BSN programs and liberal arts: IHE article

[Wahoo Redux]

Education is one of the linchpins.  Always has been.  Sometimes, for some individuals, it IS the linchpin.

Education only matters to the extent that it gives someone sufficient competitive advantage to be able to get the necessary resources in a given situation.

Uh, yeah.  As I said, sometimes education is the linchpin. 

When resources are mostly allocated according to family status, personal connections with the powerful people, or other characteristics that aren't substantially within one's personal control, then individual education in the formal-go-to-school-as-a-mandatory-minimum doesn't matter.

A little more care with rhetoric would help. 

I disagree.  Most of the world lacks family status or personal connections to powerful people.  This is another reason that education, among other factors, can be a linchpin.

You know that this is exactly what Marty Nemko argues?   You should really check out the depth of his intellect.

The school system that currently provides an education-like experience has only existed for about a hundred years.  Any claims of (formal) education always being key ignores nearly all of human history and indeed even much of the world right now.

What the hell are you on about? 

The 20th and 21st centuries are radically different from all of human history.  This is when we live.  Who cares what (formal) education meant in the 17th century or whenever!?

Much of the world is radically different from the Western / Industrialized world.  Unless you are somewhere radically different than where I imagined, you work and philosophize in the Western / Industrialized world.

And in the 21st century Western / Industrialized world education is often----not always, but often----key.  Your own posts regarding the technological future we all face bolsters this.

Are just venting?  Is there any point to these forums?

Individual stories, including mine, are not arguments for the value of mass education for everyone.  Few of the people who graduated high school with me have the kind of life I do.  Almost none of my friends from college have the life I do.  In fact, most of them here in middle age have jobs that don't require a college degree or are teachers, nurses, or scientists/engineers.

Okay.  Your story is still an argument for the value of mass education, whether or not you believe it.

When did I or anyone ever debate the value of mass education anyway?

Lacking literacy or numeracy at an eighth grade level is a big problem, but more formal education, unless it is specialized enough to be a competitive advantage compared to similar people, is not necessarily anything more opportunity and other costs that will not be recouped.

Nope.  We've looked at this already.  That's absolutely wrong.  Degrees make a big difference in all sorts of ways.

And again, please maybe do a quick edit.

Tell us again about your jobs as an adult other than faculty jobs.

Um...why?

I ran across https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-07-24 today and it seems really relevant here.  "No panacea, but vote Democrat" as a blanket prescription is asserting we should try unreasonable scenarios instead of dealing with reality.

Nothing unreasonable about voting Democrat, particularly when the current administration is taken into consideration. 

Voting Dem is dealing with reality.

The Dems always support education.

You seem to be having a little temper tantrum, Polly.  I don't get you.

[kaysixteen]

Age discrimination is awful, and I know for certain I have suffered from it in recent years-- back in 2017, for instance, over the course of three months I had two separate job interviews for positions teaching Latin at a couple of Christian schools, of all places, where in each case the interviewer (boss), men 8-15 years older than myself, asked me variations of this question 'given your age, how would you convince parents that you could relate to their kids?'.   I did not get offered either job, needless to say.  But what can be done about it?  It is already illegal, but impossible to prove, so impossible to enforce.

I get that moving may well be one of the three possible solutions to not being able to get work where you are at now, but moving is just not an option for a lot of people in this situation, for exactly the reasons I mentioned.  It is almost impossible for a 50+ man (or woman, for that matter), to just up and decide to leave everything that they know, all their friends and family, support network, etc., to go to previously unknown locale x, in a vague hope that work would be available for them there.  If one does make that step, exactly what is supposed to happen when/ if that person fails to get remunerative employment in that new locale?  And, of course, this is indeed all moot, if the would-be relocator lacks the financial wherewithal to make the move in the first place.

Now it may well be a good idea to decide we've no choice going forward but to place large numbers of these aging and not particularly employable people onto some sort of quasi-permanent UBI.  Certainly it is unambiguously true that our 3d world-style social 'safety net' needs wholesale revision and substantial improvement.   But it is also true, as stated upthread, that many of these  same sorts of people are stunningly well-propagandized into refusing to support such actions, and supporting GOP politicians who are their worst nightmare, economically.  What to do about this is also highly problematic.

[Wahoo Redux]

I get that moving may well be one of the three possible solutions to not being able to get work where you are at now, but moving is just not an option for a lot of people in this situation, for exactly the reasons I mentioned.  It is almost impossible for a 50+ man (or woman, for that matter), to just up and decide to leave everything that they know, all their friends and family, support network, etc., to go to previously unknown locale x, in a vague hope that work would be available for them there.  If one does make that step, exactly what is supposed to happen when/ if that person fails to get remunerative employment in that new locale?  And, of course, this is indeed all moot, if the would-be relocator lacks the financial wherewithal to make the move in the first place.

Indeed Kay, this scenario is terrible and true for many.

Unfortunately the world is not always willing to accommodate our conveniences and limitations.  Sometimes we just don't have a choice.

My wife and I are in the preliminary steps of drawing up contingency plans and potential employment alternatives; we're gauging where we could go (Chinese, Turkish and Arab Emirate schools have hired people we know) or how we can market ourselves and what new skills we would need to change careers.  The alternatives are a little bleak on that front, especially if we have to start all over again.  We're giving ourselves a year or so just in case the bottom falls out.  Our present situation is actually pretty solid at the moment, but one never knows.

You are right in your objections---I'm just not sure these are circumstances one can raise objections against.

[mamselle]

Maybe the objections do require acknowledgement and workarounds, but I'm guessing the underlying issue is the more cavalier tone of, "Well, you can just...." in those making the suggestions.

Some of us may be obligate sessile polyps with fewer options than others...that suggests a need for more empathy and a little less breaziness in the dismissal of difficulties to be faced (I don't mean you, WR).

M.

[Wahoo Redux]

Maybe the objections do require acknowledgement and workarounds, but I'm guessing the underlying issue is the more cavalier tone of, "Well, you can just...." in those making the suggestions.

Some of us may be obligate sessile polyps with fewer options than others...that suggests a need for more empathy and a little less breaziness in the dismissal of difficulties to be faced (I don't mean you, WR).

M.

I totally dig.

[apl68]

One of the silver linings of covid is that it's made some people reconsider whether they really want to live in a big city, especially if their work can be done largely virtually.  The longer we have to go until a vaccine, the more significant this trend may become.

The environmentally and economically optimum population density is really quite high. Some cities are above it, so there are some examples of going too far. But wise urbanization is good for the environment as well as meeting many people preferences.

Infrastructure is a lot cheaper at high density. There is a reason internet is bad in rural areas. District heating is super-efficient for northern cities where there is enough demand within a mile or two of the heating plant.

Transportation, if planned well, is shorter and mass transit is effective. Rural people (I am one) waste an enormous amount of resources driving to work, the store, entertainment. School districts spend an enormous amount of money on busing (~$20/student/day) and waste an hour to an hour and a half of each child's day. Vast area are paved over and maintained to store cars.

True points. However, certain primary industries (agriculture, forestry, mining) require space, so there will always be part of the population working in rural areas, and probably living there. Also, technology has made the cost premium due to lower population density much lower than it has been in the past for several things. Covid has made this apparent, with many people working remotely, and things like telemedicine allowing doctors to consult with patients remotely.

Furthermore, cities tend to have very big income disparities; the bigger the city, the wider the range between the poorest and richest neighborhoods. Rural communities tend to be much more homogeneous. And, as covid has shown, all of that centralized infrastructure means that things like natural disasters can paralyze cities by knocking out services relied on by everyone. And again, as covid has shown, an epidemic in high population density areas is devastating. (The same would go for water contamination, chemical spills, etc.)

Summary: urbanizing as much of the population as possible is not the best solution any more than moving everyone to the suburbs (or the country).

To that I'd add that arguments that prioritize efficiency above all else are the cause of a great deal of the job loss and upheaval that posters have spent so much time talking about on this thread.  Modern society's prioritizing of economic efficiency is a big part of why so many can no longer find decent work, many urban areas are badly overgrown, and our environment is in a big mess.  That kind of thinking, divorced from other considerations of what best serves human needs in the long term, is one of the great banes of our world.

[dismalist]

Let's be careful about damning efficiency. We surely don't want to be inefficient! Those galleons required lots of manpower and were completely adequate for ocean transport! And those washing machines are what saves women from walking around stooped over. Churns for making the butter, anyone?

The environment has likely not been cleaner since the time before trees were burnt for fuel. As for CO₂, we can always go nuclear. :-)

[Hibush]

Re de-ruralization thread within a thread.

Rural areas where much of the land base is dedicated to agriculture don't actually have that many people directly involved in agriculture. Typical numbers would be in the 5-10% range (including farmers and ag-support businesses.) If 80% of the people in these communities were to move into cities (think small or medium cities in the region), the agricultural function of the are would continue as well or better. Why make a big, expensive effort to keep people there who don't want to be there?

The efficiencies that obtain with having a city of 10,000 or more include being able to have a school district, a public water system, a public sewer system at a reasonable cost. Where houses are distributed at 1 to 10 per mile of road, those things are crazy expensive.

Regarding income inequality, it is lower in rural areas because there are no super-rich as there are in big cities. There is plenty of poverty, in large part because of lack of economic opportunity. The BSN programs look mighty attractive, in part for serving the many who are aging in place.

[kaysixteen]

Sure, everyone in Corny County, Nebraska, does not work in ag or directly ag-related businesses, but many of the others work in places that are necessary for civilization to continue to function in those places.   Those farmers need docs, banks, hardware stores, movie houses, etc., just like folks in Trumpy Suburb do.

APL  is exactly right.   In the name of 'efficiency', as well as related names such as 'free market', 'individualism', etc., corporate and crony capitalism, and globalization, has hollowed-out many places in America, not only in Corny County, but also in Coal Holler, Darkened Smokestacks, etc.   We must address this wholesale, head-on, and pdq, and, regardless of how we do that addressing/ accounting, it will cost money, money that will largely have to come from the folks (and corps.) who have gained by far the most from what has been allowed to occur in recent decades, like it or not.   

Now one more thing, wrt why it is that these people have largely bought into economic (and other social) policies that are more or less exactly the opposite of their best interests, policies advanced by people who have been snookering them and have no interest in really helping these their 'base' supporters.  This is essentially the same problem those science authors I referred to earlier this evening were talking about, wrt scientific illiteracy-- people like the Trump base voters see themselves as largely being looked down upon (and they, let's face it, are usually more or less right about this) by people like us, and this greatly helps the Trump element snooker these folks, because it makes the base bumpkins essentially say 'f*ck you, libtards, we know better, and will do exactly the opposite of what you want us to do'.

[polly_mer]

Question for Wahoo: what keeps 21st century US so special where education matters instead of having the situation devolve into the norm for world history and indeed much of the world now?

I live close enough to a reservation to know that half of the folks there live without electricity or running water.  Modern education does nothing for them unless they move and get an entirely different kind of life, which they have to do without the networks or education that make such a move feasible.

The kind of life I have cannot be had by large numbers of people, even if they can go to school and become just as proficient as I am in the relevant specializations.  The jobs just aren't there in those numbers.  That situation has been a problem for decades for some biology and related graduate specializations. 

The competitive advantage disappears when everyone in the qualified pool is good enough and outnumber the jobs so much that practically no one in the pool will get a relevant job.  Much like adjunctification for general education in college, the jobs available then are not middle-class or better jobs because they don't have to be to get good enough workers.

[marshwiggle]

The competitive advantage disappears when everyone in the qualified pool is good enough and outnumber the jobs so much that practically no one in the pool will get a relevant job. 

And this is the big political problem. Everyone wants to have a "0ne-size-fits-all" solution for employment, but it's completely impossible for this reason. The way to have a good shot at employment is to be well qualified in a small candidate pool.

In other words, the only viable solutionms are mostly individual.

[Caracal]

Tell us again about your jobs as an adult other than faculty jobs.

Um...why?

Because, for Poly, there is no such thing as an honest disagreement. They believe that once they have staked out a position, it is the correct and right one. People who disagree, or even take a slightly different perspective on an issue, can't just be interpreting the evidence differently. They must be ignorant of the evidence, even if there is no evidence this is the case. If someone is coming at something from a different perspective than the one Poly has adopted, it can't be a chance to have a discussion, it must mean that person's life experience means they are unqualified to weigh in on some issue. So, that becomes the justification for making everything personal. If you had worked some other job, surely you'd agree.

The whole thing is unpleasant and makes this fora a much more unpleasant place.

[Wahoo Redux]

Question for Wahoo: what keeps 21st century US so special where education matters instead of having the situation devolve into the norm for world history and indeed much of the world now?

I live close enough to a reservation to know that half of the folks there live without electricity or running water.  Modern education does nothing for them unless they move and get an entirely different kind of life, which they have to do without the networks or education that make such a move feasible.

The kind of life I have cannot be had by large numbers of people, even if they can go to school and become just as proficient as I am in the relevant specializations.  The jobs just aren't there in those numbers.  That situation has been a problem for decades for some biology and related graduate specializations. 

The competitive advantage disappears when everyone in the qualified pool is good enough and outnumber the jobs so much that practically no one in the pool will get a relevant job.  Much like adjunctification for general education in college, the jobs available then are not middle-class or better jobs because they don't have to be to get good enough workers.

I have great respect for you, Polly, and I even like your persona.  You're fun.

But this commentary is so...silly that I can't even fathom what you are thinking.

"Devolve into the norm" of...feudal warlords?  You "live near a reservation" with no electricity or running water...and that has to do with education?  Is that desirable? 

Have you ever read Brave New World? 

[Hibush]

Getting back to the topic of nurse-training as a profit center, there is a news item today about what appears to be a grifter running a "for-profit college that provides training programs for certified nursing assistant, phlebotomist and licensed practical nursing" called the Healthcare Institute in Memphis. She got herself elected to the state senate, used that position to get grants for her for-profit institution. The twist (grifters gotta grift!) is that she embezzled those funds for personal expenses. At least that is what the indictment says. 

The lesson may be that while administrators of actual schools of higher education see nursing programs as revenue generators, so do grifters. They get into for-profit health-career training because is it easy money, for a while. When you read about these places, it is good to distinguish which is the motivating principle for their existence.

[Wahoo Redux]

Not that this is a grifter story, exactly, but I just saw a TV for University of Phoenix nursing.  5 week programs from home and the angle is that one can study nursing while raising a family. 

Do Phoenix nurses actually get hired?