Education in the USA

[PLAYER57832]

I am not sold she ardently believes its only luck. I think its more of luck (or as you say being born into luck) gives you a very powerful advantage.

If she doesn't believe that, she should be more clear then. Because she definitely comes across to me as believing that success in America is about 90% luck, as well.

As far as it being a powerful advantage to be born with money, well sure it is...I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. But that's a rather different issue than being successful.

It is a mixture, but most of you utterly dismiss what I mean by luck.

The fact is that just being born here in the "west" means that I am luckier than probably 90% of women out there. The fact that I was raised in a well off area of CA adds a lot, but I was also born just a few years too early to not get success without really, REALLY fighting for it. It was a classmate of mine who launched the last of the lawsuits that finally began to open up the Forest Service to women, for example. I scored in the 99% of college bound seniors, but NO ONE ever suggested I study math or engineering or anything like that, in fact, they discouraged me. Even later, I had to fight to stay in a upper division stats class... and then got a heartfelt, but too late apology from my adviser who taught that class. I am no raving beauty, am not a "social butterfly". BUT... these things would not be much hold backs to most of you guys. They were not to even my brothers or classmates. And by "classmates", I mean a range of guys with whom I regularly competed well, Maybe if I had been the valedictorian, but even then... track the lives of women who got that versus men and you see a very distinct difference. If you go just below the VERY top scorers in either women or minorities and you see something very different than your idea of "we get what we work for".

I have moved on. I go with what I have, not what I wish would or could have been. However, for people here to claim that all they have is just from hard work and to pretend that stories like mine are uncommon or the exception is just bull. You do no one any good by pretending that everyone gets things easy because you managed to make things work out for you.

[tzor]

If she doesn't believe that, she should be more clear then. Because she definitely comes across to me as believing that success in America is about 90% luck, as well.

I'll make it even more obvious ... it's all about luck! At least 90% is not higher! It's extremely rare that the average successful person went from zero to hero on the first try. Often the failed, and did so multiple times. But they kept trying.

And that's they key here. It is all about luck but it's also about how many times you get to roll the dice. If you quit you can never win. If you try you can get more rolls of the dice.

It is like the Monty Python joke about swamp castle. If you start a business it is more than likely going to fail. The next one might fail also. But the one that succeeds will bring success. Did you quit at the first business? Did you have the skills to figure out that third business?

[PLAYER57832]

If she doesn't believe that, she should be more clear then. Because she definitely comes across to me as believing that success in America is about 90% luck, as well.

I'll make it even more obvious ... it's all about luck! At least 90% is not higher! It's extremely rare that the average successful person went from zero to hero on the first try. Often the failed, and did so multiple times. But they kept trying.

And that's they key here. It is all about luck but it's also about how many times you get to roll the dice. If you quit you can never win. If you try you can get more rolls of the dice.

No. Dedication does matter. You won't win the lottery if you don't keep playing and people who play a lot do have a better chance of winning than someone who just plays a few times... but chances are still slim.

And you are ignoring what even allows you to "keep trying". There is a LOT of truth to the old saying "behind every successful man is a hard working woman". Add in a family, the local society, and you have a lot of things that people like to just pretend are non-existent externalities.

My husband volunteers over 20 hours a week for the fire department. I have a hard time finding even an hour or two to go to a meeting I want to attend. I have to take the kids, or risk them going on a fire/wreck/incident when the whistle blows. I did choose to have kids, did choose to get married, but for you to pretend that none of this matters, that everyone has the same opportunities is just poppycock.

[PLAYER57832]

More and more it has to do with being fortunate enough to live in the right area, one where you get funding and support. It also has a lot to do with "rule following", which too often is diametrically the opposite of real thinking.

I agree with the suggestion about rule-following (and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, from a hiring perspective).

This IS what a lot of particularly lower level managers believe, but the movers in society and what has traditionally marked the difference between people here and elsewhere is the ability to be creative and to find solutions.

I would argue that thinking "rule following" is a real overall benefit is a misguided and short-sighted view. Understand, there are absolutely times when rules must be made and followed. Emergency work comes to mind. Still, even within that, part of this is knowing when rules do need to be followed and when you have to look beyond. Part of the difference between real leaders/workers and mere laborers is understanding when it is worth risking a break in "the rules". when it is even necessary to do so.

A small example. Milk has a sell by date. Now, a LOT of people misunderstand that to mean that milk will instantly go bad on that date, that, open or closed, any milk should be tossed by that date. This is wrong on 2 fronts. If you open milk, it might well go bad before the date, depending on how it is handled and just when you opened it. On the other hand, if you have properly stored the milk, it should last at least a week after that date. This "safety margin" is intentionally built into the process. Now, at home, you can drink that milk as long as you like. However, legally, that milk cannot be sold or given to anyone in an institution (school, home, etc.) once the date is past. Except.... if there is an emergency, then you can get permission to go a day or two beyond. In fact, in practice, a lot of restaurants/schools, etc will, on rare occasion "misread" the date when orders fall short. Does this put anyone at risk? If careful, no, not at all! The rule is reasonable, but has a margin of safety. Given the choice of no milk or slightly outdated milk, well.... chances are you have drunk such and not known. I can remember at least one occasion when the local schools were legally allowed to give milk a day past its expiration date, due to a problem with a dairy or transport of milk (cannot remember the issue). Now, I have a hard time breaking most rules (seriously, I do). However, I have "broken" this one on a few occasions because I fully understand the risks (the lack of risk, actually). At home, its not even a matter of a rule... I will buy out of date stuff and use it, knowing it is reasonable (and at home, perfectly legal). My kids get the benefit of this rule when I get to take home out-dated chocolate milk or juices, even breads and pastries.

The thing is that a lot of people won't even consider such types of options.. or things like maybe just boiling milk, etc, etc. I am talking about personal emergency issues because its an area I have given a lot of thought, have some training in. Still, you find similar issues in just about every area. Managers tend to like "rule followers" because they are "easy". But, "easy" does not necessarily mean truly better.

In a similar way, managers will also prefer people who are "more like" them. There is a lot to be said for that, from their perspective. People WANT to work with people with whom they can easily relate, etc. Yet.... that means that a lot of people are just automatically excluded. Worse, this happens even when a manager actually values diversity, claims to value differences.

[Woodruff]

The only thing I take issue with on your first chart is the title: they immediately equate having a degree to being smart. I see dumb people with degrees all the time

Agreed. To me, a degree shows important things, such as a willingness to work to get where you want to be and perhaps being goal-oriented (although that could be questioned). But it doesn't so much equate to being intelligent.

More and more it has to do with being fortunate enough to live in the right area, one where you get funding and support. It also has a lot to do with "rule following", which too often is diametrically the opposite of real thinking.

I agree with the suggestion about rule-following (and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, from a hiring perspective). I don't agree with the idea of it being "luck". Not these days when there are so many scholarships available that are not even being used.

Yeah, like the ones for single mothers with kids... if you are married, need not apply. (PLENTY of those) Or, the ones for an American of Armenian dissent studying astronomic engineering. Oh, yeah, and a few for those poor illegal aliens who don't qualify for other types of assistance.

The rest of the "aid" is loans, and fewer and fewer degrees result in a career that make paying those loans back practical, particularly if you are not young and just starting out.

I'm just going to have to say that you're ignorant regarding the massive numbers of scholarships available, both for specific types of individuals as well as majors, and for much more general purposes...and leave it at that. Because you really couldn't be further from the truth. I'm well-versed in this, as I get to spend every year talking with my cadets about them a great deal. "Get" in the "it's part of my job" sense, not the "I really love to" sense.

From Player's perspective, if you are successful it mostly has to do with luck (or being born with money... which, technically, is also luck).

Not just "my perspective", sorry to break your illusions.
If you ask most people why they are successful, they inevitably say "hard work, dedication", and so forth. BUT, if you really track why people get the jobs they get and opportunities they get, it really heavily depends on who they know.

"Who you know" is absolutely not limited to "luck". Forward-thinking people network all the time. Hell, I network all the time and I'm not looking for a job. I do it because you never know what the future holds. This is not an aspect of luck. This is an aspect of diligence and persistence as much as anything else.

[Woodruff]

If she doesn't believe that, she should be more clear then. Because she definitely comes across to me as believing that success in America is about 90% luck, as well.

I'll make it even more obvious ... it's all about luck! At least 90% is not higher! It's extremely rare that the average successful person went from zero to hero on the first try.

Really? I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. I know a massive number of former military people who are quite successful. Their decision to join the military wasn't based on luck. Their decision to commit to a career field that would open up post-military job opportunities wasn't based on luck. Their commitment to gaining a degree thanks to the military while compiling huge amounts of on-the-job-training wasn't based on luck. These people are exceptionally hireable, and none of it is based on luck. I suppose you could consider it "luck" from the perspective of they WEREN'T born with money (for the most part), so they needed to go into the military. Which would be sort of the opposite of the kind of luck that PLAYER is referring to.

Often the failed, and did so multiple times. But they kept trying.

That's not luck. That's persistence.

[Woodruff]

More and more it has to do with being fortunate enough to live in the right area, one where you get funding and support. It also has a lot to do with "rule following", which too often is diametrically the opposite of real thinking.

I agree with the suggestion about rule-following (and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, from a hiring perspective).

This IS what a lot of particularly lower level managers believe, but the movers in society and what has traditionally marked the difference between people here and elsewhere is the ability to be creative and to find solutions.

That's an entirely different subject. Rule-following has nothing to do with creativity. One can absolutely be exceptionally creative while following the rules of the workplace. I'm talking about NOT BREAKING RULES, not "not thinking outside of the box".

Lack of creativity has nothing at all to do with rule-following. There are plenty of uncreative individuals who do not follow the rules.

As usual, you are mixing apples and oranges.

[Woodruff]

I am not sold she ardently believes its only luck. I think its more of luck (or as you say being born into luck) gives you a very powerful advantage.

If she doesn't believe that, she should be more clear then. Because she definitely comes across to me as believing that success in America is about 90% luck, as well.

As far as it being a powerful advantage to be born with money, well sure it is...I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. But that's a rather different issue than being successful.

It is a mixture, but most of you utterly dismiss what I mean by luck.

The fact is that just being born here in the "west" means that I am luckier than probably 90% of women out there. The fact that I was raised in a well off area of CA adds a lot, but I was also born just a few years too early to not get success without really, REALLY fighting for it. It was a classmate of mine who launched the last of the lawsuits that finally began to open up the Forest Service to women, for example. I scored in the 99% of college bound seniors, but NO ONE ever suggested I study math or engineering or anything like that, in fact, they discouraged me. Even later, I had to fight to stay in a upper division stats class... and then got a heartfelt, but too late apology from my adviser who taught that class. I am no raving beauty, am not a "social butterfly". BUT... these things would not be much hold backs to most of you guys. They were not to even my brothers or classmates. And by "classmates", I mean a range of guys with whom I regularly competed well, Maybe if I had been the valedictorian, but even then... track the lives of women who got that versus men and you see a very distinct difference. If you go just below the VERY top scorers in either women or minorities and you see something very different than your idea of "we get what we work for".

I have moved on. I go with what I have, not what I wish would or could have been. However, for people here to claim that all they have is just from hard work and to pretend that stories like mine are uncommon or the exception is just bull. You do no one any good by pretending that everyone gets things easy because you managed to make things work out for you.

Ok, sure...if you want to talk about being born into a particular era, sure...there is luck involved. Are women and minorities lucky to be born today rather than in the 1900's? Absolutely. There, we agree. A tiny bit.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Luck is the residue of design."

[tzor]

My husband volunteers over 20 hours a week for the fire department. I have a hard time finding even an hour or two to go to a meeting I want to attend. I have to take the kids, or risk them going on a fire/wreck/incident when the whistle blows. I did choose to have kids, did choose to get married, but for you to pretend that none of this matters, that everyone has the same opportunities is just poppycock.

I never said that everyone has the same opportunities. That's stupid. Never the less, people can make opportunities; few choose to do so.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, like the ones for single mothers with kids... if you are married, need not apply. (PLENTY of those) Or, the ones for an American of Armenian dissent studying astronomic engineering. Oh, yeah, and a few for those poor illegal aliens who don't qualify for other types of assistance.

The rest of the "aid" is loans, and fewer and fewer degrees result in a career that make paying those loans back practical, particularly if you are not young and just starting out.

I'm just going to have to say that you're ignorant regarding the massive numbers of scholarships available, both for specific types of individuals as well as majors, and for much more general purposes...and leave it at that. Because you really couldn't be further from the truth. I'm well-versed in this, as I get to spend every year talking with my cadets about them a great deal. "Get" in the "it's part of my job" sense, not the "I really love to" sense.

"Well versed"... well, perhaps you are "versed" in the opportunities available to your cadets, specifically, but you are NOT "well versed" in what is available to middle-aged married women or many other groups of individuals. Sorry, but you are not. Add in already having a degree, but not being able to get a job in the field and the aid available, even loan aid, shrinks to almost nothing or comes with such high interest rates/other requirements that its not practical. (as in you will pay more than you will recoup).

Nor are you versed in the difference between living the Pennsylvania, which I am finding is a kind of educational nightmare.

AND, it is precisely that kind of judgemental assumption that is keeping our aid system from getting better.

There WAS a time when aid was available for basically anyone qualified to go to ANY school. It still is for a lucky few, but not for everyone, not any more. Even for younger students, most scholarships no longer cover full tuition and expenses, and THAT is critical. Just getting "any" scholarship is not good enough. You have to get enough to actually pay for school until graduation and that is becoming very, very difficult. Many MANY kids are graduating with high debt that they cannot pay back.

From Player's perspective, if you are successful it mostly has to do with luck (or being born with money... which, technically, is also luck).

Not just "my perspective", sorry to break your illusions.
If you ask most people why they are successful, they inevitably say "hard work, dedication", and so forth. BUT, if you really track why people get the jobs they get and opportunities they get, it really heavily depends on who they know.

"Who you know" is absolutely not limited to "luck". Forward-thinking people network all the time. Hell, I network all the time and I'm not looking for a job. I do it because you never know what the future holds. This is not an aspect of luck. This is an aspect of diligence and persistence as much as anything else.

LOL.. yeah, "networking". I can "network" all I want, but it won't turn me into a fraternity brother, or even someone's baseball pal. I won't be seen as the "kid he used to be" by the interviewer for one simple reason, I am FEMALE. And, if you think that really doesn't matter, then you truly are blind and ignorant.

Sorry, but you are.. . it matters even in the military! And if you don't believe me, then you have NOT paid attention to recent events.. never mind the past few decades.

[Lootifer]

LOL.. yeah, "networking". I can "network" all I want, but it won't turn me into a fraternity brother, or even someone's baseball pal. I won't be seen as the "kid he used to be" by the interviewer for one simple reason, I am FEMALE. And, if you think that really doesn't matter, then you truly are blind and ignorant.

Sorry, but you are.. . it matters even in the military! And if you don't believe me, then you have NOT paid attention to recent events.. never mind the past few decades.

Eh I dont know how it is in the states, but frat brothers/baseball buddies is just one aspect of building rapport with people.

We have a senior engineer at work; she gets out and about actively and makes friends, breaks down departmental barriers (see: silos) and gets her "brand" out there. Shes no supermodel and seemingly probably doesnt have a lot in common with the average employee (protip: none of us do, we're all different and into different things) but she is one of the most well known and respected engineers in her team (a team which is choc full of your stereotypical male engineers). A lot of that has to do with her ability to befriend colleagues.

Just because you didnt go to a frat with someone, or are interested in the same sports as them, it doesnt mean you cant network like everyone else. I mean I do it all the time... sure I might not have kids nor have any particular interest in them at the moment, but I sure as shit can hold a discussion about the crazy things kids do when my [female] boss talks about her little girl.

[BigBallinStalin]

LOL.. yeah, "networking". I can "network" all I want, but it won't turn me into a fraternity brother, or even someone's baseball pal. I won't be seen as the "kid he used to be" by the interviewer for one simple reason, I am FEMALE. And, if you think that really doesn't matter, then you truly are blind and ignorant.

Sorry, but you are.. . it matters even in the military! And if you don't believe me, then you have NOT paid attention to recent events.. never mind the past few decades.

Eh I dont know how it is in the states, but frat brothers/baseball buddies is just one aspect of building rapport with people.

We have a senior engineer at work; she gets out and about actively and makes friends, breaks down departmental barriers (see: silos) and gets her "brand" out there. Shes no supermodel and seemingly probably doesnt have a lot in common with the average employee (protip: none of us do, we're all different and into different things) but she is one of the most well known and respected engineers in her team (a team which is choc full of your stereotypical male engineers). A lot of that has to do with her ability to befriend colleagues.

Just because you didnt go to a frat with someone, or are interested in the same sports as them, it doesnt mean you cant network like everyone else. I mean I do it all the time... sure I might not have kids nor have any particular interest in them at the moment, but I sure as shit can hold a discussion about the crazy things kids do when my [female] boss talks about her little girl.

It can be similar to that in the States. Player is just jaded, so she thinks everyone/nearly everyone has it like her. (I think that's why it goes back to the "success through luck" thing with her too).

[Woodruff]

Yeah, like the ones for single mothers with kids... if you are married, need not apply. (PLENTY of those) Or, the ones for an American of Armenian dissent studying astronomic engineering. Oh, yeah, and a few for those poor illegal aliens who don't qualify for other types of assistance.

The rest of the "aid" is loans, and fewer and fewer degrees result in a career that make paying those loans back practical, particularly if you are not young and just starting out.

I'm just going to have to say that you're ignorant regarding the massive numbers of scholarships available, both for specific types of individuals as well as majors, and for much more general purposes...and leave it at that. Because you really couldn't be further from the truth. I'm well-versed in this, as I get to spend every year talking with my cadets about them a great deal. "Get" in the "it's part of my job" sense, not the "I really love to" sense.

"Well versed"... well, perhaps you are "versed" in the opportunities available to your cadets, specifically, but you are NOT "well versed" in what is available to middle-aged married women or many other groups of individuals. Sorry, but you are not.

Oh, I see...you're talking about your specific situation, whereas I was dealing in the actual discussion of scholarships available to high school students. As usual, you were trying to talk about something that wasn't particularly relevant to the discussion.

There WAS a time when aid was available for basically anyone qualified to go to ANY school. It still is for a lucky few, but not for everyone, not any more. Even for younger students, most scholarships no longer cover full tuition and expenses, and THAT is critical. Just getting "any" scholarship is not good enough. You have to get enough to actually pay for school until graduation and that is becoming very, very difficult.

It's really only difficult in the aspect of "you have to go out and do it". It's amazing how many kids aren't really interested in that, because they don't put together how much it's going to cost and how long it will take them to pay it back.

Many MANY kids are graduating with high debt that they cannot pay back.

Almost always due to their own lack of footwork, yes. The money is out there.

From Player's perspective, if you are successful it mostly has to do with luck (or being born with money... which, technically, is also luck).

Not just "my perspective", sorry to break your illusions.
If you ask most people why they are successful, they inevitably say "hard work, dedication", and so forth. BUT, if you really track why people get the jobs they get and opportunities they get, it really heavily depends on who they know.

"Who you know" is absolutely not limited to "luck". Forward-thinking people network all the time. Hell, I network all the time and I'm not looking for a job. I do it because you never know what the future holds. This is not an aspect of luck. This is an aspect of diligence and persistence as much as anything else.

LOL.. yeah, "networking". I can "network" all I want, but it won't turn me into a fraternity brother, or even someone's baseball pal. I won't be seen as the "kid he used to be" by the interviewer for one simple reason, I am FEMALE. And, if you think that really doesn't matter, then you truly are blind and ignorant.

It really doesn't matter these days, no. Certainly it used to be. It's really not, now. I'm going to go ahead and suggest that the reason you have so much trouble is probably the way you come across in an interview...if it's anything like you do here, I'd never hire you.

Sorry, but you are.. . it matters even in the military! And if you don't believe me, then you have NOT paid attention to recent events.. never mind the past few decades.

It really is frustrating when I try to discuss things with you. You're so out of touch it's unbelievable. Every issue that comes up, you only want to talk about how it is for you, when that's obviously just an entirely miniscule component of the issue at all. But you do it repeatedly, and so often that it's almost a joke. Except it's not even funny anymore.

[PLAYER57832]

If she doesn't believe that, she should be more clear then. Because she definitely comes across to me as believing that success in America is about 90% luck, as well.

I'll make it even more obvious ... it's all about luck! At least 90% is not higher! It's extremely rare that the average successful person went from zero to hero on the first try.

Really? I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. I know a massive number of former military people who are quite successful. Their decision to join the military wasn't based on luck. Their decision to commit to a career field that would open up post-military job opportunities wasn't based on luck. Their commitment to gaining a degree thanks to the military while compiling huge amounts of on-the-job-training wasn't based on luck. These people are exceptionally hireable, and none of it is based on luck. I suppose you could consider it "luck" from the perspective of they WEREN'T born with money (for the most part), so they needed to go into the military. Which would be sort of the opposite of the kind of luck that PLAYER is referring to.

Fine, so do I, but they are ALL male... without exception, and yes, it does matter. I would have joined pre-tailhook, never mind pre all the more recent reforms.

Again, you discount some of the most basic luck factors. (and that is without even acounting for the difference between being born in this country or elsewhere).

[PLAYER57832]

More and more it has to do with being fortunate enough to live in the right area, one where you get funding and support. It also has a lot to do with "rule following", which too often is diametrically the opposite of real thinking.

I agree with the suggestion about rule-following (and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, from a hiring perspective).

This IS what a lot of particularly lower level managers believe, but the movers in society and what has traditionally marked the difference between people here and elsewhere is the ability to be creative and to find solutions.

That's an entirely different subject. Rule-following has nothing to do with creativity. One can absolutely be exceptionally creative while following the rules of the workplace. I'm talking about NOT BREAKING RULES, not "not thinking outside of the box".

Lack of creativity has nothing at all to do with rule-following. There are plenty of uncreative individuals who do not follow the rules.

It does in education. We are not talking about adults who have already learned what boundaries are worth following and who already have a background.

When you consistently reward those kids who "sit nicely" and recite verbatim what the instructor says, and consistently punish any child who doesn't, you wind up with a bunch of compliant robots, not creative thinkers.

AND, I would argue that in many cases where the kids DO wind up excelling, it is because of other activities and experiences their parents ensured they had.

As usual, you are mixing apples and oranges.

No, but you are again attempting to narrow the debate to fit your theories, AND, in a sense, .... nicely proving my point.

[PLAYER57832]

I am not sold she ardently believes its only luck. I think its more of luck (or as you say being born into luck) gives you a very powerful advantage.

If she doesn't believe that, she should be more clear then. Because she definitely comes across to me as believing that success in America is about 90% luck, as well.

As far as it being a powerful advantage to be born with money, well sure it is...I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. But that's a rather different issue than being successful.

It is a mixture, but most of you utterly dismiss what I mean by luck.

The fact is that just being born here in the "west" means that I am luckier than probably 90% of women out there. The fact that I was raised in a well off area of CA adds a lot, but I was also born just a few years too early to not get success without really, REALLY fighting for it. It was a classmate of mine who launched the last of the lawsuits that finally began to open up the Forest Service to women, for example. I scored in the 99% of college bound seniors, but NO ONE ever suggested I study math or engineering or anything like that, in fact, they discouraged me. Even later, I had to fight to stay in a upper division stats class... and then got a heartfelt, but too late apology from my adviser who taught that class. I am no raving beauty, am not a "social butterfly". BUT... these things would not be much hold backs to most of you guys. They were not to even my brothers or classmates. And by "classmates", I mean a range of guys with whom I regularly competed well, Maybe if I had been the valedictorian, but even then... track the lives of women who got that versus men and you see a very distinct difference. If you go just below the VERY top scorers in either women or minorities and you see something very different than your idea of "we get what we work for".

I have moved on. I go with what I have, not what I wish would or could have been. However, for people here to claim that all they have is just from hard work and to pretend that stories like mine are uncommon or the exception is just bull. You do no one any good by pretending that everyone gets things easy because you managed to make things work out for you.

Ok, sure...if you want to talk about being born into a particular era, sure...there is luck involved. Are women and minorities lucky to be born today rather than in the 1900's? Absolutely. There, we agree. A tiny bit.

No, goes WELL beyond that.

Being luckier today doesn't mean equal. Things are, as usual, "more equal" for those with money or extraordinary talent. Taking the military, as your prime example... care to claim that rape is not significant???? The military mostly has!

However, you DO need to truly educate yourself about scholarships and loans available to the broader population, rather than your select group of cadets. Just "getting a scholarship" isn't enough, you have to have enough money to pay for the degree...and that is getting more and more difficult for all but the very elite and those with money. It is a VERY far cry from how things were just 20, even 10 years ago, and the situation is getting worse, not better.

Add in "re-entry" adults and the situation is much, much worse, with very few exceptions. The exceptions, mostly specific trade schools and opportunities targeting special groups like single mothers in poverty, returning vets (who deserve MORE than what they get!!!!!) are narrow and few.

[Woodruff]

If she doesn't believe that, she should be more clear then. Because she definitely comes across to me as believing that success in America is about 90% luck, as well.

I'll make it even more obvious ... it's all about luck! At least 90% is not higher! It's extremely rare that the average successful person went from zero to hero on the first try.

Really? I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. I know a massive number of former military people who are quite successful. Their decision to join the military wasn't based on luck. Their decision to commit to a career field that would open up post-military job opportunities wasn't based on luck. Their commitment to gaining a degree thanks to the military while compiling huge amounts of on-the-job-training wasn't based on luck. These people are exceptionally hireable, and none of it is based on luck. I suppose you could consider it "luck" from the perspective of they WEREN'T born with money (for the most part), so they needed to go into the military. Which would be sort of the opposite of the kind of luck that PLAYER is referring to.

Fine, so do I, but they are ALL male... without exception, and yes, it does matter. I would have joined pre-tailhook, never mind pre all the more recent reforms.

Oh, I thought we were talking about today, not the 1990s. Sure, back then there was probably some "good old boy" stuff going on as regards to women. While it probably still happens on a pretty rare scale, there isn't that much of it today, I don't believe. Again, you only want to talk about YOUR situation when YOU were trying to join the workforce, not how things stand today.

And by the way, you've done a serious disservice to the women in the military, who you apparently don't believe can be successful.

Again, you discount some of the most basic luck factors.

No, I discount history as just that.

(and that is without even acounting for the difference between being born in this country or elsewhere).

Now you're going to try to bring THAT in? Well obviously, the location of your birth country is luck. But that's really not what we're talking about here, PLAYER...well, everyone other than you, that is.

[Woodruff]

More and more it has to do with being fortunate enough to live in the right area, one where you get funding and support. It also has a lot to do with "rule following", which too often is diametrically the opposite of real thinking.

I agree with the suggestion about rule-following (and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, from a hiring perspective).

This IS what a lot of particularly lower level managers believe, but the movers in society and what has traditionally marked the difference between people here and elsewhere is the ability to be creative and to find solutions.

That's an entirely different subject. Rule-following has nothing to do with creativity. One can absolutely be exceptionally creative while following the rules of the workplace. I'm talking about NOT BREAKING RULES, not "not thinking outside of the box".

Lack of creativity has nothing at all to do with rule-following. There are plenty of uncreative individuals who do not follow the rules.

It does in education.

PLAYER, I AM IN EDUCATION AND HAVE BEEN FOR QUITE SOME TIME. I KNOW WHAT THE f*ck MATTERS "IN EDUCATION".

We are not talking about adults who have already learned what boundaries are worth following and who already have a background. When you consistently reward those kids who "sit nicely" and recite verbatim what the instructor says, and consistently punish any child who doesn't, you wind up with a bunch of compliant robots, not creative thinkers.

Jesus Christ, you act like kids today are robots with no ability to think for themselves or to recognize the difference between "lack of creativity" and "following rules". I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. You also seem to believe that high schools are built to do that and being run like prisons, and that is also not even close to the truth. Do some individual schools and school districts make retarded rules? Certainly...they're run by humans with human foibles. Do schools as a whole do this? Certainly not.

AND, I would argue that in many cases where the kids DO wind up excelling, it is because of other activities and experiences their parents ensured they had.

Certainly, the more activities and experiences a student gets, the more likely they are to succeed. That's just basic...that's why schools try so hard to have their students be involved in what might be perceived as "non-academic" activities like band, music, art and sports.

As usual, you are mixing apples and oranges.

No, but you are again attempting to narrow the debate to fit your theories, AND, in a sense, .... nicely proving my point.

Not at all...lack of creativity is not at all the same as following the rules.

[Woodruff]

As far as it being a powerful advantage to be born with money, well sure it is...I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. But that's a rather different issue than being successful.

It is a mixture, but most of you utterly dismiss what I mean by luck.

The fact is that just being born here in the "west" means that I am luckier than probably 90% of women out there.

Well now you're just talking about something that is thoroughly out of anyone's control. What is the point of even bringing this sort of inanity into the discussion? I mean, I suppose on some retarded theoretical level, that is luck...but there is nothing that can be done to change that.

Having said that, you are again, just as with the women in the military, doing a serious disservice to all of those who are not born in the West, as if they now have no ability to be successful.

The fact that I was raised in a well off area of CA adds a lot, but I was also born just a few years too early to not get success without really, REALLY fighting for it. It was a classmate of mine who launched the last of the lawsuits that finally began to open up the Forest Service to women, for example. I scored in the 99% of college bound seniors, but NO ONE ever suggested I study math or engineering or anything like that, in fact, they discouraged me. Even later, I had to fight to stay in a upper division stats class... and then got a heartfelt, but too late apology from my adviser who taught that class. I am no raving beauty, am not a "social butterfly". BUT... these things would not be much hold backs to most of you guys. They were not to even my brothers or classmates. And by "classmates", I mean a range of guys with whom I regularly competed well, Maybe if I had been the valedictorian, but even then... track the lives of women who got that versus men and you see a very distinct difference. If you go just below the VERY top scorers in either women or minorities and you see something very different than your idea of "we get what we work for".

I've gotta admit, I really don't give a flying f*ck about your undoubtedly very jaded perception of your own situation. That doesn't at all make reality for most people TODAY.

I have moved on.

I honestly don't think you have. You bring up this kind of crap far too often to have "moved on".

Taking the military, as your prime example... care to claim that rape is not significant???? The military mostly has!

How is that relevant to luck creating success?

However, you DO need to truly educate yourself about scholarships and loans available to the broader population, rather than your select group of cadets.

My "select group of cadets" are BASIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. There is nothing particularly unusual or different about them as opposed to most high school students. They're simply taking our class. I am VERY educated about scholarships available to the broader population of HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, which is the relevance of this discussion.

Just "getting a scholarship" isn't enough, you have to have enough money to pay for the degree...and that is getting more and more difficult for all but the very elite and those with money. It is a VERY far cry from how things were just 20, even 10 years ago, and the situation is getting worse, not better.

You really don't have the first idea of what kind of scholarship money is available. Do some research.

Add in "re-entry" adults and the situation is much, much worse, with very few exceptions. The exceptions, mostly specific trade schools and opportunities targeting special groups like single mothers in poverty, returning vets (who deserve MORE than what they get!!!!!) are narrow and few.

To be honest, I'm NOT that concerned with "re-entry" adults in this scenario, because they have already created their own situations. "Luck" is taken largely out of the equation for them as they made past choices (good and bad) that affected the situations they are in, as opposed to "luck". You want to talk about YOUR situation, whereas I want to discuss the situation as a whole.

[tzor]

Certainly, the more activities and experiences a student gets, the more likely they are to succeed. That's just basic...that's why schools try so hard to have their students be involved in what might be perceived as "non-academic" activities like band, music, art and sports.

Yet at the same time(at least in the US) most school administrators will hold a gun to these activities and threaten to cut them if the budget isn't approved (with all the fat in it). In fact, your response seems to downplay the importance, by a couple of factors. Left brain / Right brain interaction is important to a developing mind and that's what art (and even music) helps to encourage. Exercise is also important, not only for a strong body, but to have a body that can get oxygen to he brain. (Singing, as an example, requires left brain / right brain interaction as well as good breathing. It's not for kids, singers in general tend to live longer than non singers - once you factor out the basses who have been smoking in their earlier years, but even they do better than their non singing counterparts.)

So they are vital in establishing an environment where students will want to learn and to push themselves in learning. It's not just something added on to give them more "opportunities to succeed," but a necessary tool in the learning process.

[Woodruff]

Certainly, the more activities and experiences a student gets, the more likely they are to succeed. That's just basic...that's why schools try so hard to have their students be involved in what might be perceived as "non-academic" activities like band, music, art and sports.

Yet at the same time(at least in the US) most school administrators will hold a gun to these activities and threaten to cut them if the budget isn't approved (with all the fat in it).

I disagree that most do, but certainly many do.

In fact, your response seems to downplay the importance, by a couple of factors. Left brain / Right brain interaction is important to a developing mind and that's what art (and even music) helps to encourage. Exercise is also important, not only for a strong body, but to have a body that can get oxygen to he brain. (Singing, as an example, requires left brain / right brain interaction as well as good breathing. It's not for kids, singers in general tend to live longer than non singers - once you factor out the basses who have been smoking in their earlier years, but even they do better than their non singing counterparts.)

So they are vital in establishing an environment where students will want to learn and to push themselves in learning. It's not just something added on to give them more "opportunities to succeed," but a necessary tool in the learning process.

You seem to believe I don't agree with this completely. You did notice how I phrased my statement, didn't you? Re-read it...I absolutely consider them as an important part of the learning process...I simply recognize that not everyone does.

[waauw]

Click image to enlarge.

[PLAYER57832]

One big difference between us and most of those countries is that there is much less correlation between intelligence and education level. Add in success, and it gets even more skewed. This is both good and bad. In those countries, people tend to get "tracked" relatively soon, compared to the US system. The US tends to have more paths and variations in how to succeed. Its far more likely, for example, to have a someone without a formal degree teaching a college class in the US than in many places (be it someone like Bill Cosby, Bill Gates, etc...).

Within the US, there are also marked differences. It is no coincidence that the northeastern US matches Europe more closely. The Northeast is more educationally traditional, tends to emphasize many of the same things. The west tends to be more "open", to take a slightly different approach. We noticed this in College. When we got visiting professors, they were often frustrated that many of us would fail the "simple" questions.. the pure memorization, but ace the "harder" questions that required us to think. And, professors who made the reverse journey noted the opposite, that students in the East, while definitely not stupid, seemed to find it harder to come up with different ideas. Being in science, let me be clear that there are absolutely advantages to both. There are absolutely times when just knowing the information is extremely important. My point is not to say "superior" versus not, but to say "different".