Before the explosion in business schools and business education, lots of liberal arts people had great careers in business because they could write among other things.
American society never looked favorably at youthful experimentation much either. In Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere it was expected that people in universities would have a flirtation with radicalism and Bohemianism. I think since American colleges were mass phenomena much earlier, even in the 19th century university education was more common in the United States than elsewhere, American university education was more about careers than experimentation.
That's a bit of a shame because doing a semester or year abroad is a wonderful experience. My medieval history professor was a great advocate of the junior year abroad with Mickey Mouse classes as a life experience.
I'd say that any accredited school near a major metropolitan area is going to give you a quality education. The school might not be "elite" but the desirability of the area makes it a really attractive choice for potential professors.
Point taken, we till them that if they don't go to an elite school than their job prospects are hurt because they can't get connections and the employers want and demand elite schools for the best or even the next-best jobs.
Qualified students who didn't quite make it into the elite schools might think going to a state or "non-elite" private is a bit of a failure. They might think they won't get a good as an education or that it might hurt their job practice.
The best way to make college admissions sane again is to try to find to make it purely academic again. We probably can't use entrance exams like they do in other countries because its simply not practical for a host of reasons. What needs to be done is to find away to decrease the importance of extra-curriculars and activities outside of school and make it more about the GPA, SAT scores, and AP exam results.
The problem is that there are too many elite students and not enough elite institutions at the Ivy or almost as good as an Ivy level. All the elite institutions are probably wealthy enough to expand in size so more students could attend but they can't be force to do so and its not in their interest to do so, they wouldn't be as elite then. Qualified students do not want to settle for state universities and non-elite private ones. The other problem is that sports are always going to matter because of college football and basketball are big money earners.
Kazzy, I meant that purchasing healthcare isn't like buying a furniture in the sense that when people need healthcare, its often an emergency and not something they could take their time with because they want to start cancer treatment ASAP or the bone needs to be fixed right now, that most people lack the knowledge to know what the best treatment for their illness is or the resources to research this in the same way you research computers, and that very few people are in a place to enter into any sort of negotiation with their providers on price.
The other reason is that it's hard for an individual to approach healthcare with the same patience and research as buying furniture or other consumer goods.
Yeah but I'm sure emitters would like their emotes to be able to contact their health insurance companies on weekends so they don't do it during office hours or have to take time off from work.
I don't think honey fits into the mass luxury category, the same way that tobacco, sugar, and coffee do. First, the Middle Ages are not the Early Modern Period, which starts in the mid-1600s about the time period of the English Civil War or at earliest during James I reign. Honey was different because it wasn't really a luxury good. It wasn't exotic or that expensive compared to the other three goods at any time. It was also a lot easier to produce in Europe. Honey was always an everyday sort of good.
Tobacco, sugar, coffee, and tea were mass luxury goods because they were exotic, started off very expensive and out of the reach of most people but became relatively affordable fast. They were produced in a somewhat industrial manner for agricultural goods if you see the plantation as a sort of agricultural factory. There weren't any honey plantations, it was just grown with other crops on the farm.
Medical insurance companies make money by being inconvenient to their customers. Its so they could avoid or at least delay payment. Thats why medical insurance should either be heavily regulated by the state or operated by the state. Healthcare is an area where socialist theory works.
Thats what you get from non-careful reading. I seriously doubt that even if all the predictions come true in twenty years that we'll see a rise in secessionist feeling in the Western states. These things take a long time to build and we don't even have any rumblings.
Slave trading was a big business and it was used to supprot some of the earliest mass luxury goods in early modern society, tobacco, sugar, and coffee. You could make a lot of money by provinding tobacco, sugar, and coffee to people. Slavery was especially important to sugar because very few people would willingly work on sugar plantation even for high wages since sugar production is really unpleseant work. Slavery and untouchability were the traditional ways societies dealt with necessary work that nobody wanted to do.
The codification of slavery were usually attempts to mitigate the harshness of slavery. France's Code Noir was an improvement over what existed beforehand. A badly implemented improvement but still an improvement.
This is largely correct. Slave labor in the New World was implemented by the Conquistadors as a way to control the Native Americans and to deal with labor shortages from the mass deaths that the Native Americans suffered because of the Conquistadors. The colonial governments codified the practices that existed without them.
Treating this topic more seriously than other posters, a lot of people forget what they don't need to know or at least what they think they don't need to know once they leave school. I consider myself a well-educated person who knows a lot but I forgot a lot of the algebra, trigonometry, and pre-calculus that I studied in high school and college. My grasp of a lot of scientific facts is probably more shaky than it should be. I wouldn't panic at a joke like this but there are probably things about chemistry and physics that I should know, that I knew at one point but forgot. It wasn't intentional, its just that I never needed to apply this knowledge to life and somehow forgot it. Its worse with people who hated school.
The getting fed isn't really true. A lot of plantations in the Americas were notoriously bad about feeding slaves. The plantation owners thought having to feed the slaves was a bother. Thats why so many of them gave slaves land and time to garden, so the slaves could feed themselves hopefully.
To me, the argument that reforms might hurt some people is an insufficient reason for not passing the reforms. If the majority of people whose reforms are designed to help get that help than the reforms should be passed.
I think its also important that the workers themselves were often at the forefront of pressing for reforms in sweat shops. In the aftermath of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, the young immigrant women from Italy and Eastern Europe employed in said sweat shops were the ones that strated protesting against them. These women should have been theoretically grateful for their sweatshop jobs for the reasons presented above but nearly all of them seemed to have wanted better working conditions, shorter hours, and more pay enough to protest. So I think the desirabiltiy of sweatshop labor is debatable.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Liberal Arts and Humanities, Law School, and Careers for the Somewhat Unpractical Student”
Before the explosion in business schools and business education, lots of liberal arts people had great careers in business because they could write among other things.
"
American society never looked favorably at youthful experimentation much either. In Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere it was expected that people in universities would have a flirtation with radicalism and Bohemianism. I think since American colleges were mass phenomena much earlier, even in the 19th century university education was more common in the United States than elsewhere, American university education was more about careers than experimentation.
"
That's a bit of a shame because doing a semester or year abroad is a wonderful experience. My medieval history professor was a great advocate of the junior year abroad with Mickey Mouse classes as a life experience.
On “Ten College Admission Myths”
I'd say that any accredited school near a major metropolitan area is going to give you a quality education. The school might not be "elite" but the desirability of the area makes it a really attractive choice for potential professors.
"
Point taken, we till them that if they don't go to an elite school than their job prospects are hurt because they can't get connections and the employers want and demand elite schools for the best or even the next-best jobs.
"
Qualified students who didn't quite make it into the elite schools might think going to a state or "non-elite" private is a bit of a failure. They might think they won't get a good as an education or that it might hurt their job practice.
"
The best way to make college admissions sane again is to try to find to make it purely academic again. We probably can't use entrance exams like they do in other countries because its simply not practical for a host of reasons. What needs to be done is to find away to decrease the importance of extra-curriculars and activities outside of school and make it more about the GPA, SAT scores, and AP exam results.
The problem is that there are too many elite students and not enough elite institutions at the Ivy or almost as good as an Ivy level. All the elite institutions are probably wealthy enough to expand in size so more students could attend but they can't be force to do so and its not in their interest to do so, they wouldn't be as elite then. Qualified students do not want to settle for state universities and non-elite private ones. The other problem is that sports are always going to matter because of college football and basketball are big money earners.
On “Safety, at what price?”
It didn't work this way in the 19th century, I'm not sure why it would work this way know
"
+1.
On “Timing, Part 2”
Kazzy, I meant that purchasing healthcare isn't like buying a furniture in the sense that when people need healthcare, its often an emergency and not something they could take their time with because they want to start cancer treatment ASAP or the bone needs to be fixed right now, that most people lack the knowledge to know what the best treatment for their illness is or the resources to research this in the same way you research computers, and that very few people are in a place to enter into any sort of negotiation with their providers on price.
"
The other reason is that it's hard for an individual to approach healthcare with the same patience and research as buying furniture or other consumer goods.
"
I've never had a problem at the DMV.
"
Yeah but I'm sure emitters would like their emotes to be able to contact their health insurance companies on weekends so they don't do it during office hours or have to take time off from work.
On “Trade Sequence Part 5 – The Rich Man’s Burden”
I don't think honey fits into the mass luxury category, the same way that tobacco, sugar, and coffee do. First, the Middle Ages are not the Early Modern Period, which starts in the mid-1600s about the time period of the English Civil War or at earliest during James I reign. Honey was different because it wasn't really a luxury good. It wasn't exotic or that expensive compared to the other three goods at any time. It was also a lot easier to produce in Europe. Honey was always an everyday sort of good.
Tobacco, sugar, coffee, and tea were mass luxury goods because they were exotic, started off very expensive and out of the reach of most people but became relatively affordable fast. They were produced in a somewhat industrial manner for agricultural goods if you see the plantation as a sort of agricultural factory. There weren't any honey plantations, it was just grown with other crops on the farm.
On “Timing, Part 2”
Medical insurance companies make money by being inconvenient to their customers. Its so they could avoid or at least delay payment. Thats why medical insurance should either be heavily regulated by the state or operated by the state. Healthcare is an area where socialist theory works.
On “Here I Am”
Thats what you get from non-careful reading. I seriously doubt that even if all the predictions come true in twenty years that we'll see a rise in secessionist feeling in the Western states. These things take a long time to build and we don't even have any rumblings.
"
Doesn't this argument have a major flaw that most people in the Western states do not want to succeed from the Union?
On “Trade Sequence Part 5 – The Rich Man’s Burden”
Slave trading was a big business and it was used to supprot some of the earliest mass luxury goods in early modern society, tobacco, sugar, and coffee. You could make a lot of money by provinding tobacco, sugar, and coffee to people. Slavery was especially important to sugar because very few people would willingly work on sugar plantation even for high wages since sugar production is really unpleseant work. Slavery and untouchability were the traditional ways societies dealt with necessary work that nobody wanted to do.
The codification of slavery were usually attempts to mitigate the harshness of slavery. France's Code Noir was an improvement over what existed beforehand. A badly implemented improvement but still an improvement.
"
Its simply not practical to achieve perfection in anything. Therefore, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
"
This is largely correct. Slave labor in the New World was implemented by the Conquistadors as a way to control the Native Americans and to deal with labor shortages from the mass deaths that the Native Americans suffered because of the Conquistadors. The colonial governments codified the practices that existed without them.
On “How Dumb Can You Be?”
Treating this topic more seriously than other posters, a lot of people forget what they don't need to know or at least what they think they don't need to know once they leave school. I consider myself a well-educated person who knows a lot but I forgot a lot of the algebra, trigonometry, and pre-calculus that I studied in high school and college. My grasp of a lot of scientific facts is probably more shaky than it should be. I wouldn't panic at a joke like this but there are probably things about chemistry and physics that I should know, that I knew at one point but forgot. It wasn't intentional, its just that I never needed to apply this knowledge to life and somehow forgot it. Its worse with people who hated school.
On “Thursday Night Bar Fight #7: All Hail the Chief!”
When do we get the results from last week's bar fight?
On “Trade Sequence Part 5 – The Rich Man’s Burden”
The getting fed isn't really true. A lot of plantations in the Americas were notoriously bad about feeding slaves. The plantation owners thought having to feed the slaves was a bother. Thats why so many of them gave slaves land and time to garden, so the slaves could feed themselves hopefully.
"
Lawyers, Guns, and Money could use a wider divergence of opinion. Its pretty much divided between Liberals, people further Left, and trolls.
"
To me, the argument that reforms might hurt some people is an insufficient reason for not passing the reforms. If the majority of people whose reforms are designed to help get that help than the reforms should be passed.
I think its also important that the workers themselves were often at the forefront of pressing for reforms in sweat shops. In the aftermath of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, the young immigrant women from Italy and Eastern Europe employed in said sweat shops were the ones that strated protesting against them. These women should have been theoretically grateful for their sweatshop jobs for the reasons presented above but nearly all of them seemed to have wanted better working conditions, shorter hours, and more pay enough to protest. So I think the desirabiltiy of sweatshop labor is debatable.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.