6 ms·

Why, because it goes against the "college is too expensive" rhetoric? The man had to work as a custodian full-time for this to work, and it took him nearly a de

by adrusi 10y ago

Why, because it goes against the "college is too expensive" rhetoric? The man had to work as a custodian full-time for this to work, and it took him nearly a decade to earn a four-year degree. Are you suggesting that it's reasonable for people from less-affluent backgrounds to have to spend their entire twenties working their way through school while the more affluent finish at 22? And, moreover, this only worked because he got a custodial job at a university, and one which offered good benefits. Last year I lived in a dorm at the University of Maryland and one of the custodians that cleaned the hallway was taking classes similarly to the man in the article (although he was much younger). He told me that it's hard to get a job at the university because of the better benefits, he was able to get it because he had previous custodial experience and because he was interviewed by someone sympathetic to his goal. It's not like this is something that just anyone could do.

ProAm 10y ago
> Are you suggesting that it's reasonable for people from less-affluent backgrounds to have to spend their entire twenties working their way through school while the more affluent finish at 22? Yes. > He told me that it's hard to get a job at the university because of the better benefits, he was able to get it because he had previous custodial experience and because he was interviewed by someone sympathetic to his goal. So he worked hard, found a plan and made it happen? This is what you are supposed to do. > It's not like this is something that just anyone could do. It absolutely is, maybe not this exact plan, but determination, patience and grit go a long ways.
- warmblood 10y ago
  It bears repeating that privilege generally sees fair treatment as a step down.
- cmaher 10y ago
  > > Are you suggesting that it's reasonable for people from less-affluent backgrounds to have to spend their entire twenties working their way through school while the more affluent finish at 22? > Yes. Why? What positive economic impact does this have? How can you justify 4+ years of lost positive contribution by these individuals to the economy? How is that economically efficient? What metrics are you basing your reasoning on?
  - ProAm 10y ago
    > Why? What positive economic impact does this have? How can you justify 4+ years of lost positive contribution by these individuals to the economy? How is that economically efficient? What metrics are you basing your reasoning on? Spending 10 years to get a degree versus 4 if you come from a privileged enough background isn't horrendous, especially when the person is working the entire 10 years to help get through the degree (probably close to break even vs going to to educational debt). Would it be better if they finished in 4 and were able to potentially start earning more money earlier? Of course. But I feel it is completely reasonable for someone who is less-affluent to work hard for 10 years to make their life better if they choose to follow that path. That is what I meant by my statement, not that it's the best path or the most fair path, but it is a path that can be successfully achieved by many (and probably rewarding in many ways that the more affluent will not experience).
- logical42 10y ago
  As a guy who joined the military in order to finance my undergraduate education via the GI Bill, I believe determination and grit were necessary for me to get where I am today. But I'm hardly arrogant enough believe that what was necessary for success is simultaneously sufficient for it. Considering the rise in college costs, my GI Bill yesterday would cover exactly shit today. And having empathy with people who aren't you helps a person not be an asshole, something I think you might benefit from considering.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    > And having empathy with people who aren't you helps a person not be an asshole, something I think you might benefit from considering. Im not sure I understand this statement, I wasn't being unempathetic to anyone in my comment. I was saying I believe it is perfectly acceptable for a person to work through school for 10 years to help achieve a better life for themselves and family especially when their options are limited. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just want to understand what you meant before I reply.
    - bbcbasic 10y ago
      Looks like you were snared by a loaded question. Your yes could be seen as agreeing that wealth inequality and it's unfair effects are reasonable.
      - ProAm 10y ago
        Ah, yes I can see that. Reasonable or unreasonable doesn't matter because it's reality. Similar to some people being born better looking than others and thus often have an easier life. It's just the fact of the matter that must be dealt with, and pointless to argue the merits of it being reasonable or fair.
        arthur_pryor 10y ago
        > Ah, yes I can see that. Reasonable or unreasonable doesn't matter because it's reality. Similar to some people being born better looking than others and thus often have an easier life. It's just the fact of the matter that must be dealt with, and pointless to argue the merits of it being reasonable or fair. i disagree wholeheartedly with your conclusion that you should just accept the situation as it is and not complain about the way the world works. it's perfectly reasonable to complain about the system in general being unjust, and it's perfectly reasonable to think that vastly differing educational opportunities make for an unjust society. to me, the attitude i see you displaying is one that would never lead to an improved society (or the existence of society in the first place, if you take that attitude back to pre-civilization times). people used this line of reasoning to argue against the need to fight for things like civil rights. i think it's a point of view that is generally bad for the world and toxic to society. we should always be striving to improve the way that the world works and the way that we behave towards one another both personally and in society at large. and specifically... > some people being born better looking than others and thus often have an easier life. It's just the fact of the matter this does not seem like a good thing to me, and i find it hard to buy as a justification for your argument. it may be the way that humans naturally function, but we do a lot of things naturally that aren't good for ourselves or society in the long run. e.g. people naturally experience bloodlust when they are greatly wronged. that doesn't make murdering your cheating spouse justifiable homicide, though at one point it would've, and in some places it still does.
- adrusi 10y ago
  "Determination, patience and grit" go a long way only because other people don't have them. There's a limited number of opportunities and only the people with the most "determination, patience and grit" (among other less moralistic factors) will get them. It's not that you have to pass a set threshold of grit, you have to beat your neighbor. Living in poverty and in absence of financial security already demands a certain amount of grit just for baseline survival, and hopelessness drains the rest. But regardless of the fairness of the situation, the existence of poverty is bad for everyone, and education is a way out of poverty. And in a democracy, education is and valuable end in itself.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    I shouldnt have used the word grit, it was a poor choice because you are right that some people need grit just to live, but doesn't mean they get further in life having it. 'Thoughtful or focused determination' would have been a better choice. A person who can put together a long term plan to achieve an ambitious goal and have the fortitude, will and perseverance to see it through.
- nkrisc 10y ago
  Then let's dispel the myth of equal opportunity and "The American Dream" if you're suggesting the mere fact of being born into an affluent family is reason enough to deserve a competitive advantage. The difference between someone completing their degree at 22 and 29 isn't hard work, it's money. But is this the optimal state of society? Would society be better off if everyone truly had an equal opportunity? Would we be better if the smartest, most driven among us actually had the means to achieve great things even if they weren't born into an affluent family?
  - ProAm 10y ago
    I completely agree with you, life isn't remotely fair. Some people, I'd say most people, have to work harder than others to achieve the same level of 'success'. Being that it's reasonable to expect people that want a higher level of success or quality of life, or whatever they are striving to achieve to work for it. This guy did what he had to do in order to achieve his goals, I'm not understanding why people have an issue with that?
    - mapt 10y ago
      Here's what I understand of why people have an issue with this article. * Life is getting less fair. Inequality is trending way up. Tuition in particular has been rising far faster than inflation for our entire lives, and middle-class wages have been flat. * This man is held up as an example of what we should all be striving for. He did a hard thing, clap clap. This is implicitly a distraction from the question of 'why is it this hard' and 'why is it getting harder'. It is a distraction from the numerous people put into his position who failed. * This is natural for a human interest story. That's what a human interest story does - it celebrates uplifting individual achievement in the face of dour odds; But this doesn't occur in a vacuum. Some people feel we should be working on those odds instead of celebrating, that this is an essential function of newsmedia. "Hardworking female jogger successfully runs away from axe murderer" is a story that leaves us feeling somewhat unsettled if the axe murderer is only mentioned in the lead paragraph, if they're treated as a potential threat we're all dealing with whose presence is beyond questioning. * "Colby Itkowitz is the lead anchor of the Inspired Life blog. She previously covered the quirks of national politics and the federal government." What's that say about us? Why are we clicking on this instead of clicking on the other thing? How do I demand change while I'm clapping for this man?

by adrusi 10y ago

ProAm 10y ago

> Are you suggesting that it's reasonable for people from less-affluent backgrounds to have to spend their entire twenties working their way through school while the more affluent finish at 22? Yes. > He told me that it's hard to get a job at the university because of the better benefits, he was able to get it because he had previous custodial experience and because he was interviewed by someone sympathetic to his goal. So he worked hard, found a plan and made it happen? This is what you are supposed to do. > It's not like this is something that just anyone could do. It absolutely is, maybe not this exact plan, but determination, patience and grit go a long ways.

warmblood 10y ago
It bears repeating that privilege generally sees fair treatment as a step down.
cmaher 10y ago
> > Are you suggesting that it's reasonable for people from less-affluent backgrounds to have to spend their entire twenties working their way through school while the more affluent finish at 22? > Yes. Why? What positive economic impact does this have? How can you justify 4+ years of lost positive contribution by these individuals to the economy? How is that economically efficient? What metrics are you basing your reasoning on?
- ProAm 10y ago
  > Why? What positive economic impact does this have? How can you justify 4+ years of lost positive contribution by these individuals to the economy? How is that economically efficient? What metrics are you basing your reasoning on? Spending 10 years to get a degree versus 4 if you come from a privileged enough background isn't horrendous, especially when the person is working the entire 10 years to help get through the degree (probably close to break even vs going to to educational debt). Would it be better if they finished in 4 and were able to potentially start earning more money earlier? Of course. But I feel it is completely reasonable for someone who is less-affluent to work hard for 10 years to make their life better if they choose to follow that path. That is what I meant by my statement, not that it's the best path or the most fair path, but it is a path that can be successfully achieved by many (and probably rewarding in many ways that the more affluent will not experience).
logical42 10y ago
As a guy who joined the military in order to finance my undergraduate education via the GI Bill, I believe determination and grit were necessary for me to get where I am today. But I'm hardly arrogant enough believe that what was necessary for success is simultaneously sufficient for it. Considering the rise in college costs, my GI Bill yesterday would cover exactly shit today. And having empathy with people who aren't you helps a person not be an asshole, something I think you might benefit from considering.
- ProAm 10y ago
  > And having empathy with people who aren't you helps a person not be an asshole, something I think you might benefit from considering. Im not sure I understand this statement, I wasn't being unempathetic to anyone in my comment. I was saying I believe it is perfectly acceptable for a person to work through school for 10 years to help achieve a better life for themselves and family especially when their options are limited. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just want to understand what you meant before I reply.
  - bbcbasic 10y ago
    Looks like you were snared by a loaded question. Your yes could be seen as agreeing that wealth inequality and it's unfair effects are reasonable.
    - ProAm 10y ago
      Ah, yes I can see that. Reasonable or unreasonable doesn't matter because it's reality. Similar to some people being born better looking than others and thus often have an easier life. It's just the fact of the matter that must be dealt with, and pointless to argue the merits of it being reasonable or fair.
      - arthur_pryor 10y ago
        > Ah, yes I can see that. Reasonable or unreasonable doesn't matter because it's reality. Similar to some people being born better looking than others and thus often have an easier life. It's just the fact of the matter that must be dealt with, and pointless to argue the merits of it being reasonable or fair. i disagree wholeheartedly with your conclusion that you should just accept the situation as it is and not complain about the way the world works. it's perfectly reasonable to complain about the system in general being unjust, and it's perfectly reasonable to think that vastly differing educational opportunities make for an unjust society. to me, the attitude i see you displaying is one that would never lead to an improved society (or the existence of society in the first place, if you take that attitude back to pre-civilization times). people used this line of reasoning to argue against the need to fight for things like civil rights. i think it's a point of view that is generally bad for the world and toxic to society. we should always be striving to improve the way that the world works and the way that we behave towards one another both personally and in society at large. and specifically... > some people being born better looking than others and thus often have an easier life. It's just the fact of the matter this does not seem like a good thing to me, and i find it hard to buy as a justification for your argument. it may be the way that humans naturally function, but we do a lot of things naturally that aren't good for ourselves or society in the long run. e.g. people naturally experience bloodlust when they are greatly wronged. that doesn't make murdering your cheating spouse justifiable homicide, though at one point it would've, and in some places it still does.
adrusi 10y ago
"Determination, patience and grit" go a long way only because other people don't have them. There's a limited number of opportunities and only the people with the most "determination, patience and grit" (among other less moralistic factors) will get them. It's not that you have to pass a set threshold of grit, you have to beat your neighbor. Living in poverty and in absence of financial security already demands a certain amount of grit just for baseline survival, and hopelessness drains the rest. But regardless of the fairness of the situation, the existence of poverty is bad for everyone, and education is a way out of poverty. And in a democracy, education is and valuable end in itself.
- ProAm 10y ago
  I shouldnt have used the word grit, it was a poor choice because you are right that some people need grit just to live, but doesn't mean they get further in life having it. 'Thoughtful or focused determination' would have been a better choice. A person who can put together a long term plan to achieve an ambitious goal and have the fortitude, will and perseverance to see it through.
nkrisc 10y ago
Then let's dispel the myth of equal opportunity and "The American Dream" if you're suggesting the mere fact of being born into an affluent family is reason enough to deserve a competitive advantage. The difference between someone completing their degree at 22 and 29 isn't hard work, it's money. But is this the optimal state of society? Would society be better off if everyone truly had an equal opportunity? Would we be better if the smartest, most driven among us actually had the means to achieve great things even if they weren't born into an affluent family?
- ProAm 10y ago
  I completely agree with you, life isn't remotely fair. Some people, I'd say most people, have to work harder than others to achieve the same level of 'success'. Being that it's reasonable to expect people that want a higher level of success or quality of life, or whatever they are striving to achieve to work for it. This guy did what he had to do in order to achieve his goals, I'm not understanding why people have an issue with that?
  - mapt 10y ago
    Here's what I understand of why people have an issue with this article. * Life is getting less fair. Inequality is trending way up. Tuition in particular has been rising far faster than inflation for our entire lives, and middle-class wages have been flat. * This man is held up as an example of what we should all be striving for. He did a hard thing, clap clap. This is implicitly a distraction from the question of 'why is it this hard' and 'why is it getting harder'. It is a distraction from the numerous people put into his position who failed. * This is natural for a human interest story. That's what a human interest story does - it celebrates uplifting individual achievement in the face of dour odds; But this doesn't occur in a vacuum. Some people feel we should be working on those odds instead of celebrating, that this is an essential function of newsmedia. "Hardworking female jogger successfully runs away from axe murderer" is a story that leaves us feeling somewhat unsettled if the axe murderer is only mentioned in the lead paragraph, if they're treated as a potential threat we're all dealing with whose presence is beyond questioning. * "Colby Itkowitz is the lead anchor of the Inspired Life blog. She previously covered the quirks of national politics and the federal government." What's that say about us? Why are we clicking on this instead of clicking on the other thing? How do I demand change while I'm clapping for this man?