Peterkin

Yeah, but all that striving and competing is another byproduct of money - or more to the point, the tragedy of not having it, the fear of not getting enough, the constant anxiety over how to repay a half again what you borrowed, if you can meet hefty payments regularly over a decade. That's assuming you finished high enough, with a degree that's in demand and got a pretty good job right away. Taking the crippling student loan out of the mix could change the whole picture. It would mean that young persons interested in liberal arts, social sciences and philosophy could afford to indulge their true interests, rather than race to the job-scrum with the MBA's (a bachelor's is just waste paper anymore) and BEc's . They might even be enabled to take lower paying service and arts positions.

Well, since you have been born and that's a one-way ticket, your next best option is a nice tall mountain, find a cave with some juniper berries growing nearby and contemplate your purity in perfect solitude.

That's one advantage of the Scottish system. The core curriculum is for all students 5-16, before they begin streaming into specialty subjects. And there is no reason to abandon the humanities and arts when taking a more intensive trade-directed practical course - just as we could have geometry, home economics, literature, origami and airplane mechanics in some of the experimental vocational schools of the 60's and 70'S. What went wrong there is complicated, with a whole lot of people at fault, but mostly simple underestimation by idealistic educators of the existing caste system. That would continue to dog a government funded college level program, but I think we're more accustomed to meeting the challenges now.

The specifics have not yet been considered, since the question at the moment is only a general principle. Has that happened very often? If it ever did, the tuition would still be waived for the number of qualified applicants for the courses being offered. When each class is filled, the rest remaining applicants would be counselled to seek other fields of study for which their previous testing shows an aptitude. Why should/would we suppose such an absurd situation? From the overflow that was turned away from full courses. The fact that medical schools and law schools the world over limit their intake to the number of places available in any given year is not a function of the funding mechanism. They also, BTW, have pretty good vocational programs, as well as academic ones. https://www.techacademyscot.com/ https://www.edumaritime.net/uk/scotland https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/scottish-agricultural-college-sac Just not seeing the problem.

Yeah. Don't underestimate that jam.

Always a safe bet .... except regarding the jam side of the flipped toast.

What odds are you giving? (That face.... oh, the daydream i have regarding that face....) The Biden proposals are modest, but might be somewhat effective, if they were ever put into force. But, even if some travesty of a limp, bleached and states-righted version (see legislative ballad of Obamacare) were somehow to pass into law, and even if the states can't drag their feet into the next century to enact the new laws, it's another four years before any kind of tax reform can even begin to take shape.... and by then, who knows what-all will have burned down, blown away or drowned - and who'll have time or money to invest in education when there's dams to shore up, people to dig out and fires to stamp out. (No question mark as the last bit is only a whimsical personal observation.)

It's not an option available to any party capable of winning a majority in a money-gobbling election process, a profit-centered economy and a wealth-directed network of communication media, public, private, mainstream, print, screen, audio and internet. The rich (with the exception of the minority I mentioned above) won't let themselves be taxed any more than they can get away with and have both the resources and legal infrastructure to get away with quite a lot; the very rich can move their liquid assets out of government's reach and fabulously wealthy fly so far above the radar , they're invisible. IOW - not today Could be done, with radical reform; could be improved with moderate but substantial reform; - worst effects could be somewhat alleviated by tweaking

Pity. I phrased that previous comment badly. It should have been : Since Roosevelt's tax reform, none of the many legislations, by either party, has accomplished its long-term aim - in most cases, because it was almost immediately repealed or counter-legislated by the next administration. The only time I know when both parties were in agreement was on the massive tax cuts under Reagan.

Could swore that's what I said. And yet, no legislation is ever enacted to accomplish this. That would suggest - at to lest to my unschooled mind - that the political power does not lie with these broad supporters.

Of course it should be. But, there is a catch: only the people who can already do the math understand what that would cost and how it might be funded - and only a small fraction of those people are willing to make the necessary adjustments and contributions or to extend their access to knowledge to their less fortunate compatriots. In order to bring about such a change, the general public would need to know what the privileged know and won't share. Meanwhile, forces among the privileged oppose any reform with might, fury and unlimited financial backing. As things stand politically, it can't be done, any more than universal public health insurance could be done. The opposition is overwhelming. One stopgap measure that could perhaps be implemented, is far more government support for public broadcast media, civics course and educational outlets in all geographic regions. (Not that they're likely to be heard over the Sinclair Group.... but it's worth a try.)

Okay, then. You seem to have three main areas of complaint. The first and apparently most important is with the system of higher education. There may well be quite a lot wrong there, though probably not as much as there is at the elementary and high-school levels. There is also a vast range of education quality and availability across the nation and economic classes. The institution at which you did poorly may be an example of the low end - or even the unaccredited and fraudulent (Check for it on that list I linked in your other thread.) - and not representative of the whole system. BTAIM, your particular beef seems to be your inability to keep up with assigned work. Are any of your classmates having the same problem? Or is it that you need a specialized structure of study? Have you done independent study through on-air courses and library books to fill in the skipped/missed steps? No institution with an enrollment of thousands of ordinary students is ever going to offer a customized course for the exceptions - it's just not feasible. So you have to make your own. All the information, all the material, all the tools (except high end laboratory equipment) that's available to the universities is available to the public. When you have perfected the method of learning that works best for you and accumulated the requisite knowledge, go back to the university and take your exams for that degree. It will put you that much closer to selling your course of study to other students. Did you not have a course outline and overview to judge before you paid your money. I don't know whether, how or to what degree "the system" is broken - and neither do you. That's one of those meaningless pronouncements that makes the rounds of mass media without attracting very much reflection: "The system is broken." What system? What are the fractured components? How is it supposed to work? When was it whole and functional? And that's what I'm asking you to do now. Analyze your own problem as you have stated it above. You might even come up with your own solution. What is your source of information, where are your calculations and process for this comprehensive conclusion? I like to understand what I'm reading, too. It would be very helpful if you untangled your paragraphs, sorted your subject matter into categories and stated, in clear, concise sentences, what you think is wrong and how you think it could be made right - one problem at a time. And that's why I'm ignoring the bits about politics and responding only on the subject of education.

Inbreeding, for someone who has no use for life, other people or the internet, you seem awfully willing to communicate with live people over the internet. What, exactly, is it that you're so eager to share? I wish you'd get it off your chest, so we could move on to something more productive.

Sure, why not? You would be in a fairly large crowd. One of the best known has had several books written about it. Maybe you can get some pointers.

You choose from your available options; I'll choose from mine.

Sure - now. But look what Trump and other populist far-righters have done. They grab the worker's by the anxiety and xenophobia, ignorance and religiosity and drag what used to be Labour, the left, the socialists, under the banner big business bought, and the suckers have no idea they're being stripped of privileges and rights. The Leader, who scoffs at tradition and protocol, jeers at science and literacy, expresses their frustration, makes them feel empowered. Next thing you know, they're climbing over the barricades to murder the legislators who tried to give them health insurance, while he cowers in his bunker. Like... when? Does the whole world have to be on fire before the voters think it's a good idea to stop throwing gasoline on it? Do "leaders" always have to wait for their followers to push them forward?

It's quite true, the European Union nations have done far more to mitigate climate change than North America. We can't be sure how committed they will be, going forward, with more conservative - and far right - elements gaining ground almost everywhere. Even now, at panic time, targets are still being set for ridiculous dates: this by 2035, that by 2050 - when the politicians making those promises are long out of office and can't be held responsible for failure (but have already collected their campaign funding and fat consulting gigs from Big Fossil) Even if the targets were met, the remedy would be far too late. But, of course, they are not met. Some success has been achieved, but it's spotty, sporadic, inadequate and unreliable. People simply don't like giving up any comforts, conveniences or luxuries.

You have proof that hydrocephaly and haemophelia are environmental? Exactly so. I have not seen your citations. Have you read mine? Here's another one.

The traditional social strictures have been explained by a number of theories. Each, and very likely a combination of several, is plausible. I would add that the taboo against incest goes back to a time period when many small groups of people lived in relative isolation, so that looking for mates outside the group required an effort, while marrying one's cousin was convenient - and there was little choice in either case. And we have seen how harmful protracted inbreeding in a limited population can be. We have also seen in the royal families of Europe the effects of consanguinity on later generations. In modern, large and diverse societies, the danger is much diminished, simply because young people are exposed to a far wider choice of potential partners, all of whom are more intriguing than the sister or cousin with whom one fought and vied, or played and colluded through childhood. Incest in these societies is by far more likely to be non-consensual. This is the main reason for the general disapproval. However, consensual incest over 18 (though I question the freedom to choose of one participant in some of those relationships) is not universally against the law, and consanguinous marriages are still accepted in many places.

Not the economies; the social welfare. Those are not at all synonymous, or even invariably compatible, concepts. In the US, poor people, have substantially higher birth-rate than other classes. (part of the reason, BTW, is religion - a factor in reproductive practice everywhere) Though the poor are not quite as fertile as they were before the Affordable Care Act) conservative governments and judges are doing everything in their power to reverse that trend. The middle and higher income groups (who can afford medical intervention) are relatively unchanged over the past 15 years. It's not a question of national wealth, but of family health. If those developing nations are given humanitarian aid (not weapons and bribes for dictators) or subsidies for fossil fuel industries - which, do indeed bolster national economies, while adding to CO2 emissions. Because it's largely unimplemented. Because it hasn't been achieved. Or even tried, in some of the biggest polluters. President trump hearted coal, and he's not alone! The best reducer of CO2 emissions has been Covidhttps://phys.org/news/2021-07-scientists-pandemic-affected-air-quality.html, but we can't count on it going on long enough to make a difference.

To what end? Why would anyone undertake a century long breeding project of large, unwieldy and unco-operative herbivores with vast space and feed requirements, to replace an animal that's obsolete for draft work and already perfected for pets, sport and fashionable accessory to the rich?

PS Have you really made a project of this one issue, so personal as to identify with it? It's not because of this, is it?

Even in areas where humans have used it to improve animal stock. Exactly the same holds true for cattle, fowl and humans.

Mysterious, maybe. Unique, no. Two armies ordered to kill and maim each other come up with different methods of doing it - but that doesn't render any of these activities sane.

Oh, that's a relief. It's from the same clear-thinking, rational war that brought us phosgene gas. And, you can buy some, cheap, from army surplus stores.