trolling? trolling implies stirring up trouble for no reason. I really did want to see how the 'millennials' would explain away yet another reason for not working hard (as is the stereotype). I see a lot of slanted opinions here - which - if that's your audience, fine (echo chamber). But the process of down-voting people just because they go against the grain is a type of censorship. true - its not what down-voting is 'supposed' to be used for (have you read the guidelines?), but unless you're going to police that as well, get off my case.
You could always require a reply when down-voting. That would also inspire more conversation.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
I dont disagree with your points, but its also important to view things in the macro and micro scale here. Do you want to play long ball or short ball? If I lost my job in 2008 due to the economy collapsing and had a family to take care of am I going to A) Try and fix the world because it is generally unfair or B) Get to work to support myself and my family and accept the reality I live in?
Yes the world can be better, but do you not agree that sometimes making it better just means getting to work (not in the literal sense of the word but in the sense of an individual executing a plan and making his/her life better as a result).
Would you rather associate with people who do nothing but complain that life is unfair and watch them wait for the world to change, or would you rather associate with people who see a problem/challenge and start solving?
It's not as black and white as my previous sentence obviously, and both problems can be worked on at the same time. But I have zero issue with people who are less fortunate than others putting in hard work to make their lives better. That kind of effort and subsequent results should have a cascading positive effect on those that surround him/her, which in turn plants the seed of change you are looking for. That kind of change however will take probably decades to see and significant improvement, if you look at the widening wealth gap between the lower, middle and upper class I do not see society moving in a good direction at the moment.
> Would you rather associate with people who do nothing but complain that life is unfair and watch them wait for the world to change, or would you rather associate with people who see a problem/challenge and start solving?
the latter, but i'd prefer that they not only solve for themselves in the short term. i find that i don't get along very well with people who never complain about the state of the world and just do the best they can for themselves and their loved ones given its present state. i'm also not particularly interested in being around people who do nothing but complain about the state of the world, with no practical drive to fix things. so yeah, fixing the world vs helping yourself are often competing interests. but generally, i find people who don't carefully balance those competing interests to be pretty insufferable. or at least, i much prefer the people who are thinking about all of those things at once.
> But I have zero issue with people who are less fortunate than others putting in hard work to make their lives better.
completely agreed.
> That kind of effort and subsequent results should have a cascading positive effect on those that surround him/her, which in turn plants the seed of change you are looking for.
yes, a person bettering their own life can definitely have cascading beneficial effects for others. even if it's only in the "secure your own oxygen mask first" sense (i.e. you can't help others if you're helpless). but often it's even deeper than that. but i'm generally wary of the idea that a person bettering their own situation will automatically better things for the world. too easy a rationalization for getting yours and calling it a day. it can take serious conscious effort to not horde the fruits of one's success.
i don't know, i'm just not that enthusiastic about succeeding in a world that often feels so broken, without generally trying to fix the things that are broken. i'd rather fail at that grander project than succeed at the narrower one, even if i don't really think of my life as being focused on charitable work per se. again though, i'm not advocating idle complaining or saying that it's ok to willfully be a drain on others just because a person thinks the world is a rough place.
maybe we are (or were) talking across each other. i feel like we mostly agree on the parts that i was reacting strongly to. i read your earlier comments as essentially defending the status quo and its ever-widening inequality, but that does not seem to be your position (esp from your last sentence about the widening wealth gap).
I think the point is that we can (or should) do something to change this, to make it more reasonable. A few decades ago tuition rates were a fraction of what they are now and provided the same quality of education, so certainly we can do something to return to that state.
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?
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?
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?
The issue is why are we just willing to accept that some have to work harder for the same success because of who their parents are? Life will never be truly fair, but there are measures that we can take that will help level the playing field. Those measures aren't "free stuff" from the government, they're equal opportunity. We can all agree a college education isn't a guaranteed ticket to the gift life, so why is a free college education treated as such? It's an opportunity.
> > 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?
> 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).
"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.
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.
> So Vaudreuil starting taking undergraduate classes tuition free at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts by day, and cleaning up after his classmates by night.
That was a pretty content-less post. Care to elaborate? I don't even have a guess as to what you'd think millennials would have to say about it. Student loan debt, or something?
the reply from 'adrusi' pretty much explains the 'millennial stereotype' to a tee. similar to other articles and conversation on here re: actually showing up to work on time. people have a problem with this? why do in 10yrs what most can do in 4? why work hard? why aren't we like Europe? a lot of crying but very little work ethic. most millennials were brought up by helicopter parents who tended their every need, and on kissed every boo-boo.
These same millennials demand that society treat them with respect, and then actively avoid anything that would let them earn that respect. Sorry, getting a BS degree in pop-culture & disc golf is not something that will get you automatic respect. My doctor is a 'millennial', younger than I am by a stretch. She broke her ass doing it. I respect her more for it.
Granted - this is the stereotype and doesn't apply to all - but does apply to most of the ones I've interacted with, interviewed and worked with, and of course, read about in the 'media').
true - degrees cost vastly more today than they did just 10 years ago. But look at the education structure. Look who its led by. Your deans and professors are no longer happy with tenure. They want the Mercedes, the flat screens, the 2nd house, the IRA, etc... The current education system is the mirror equivalent of the military industrial complex in terms of money. If you want to go after someone for expensive college, go after the schools and the politicians - not society in general.
btw, have you seen Europe lately? Venezuela?... people like to point to these as panaceas, without knowing the intimate details of the individual countries and how the education systems work there. Want to be an engineer? pass a test. can't pass? here's a mop.
how about Asia? there is massive and wide-spread cheating in India and China because of their systems. doesn't exactly make for a solid and ethical work base.
