Ending DACA will see the true beginning of Trump's downward economic spiral

[deanrd]

According to PEW, the majority of Republicans think college is bad for America. Getting rid of those who benefited from DACA means tossing away nurses, engineers, entrepreneurs, not to mention thousands in the military. Republicans have this fantastical idea that once they leave jobs will magically open up for those who have no education nor skills.

There are 6 million jobs available right now that can't be filled because of a lack of skills. Republicans, instead of being jealous and coveting what others have, you need to make your own. That's the only way it works.

4 Years Later: Lives Built By DACA at Risk in 2016 Elections

Once approved, she was able to work as a teaching assistant while pursuing a master's degree in engineering. After graduating in June 2014, she moved back to Arizona and now works as a project engineer.

Her husband Juan Amaya is also a DACA recipient and an engineer. The Phoenix couple recently became parents and purchased a home.

--------------------

See what I mean? Like I said, Republicans don't believe in education. The majority think college is bad for America.

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Remember, in Bible, you aren't supposed to "covet" what isn't yours. Instead of 6 million unfilled jobs because of a lack of skills, it will be 7 million. And the Business community is going to love that (snicker).

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh yes, because America didn't prosper until 2012.

Fucking Rdean strikes again and out stupids himself.

 

[Tank]

They need to try to make their own counties nice, like the White man has done for his

 

[deanrd]

Oh yes, because America didn't prosper until 2012.

Fucking Rdean strikes again and out stupids himself.

It's not the same America dunce.

87% of lost manufacturing jobs were automated. Millions lost their jobs. How can you not know that? Everyone else does, except Republicans. They don't even know who Mueller is. But they'll find out.

 

[MisterBeale]

According to PEW, the majority of Republicans think college is bad for America. Getting rid of those who benefited from DACA means tossing away nurses, engineers, entrepreneurs, not to mention thousands in the military. Republicans have this fantastical idea that once they leave jobs will magically open up for those who have no education nor skills.

There are 6 million jobs available right now that can't be filled because of a lack of skills. Republicans, instead of being jealous and coveting what others have, you need to make your own. That's the only way it works.

4 Years Later: Lives Built By DACA at Risk in 2016 Elections

Once approved, she was able to work as a teaching assistant while pursuing a master's degree in engineering. After graduating in June 2014, she moved back to Arizona and now works as a project engineer.

Her husband Juan Amaya is also a DACA recipient and an engineer. The Phoenix couple recently became parents and purchased a home.

--------------------

See what I mean? Like I said, Republicans don't believe in education. The majority think college is bad for America.

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Remember, in Bible, you aren't supposed to "covet" what isn't yours. Instead of 6 million unfilled jobs because of a lack of skills, it will be 7 million. And the Business community is going to love that (snicker).

My kid will either have a tech. certification or marketable associates degree before he graduates high school.

He understands that the corruption coming out of the federal government, intertwining the federal student aid and loan program have encouraged the debt folks take on in this nation and have caused higher education cost to be ludicrously over priced and out of touch with their true cost to benefits.

Every kid needs to watch this documentary entering High School.



The fact is, many illegals get free rides, while citizens get piled on with huge debt.

No social security number? No ability of the FED or credit agencies to put you into a life time of debt, eh? Sure doesn't seem fair for the rest of us.

If they broke the law, they need to be shipped out.

You need to get that critical theory brainwashing outta your head.

 

[usmbguest5318]

According to PEW, the majority of Republicans think college is bad for America.

What? Can you point to the relevant study in which Pew reported that finding?

Edit:
Nevermind. It's linked in one of the rubric articles.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Republicans don't believe in education.

I think that has to do with the fact that many who are Republican, especially Trumpkins who are relatively recent additions to the GOP and large in number, didn't go to college; thus they don't realize the benefit of doing so. I think also it's a matter of the post-2011 economic boom the in the U.S. has been enjoyed largely by folks who went to college -- the "professional class" -- and almost not at all by people who did not and who also are not entrepreneurial. The thing is that there's only one person to blame for why Trumpkins didn't go to college, and almost every Trumpkin will see that person in the mirror.

 

[Clintonista]

According to PEW, the majority of Republicans think college is bad for America.

What? Can you point to the relevant study in which Pew reported that finding?

Edit:
Nevermind. It's linked in one of the rubric articles.

Rubric?

 

[g5000]

DACA is people who have been here since childhood. They are totally Americanized. A lot of these people don't even remember their home country. They are more alien to Mexico than they are to America.

Sending them back to a place which they know nothing about seems particularly harsh to me.

 

[ColonelAngus]

No, this was Obama stupid idea, and Trump has the same pen and phone that Obama's had and elections have consequences.

Sorry Barry....your legacy is shit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Right or wrong aside and just looking at the politics, Trump ending DACA simply shaves a few more points off the Hispanic support for Trump.

 

[deanrd]

According to PEW, the majority of Republicans think college is bad for America. Getting rid of those who benefited from DACA means tossing away nurses, engineers, entrepreneurs, not to mention thousands in the military. Republicans have this fantastical idea that once they leave jobs will magically open up for those who have no education nor skills.

There are 6 million jobs available right now that can't be filled because of a lack of skills. Republicans, instead of being jealous and coveting what others have, you need to make your own. That's the only way it works.

4 Years Later: Lives Built By DACA at Risk in 2016 Elections

Once approved, she was able to work as a teaching assistant while pursuing a master's degree in engineering. After graduating in June 2014, she moved back to Arizona and now works as a project engineer.

Her husband Juan Amaya is also a DACA recipient and an engineer. The Phoenix couple recently became parents and purchased a home.

--------------------

See what I mean? Like I said, Republicans don't believe in education. The majority think college is bad for America.

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Remember, in Bible, you aren't supposed to "covet" what isn't yours. Instead of 6 million unfilled jobs because of a lack of skills, it will be 7 million. And the Business community is going to love that (snicker).

My kid will either have a tech. certification or marketable associates degree before he graduates high school.

He understands that the corruption coming out of the federal government, intertwining the federal student aid and loan program have encouraged the debt folks take on in this nation and have caused higher education cost to be ludicrously over priced and out of touch with their true cost to benefits.

Every kid needs to watch this documentary entering High School.



The fact is, many illegals get free rides, while citizens get piled on with huge debt.

No social security number? No ability of the FED or credit agencies to put you into a life time of debt, eh? Sure doesn't seem fair for the rest of us.

If they broke the law, they need to be shipped out.

You need to get that critical theory brainwashing outta your head.

Spouting one right wing myth after another does no good.

 

[usmbguest5318]

According to PEW, the majority of Republicans think college is bad for America. Getting rid of those who benefited from DACA means tossing away nurses, engineers, entrepreneurs, not to mention thousands in the military. Republicans have this fantastical idea that once they leave jobs will magically open up for those who have no education nor skills.

There are 6 million jobs available right now that can't be filled because of a lack of skills. Republicans, instead of being jealous and coveting what others have, you need to make your own. That's the only way it works.

4 Years Later: Lives Built By DACA at Risk in 2016 Elections

Once approved, she was able to work as a teaching assistant while pursuing a master's degree in engineering. After graduating in June 2014, she moved back to Arizona and now works as a project engineer.

Her husband Juan Amaya is also a DACA recipient and an engineer. The Phoenix couple recently became parents and purchased a home.

--------------------

See what I mean? Like I said, Republicans don't believe in education. The majority think college is bad for America.

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Remember, in Bible, you aren't supposed to "covet" what isn't yours. Instead of 6 million unfilled jobs because of a lack of skills, it will be 7 million. And the Business community is going to love that (snicker).

My kid will either have a tech. certification or marketable associates degree before he graduates high school.

He understands that the corruption coming out of the federal government, intertwining the federal student aid and loan program have encouraged the debt folks take on in this nation and have caused higher education cost to be ludicrously over priced and out of touch with their true cost to benefits.

Every kid needs to watch this documentary entering High School.



The fact is, many illegals get free rides, while citizens get piled on with huge debt.

No social security number? No ability of the FED or credit agencies to put you into a life time of debt, eh? Sure doesn't seem fair for the rest of us.

If they broke the law, they need to be shipped out.

You need to get that critical theory brainwashing outta your head.

Every kid needs to watch this documentary entering High School.

I skipped around in the video, but time and time again I kept hearing premises that just don't hold up under even the most modest bit of scrutiny. Accordingly, I would not encourage any kid to watch that video; it is rife with "alternative facts," and that is not helpful to any kid.

My kid will either have a tech. certification or marketable associates degree before he graduates high school.

He understands that the corruption coming out of the federal government, intertwining the federal student aid and loan program have encouraged the debt folks take on in this nation and have caused higher education cost to be ludicrously over priced and out of touch with their true cost to benefits.

To offer a counterpoint...

Tell my oldest son that. He'll laugh you into the next state. He graduated from a "posh" school at 21 with a bachelor's degree and commenced working three weeks later for ~$120K/year and was given a $15K signing bonus.

What did his degree cost him?

• Time spent thinking about, tailoring and then applying the advice he got from me, his mentors, his counselors, etc.
• Time spent exploring who he is and wants to be, what he wants out of life, and then setting about making it happen.
• Time spent studying (middle and high school + college), instead of "cavorting."
• Time spent doing internships for part of his summers, instead of traveling and "cavorting."
• Time spent traveling the world and "cavorting" so as to learn about more than the little world in which he grew up.

Might there in his starting cohort be kids who went to less pricey schools? There almost certainly are such kids. That neither makes my kid's pricey degree less "worth it" nor their less dear one more "worth it." Insofar as they are all pleased with the outcome, they all are "worth it."

From the video you posted:

Mentality that corporations won't hire one without a degree

In my firm, whether one has a degree matters for some positions and career paths and for others it doesn't.

• "Front of the house" (revenue generating/client facing) roles --> No degree = no job offer.
• Back office roles --> Some of them require a degree and some don't

A high school senior having $30K in savings who buys physical silver will likely have enough money to buy the median U.S. home four years from now. (~29:40)

Well, whether that's so depends on several things, not the least of which is the rate of price appreciation silver and the median U.S. home experience over the next four years.

The video you shared was published in 2013. Looking at the price of silver between then and now, the high school seniors who did as the narrator suggested (29:40) would in fact be not only further from the goal of buying the U.S. median home, but also less well-off with regard to their investment in physical silver. (Click the links.)

• Prices of silver
• Median home prices

Nuff said.​

The U.S. now has hundreds of college preparatory high schools that a cost of about $25K/year are supposed to increase students' changes of getting into a top tier college.

That is so for about 20 to 30 of those schools, and those 20-30 cost a lot more than $25K/year.

What is a "top tier" college? Top 10? Top 20? Top 50? The reality is that if one gets admitted to a "top 100" school, one is, without question, at a good-enough college/university to do whatever one wants to do. After that, the goodness of the school depends on what one is there to study and whether academics are one's top reason for being there.

From about the time they enter the sixth grade, American kids are taught that they must do well in high school so they can get accepted to the best possible college. The better their high school grades, the better the college they will have an opportunity to get into. Furthermore, if they get into a great college and get their degree, any type of job they want in the field of their choice will be there waiting for them when they graduate. After getting their "dream" job, they will able to buy any car and house they desire, start their own family and live the "American Dream."

That's a somewhat rosier model/depiction of things than I recall being given, but the model isn't broken.

• "must do well in high school so they can get accepted to the best possible college" --> Yep.
  • I was told that. I followed instructions and finished with a >4.0 high school GPA.
  • I told my kids that. They too all finished above 4.0 from high school.
• "he better their high school grades, the better the college they will have an opportunity to get into." --> Yep
  
  • That's more or less accurate. It certainly was for me and my kids.
    
    The incidence of it being inaccurate is when one has one's heart set on getting into "better college X" and does not, even though one does earn admittance to "better college Y."
    
    If one's goal is to get into a really good school, that the statement is 100% true. If one's aim is to get into "this" really good school, the statement may or may not be 100% true.
    
    Are there exceptions? Of course, but overwhelmingly, the better one's high school performance, the better the group of colleges/universities to which one will gain admittance.
• "any type of job they want in the field of their choice will be there waiting for them when they graduate." --> Yep
  • That was my experience upon graduating from college. In fact, prospective employers came looking for me and people like me. I accepted an offer from one of them.
  • That was my son's experience. He too was courted by prospective employers.
  • My daughter and other two sons are still in school, but unless the really, really screw up, they'll graduate with or with "high" or "highest" honors. I don't imagine they'll have trouble finding jobs. They've all done paid internships. My middle son got a job offer as a result of his performance as an intern.
• After getting their "dream" job, they will able to buy any car and house they desire, start their own family and live the "American Dream." --> Yep.
  
  • For me, that's exactly what happened. Mind you, the place below is beyond the realm of feasibility given my financial position. If that's what one thinks constitutes achieving the American Dream, well, merely having a degree isn't going to do it.
    
    
    
    
    
    ....but something markedly more modest like the Obamas' or Clintons' homes in D.C. is exactly what I live in, and that's plenty good enough....Good enough that I don't feel as though I have not been party to the "American Dream." I would feel the same way were any of these my home.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

Maybe it's just me, but I define achieving the American dream, in part, by whether I'm achieving the things I set out to achieve, not by how may coins are in or can land in my "pot of gold."


There's also the notion that merely attaining a college degree is enough. Nobody ever told me that. What I was told is that I need to get a degree and distinguish myself in the course of getting it. Why? Because unlike some of my high school classmates, there was no family business I was destined to own regardless of my collegiate performance. The point is that the less of an "already paved way" one has upon entering high school and college, the more necessary it is for one to be top (not "near top," top) performer, that is in the top 5% of one's graduating class. (except at schools like my kids' that don't have class rank; at such places one must just perform as near to as high as level as is possible to perform.)

I think too many people miss a key part of the offer of the "American Dream." That being the implicit assumption that one must uphold one's end of the "deal" by being a top performer. That's always been so, but it's more so now than it was, say, 70 years ago. There's no question that the bar has been raised.

I suppose it's not unusual that individuals dislike the raising of the bar, but that the bar goes up is beyond individuals' control. We all, however, have to choose: rise with the bar, or don't.

No school today teaches students the knowledge needed to start a business, invent their own product, or how to use the Internet and other free tools to become educated without attending college. (~1:40)

• "No school today teaches..." -- Simply not true.
  • Thomas Jefferson High School
  • Wilson High School
  • Montgomery Blair -- This school offers plenty of what the video says is not at all offered in the whole of the U.S. Blair is absolutely not the only one, nor the only one in the D.C. Metro area.

The schools that don't offer much or any such course are college prep ones like the one the Obama girls attended. No surprise they don't; their goal is to prepare kids for college.
​

• "How to invent their own product" -- Seriously? How to invent one's own produce is a matter of coming up with an idea for a product. There is nothing to teach.

 

[usmbguest5318]

According to PEW, the majority of Republicans think college is bad for America.

What? Can you point to the relevant study in which Pew reported that finding?

Edit:
Nevermind. It's linked in one of the rubric articles.

Rubric?

"Rubric article," but yes.

 

[MisterBeale]

According to PEW, the majority of Republicans think college is bad for America. Getting rid of those who benefited from DACA means tossing away nurses, engineers, entrepreneurs, not to mention thousands in the military. Republicans have this fantastical idea that once they leave jobs will magically open up for those who have no education nor skills.

There are 6 million jobs available right now that can't be filled because of a lack of skills. Republicans, instead of being jealous and coveting what others have, you need to make your own. That's the only way it works.

4 Years Later: Lives Built By DACA at Risk in 2016 Elections

Once approved, she was able to work as a teaching assistant while pursuing a master's degree in engineering. After graduating in June 2014, she moved back to Arizona and now works as a project engineer.

Her husband Juan Amaya is also a DACA recipient and an engineer. The Phoenix couple recently became parents and purchased a home.

--------------------

See what I mean? Like I said, Republicans don't believe in education. The majority think college is bad for America.

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Remember, in Bible, you aren't supposed to "covet" what isn't yours. Instead of 6 million unfilled jobs because of a lack of skills, it will be 7 million. And the Business community is going to love that (snicker).

My kid will either have a tech. certification or marketable associates degree before he graduates high school.

He understands that the corruption coming out of the federal government, intertwining the federal student aid and loan program have encouraged the debt folks take on in this nation and have caused higher education cost to be ludicrously over priced and out of touch with their true cost to benefits.

Every kid needs to watch this documentary entering High School.



The fact is, many illegals get free rides, while citizens get piled on with huge debt.

No social security number? No ability of the FED or credit agencies to put you into a life time of debt, eh? Sure doesn't seem fair for the rest of us.

If they broke the law, they need to be shipped out.

You need to get that critical theory brainwashing outta your head.

Every kid needs to watch this documentary entering High School.

I skipped around in the video, but time and time again I kept hearing premises that just don't hold up under even the most modest bit of scrutiny. Accordingly, I would not encourage any kid to watch that video; it is rife with "alternative facts," and that is not helpful to any kid.

My kid will either have a tech. certification or marketable associates degree before he graduates high school.

He understands that the corruption coming out of the federal government, intertwining the federal student aid and loan program have encouraged the debt folks take on in this nation and have caused higher education cost to be ludicrously over priced and out of touch with their true cost to benefits.

To offer a counterpoint...

Tell my oldest son that. He'll laugh you into the next state. He graduated from a "posh" school at 21 with a bachelor's degree and commenced working three weeks later for ~$120K/year and was given a $15K signing bonus.

What did his degree cost him?

• Time spent thinking about, tailoring and then applying the advice he got from me, his mentors, his counselors, etc.
• Time spent exploring who he is and wants to be, what he wants out of life, and then setting about making it happen.
• Time spent studying (middle and high school + college), instead of "cavorting."
• Time spent doing internships for part of his summers, instead of traveling and "cavorting."
• Time spent traveling the world and "cavorting" so as to learn about more than the little world in which he grew up.

Might there in his starting cohort be kids who went to less pricey schools? There almost certainly are such kids. That neither makes my kid's pricey degree less "worth it" nor their less dear one more "worth it." Insofar as they are all pleased with the outcome, they all are "worth it."

From the video you posted:

Mentality that corporations won't hire one without a degree

In my firm, whether one has a degree matters for some positions and career paths and for others it doesn't.

• "Front of the house" (revenue generating/client facing) roles --> No degree = no job offer.
• Back office roles --> Some of them require a degree and some don't

A high school senior having $30K in savings who buys physical silver will likely have enough money to buy the median U.S. home four years from now. (~29:40)

Well, whether that's so depends on several things, not the least of which is the rate of price appreciation silver and the median U.S. home experience over the next four years.

The video you shared was published in 2013. Looking at the price of silver between then and now, the high school seniors who did as the narrator suggested (29:40) would in fact be not only further from the goal of buying the U.S. median home, but also less well-off with regard to their investment in physical silver. (Click the links.)

• Prices of silver
• Median home prices

Nuff said.​

The U.S. now has hundreds of college preparatory high schools that a cost of about $25K/year are supposed to increase students' changes of getting into a top tier college.

That is so for about 20 to 30 of those schools, and those 20-30 cost a lot more than $25K/year.

What is a "top tier" college? Top 10? Top 20? Top 50? The reality is that if one gets admitted to a "top 100" school, one is, without question, at a good-enough college/university to do whatever one wants to do. After that, the goodness of the school depends on what one is there to study and whether academics are one's top reason for being there.

From about the time they enter the sixth grade, American kids are taught that they must do well in high school so they can get accepted to the best possible college. The better their high school grades, the better the college they will have an opportunity to get into. Furthermore, if they get into a great college and get their degree, any type of job they want in the field of their choice will be there waiting for them when they graduate. After getting their "dream" job, they will able to buy any car and house they desire, start their own family and live the "American Dream."

That's a somewhat rosier model/depiction of things than I recall being given, but the model isn't broken.

• "must do well in high school so they can get accepted to the best possible college" --> Yep.
  • I was told that. I followed instructions and finished with a >4.0 high school GPA.
  • I told my kids that. They too all finished above 4.0 from high school.
• "he better their high school grades, the better the college they will have an opportunity to get into." --> Yep
  • That's more or less accurate. It certainly was for me and my kids.
    
    The incidence of it being inaccurate is when one has one's heart set on getting into "better college X" and does not, even though one does earn admittance to "better college Y."
    
    If one's goal is to get into a really good school, that the statement is 100% true. If one's aim is to get into "this" really good school, the statement may or may not be 100% true.
    
    Are there exceptions? Of course, but overwhelmingly, the better one's high school performance, the better the group of colleges/universities to which one will gain admittance.
• "any type of job they want in the field of their choice will be there waiting for them when they graduate." --> Yep
  • That was my experience upon graduating from college. In fact, prospective employers came looking for me and people like me. I accepted an offer from one of them.
  • That was my son's experience. He too was courted by prospective employers.
  • My daughter and other two sons are still in school, but unless the really, really screw up, they'll graduate with or with "high" or "highest" honors. I don't imagine they'll have trouble finding jobs. They've all done paid internships. My middle son got a job offer as a result of his performance as an intern.
• After getting their "dream" job, they will able to buy any car and house they desire, start their own family and live the "American Dream." --> Yep.
  • For me, that's exactly what happened. Mind you, the place below is beyond the realm of feasibility given my financial position. If that's what one thinks constitutes achieving the American Dream, well, merely having a degree isn't going to do it.
    
    
    
    
    
    ....but something markedly more modest like the Obamas' or Clintons' homes in D.C. is exactly what I live in, and that's plenty good enough....Good enough that I don't feel as though I have not been party to the "American Dream." I would feel the same way were any of these my home.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

Maybe it's just me, but I define achieving the American dream, in part, by whether I'm achieving the things I set out to achieve, not by how may coins are in or can land in my "pot of gold."


There's also the notion that merely attaining a college degree is enough. Nobody ever told me that. What I was told is that I need to get a degree and distinguish myself in the course of getting it. Why? Because unlike some of my high school classmates, there was no family business I was destined to own regardless of my collegiate performance. The point is that the less of an "already paved way" one has upon entering high school and college, the more necessary it is for one to be top (not "near top," top) performer, that is in the top 5% of one's graduating class. (except at schools like my kids' that don't have class rank; at such places one must just perform as near to as high as level as is possible to perform.)

I think too many people miss a key part of the offer of the "American Dream." That being the implicit assumption that one must uphold one's end of the "deal" by being a top performer. That's always been so, but it's more so now than it was, say, 70 years ago. There's no question that the bar has been raised.

I suppose it's not unusual that individuals dislike the raising of the bar, but that the bar goes up is beyond individuals' control. We all, however, have to choose: rise with the bar, or don't.

No school today teaches students the knowledge needed to start a business, invent their own product, or how to use the Internet and other free tools to become educated without attending college. (~1:40)

• "No school today teaches..." -- Simply not true.
  • Thomas Jefferson High School
  • Wilson High School
  • Montgomery Blair -- This school offers plenty of what the video says is not at all offered in the whole of the U.S. Blair is absolutely not the only one, nor the only one in the D.C. Metro area.

The schools that don't offer much or any such course are college prep ones like the one the Obama girls attended. No surprise they don't; their goal is to prepare kids for college.
​

• "How to invent their own product" -- Seriously? How to invent one's own produce is a matter of coming up with an idea for a product. There is nothing to teach.

Sigh . . . . I don't think we are going to agree on this, as you went into this with the attitude of "debunking" the whole thing. Eh? You didn't even watching the whole thing, you went in to cherry pick segments, as such, you just do not comprehend the big picture, so really, I don't see much point in refuting any of what you say, b/c you are living in a fantasy land.

Your belief is that compulsory education is necessary and good, for everyone, and should be imposed, upon everyone. I'm not saying that college isn't right for some, maybe it is. Maybe it is right for the dull of imagination. Maybe it is right for those that aren't self-starters. Maybe it is right of those who need to be told what to do. But for those in whose veins runs the spirit of American entrepreneurship and the dreams of success, not being a slave to others, it just might not be right. Sometimes there are other paths to success.

On the other hand, I will give you, that if you want to be a successful slave, a wage slave, college is great. But if you really want to be successful, and have a free mind, if you are really driven. . . Nothing can hold you back, that is the point. Schooling is typically only a hindrance. Self-starters get what education they need, and pieces of paper only when foolish people demand them.

8 Hugely Successful People Who Didn't Graduate College
8 Hugely Successful People Who Didn't Graduate College
"1. Steve Jobs

<snip>
2. Richard Branson

<snip>
3. Dave Thomas

<snip>
4. David Green

<snip>

5. Larry Ellison

<snip>

6. Kevin Rose

<snip>

7. Michael Dell

<snip>

8. Rachael Ray

<snip>

Final thoughts
The moral of the story? A driven personality always finds a way. An education can either be a stepping stone or a road block on the path to achievement. If education proves to be an obstacle, those with an entrepreneurial spirit will push it aside and go their own chosen route.

Today, in the information age, there are many ways to learn and develop the skills you need to become a successful entrepreneur. Homeschooling may be a worthwhile option for many, especially if you have the desire to learn at your own pace, or if you have kids that are ambitious and independent thinkers."


(Just a few excerpts)
Top 100 Entrepreneurs Who Made Millions Without A College Degree
Top 100 Entrepreneurs Who Made Millions Without A College Degree

"Abraham Lincoln, lawyer, U.S. president. Finished one year of formal schooling, self-taught himself trigonometry, and read Blackstone on his own to become a lawyer.

Andrew Jackson, U.S. president, general, attorney, judge, congressman. Home-schooled. Became a practicing attorney by the age of 35 – without a formal education.

Benjamin Franklin, inventor, scientist, author, entrepreneur. Primarily home-schooled.

Debbi Fields, founder of Mrs. Fields Chocolate Chippery. Later renamed, franchised, then sold Mrs. Field’s Cookies.

Frank Lloyd Wright, the most influential architect of the twentieth century. Never attended high school.

George Eastman, multimillionaire inventor, Kodak founder. Dropped out of high school.

H. Wayne Huizenga, founder of WMX garbage company, helped build Blockbuster video chain. Joined the Army out of high school, and later went to college only to drop out during his first year.

James Cameron, Oscar-winning director, screenwriter, and producer. Dropped out of college.

Kemmons Wilson, multimillionaire, founder of Holiday Inn. High school dropout.

Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s. Dropped out of high school.

Rush Limbaugh, multi-millionaire media mogul, radio talk show host. Dropped out of college.

Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, phonograph, and more. Primarily home-schooled, then joined the railroad when he was only 12.

W. Clement Stone, multimillionaire insurance man, author, founder of Success magazine. Dropped out of elementary school. Later attended high school, graduating. Attended but did not finish college.

Walt Disney, founder of the Walt Disney Company. Dropped out of high school at 16."

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Help for the poor misguided souls....like the OP

 

[usmbguest5318]

Part I of II

It's said that the "devil is in the details." The problem I have with that video is that its producer has "cherry picked" people whose stories to tell. Each of them that has a "sad story" is an exception, not a "typical" member of their career or academic cohort and each of them chose among the most expensive ways that existed to finance their education. For both Dr. Bacon and Mr. Jacobs, I looked into the details of the path they chose. Neither of them made smart choices. (I discuss that in my remarks below)

The reality, like it or not, is that sometimes it happens that the only choices available, and by which one can pursue the career one wants, are bad ones. When that happens, one of the less risky and smart choices is to find something else to do that one enjoys doing. Refusing to do so, one must assume the risk. Risk is a thing that sometimes does materialize into a devastating reality. Nobody holds a gun to one's head forcing one to assume the risky option, yet Dr. Bacon and Mr. Jacobs assumed the risks they did.

you went into this with the attitude of "debunking" the whole thing.

Actually, I began watching the video looking for one credible assertion after the next, all leading to a sound conclusion. What I found from the outset was one unfounded opinion after the next.

I'm not opposed to unorthodox ideas. I am opposed to arguments that begin with false premises. The orthodoxy of sound argument-building is not a matter of opinion, nor is it optional.

To wit...In one section of the video, the discussion focuses on law school graduates and the implementation of laws in our society. The video asserts that members (lawyers) of Congress to purposefully pass "harmful and destructive" laws, "as many as possible" according to the video's narrator. Shortly afterward, the narrator says, "all the needless legislation passed each year has the devastating unintended consequence of destroying what little is left of the free market," namely that people cannot start successful small businesses because all their capital will be consumed by legal fees.

Neither assertion is corroborated by anything other than editorial opinion from individuals who are not experts on the matter. Moreover, the video contradicts itself in the space of mere minutes. One either intentionally passes laws "harmful and destructive" laws or one passes such laws unintentionally. Most importantly, however, no matter which be so, Ethan Jacobs, a disillusioned law school graduate of Chapman Law School is no authority on the matter, yet that's who they have attesting anecdotally to corroborate their assertions.

The guy is an example of exactly what I and the video aver does not work. I will openly admit it works even less among grad school students. Anyone with any knowledge higher education will tell you that where one gets one's final degree -- assuming one is going the degree route -- is what matters.

• Chapman law grads median starting salary range -- $50K - $65K
  Georgetown law grads median starting salary range -- $53K - $160K
  University of CA, Berkeley Law starting salary range -- $54K - $160K
  University of CA, Los Angeles Law starting salary range -- $44K - $160K
  
  What do I infer from the above comparison/contrast? The top paying firms don't hire Chapman Law grads.
• Chapman law tuition -- $50K
  Georgetown law tuition -- $57K
  UC Berkeley Law tuition -- $49K (in state)
  UCLA law tuition -- $45K (in state)
  
  If one insists on going to a Los Angeles area law school, go to UCLA instead of Chapman.
• Chapman law student to faculty ratio -- 10.3:1
  Georgetown law student to faculty ratio -- 9.2:1
  UC Berkeley law student to faculty ratio -- 13.8:1
  UCLA law student to faculty ratio -- 10.6:1

I wouldn't tell the kids I know to go to Chapman Law, yet based on the fact that it seems adept at taking mediocre undergrads and educating them to pass the bar exam, it may well have been right choice for Ethan. The key to success when going to a school like Chapman is understanding what impact it has on one's career path. Quite simply, like it or not, coming from Chapman, no matter how highly graduated, one cannot compete with the top tier grads for high paying associate positions, so one must take a different route.

Assuming one graduates well from Chapman, the smart move is public sector employment for three to six years and then switch to the private sector, being either self-employed or in a high paying firm. Why that path? Because one has to work enough to show that even though one didn't go to a top tier school, one is just as good as a top tier graduate. The way to do that is to "oppose" them, so to speak, which is exactly what one will be doing as a government attorney working on the opposite side of cases the top tier grads work. (One also will get much sooner noticed by one's peers and superiors in the profession. It's a long while before associates at top firms lead cases and argue in court. One "leads and pleads" much sooner in the government.)​

As for the tuition costs, the best way to deal with that is to go to any decent school that one can afford and get one's bachelor's degree. Go to a top tier school for graduate work. It's worth nothing here that while all the "elite" schools are highly ranked in most disciplines, schools having far less renown are also top tier in specific fields. If one is interested in any of those specific fields, going to a top school that doesn't cost "Harvard-money" is just fine.

• Economics -- Chicago, Berkeley, NYU, U. Mich - Ann Arbor, U. Wisc. - Madison, U. MD -College Park, and others all are in the top 25 and they are reasonably priced, especially for in-state students.
• Engineering -- GA Tech, U. Mich - Ann Arbor, Purdue, U. IL - Urbana-Champaign, UT Austin, Texas A&M - College Station

One doesn't have to spend a "mint" to go to a top tier school, but one can. Just as I illustrated the rankings for two specific graduate programs, one can find the same for undergrad programs. If one is shooting for maximum efficiency, as an undergrad, go to the best in-state school for the program one most desires. For example, if one wants to study psychology as an undergrad, though going to Harvard, Yale or Stanford won't hurt, it'd be nuts to go to any of the those three if one lives in Michigan and doesn't get a very, very generous scholarship/grant package. (different psychology link than the last one)

And if one must have an "elite" school bachelor's degree, there are other ways to get one. Going to a community college and transferring into an "elite" school after a year or two at the community college is one way. It's also a very cost effective one. Why? Because the "dirty secret" of college is that the "core curriculum" of classes has exactly the same content no matter where one goes. Calculus is calculus everywhere one goes.That's why one who scores 4 or 5 the AP Calculus exam will get college credit for it anywhere one goes.

Speaking of AP exams, they are another way to reduce the cost of college. Each of my kids entered college as a sophomore or near-sophomore purely because they took AP classes and scored 4 or 5 on the AP exams. That got each them college credit (hours, not GPA points) for calculus, biology, physics, chemistry, US history, European history, English, and at least one language (my daughter also got credit for Latin, which made her enter college as a sophomore).

My oldest finished school in 3 years due to his taking summer classes and went straight to work. My daughter chose to take four years so she could take more classes in stuff she felt would be cool to study and to take a couple grad school classes to see what she thought about grad school. The other two are still in college. Even though money's not a factor in their college decisions, for families for which it is, the AP credits from high school plus (or) community college will save one many thousands of dollars.

I appreciate that you responded to my remarks somewhat substantively, but I think you missed the relevance of one or both of the more important points I made in it.

I think too many people miss a key part of the offer of the "American Dream." That being the implicit assumption that one must uphold one's end of the "deal" by being a top performer. That's always been so, but it's more so now than it was, say, 70 years ago. There's no question that the bar has been raised.

What I was told is that I need to get a degree and distinguish myself in the course of getting it. Why? Because unlike some of my high school classmates, there was no family business I was destined to own regardless of my collegiate performance. The point is that the less of an "already paved way" one has upon entering high school and college, the more necessary it is for one to be top (not "near top," top) performer, that is in the top 5% of one's graduating class. (except at schools like my kids' that don't have class rank; at such places one must just perform as near to as high as level as is possible to perform.)

you are living in a fantasy land.

By my reckoning, "fantasy land" is in part characterised by having an abundance of "residents" expecting success as those several individuals attained, and their doing so solely on the basis of having a college degree. The "real world," on the other hand, is characterised in part by its abundance of individuals who make a plan, follow it and adjust it as needed, and in turn realize a decent lifestyle, something that calls for nothing like the extent of success achieved by those several folks you cited.

It's also worth noting that college or no college, succeeding to the extent I or people like those you identified will obviate one principal concern the video expresses -- being in great debt as a result of having gone to college.

I'll tell you what else is "fantasy land." Going to dental school and then settling in Branson, MO, with its 11K residents and ~$20K per capita income ($43K median), and thinking one will make a great living. Branson has three dentists' offices.

There you go. That's all of Branson, MO, all 11K of them ​

How many dentists do you think Branson needs? How may people in Branson do you think are paying for more than routine dental care? Call me crazy, but I doubt Branson, MO is a bustling hub of cosmetic dentistry. Quite simply, Branson is the wrong place to try hanging one's own new dentistry shingle, and while that it is is nobody's fault, that the woman in the video (8:22) has chosen to be a dentist there is nobody's fault but her own. [1] Odds are a person having a degree in IT, finance or engineering probably also isn't making a good living if they're trying to do so in Branson, MO.

Branson appears to be making something of a name for itself in the country music industry, but it's still not Nashville, which is what it'd need to be for a dentist, because there's not much money in dental work for tourists. Dentists need to be where there's an indigenous population that needs routine dentistry and will occasionally pay for cosmetic dentistry.

The cost of dental school or her undergrad degree, thus the loans Dr. Bacon (62 years old, she got her DDS in 1989) took out to get those degrees, doesn't have a damn thing to do with her poor choice of places to work. She wanted to be a dentist. Great. She is a dentist. She might be a happy dentist were she to have chosen to be one in Springfield, MO or St. Louis, MO.
I'll close this part by saying that were I to have come out of dental school with $200K in school debt, I'd have found myself a dentist job somewhere that handsomely pays dentists, moving to Branson (or wherever) when, after I'd made the kind of money I needed to pay off those loans, I could buy one of the existing and thriving dental practices already in Branson.

Note:

1. Dr. Bacon referred to is the anti-kick-back statute -- 42 U.S.C. 1320a - 7b(b). It's not a new statute. (click on the notes tab of the code link) The woman mentions that "they" don't tell you about the consequences defaulting on a HEAL loan. BS!
   1. The statute isn't new.
   2. The journal of the AMA in 1989 published the following document that discusses the matter: HELP FOR HEALERS WITH STUDENT LOAN TROUBLES (I'm not even a doctor, and she is) The document states:
      
      First, if an individual defaults, the loan holder-generally a bank-must take the person to court to obtain a judgment before HRSA will pay the lender's default claim from the Student Loan Insurance Fund. A judgment is likely to end up at the Department of Justice for collection and subsequently may be referred to a collection agent. The result could be a practitioner's exclusion from Medicare reimbursement or a tax offset by the Internal Revenue Service.
      
      I'll leave it to you to figure out what it takes to default on a student loan and to explain why an aspiring or new doctor/dentist isn't reading the Journal of the AMA, at least the abstracts to the articles, from the moment they start med/dental school, or once they begin to practice.
   3. 14:15 -- Dr. Bacon shares the monthly payment amount she was expected to pay. I can see quite clearly that in 1990, she was expected to pay ~$2300/month. That is what it is. In 1989, the median dentist salary was $143K/year. Even assuming she earned half that in 1989, would someone tell me why the hell she either (1) didn't chose to work somewhere that paid close to that, or (2) even earning half the median salary, could not make the payments in Branson, MO where even after taxes (assuming 31%, just to be conservative...her marginal rate earning ~$71K would have been 28%) she'd still have $1841 left over? (Note that as an employee, potentially she had only to pay for "tail coverage," but as a newly minted dentist, she didn't have prior patients, so she wouldn't have had to pay. Even so, it's not expensive. Were she an owner of the practice, she'd have had to pay it.)
   4. 15:15 -- The share of her wage that she's paying is 25%. The original payment plan had her at 10% of her wage. Why the big jump? She defaulted on the loan. That made her repayment amount increase dramatically.

Sometimes there are other paths to success.

I agree that college is not the only path. Going to a top tier college also isn't the only path. (see above)

Had the video commenced with that rather than making unfounded assertions about the school system and the "college approach" I might have been more receptive and laudatory about it. The argument the video attempts unsuccessfully to make can be made. But the video's authors didn't do so effectively because too many of its premises are simply false. One cannot begin by telling me things that I know to be untrue and later expect me to buy the conclusion born of those untruths.

I'm not saying that college isn't right for some, maybe it is. Maybe it is right for the dull of imagination. Maybe it is right for those that aren't self-starters. Maybe it is right of those who need to be told what to do.

I went to college, accepted a job offer, went back for a graduate degree and started my own firm upon graduating. But for college, there's no way I would have started the firm I did because the stuff my firm does isn't taught anywhere else, and it's not content for which high school students are ready. Though I'm not a billionaire, I can assure you that nobody would gripe about "having the quantity of digits left of the decimal" that I do. Even the wealthier millionaires and billionaires, were they not as well-off as they are, would be okay with it. Indeed, one could be a good deal less comfortable than I and still be very okay with it.

That said, I'm nobody special at all outside my profession; I have "household" fame of no sort. Neither do my colleagues, and yet we've all "made it" and college was integral to their and my doing so. Most importantly, we're happy with our lives.

My brother also went to college, but followed a different path. He availed himself of his connections with some foreigners and went into business with them. Why? Because (1) he got "full pop" scholarships and Momma and Dad gave him the money they didn't have to spend on his college degree (that money went a lot farther overseas then it would have in the U.S.), and (2) there was, by his reckoning, less competition and the bunch of them though they "had a better mousetrap" than did the existing competition. He spent about 20 years overseas, and he's back in the states now "sitting pretty." He was able to retire long before I was. Neither one of us is complaining.

you went in to cherry pick segments

Actually I didn't. I began watching the video by randomly clicking to see where it was going to go. Every time I landed on a section, the narrator said something I knew to be false.

if you want to be a successful slave, a wage slave

Guy McPherson used the term "wage slave economy" (~10:00) referring to the process he followed:

1. Finish college with little debt
2. Start work
3. Buy a house because culture tells one to do so --> F*ck what culture says do! Do you!
4. Be a "slave" to the mortgage for the next 20 years

He called college the "new mortgage." Well, that isn't at all true, and that it isn't makes it yet another assertion the video makes that is false. How so?

• The average college loan debt is ~$38K. ($24K when the video was made.) That's a car, not a house. As I remarked elsewhere on USMB, there's no way I'd take or let my kids take $136K for a bachelor's degree. It's a stupid move when there are far less dear alternatives (see above) that will produce substantively the same outcomes.
  • Student loans generally are payable over ten years. Who cannot pay $24K or $38K over ten years? We're talking (using $38K) ~$400/month on even an entry level job paying $50K/year? Even young people in D.C., where housing costs are very high, can handle that. They may have to share a place with someone else, but they can make it work.
• Unlike college debt, a mortgage, for the most part, locks one into a place, if not in fact, at least emotionally. I started my firm in D.C. because I had a mortgage in D.C.

You know what we say in my family? "Stupid and ugly are to the bone." In other words, if one begins life dong and thinking insipid things when one has sagacious alternatives, one will likely long do stupid things. We also say, "Ask a beggar how not to go broke, not how to get rich."

One can, of course, cotton to the "slave economy" model, but that again is one's own choice. Nobody makes one pursue that path.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Part I of II

It's said that the "devil is in the details." The problem I have with that video is that its producer has "cherry picked" people whose stories to tell. Each of them that has a "sad story" is an exception, not a "typical" member of their career or academic cohort and each of them chose among the most expensive ways that existed to finance their education. For both Dr. Bacon and Mr. Jacobs, I looked into the details of the path they chose. Neither of them made smart choices. (I discuss that in my remarks below)

The reality, like it or not, is that sometimes it happens that the only choices available, and by which one can pursue the career one wants, are bad ones. When that happens, one of the less risky and smart choices is to find something else to do that one enjoys doing. Refusing to do so, one must assume the risk. Risk is a thing that sometimes does materialize into a devastating reality. Nobody holds a gun to one's head forcing one to assume the risky option, yet Dr. Bacon and Mr. Jacobs assumed the risks they did.

you went into this with the attitude of "debunking" the whole thing.

Actually, I began watching the video looking for one credible assertion after the next, all leading to a sound conclusion. What I found from the outset was one unfounded opinion after the next.

I'm not opposed to unorthodox ideas. I am opposed to arguments that begin with false premises. The orthodoxy of sound argument-building is not a matter of opinion, nor is it optional.

To wit...In one section of the video, the discussion focuses on law school graduates and the implementation of laws in our society. The video asserts that members (lawyers) of Congress to purposefully pass "harmful and destructive" laws, "as many as possible" according to the video's narrator. Shortly afterward, the narrator says, "all the needless legislation passed each year has the devastating unintended consequence of destroying what little is left of the free market," namely that people cannot start successful small businesses because all their capital will be consumed by legal fees.

Neither assertion is corroborated by anything other than editorial opinion from individuals who are not experts on the matter. Moreover, the video contradicts itself in the space of mere minutes. One either intentionally passes laws "harmful and destructive" laws or one passes such laws unintentionally. Most importantly, however, no matter which be so, Ethan Jacobs, a disillusioned law school graduate of Chapman Law School is no authority on the matter, yet that's who they have attesting anecdotally to corroborate their assertions.

The guy is an example of exactly what I and the video aver does not work. I will openly admit it works even less among grad school students. Anyone with any knowledge higher education will tell you that where one gets one's final degree -- assuming one is going the degree route -- is what matters.

• Chapman law grads median starting salary range -- $50K - $65K
  Georgetown law grads median starting salary range -- $53K - $160K
  University of CA, Berkeley Law starting salary range -- $54K - $160K
  University of CA, Los Angeles Law starting salary range -- $44K - $160K
  
  What do I infer from the above comparison/contrast? The top paying firms don't hire Chapman Law grads.
• Chapman law tuition -- $50K
  Georgetown law tuition -- $57K
  UC Berkeley Law tuition -- $49K (in state)
  UCLA law tuition -- $45K (in state)
  
  If one insists on going to a Los Angeles area law school, go to UCLA instead of Chapman.
• Chapman law student to faculty ratio -- 10.3:1
  Georgetown law student to faculty ratio -- 9.2:1
  UC Berkeley law student to faculty ratio -- 13.8:1
  UCLA law student to faculty ratio -- 10.6:1

I wouldn't tell the kids I know to go to Chapman Law, yet based on the fact that it seems adept at taking mediocre undergrads and educating them to pass the bar exam, it may well have been right choice for Ethan. The key to success when going to a school like Chapman is understanding what impact it has on one's career path. Quite simply, like it or not, coming from Chapman, no matter how highly graduated, one cannot compete with the top tier grads for high paying associate positions, so one must take a different route.

Assuming one graduates well from Chapman, the smart move is public sector employment for three to six years and then switch to the private sector, being either self-employed or in a high paying firm. Why that path? Because one has to work enough to show that even though one didn't go to a top tier school, one is just as good as a top tier graduate. The way to do that is to "oppose" them, so to speak, which is exactly what one will be doing as a government attorney working on the opposite side of cases the top tier grads work. (One also will get much sooner noticed by one's peers and superiors in the profession. It's a long while before associates at top firms lead cases and argue in court. One "leads and pleads" much sooner in the government.)​

As for the tuition costs, the best way to deal with that is to go to any decent school that one can afford and get one's bachelor's degree. Go to a top tier school for graduate work. It's worth nothing here that while all the "elite" schools are highly ranked in most disciplines, schools having far less renown are also top tier in specific fields. If one is interested in any of those specific fields, going to a top school that doesn't cost "Harvard-money" is just fine.

• Economics -- Chicago, Berkeley, NYU, U. Mich - Ann Arbor, U. Wisc. - Madison, U. MD -College Park, and others all are in the top 25 and they are reasonably priced, especially for in-state students.
• Engineering -- GA Tech, U. Mich - Ann Arbor, Purdue, U. IL - Urbana-Champaign, UT Austin, Texas A&M - College Station

One doesn't have to spend a "mint" to go to a top tier school, but one can. Just as I illustrated the rankings for two specific graduate programs, one can find the same for undergrad programs. If one is shooting for maximum efficiency, as an undergrad, go to the best in-state school for the program one most desires. For example, if one wants to study psychology as an undergrad, though going to Harvard, Yale or Stanford won't hurt, it'd be nuts to go to any of the those three if one lives in Michigan and doesn't get a very, very generous scholarship/grant package. (different psychology link than the last one)

And if one must have an "elite" school bachelor's degree, there are other ways to get one. Going to a community college and transferring into an "elite" school after a year or two at the community college is one way. It's also a very cost effective one. Why? Because the "dirty secret" of college is that the "core curriculum" of classes has exactly the same content no matter where one goes. Calculus is calculus everywhere one goes.That's why one who scores 4 or 5 the AP Calculus exam will get college credit for it anywhere one goes.

Speaking of AP exams, they are another way to reduce the cost of college. Each of my kids entered college as a sophomore or near-sophomore purely because they took AP classes and scored 4 or 5 on the AP exams. That got each them college credit (hours, not GPA points) for calculus, biology, physics, chemistry, US history, European history, English, and at least one language (my daughter also got credit for Latin, which made her enter college as a sophomore).

My oldest finished school in 3 years due to his taking summer classes and went straight to work. My daughter chose to take four years so she could take more classes in stuff she felt would be cool to study and to take a couple grad school classes to see what she thought about grad school. The other two are still in college. Even though money's not a factor in their college decisions, for families for which it is, the AP credits from high school plus (or) community college will save one many thousands of dollars.

I appreciate that you responded to my remarks somewhat substantively, but I think you missed the relevance of one or both of the more important points I made in it.

I think too many people miss a key part of the offer of the "American Dream." That being the implicit assumption that one must uphold one's end of the "deal" by being a top performer. That's always been so, but it's more so now than it was, say, 70 years ago. There's no question that the bar has been raised.

What I was told is that I need to get a degree and distinguish myself in the course of getting it. Why? Because unlike some of my high school classmates, there was no family business I was destined to own regardless of my collegiate performance. The point is that the less of an "already paved way" one has upon entering high school and college, the more necessary it is for one to be top (not "near top," top) performer, that is in the top 5% of one's graduating class. (except at schools like my kids' that don't have class rank; at such places one must just perform as near to as high as level as is possible to perform.)

you are living in a fantasy land.

By my reckoning, "fantasy land" is in part characterised by having an abundance of "residents" expecting success as those several individuals attained, and their doing so solely on the basis of having a college degree. The "real world," on the other hand, is characterised in part by its abundance of individuals who make a plan, follow it and adjust it as needed, and in turn realize a decent lifestyle, something that calls for nothing like the extent of success achieved by those several folks you cited.

It's also worth noting that college or no college, succeeding to the extent I or people like those you identified will obviate one principal concern the video expresses -- being in great debt as a result of having gone to college.

I'll tell you what else is "fantasy land." Going to dental school and then settling in Branson, MO, with its 11K residents and ~$20K per capita income ($43K median), and thinking one will make a great living. Branson has three dentists' offices.

There you go. That's all of Branson, MO, all 11K of them ​

How many dentists do you think Branson needs? How may people in Branson do you think are paying for more than routine dental care? Call me crazy, but I doubt Branson, MO is a bustling hub of cosmetic dentistry. Quite simply, Branson is the wrong place to try hanging one's own new dentistry shingle, and while that it is is nobody's fault, that the woman in the video (8:22) has chosen to be a dentist there is nobody's fault but her own. [1] Odds are a person having a degree in IT, finance or engineering probably also isn't making a good living if they're trying to do so in Branson, MO.

Branson appears to be making something of a name for itself in the country music industry, but it's still not Nashville, which is what it'd need to be for a dentist, because there's not much money in dental work for tourists. Dentists need to be where there's an indigenous population that needs routine dentistry and will occasionally pay for cosmetic dentistry.

The cost of dental school or her undergrad degree, thus the loans Dr. Bacon (62 years old, she got her DDS in 1989) took out to get those degrees, doesn't have a damn thing to do with her poor choice of places to work. She wanted to be a dentist. Great. She is a dentist. She might be a happy dentist were she to have chosen to be one in Springfield, MO or St. Louis, MO.
I'll close this part by saying that were I to have come out of dental school with $200K in school debt, I'd have found myself a dentist job somewhere that handsomely pays dentists, moving to Branson (or wherever) when, after I'd made the kind of money I needed to pay off those loans, I could buy one of the existing and thriving dental practices already in Branson.

Note:

1. Dr. Bacon referred to is the anti-kick-back statute -- 42 U.S.C. 1320a - 7b(b). It's not a new statute. (click on the notes tab of the code link) The woman mentions that "they" don't tell you about the consequences defaulting on a HEAL loan. BS!
   1. The statute isn't new.
   2. The journal of the AMA in 1989 published the following document that discusses the matter: HELP FOR HEALERS WITH STUDENT LOAN TROUBLES (I'm not even a doctor, and she is) The document states:
      
      First, if an individual defaults, the loan holder-generally a bank-must take the person to court to obtain a judgment before HRSA will pay the lender's default claim from the Student Loan Insurance Fund. A judgment is likely to end up at the Department of Justice for collection and subsequently may be referred to a collection agent. The result could be a practitioner's exclusion from Medicare reimbursement or a tax offset by the Internal Revenue Service.
      
      I'll leave it to you to figure out what it takes to default on a student loan and to explain why an aspiring or new doctor/dentist isn't reading the Journal of the AMA, at least the abstracts to the articles, from the moment they start med/dental school, or once they begin to practice.
   3. 14:15 -- Dr. Bacon shares the monthly payment amount she was expected to pay. I can see quite clearly that in 1990, she was expected to pay ~$2300/month. That is what it is. In 1989, the median dentist salary was $143K/year. Even assuming she earned half that in 1989, would someone tell me why the hell she either (1) didn't chose to work somewhere that paid close to that, or (2) even earning half the median salary, could not make the payments in Branson, MO where even after taxes (assuming 31%, just to be conservative...her marginal rate earning ~$71K would have been 28%) she'd still have $1841 left over? (Note that as an employee, potentially she had only to pay for "tail coverage," but as a newly minted dentist, she didn't have prior patients, so she wouldn't have had to pay. Even so, it's not expensive. Were she an owner of the practice, she'd have had to pay it.)
   4. 15:15 -- The share of her wage that she's paying is 25%. The original payment plan had her at 10% of her wage. Why the big jump? She defaulted on the loan. That made her repayment amount increase dramatically.

Sometimes there are other paths to success.

I agree that college is not the only path. Going to a top tier college also isn't the only path. (see above)

Had the video commenced with that rather than making unfounded assertions about the school system and the "college approach" I might have been more receptive and laudatory about it. The argument the video attempts unsuccessfully to make can be made. But the video's authors didn't do so effectively because too many of its premises are simply false. One cannot begin by telling me things that I know to be untrue and later expect me to buy the conclusion born of those untruths.

I'm not saying that college isn't right for some, maybe it is. Maybe it is right for the dull of imagination. Maybe it is right for those that aren't self-starters. Maybe it is right of those who need to be told what to do.

I went to college, accepted a job offer, went back for a graduate degree and started my own firm upon graduating. But for college, there's no way I would have started the firm I did because the stuff my firm does isn't taught anywhere else, and it's not content for which high school students are ready. Though I'm not a billionaire, I can assure you that nobody would gripe about "having the quantity of digits left of the decimal" that I do. Even the wealthier millionaires and billionaires, were they not as well-off as they are, would be okay with it. Indeed, one could be a good deal less comfortable than I and still be very okay with it.

That said, I'm nobody special at all outside my profession; I have "household" fame of no sort. Neither do my colleagues, and yet we've all "made it" and college was integral to their and my doing so. Most importantly, we're happy with our lives.

My brother also went to college, but followed a different path. He availed himself of his connections with some foreigners and went into business with them. Why? Because (1) he got "full pop" scholarships and Momma and Dad gave him the money they didn't have to spend on his college degree (that money went a lot farther overseas then it would have in the U.S.), and (2) there was, by his reckoning, less competition and the bunch of them though they "had a better mousetrap" than did the existing competition. He spent about 20 years overseas, and he's back in the states now "sitting pretty." He was able to retire long before I was. Neither one of us is complaining.

you went in to cherry pick segments

Actually I didn't. I began watching the video by randomly clicking to see where it was going to go. Every time I landed on a section, the narrator said something I knew to be false.

if you want to be a successful slave, a wage slave

Guy McPherson used the term "wage slave economy" (~10:00) referring to the process he followed:

1. Finish college with little debt
2. Start work
3. Buy a house because culture tells one to do so --> F*ck what culture says do! Do you!
4. Be a "slave" to the mortgage for the next 20 years

He called college the "new mortgage." Well, that isn't at all true, and that it isn't makes it yet another assertion the video makes that is false. How so?

• The average college loan debt is ~$38K. ($24K when the video was made.) That's a car, not a house. As I remarked elsewhere on USMB, there's no way I'd take or let my kids take $136K for a bachelor's degree. It's a stupid move when there are far less dear alternatives (see above) that will produce substantively the same outcomes.
  • Student loans generally are payable over ten years. Who cannot pay $24K or $38K over ten years? We're talking (using $38K) ~$400/month on even an entry level job paying $50K/year? Even young people in D.C., where housing costs are very high, can handle that. They may have to share a place with someone else, but they can make it work.
• Unlike college debt, a mortgage, for the most part, locks one into a place, if not in fact, at least emotionally. I started my firm in D.C. because I had a mortgage in D.C.

You know what we say in my family? "Stupid and ugly are to the bone." In other words, if one begins life dong and thinking insipid things when one has sagacious alternatives, one will likely long do stupid things. We also say, "Ask a beggar how not to go broke, not how to get rich."

One can, of course, cotton to the "slave economy" model, but that again is one's own choice. Nobody makes one pursue that path.

A bit OT:
And if the above isn't enough good reason to go to college, this ought to be: What's Your Number? I read what the report says that people say -- just under 8 -- and thought "either most respondents lied or the researchers didn't interview enough college graduates." Eight was "everyone's" number by the end of their first semester of college.

WTF? Well, judging by the linked report, not enough? Mostly not at all? What's the point of a "study break" if not "TF?" It clears the mind very effectively so that when one returns to the books, looking at them, one knows quite well what one remembers from among the stuff one read and took notes about and what one has totally forgotten or barely remembers. I cannot tell you how many girls all had the same first name, "Some Girl Who." I'm sure I was one of many guys named "Some Guy Who"

 

[JoeB131]

No, this was Obama stupid idea, and Trump has the same pen and phone that Obama's had and elections have consequences.

Sorry Barry....your legacy is shit.

again, it's going to look pretty bad when ICE starts pulling mothers out of their homes away from their children.

But Trump is dumb enough to do it.

 

[easyt65]

DACA is Un-Constitutional.

After Obama himself declared he could not change immigration policy / laws by himself because that was not within his Constitutional authority to do, he did so by EO anyway.

Liberals have given great EMOTIONAL arguments for preserving the Constitutional violating Obama legacy program, but they can't make a CONSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL argument to do so.

On Fox News yesterday, libtard Geraldi Rivera spoke for all the snowflakes out there when he passionately, emotionally declared, "If letting this program fade out and forcing those benefitting from DACA right now means kids who are here illegally for no fault of their own have to leave the country THEN TO HELL WITH THE CONSTITUTION."

Obama, Geraldo, Antifa all prove liberals have no respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law.