Awesome. We here in the USA would like to remind our denied British applicants -- no, I say, friends -- that our universities are open to their applications. We are looking for the best and brightest to join our society. For some, it will be substantially financially rewarding. You may match the diversity needs and receive financial aid as well. Please forward applications to Shawnee123.

*chuckles*

I might say at this point that the idea of scanning applicants on those grounds is only a suggestion right now. Blair is desperately peddling about looking for a legacy......anything to blanket out the Iraq debacle......so tres bizarre ideas are suddenly gaining currency atthe moment. Watch this space.

As a local Labour politician I probably shouldn't say stuff like that....but hey I'm amongst friends right?

Well that sounds exactly like a form of Afirmative Action to me.:whofart:

HEY! I just saw this and all I can say is:bolt:

Depends on what your degree is in. The goal is to pick something that will be marketable for years after you finish.

~snip

There is a question on the FAFSA asking level of education completed by parents. We don't use it. Some states and institutions have aid for the first-generation college student.

Sigh...today I heard a woman complaining about one of our pell policies, stating she didn't know about it because she's a single mother. Freaking WHAT? For one thing, she signed the damn office app saying she read and understood all policies (and this policy is a big deal so it's written not only in our policies and procedures manual but everywhere else we can find some space to publish it.) And what the hell does her single mothering have to do with it anyway? I would have handed her a condom and sent her on her merry way. Poor downtrodden girl. :right:

It's a rather twisted version of it. Whether or not someone's parent has a degree is no indicator of socio-economic status (the thing they are supposedly trying to balance out). We have a generation of working class graduates who were able to get a degree because of grants, aid and encouragement.....many of them have not then gone on to join the economic middle class. We still have a problem in the UK with children from low socio economic backgrounds having low expectations and not taking advantage of educational opportunities. The answer to that is to make it more accessible. Instead we have removed many of the forms of assistance that were in place, replaced them with loans and freed the universities up to charge pretty much what they like; consequently, right now a new student can expect to take on approximately £7000 per year in debt. Over the next couple of years that is likely to rise to about £14000 per year. That is likely to put a lot of workingclass kids off attending university and will also put a lot of mature students off as well.

Having made university gradually more difficult to access financially over the last fifteen years, the government's bright idea is to encourage universities not to take as many kids whose parents have a degree and to take on more first generation graduates.....in which case, what the fuck was the point of helping, encouraging and assisting a generation of working class teenagers to attend university twenty years ago....? Many of them were first generation graduates.

I don't believe that at all. I mean that's what most people think, but most people also think that going to Uni is supposed to teach you how to do something. Which is not true; if you want skill training go to a technical or professional school.

What students should pursue is something they're passionate about, not what will, in theory, make them the most bank. Unless the student doesn't mind doing something they might hate for the next 30-40 years.

A Bachelor's degree is just about enough time and effort for many people to figure out what they're passionate about, if they're lucky.

My unpopular opinion for this post: Law and Medicine are no worse or better fields than Plumbing; they all require technical qualifications.

Unfortunately, people confuse marketable with profitable - and many students choose majors based on where they will make the most bucks. Nothing wrong with that, but you end up with professionals who have no passion for their profession but more passion for the bottom line. Hence why there are too many lawyers and doctors.

And I can gripe about too many lawyers... I am one and wish that there were less of them to deal with!

I have a degree in Elementary Education that I'll never use. Anyone want to buy it from me? It's at a good price and I can discount it further since it was obtained in New Jersey! :D

Evolution thru natural selection counts for human beings too.

Every decision that you've made up to this point, have led you to this point.

The US should go to war as a truly last resort.

When the US must go to war, stick with what we do well. That means invade, take care of the reason for the invasion, and get the hell out. We don't have an obligation to rebuild. That only encourages countries to provoke us to invade, because they want new infrastructure. If the problem returns, or if another problem pops up, invade again - hell, we're good at it, aren't we? Then get the hell out before any military personnel get killed.

Exactly.

Jinx, a lot of people has issues with dependent origination and accountability... we live in a society of "it's not really my fault" and it is a sickness we need to get rid of ASAP because it will be the root of our downfall. It is killing our education system and that will rot our whole nation(s).
We must always own our actions and decisions. Sure, some things are harder for some than others... that has NOTHING to do with accountability, how hard something is means squat.

That the relationship is over and married by 24, 5 kids by 30 is not a good idea.
(unpopular with my now ex girlfriend)

Well there may very well be to many lawyers, but we need more docotors. There are not enough people going into medicine anymore because there are to many lawyers.:D

hell yeah rkzenrage, hit that on the head. sometimes it's really really unpleasant... but one must own up to ones actions.

Then it must be legal in China.

There are plenty of times when you are subject to the decisions of others, where you have absolutely no control, that will lead you to this point.

That's pretty rare, though I'll concede that sometimes you have very little control. Do you have an example?

No way! God made us what we are, and controls use completely - it says so in a musem in Kentuccky!:dunce: :crazy: :nuts: [/sarcasm]

It's far easier to become a lawyer.

Where and when and to whom you were born?

When the company you work for is sold to a rival company, making the Directors millionaires and leaving you out of a job.

I had a choice whether to start that job, but no choice or control over how I left it.

When you are driving carefully down a road and a drunk driver crashes into your car. Yes you chose to drive....no you didn't have control over the `crash.

When your baby is born severely disabled and requiring a lifetime of medical attention and assistance.

When you suffer from an inherited condition which has an affect on how you can live your life.

If you get attacked by some random individual on the tube.

How you react to and your attitude toward those instances are far more powerful and lasting in your life than the actual occurrences themselves.

I think there's some truth to that.

Other than the example of being born, Jinx's point is valid. I chose the job, putting myself in a position to lose it when it was taken over. I chose to drive on that road, at that time. It's not that I controlled what happened, but my decisions put me there.

the working classes' role is to support and uphold the wealthy.

Think about it next time they slip the handcuffs on and you have no idea why.
Or you spend thirty years building a business and the government passes a law that puts you out of business.
How about when your spouse goes out for a pack of smokes and never comes back.
Or when your mother dips you in protection, all but your heel.

birth sex death

Are you abdicating responsibilty for those things? Is it that God works in mysterious ways? Or coincidence? Shit happens?

You did have some influence in all those things. Your choices put you there. It may have not worked according to plan, but you did make choices, and those choices had those results.

You are responsible for your actions, not their outcomes.

And that, my friends, is what is wrong with America today.

Don't see why. Clearly you have absolute responsibility and control over your actions: unless you have a crystal ball you are unlikely to be able to predict all the myriad outcomes from every single action. The Sliding Doors moments, so to speak.

Take it another way -- you are only responsible for doing your absolute best in all circumstances. What happens as a result of that is not yours, either for blame or praise. You own your actions and nothing else.

How is this a problem for America? :eyebrow:

As a matter of fact, I do have a crystal ball...it doesn't tell me anything, but it sure is pretty.

This implies that one cannot possibly predict or anticipate the consequences of their actions.

For example, cane toads were imported into Australia "from South America during the 1930s in a failed attempt to control beetles on Australia's northern sugar cane plantations. The poisonous toads have proven fatal to Australia's delicate ecosystems, killing millions of native animals from snakes to the small crocodiles that eat them." http://www.livescience.com/animalwor...iant_toad.html

Were the importers of the toads not responsible for the negative results of introducing a foreign species? (Same with the rabbits.)

(btw, we are on target for a cane toad iotd tomorrow)

So you get in a car and drive drunk. You are responsible for that action. An hour later as you drive you kill a mother of three and her children in a head on collision. You say you are not responsible. How?

Action - driving while drunk
Result - Head on collision and death of innocent people
Conclusion - The driver is fully responsible because he made a decision that was illegal and immoral knowing that his ability was impaired

Action - Driving your kids to the swimming pool
Result - Hit by a drunk driver and killed along with your children
Conclusion - the mother took an action she believed was healthy and responsible. Her children would be alive if she hadn't signed them up for swimming lessons but she is not responsible for their deaths, despite the fact that her action led to it.

Goes both ways eh?

Oh yes - but that's what I think Pie was saying. If you are doing the best you can, you hope that your actions don't have bad consequences. But you can't guarantee it.

Ok, if that is the case I get it. It did not read that way when first posted to me. Makes sense.

We all drive almost every day. We all know the risks of being on the road. But what percentage of drivers take action to improve their driving skills (winter driving course, defensive driving course, etc.) to reduce those risks?

Since many collisions could have been avoided by a driver with advanced training, those of us who don't make that effort bear an increased percentage of the responsibility when we are involved in an accident.

A similar arguement can be made for self-defense training.

Exactly. You are responsible for doing the best you can. Ethically, morally, and every which other way. Always.

If something bad happens as a result, it is not your fault.

If something good happens, it is not to your praise.

However, if you don't do the best you can by your own yardstick, you are always to blame, even if nothing bad comes of it.

:2cents:

Yayyyyy... Pie absolved me!
I can pull the trigger and that is all I'm responsible for!
That bad ol' bullet killed em'.

So you seem to agree that, since most drivers don't do their best to improve their driving skills, they are at least partly to blame when they are in an accident?

Where in this set of absolutes does one get to think "you know, I really worked hard for that outcome. I deserve to feel good about it."?

Oh of course, why didn't I see that. If he hadn't chosen to breath this morning he wouldn't have died this afternoon. It's so clear.

Well then, by your logic, I didn't make the decision to be born so everything that happens to me is someone else's fault.

It seems to be a bit of a tautology. It's true, but it says nothing outside of its own validity.

Yep.

No, your action was unethical -- if you believe suicide is unethical.

I think you were responding to me?
It does absolve you from guilt over things that were unforeseeable. I have to keep reminding my mother of this from time to time -- you did the best with the information you had -- at the time. You can't beat yourself up forever for things that you didn't know, things that you couldn't have known.

If your actions are good, honorable, ethical, moral, worthwhile... you have lived up to your highest possibility. Doesn't matter if your life sucked, if you made a billion dollars, if you were loved, if you died in a ditch. What you do is all that matters.

Illegal
Legal

That's the difference.

Being a legal act does not remove any responsibility for your actions.

Am I on ignore, or invisible, or is this not a valid question?

Sometimes it's easier to ignore the tough questions.


opinion: The remaining small government conservatives in the GOP are completely out of the loop. They represent a large number of voters and need to assert themselves.

I haven't heard much out of Ron Paul recently, but isn't he running for President?

Don't mock my silly belief system lube boy.

I'm not mocking you, drunkard. Depending on the candidates, I might be inclined to vote for someone like Paul.