earned 10X that amount. Some didn’t have an MBA. I didn’t know crap compared to them about business or life or cutting a deal. However, I listened and learned. But mainly I listened. I used about 5% of what I learned in B-School on the job and I went to a top B-school.
That’s what we all hope you do when we debate young guys on this board. Some are great, some are respectful. They get treated the same. Others want to tell us what we should do because they figured it all out by age 17 or 19 or 22…who knows. I find it ammusing that’s all.
I read posts about music, motorcycles, etc. on this board and learn something about them. I don’t add to them because I really don’t know a lot about them…and don’t pretend to. It’s kind of like young guys lecturing the old hands about married life and careers.
So don’t take this as an attack because it’s not. It’s an overly polite lecture. Do with it as you wish.
I am going to play soccer with the kids.
Rainjack, I know 9-15 is longer than most people’s university careers, but that’s just because most people don’t do PhDs. For a PhD, that is a completely reasonable length.
Hedo, I’m not an MBA. And the purpose of my BBA is not to allow me to run a business (although I hope to someday), or work for a corporation. It is to make it easier for me to get into a top school. What I will be doing in my career is very similar to what I do now: research. The only choice I have to make is whether it is for a university, or applied reseach with a consultancy firm. Either way, it’s not like going from an MBA to working, because of how similar it is to what I already do.
And I mention my success in school not to say that I am better than others, or that I am smart so everyone should listen to me. I mentioned it because rainjack suggested I have not proven myself, and I disagree. I prove myself on every evalution, and every research project I undertake.
Finally, I am not lecturing anyone on how to live their lives, or run their families. All I said is I am going to marry a woman who wants to work. Housekeeping can easily be contracted out, and child rearing (I feel) is best done by both parents. I am, admittedly, a bit old fashioned, and as such I think the man should be the primary bread-winner, and the woman the primary care-taker. However, I also feel that the man should be the secondary care-taker, and the woman the secondary bread-winner. If someone else doesn’t like that, they don’t have to do it. If a woman doesn’t agree with me, she doesn’t have to marry me.
Persuing education is fine. I think it is a noble effort, but it contributes nothing to society other than paying salaries for people like hspder. Those that have been to school and are now out in the Real World understand this. You have yet to arrive at that point in life where you realize that what you have been taught in school, and the knowledge required to make it in the real world are two totally different animals.
[/quote]
And I have to disagree with this point. In canadian graduate schools, you don’t pay anyone’s salary, they pay you. The top schools give full tuition waivers, and guarantee a minimum level of funding for their chosen applicants. The total amount in my field ranges from $20,000 to $35,000+ a year. Of course, this is for MSc and PhD programs. For MBAs in the same schools (in the same departments) the sudent has to pay the school $20,000+ each year. But they are totally different degrees, and MBA students contribute almost nothing to a school, while students doing research-based degrees are what makes a school.
Also, the contribution to society is enormous. The amount of new knowledge gerenated by graduate students is immense, and the skills and knowledge gathered provide an huge contribution to the workforce.
Why do women need to be protected? What about equal rights?
I think they should be able to fight front lines in the military to. Shit… register them for the draft. They can wear pants slogging through the jungle… But I digress.
CC companies do need reform and to be controlled. But its unlikely to happen. Its far easier for an individual to manage his money than count of laws or regulations to provide for him.
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
Why do women need to be protected? What about equal rights?[/quote]
I know you’re not serious, but in case somebody thinks you are…
Many studies say women are discriminated against in the business world by getting lower salaries a male counterpart would get for the same job; even if, hypothetically, there was a business reason behind it (they do tend to get really cranky for 5 days a month, plus they seem to get pregnant at the worst possible time, the sluts; shame on them for helping the process of sustaining the biggest plague this planet has ever known – and taking paid time off to do it!), the fact is: they do get lower salaries for the same work.
That, along with the fact that most of the time courts “give” the kids to their mother (along with the US$1 million bill it costs to raise a kid from start to finish these days, according to the latest studies), it’s easy to see that single mothers are clearly at a disadvantage here in relation to everybody else.
The other thing is that since the pro-birth movement is still the majority (vs the pro-choice one) people have to realize that if it’s so important for society to protect those poor kids from their evil murderous mothers, unless somebody’s willing to invest a lot of money on the obscene foster care system that this country has, well, you have to protect the evil mothers to protect the poor kids.
Now, you can argue that we have to start giving them equal obligations before giving them equal rights and/or it’s somehow “their fault” for getting lower salaries and having kids in the first place (don’t they have birth control pills these days?!?!), but I think you can guess what would be my answer if you did argue that.
You can permanently ban the credit-reporting agencies from releasing your credit-score info to anyone who wants to send you “pre-approved offers” or other such crap – you can also choose to do so only for 5 years.
Call 1-888-5-OPTOUT if you want to disallow the credit-reporting agencies from providing your info for unsolicited “pre-screened” or “pre-approved” offers for credit and insurance.
The number above is from a Federal Trade Commission fact-sheet on consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which you can view here:
Can you show some of these studies that show specific examples in firms of people who do comparable work, with comparable backgrounds, and statistically significant pay differences?
I’ve always been leary of these “studies”. Not to say that I don’t agree with some of these protections. It was just my shot at femi-nazis out there (no offense to any real Nazis).
The ones I don’t agree with are like “Women make 73 cents on the dollar that men do”. Thats crap. How do you come to that? When I estimate gas mileage I can come up with a seemingly correct statistical method that’ll say I drove 17000 miles when I drove 14000 miles. I just go through average gas prices, average gas mileage, varaibles and their effect on mileage… Regardless… I’m just tired of some of these outright retarded stats.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Also, the contribution to society is enormous. The amount of new knowledge gerenated by graduate students is immense, and the skills and knowledge gathered provide an huge contribution to the workforce.[/quote]
My you think highly of yourself, and your contributions, to have never done anything but get grades. You should teach college at Stanford.
Does this deistic view of your accomplishments carry over to the gym as well?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Also, the contribution to society is enormous. The amount of new knowledge gerenated by graduate students is immense, and the skills and knowledge gathered provide an huge contribution to the workforce.
My you think highly of yourself, and your contributions, to have never done anything but get grades. You should teach college at Stanford.
Does this deistic view of your accomplishments carry over to the gym as well?
[/quote]
You’re right, research is pointless and contributes nothing to society.
Just curious, have you noticed how much of the information distributed on this website comes from graduate student’s research?
There is a reason graduate students are often paid so well.
But then you seem to be missing the key point. Unlike an MBA, a MSc or a PhD (usually) requires a dissertation, in addition to other (often mandatory) research work. Christ, even an undergraduate honours degree requires original research to be done. This research is the contribution, the grades are what gives you the opportunity to make it.
First let?s get a few things straight. I am not a Republican, and I do think Bush could have done a hell of a lot better then what he has done. There are a lot of things I disagree with that he has done, and a lot of things he has done wrong.
But nobody on the left is willing to look at things logically, and wants to jump down Bush?s throat. This is nothing but politics. An attempt to destroy a person for the sole purpose of getting a Democrat into office.
This is wrong. And the real thing I am arguing against. If you get a cold, it is not Bush?s fault.[/quote]
And let’s get another thing straight - I am not a Democrat. This is not a partisan issue to me - I provided the deficit chart only to point out that the big spenders have typically been “conservative Republicans” - this administration in particular being the worst. Half of America voted against their own best interest based on talk - not fact.
[quote]The economy is a very dynamic thing, and while the president has some influence, so does ever single business in the world. Yes the world. Also energy prices, and if people are spending or not.
Also I thought Alan Greenspan was the big economy guy. He raised interest rates because he is worried the economy is improving too quickly.
And your chart is the federal deficit, not the economy. And everyone need to understand that this is information in a vacuum. It does not give the whole story, and in fact is designed to do just that. For example it only goes back to 78, so we are only looking at 2 democrat presidents, and 3 republican presidents. Nowhere in the chart does it define the make up of congress, for example after Clinton was in office for 2 years, the Republicans took over and put tax cuts, and spending limits, and that is when the deficits really dropped.
Also during the Regan years, his focus was Russia. It was in the process of falling already, but he pushed it up by a good decade or two which ended the cold war. Then the Bush numbers are obviously affected by the Wars in the Mid-East.[/quote]
United States National Debt
(1938 to Present)
“Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 33. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. The Democratic yearly average (that is the years Democrats were in the White House) was an increase of 8.3%. The years while the Republicans ran the White House, during this same period; the debt increased an average 9.3% per year.” http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Democratic Superiority, by the Numbers
"The average annual rise in real per capita income – that’s the statistic that puts money in your pocket. Democrats score about 30 percent higher.
Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 percent compared with 3.89 percent for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33 percent versus 6.38 percent). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html
Simply stated, voting Republican is not beneficial to the average Joe or Jane in this case - which was the point I was trying to make. This administration already had a glaring, one-sided connection with industry - that they put through this bankruptcy bill is no SURPRISE AT ALL.
Under Bush we have record deficits and a record trade gap - this directly impacts the average worker.
Bankruptcies hit a record in 2003 in a “booming” economy?
[quote]BTW, “W” owns all of this – history will remember Bush as the Pres during 9/11, the debacle in Iraq, highest deficit, worst job record, lowest approval rating of a second term pres, worst record on terrorism (YES, terrorism - the one thing everyone thought he was doing best) - it’s all his baby.
Yes, like history remembers FDR was Pres during Pearl Harbor, or how Lincoln spit the country into two.
And you do know Bush did not lose jobs, but actually had a net gain. They quit reporting it when it turned positive.[/quote]
Big whoop - it’s still the WORST recession recovery since the Great Depression - and wages haven’t even kept up with inflation - down an avg. of 3%
Real wages: two years of losses
This for one:
Bush Administration Eliminating 19-year-old International Terrorism Report
By Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Friday 15 April 2005
Washington - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government’s top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/041605A.shtml
And Richard Clarke has stated on the record many times that this administration was fully briefed early on about terrorist threats that they decided to not take seriously.
[quote]Anyway I see a slowdown, but not the doom and gloom you are attempting to portray. If Kerry had won you would be raving about the booming economy right now.
You see only a “slowdown” because you largely dismissed any negative news as a scheming liberal attack on Bush and not as a serious warning. It reminds me of the woman who said she watches FOX News because on FOX, we’re winning the war in Iraq.
No I know it is only a slowdown because I expected it with the high oil prices, and if they stay up, it will hurt the economy more. I knew this for a long time. I actually watch the economy.
And yes that woman is stupid for thinking we were wining the war in Iraq… OH wait, we did win. Iraq is on our side now, and it is foreigners attacking Iraq right now. Why the hell is FOX News repeatedly brought up? Is it because they are not the politically correct liberal media that attacks anything conservative? (Seen every single report on how bad the new pope is?)[/quote]
We won nothing in Iraq and have nothing under control there - a six mile taxi ride from the Baghdad airport in an armored taxi costs $30,000 one-way. We don’t even have control of the main highway much less the country - and all for only $300 billion. How do you actually measure success?
I don’t understand this one - my point WAS that Bush was always industry friendly.
You really need to look at where the manufacturing jobs are heading. The unemployment numbers do not include people who have lost their jobs and are no longer receiving benefits. Those job numbers don’t show you the people who lost their $60,000 a year job only to have to take a job for $20,000.
Yes, we have so many jobs it doesn’t matter if they all go overseas… puulease.
JTF,
How about you find a study that attributes the for the current year for that of two years past. (IE Bush would get credit for 2002-2010) Since most economists agree it takes atleast 18 months for legislation to have ANY effect let alone the desired one. In some cases it takes 36 months for the effects desired to manifest.
Its a bullshit study when you don’t take into account any other factors.
