2011 May 13 Friday
Colleges Feign Interest In Students To Boost Reject Rates
Read this Bloomberg article to see just how corrupt higher education has become.
The deluge of correspondence from even the most hard-to- get-into colleges is raising false expectations among thousands of students, swelling school coffers with application fees as high as $90 apiece and making colleges seem more selective by soliciting and then rejecting applicants.
They get rated higher if they accept a smaller percentage of all the students who apply. So they lure students into applying just so they can reject them.
Harvard is a big offender.
Jon Reider, director of college counseling at San Francisco University High School, advises students to view e-mails and mailings skeptically, especially from Harvard University, the most selective college in the country. Reider called its mailings “not honorable” and “misleading.”
Avoid the very high costs of the bricks-and-mortar schools. Western Governors University looks like a good bet. The US Department of Education wants to throw up roadblocks to online schools and Tyler Cowen says abolish the Department of Education. Good idea.
"The US Department of Education wants to throw up roadblocks to online schools and Tyler Cowen says abolish the Department of Education."
Better yet, instead of abolishing the Department of Education, we should make it work for the People:
Everybody should have the right to free public higher education right after they have finished their 12 grade of free public high-school education.
Sailer says that colleges are just a high priced IQ test, and I tend to agree with him. Does Harvard do well because they are a good school, or are they a good school because they are selective in their admissions?
CCNY's official quote: "Nine Nobel laureates claim CCNY as their Alma Mater, the most from any public college in the United States. So, shouldn't everybody go to CCNY? It must be a great school.
It turns out at the turn of the century, Jews were emigrating from East Europe in droves. They landed in Manhatten and New York, and then availed themselves of CCNY services. The average IQ of the Ashkenazi attending CCNY at this time was 130. That means that only one standard deviation above the average would be 150-160.
Of course with a different population base, the output of CCNY today is totally different.
But, we cannot mention racial achievement gaps without running afoul of political correctness doctrine.
No I Don't,
You're such a beta (non-alpha) for wanting to give away all your money to idiots with a fraction of your IQ and virtue. You probably call your girlfriends schmoopy (Seinfield: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mii8aJklEOg ).
Our credit banking system pilfers trillions of dollars every year from labor. We could afford to send everybody to college, even Yolanda with an IQ of 80. In other words, we could afford to invest and waste some money on our human capital. It makes sense to invest here, and to look at people as assets. But, we need to stop lying to ourselves about the utility of a college education.
The greatest expansion of our countrie's wealth was between 1700 and 1850. Jobs were created and the nation exploded with wealth creation, eventually becoming the wealthiest place on the planet in less than two centuries. In 1700 we were using square rigged sailing ships, and plows not much different from the Romans. By 1850 we had steam railroads and industry and medicine. Also conquered an entire continent. Did we do it it with an college educated populace? NO. How about WW2 - what was the college education component in that population? I would say, less than 10%. Yet, during WW2 there was a large jump in innovation. It was smart people figuring things out, and you don't need four years of college for that. What you need is smarts and opportunity.
So, yes College education really means little. It is job formation and wealth cration that matters, and that is a function of the money system. Wealth creation is also a function of the genetic potential of the people. At a certain IQ level, societies do not rise out of the muck and become civilized. Without civilization, then mechanisms for wealth creation cannot be harnessed.
As an aside, Canada had 100% college costs covered by way of profits (or direct spend) from their state bank. We did the same with returning war vets in WW2. We spent base money from the government at 3/8 of 1% interest. Our current credit money system transfers money from us to the private banking plutocrats. That is the real problem which seems to never be mentioned. Perhaps we need a low IQ population so the ruse can continue, and our plutocratic elites can continue their rent seeking ways? A dumb population educated in government schools will be unlikely to investigate or understand the mechanisms.
Lets let in more third world immigrants and keep things in chaos, and lets pretend we have lots of debt and the sky is going to fall. When in reality, a proper money system would allow everybody to keep much of their output, and there would be no debt. We recently put the industrial revolution into hyperdrive with the advent of technology - goods and services are being produced in record quantities. It is just that your output is being shifted away from you.
So, now we think we are poor and have to pay our artificial debts, and our rent seeking elites want you in that mental state.
Sorry about the spelling errors. If I was really smart (or maybe less lazy?) I would run my posts through a word processor first.