What a vulgar rendition: "little nothing no-name universities."
There's more to a college than how much money it's going to make you throughout your entire life. In the case of St Lawrence and Adrian: this is where you send your children to if you don't want them to end up "of the world." They're small campuses, in controlled environments, with people from similar backgrounds (i.e. long-time upper middle class, no intentions of "moving up" or down). $40-50k a year for a couple of years is absolutely nothing if you want to make certain your offspring don't end up silly (and if you're of that notion, you surely can cover the cost).
For Landmark, it's obvious from a cursory glance of their info that this is a "special case," and different from the rest: it's a college tailored towards those with learning disabilities. Whether or not this justifies the costs is another matter, but it cannot be seriously lumped in as a regular college for comparison.
T1 is more marketing than substance. Most of the "Ivy League"s have fallen off since coming into public consciousness, and being flooded by people other than those that once brought it a good name. Even the "grinder schools" (e.g. CMU, MIT, etc.) are following in similar fashion (again, appearance over substance). Will they expose you to a wide range of people that may end up being useful towards some end in the future? Yes, but it's obscene to even think such a thought.
What century is this? Most people would probably think it a bit ridiculous to spend $40-50k a year trying to prevent kids from being "of the world" or "ending up silly". Even as someone who went to a private university, these are not good reasons to do so.
I'd also be interested in any evidence in the supposed downturn among elite universities - last I saw they are still quite effective at putting graduates into the highest echelons of government and industry. Even the supposedly more iconoclast industries like tech are largely inhabited by graduates of top schools.
You would fall into the "of the world" camp. There are others, a relative minority but prevalent everywhere, that don't want to be a part of this, nor want their children involved. You will likely never interact with them, and their thoughts and feelings will never reach you -- but that doesn't mean their worlds are inane (or rather, more inane than any other).
The deterioration of quality within the "elite universities" is self-evident if one goes by more nuanced measure than "how high up the industrial and political ladder" its graduates reach. What the contrary is, is a matter of values that I will not be elaborating upon (this conversation has become tiring).
Oh, I know people who share your views, including a few relatives. I'm just not into cults.
Either you've taught your kids cakes that will stand up in the face of scrutiny and alternative belief systems, or you're peddling junk and hoping that with enough brainwashing and avoiding reality, they won't figure it out.
also look at how big endowments of the "big" private schools is. It's almost obscene that they are just letting all that wealth sit rather than doing something with it.
The conversation right now is how expensive universities are. This is what most people are worried about. They are not worried about whether their children have a free masseuse at their school giving free backrubs.
And I am writing for what the situation is today. However, I did my first year at a private university a long time ago, when the room, board, and tuition was $4,500 for a year, all meals included for the board. This is the equivalent of $18,718.87 per year today. That same school is now $60,000 per year. I went there for one year.
Then I changed directions and went to community college, followed by public state university. I paid $264 per year at the community college which is $1,098.17 in today's dollars or $2,200 per year. My public state univesity was $300 per semester, or $1,247.92 in today's dollars, or $2,500 per year. So this is equivalent to about $10,000 in today's dollars. No sweat.
>There's more to a college than how much money it's going to make you throughout your entire life.
It used to be this way, when I paid what I paid. Now, with costs going to $240,000 to get an undergraduate degree, this statement of yours is .... I can't think of a diplomatic and tactful way of saying it. But it is the worst idea ever. Especially since most degrees you will be paying that date for forever.
>T1 is more marketing than substance.
This is not news. It's always been this way. People knew this 40 years ago, when I was going to universiity. The reason one goes to the T1 schools has always been known to get the connections. Always. I used to work at a firm and they ONLY would hire from T1 universities. Made boatloads of money, too.
>Yes, but it's obscene to even think such a thought.
Only to you and those who agree with you. I don't think that way and there are billions of parents all over the world who would literally chop of their right arm to get their kinds into Harvard, Stanford, or any T1s. So I'm sure you are outnumbered there.
The only reason you think it is obscene is because you have some idealogical glasses on about what "should be" in some kind of perfect world.
Finally, I noticed zero differences from the small private university vs the public state university. I think if one develops a good personality and isn't socially awkward, then one can succeed no matter where they go. But for sure, with a Stanford or Harvard degree, the world really is your oyster. For sure. You can do anything with an elite degree, comparatively speaking.
"America" is in the unique position of having no culture -- barring "make money" -- to assimilate to. This obviously leads to much greater ease of assimilation for immigrants; you don't even need to speak English. If you can achieve an upper middle class income, you have assimilated and are thus dubbed "American."
In Europe, it's much different. There's no "short cut" to being accepted in your host society; and I very much doubt anyone really assimilates into a European culture if they're not born within. There's a depth to it that is impossible to grasp unless you've been submerged in it for the entirety of your life.
You will never be a German. Should you decide to change your mind, and make the decision to move to and have children there -- then perhaps they will end up being German; but that path is closed to the individual you.
Accepting people is a long process when your standards are high; and short when low. Letting people come and go as they please does not make for a very stable society, filled with the types of persons that are beneficial to the whole.
> "America" is in the unique position of having no culture -- barring "make money" -- to assimilate to
Which part of America are you from? America where I live absolutely has culture. Where I live this means things like sacred harp, country dances (contra, waltzes, English country, buck, etc.), bluegrass fiddle music, southern cooking (okra, smoked corn on the cob, etc.). Hollywood would have you believe we have no culture but we actually do.
You don't have to keep up with all the stuff it adds. If you actually need a certain thing C++ has added -- that you're unaware of -- you'll naturally find it when you go looking for it.
Otherwise, it's best to just stick with the feature-set that you know. KISS/YAGNI/if it ain't broke, don't fix it (but if it is broke, find a better way). Et other cliches.
I strongly disagree with this. While you can keep using the old stuff, many of the new things will make your code better if you use them. Sure you don't need the new stuff, but the highlights are important. There are also a lot of esoteric things that only a few people will use (but they really need), but you need to keep up just so you can use new features that make your code better.
Tolerance is tiresome. Putting up with nonsense, and being impelled to consume metaphorical shit, is vulgar to the soul.
In art, the nonsense is the lack of honesty. Inauthenticity brought forth and exhibited for all of us to see. People without a shred of depth having the obnoxiousness to put something out that appears to be more than it is. The hubris.
Each passing day, I understand the wisdom of the French and their intolerance more.
You've put to words an intuition I've always had, but been unable to verbalize: it irritates me when someone converses with the intent to reach some end... or just enters a conversation with some notion or emotion that they're holding tight onto, and will not waver no matter what.
Worse are those people with canned lines and vocal inflections... the same ones on repeat over and over again; like they've built up a toolbox of sound bites to navigate them through all of life. It's unbelievably grating to hear.
It feels vulgar... to make one's presence and desires so known and obvious... instead of having a conversation for its own sake... for the sake of amusement or personal expression...
It's as if they're treating socialization as a constant string of business deals to be navigated... gross.
There's more to a college than how much money it's going to make you throughout your entire life. In the case of St Lawrence and Adrian: this is where you send your children to if you don't want them to end up "of the world." They're small campuses, in controlled environments, with people from similar backgrounds (i.e. long-time upper middle class, no intentions of "moving up" or down). $40-50k a year for a couple of years is absolutely nothing if you want to make certain your offspring don't end up silly (and if you're of that notion, you surely can cover the cost).
For Landmark, it's obvious from a cursory glance of their info that this is a "special case," and different from the rest: it's a college tailored towards those with learning disabilities. Whether or not this justifies the costs is another matter, but it cannot be seriously lumped in as a regular college for comparison.
T1 is more marketing than substance. Most of the "Ivy League"s have fallen off since coming into public consciousness, and being flooded by people other than those that once brought it a good name. Even the "grinder schools" (e.g. CMU, MIT, etc.) are following in similar fashion (again, appearance over substance). Will they expose you to a wide range of people that may end up being useful towards some end in the future? Yes, but it's obscene to even think such a thought.