The delta-V at which I am approaching death has increased because I was crammed into an aluminum tube with two hundred sneezing strangers who unburdened their diseases upon me, and whom I shall meet again tomorrow morning. Now I am worried I will become fat. As I convalesce, here are some links.
Brit director Richard Curtis kills children to save them
I’m not sure what city is the Hollywood of England, but whatever its name, the folks that infest it carry on with the same kind of shenanigans that the self-righteous of Tinseltown do. One of its inhabitants, the director Richard Curtis, creator of the gruesome Love Actually and treacly Four Weddings and a Funereal, thought it would be great fun to kill some kids who were not sufficiently concerned with global warming.
On film, that is. He thought that having a teacher explode some school kids who did not do their greenhouse gas homework was funny.
Exploding children has consequences. For one, the debris of the explodants, if we can call them that, must be accounted for. The video is a splatter fest.
Bypassing a “degree” better for waller
An entry by Sarah Kaufman in the Washington Post: “Some say bypassing a higher education is smarter than paying for a degree.”
This, by now standard analysis, agrees with what we have been talking about: if all you are after is a “degree”—and not an education—just so that you can earn money, it often pays skip college altogether. I would have become an electrician myself.
E-“degree” does not mean elite “degrees”
Similarly, the Telegraph tells us that “Traditional university courses could become the preserve of an elite as growing numbers of students take on-line degrees, according to a report. ”
They use the word elite like it’s a bad thing.
The people who are taking “e-degrees” are behaving rationally. Just as the previous story tells us, most go go college merely to secure a “degree”, which they know they must have if they want a job from a company that requires a “degree”, as most now do. Since a “degree” isn’t always consonant with an education, they may as will point and click for it.
Everybody should work for the government
Another Telegraph story: “Myth of the underpaid public sector worker.” Here’s the good news:
The Office for National Statistics found that full-time public sector staff earned an average of £74 a week more than those in the private sector. Once employer pension contributions were included, the gap rose to £136, illustrating the generous pay-and-perks deals enjoyed by local and central government workers.
If only we could get more people working for the government, then incomes would rise, the poverty level would drop, prosperity would reign. Simple mathematics proves that (economic) paradise must then arrive the very day all worked for the government.
At least, the government should pay everybody
Our theme today, unintentionally, is England, where somebody had an incredible idea to prevent tax cheats. Have the “private” sector become wards of the state!
The “private” companies would turn their payroll over the government, who would then dole out just the right amount—and no more—to the People.
What would go wrong?
College rankings
Yet one more way to rank colleges. See the Wall Street Journal rankings story, too.
In the early days of the current financial … um … OK … crisis, NPR had a story about the student loan program Sallie Mae (“Find the right student loan from the nation’s leading loan provider”). One young lady interviewed said that she had graduated with a degree in social work, no money and $168,000 in student loans. Who did the ROI on that deal?
Dr. Briggs.
In the late great USSR everybody worked for the government and the USSR was bankrupt. Remember the old joke “we pretend to work and they (the state) pretend to pay us.”
Dr Briggs,
You’re link to WaPo lead back to your blog.
But let’s be honest. Wouldn’t you like exploding stats students?
“Prof Briggs I missed classes for three weeks. Did I miss anything?”
Camera pans showing remains all over the wall and a smiling Prof Briggs.
RE the splatterfest video: THAT kind of outlook from the liberal, “tolerant,” LEFT is hardly surprising….this has been observed by others & formally evaluated:
Evaluation: http://www.aei.org/article/27371
Other examples of such responses: http://michellemalkin.com/2006/08/31/assassination-chic/
This is hardly surprising as those on the far left of the political spectrum are there as a result of psychological trauma. For a good analysis of this reference the book, “The Liberal Mind, The Psychological Causes of Political Madness,” at: http://www.libertymind.com. Skip to Chapter 42 if you want to get right to the psychological development & progression.
Such vicious & [would-be] violent & visceral hatred, despite an outwardly calm demeanor, is also associated with extreme narcissists & socio-paths. All are noteworthy for holding grudges & rarely, if ever, showing signs of forgiveness to real or perceived slights. NOT that a left-leaning liberal is necessarily one of those…but…one can never be sure….
I’m not sure what point you are making here, Professor. I can only assume that you are in some way considering ‘elite’ degrees (those that are obtained at residential universities?) to be in some way superior to ‘on-line’ degrees, although I am not clear what you mean by an ‘on-line’ degree. It seems to me that in some way you consider an elite degree is an education while an on-line degree is not.
The UK has an excellent ‘on-line’ University – The Open University – which relies on (specialises in) distance learning. It awards high quality degrees and during the gaining of them, gives their students an education which may be different from a residential university but is, none the less, well respected in the UK.
For an increasing number of students the OU provides the optimum route to the education they never had. For example, one benefit of the OU is that it does not require a proven level of previous academic achievement. There is no requirement to gain a certain number of ‘A’ levels or GCSEs or similar. Where previous education has been lacking, the OU makes available introductory and foundation courses to help the student to “come up to speed” (for example, Maths for Science).
The 2 key requirements are to be able to read and understand English to the level of a ‘serious’ newspaper (for example the Daily Telegraph or the Garundian) and to have a burning desire to get an education, of which a roll of paper saying Diploma or BSc or MSc or PhD may be little more than a symbol.
Pingback: William M. Briggs, Statistician » Hollywood: Stop Making Movies And Lower Your Carbon Footprint
Education is easy to get these days– consult the Internet. Given enough time, patience, and effort (all in reasonable doses of course) I think you can learn just about anything. There is a tremendous amount of material published in just about every field, including coursework for those who want it.
Of course none of this will get you a degree. 🙂
Did you read my comment?