Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 hours ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

Spot on and exactly my thoughts on the matter and damn near posted the same, only i would’ve been far less articulate and digestible. 

Perhaps you could translate it into coonass 

  • Haha 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s right. But how much of that “higher education” is higher than what’s offered in a good high school? And how much do they actually need to succeed? And after they buy that education with a debt they’ll carry for decades hence, what actual “access” to opportunity in corporate America do they get beyond $1 more than it takes them to quit before they are no longer needed?

All of it is higher than what's offered in a good high school. 

Posted
9 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

All of it is higher than what's offered in a good high school. 

Completely disagree. Most of what families purchase from American Universities is practically useless, or at best anti-climactic, compared to the education delivered at the best and most rigorous public high schools, let alone elite, selective private schools.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 7/11/2025 at 10:59 AM, Pancho said:

 

 

 

I want to punch him in the face and balls so fucking bad

If you live through to the end of this bout with fascism you'll get your shot to do so. That 2011 Ghadafi scene might wind up playing out in the US with some of the more well-known traitors I think.

Posted
7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Completely disagree. Most of what families purchase from American Universities is practically useless, or at best anti-climactic, compared to the education delivered at the best and most rigorous public high schools, let alone elite, selective private schools.

That's nonsense. You get connections at the best high schools and universities that are worth more than education, but the quality of the actual education itself isn't that much better. Donald Trump is a Wharton graduate and he can barely read.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

That's nonsense. You get connections at the best high schools and universities that are worth more than education, but the quality of the actual education itself isn't that much better. Donald Trump is a Wharton graduate and he can barely read.

Yeah, the value of a university education doesn't necessarily lie in the education itself and that has always been true.

But the ability of a university education to be a "cheat code" to a better life is probably lower than its ever been.  I think there are a few areas where it's difficult to impossible to auto-didact (engineering for example) where the degree retains most of its value.

Also, affirmative action or not, more non-white non-males are competing for education and jobs.  And even in good ol boy fields like commercial real estate, good ol boys are being pushed out in favor of the objectively more competitive.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
4 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

If you live through to the end of this bout with fascism you'll get your shot to do so. That 2011 Ghadafi scene might wind up playing out in the US with some of the more well-known traitors I think.

Deserved or no, highly unlikely. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is probably the most that can be hoped for, and even that's probably not in the cards. Americans, sometimes for better, often for worse, are a forgiving people who (as you know as well as anyone) tend neither to look to the past nor to learn any lessons from it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

That's nonsense. You get connections at the best high schools and universities that are worth more than education, but the quality of the actual education itself isn't that much better. Donald Trump is a Wharton graduate and he can barely read.

Weird it’s like you agreed with me completely without knowing it. 

Posted
7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Completely disagree. Most of what families purchase from American Universities is practically useless, or at best anti-climactic, compared to the education delivered at the best and most rigorous public high schools, let alone elite, selective private schools.

Maybe true.  But a lot people like me didn't go to a public school they would consider rigorous, and I got a ton out of my college education.  I also went to UT, which was dirt cheap in the 1990's, and I doubt that education would've been any better if I went to a private school or an out-of-state school and paid significantly more.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, South Austin said:

Maybe true.  But a lot people like me didn't go to a public school they would consider rigorous, and I got a ton out of my college education.  I also went to UT, which was dirt cheap in the 1990's, and I doubt that education would've been any better if I went to a private school or an out-of-state school and paid significantly more.

Things have gotten pretty objectively worse since the 90s.  For white guys, anyway.  And more competitive for everyone.

Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, the value of a university education doesn't necessarily lie in the education itself and that has always been true.

That’s the point - most schools and most programs and in most places doesn’t do the other stuff and the educational product is useless. It’s just a sad, low grade imitation of the least valuable parts of attending elite universities, because the most valuable part can’t be imitated. 
One of the central failures of the progressive movement was to put their efforts not into ensuring that public high schools produced workforce ready graduates, but rather into making it easier for working and middle class people kids with no particular academic interests to go six figures in the hole so someone could tell them to read Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. 

 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Maybe true.  But a lot people like me didn't go to a public school they would consider rigorous, and I got a ton out of my college education.  I also went to UT, which was dirt cheap in the 1990's, and I doubt that education would've been any better if I went to a private school or an out-of-state school and paid significantly more.

UT is an elite institution and was then too. Surprised I have to remind people, here of all places. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted

You killjoys can take the feeling of winning the last SWC title and upsetting Nebraska after you take it out of my cold, dead hands. 

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
Just now, InkaUtexas said:

Those years sucked. 

My senior year was okay.  Ten wins, last SWC champions, a win at aggy, the first year of Ricky's record-breaking career, my first trip to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl.  But it was still Mackovic'd with an unacceptable tie against a shitty OU team after a huge lead at halftime, and a flat performance in the loss to Virginia Tech.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, South Austin said:

My senior year was okay.  Ten wins, last SWC champions, a win at aggy, the first year of Ricky's record-breaking career, my first trip to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl.  But it was still Mackovic'd with an unacceptable tie against a shitty OU team after a huge lead at halftime, and a flat performance in the loss to Virginia Tech.  

JB had a lot to do with the losses that season and the next, with some stupefying ints.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s the point - most schools and most programs and in most places doesn’t do the other stuff and the educational product is useless. It’s just a sad, low grade imitation of the least valuable parts of attending elite universities, because the most valuable part can’t be imitated. 
One of the central failures of the progressive movement was to put their efforts not into ensuring that public high schools produced workforce ready graduates, but rather into making it easier for working and middle class people kids with no particular academic interests to go six figures in the hole so someone could tell them to read Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. 

 

Hmmm.  Well I was contemplating this.

It seems that the nature of things is that most of us probably made better grades than our parents in more rigorous curricula in hs and college than our parents.

Yet, our ability to live a better life than our parents hasn't necessarily risen concomitantly.  Like, I make more money than my parents did, in inflation-adjusted dollars , but my mom was stay-at-home and they purposely moved to an "elite" school district.  Things I'm not sure I could or would do today and that are objectively harder than they were in 1963.

A lot of that is just the result of equity, sans affirmative action.  "Regular" white people got opportunities previously reserved for "elite" white people.    And then that opportunity started spreading further.  White women started doing things previously reserved for white men.  And then other "minorities," with a boost from the Civil Rights Act, and yes, affirmative action.

That's progress, but is it "progressive" or just sort of the natural order of things absent a cultural and economic revanchism like we're currently experiencing.

Posted
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A lot of that is just the result of equity, sans affirmative action.  "Regular" white people got opportunities previously reserved for "elite" white people.    And then that opportunity started spreading further.  White women started doing things previously reserved for white men.  And then other "minorities," with a boost from the Civil Rights Act, and yes, affirmative action.

That's progress, but is it "progressive" or just sort of the natural order of things absent a cultural and economic revanchism like we're currently experiencing.

This.  While the full story is complicated, parts of it are pretty simple.

Society as a whole had a great increase in opportunity post-WWII.  For around 30 years, almost all of that expanded opportunity was provided to white males (women weren't in play, minorities were kept as second-class at best).  So, relatively mediocre white dude could get a college degree and get a job that provided a path to a good life, even prosperity.

Then, the economic opportunity stagnated and even contracted some.  AND.....mediocre white guys had competition for those good jobs.  Smart, well-educated women jumped in the pool.  Smart, well-educated minorities jumped in the pool.

Used to be, there were 100,000 good jobs out there, and 95,000 went to white dudes.

Now, there are 90,000 good jobs out there, and 40,000 go to women, and 20,000 go to minorities.....leaving 30,000 jobs for white dudes (yeah, the numbers are totally made up to illustrate the point).  These numbers aren't exact proportions, the point is that a pool of good jobs and prosperity that used to be 95% for white dudes is now a much smaller percentage for white dudes.  And.....having lost a historical advantage that was NEVER rightly theirs to begin with (sorry, it wasn't exactly fair to have largely frozen black men out of the professional world for over a fucking century after we ended slavery)....white dudes are PISSED.  They want it all back.  And, if they can't have it....better to destroy it, so nobody else can have it.

  • Like 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It seems that the nature of things is that most of us probably made better grades than our parents in more rigorous curricula in hs and college than our parents.

In high school? Oh, hell no. High school education has generally declined in rigor and relevance for decades. The majority of our parents generation were adequately prepared for most entry level roles needed in the workforce when they left high school. Most high school graduates today aren’t ready for that, or even the attenuated and irrelevant educational experience of today’s mainstream college classroom and spend the first 3 semesters or so in dressed up remedial classes. 
 

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A lot of that is just the result of equity, sans affirmative action.  "Regular" white people got opportunities previously reserved for "elite" white people

I disagree. I think what regular people, white and otherwise, got was sort of a pale imitation of those opportunities, purpose built to put them six figures in the hole and chain them to the wheel at 22.
Meanwhile, the actual opportunity ladders for regular people were knocked down and broken up. 
 

 

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

my mom was stay-at-home and they purposely moved to an "elite" school district.  Things I'm not sure I could or would do today and that are objectively harder than they were in 1963.

A vital progressive movement would correctly understand that as a declining middle class standard of living. In the last 50 years the number of dual income houses has roughly doubled but their inflation adjusted income has stayed roughly the same, even while their debt increased radically and the cost of education exploded. But because progressivism is a dead ideology intellectually dominated by privileged navel gazers and bullshit artists, Democrats are genuinely confused about why they are losing the working and middle class. 
 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

UT is an elite institution and was then too.

Hahaha. No. Not unless your definition of “elite” is really, really generous. In the 90s, UT was full of above average to good students. It was a safety school for the top students, who generally went to OOS private schools or Rice. 

Even today, UT is elite only on a single, flawed dimension. Its SAT average is far lower than the truly elite schools. 

I got a great education at UT. But it was not remotely “elite” among US universities at the time.

Edited by BrickHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

Hahaha. No. Not unless your definition of “elite” is really, really generous. In the 90s, UT was full of above average to good students. It was a safety school for the top students, who generally went to OOS private schools or Rice. 

That last part is false. It’s a mathematical impossibility that most of the top Texas kids went elsewhere. It’s also demonstrably false based on the prominence of UT alumni. 
What is true is that UT once had room for above average and good students, but does not anymore because of population growth. 
Nevetheless UT the institution is and was elite. Really silly to pretend otherwise.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That last part is false. It’s a mathematical impossibility that most of the top Texas kids went elsewhere. It’s also demonstrably false based on the prominence of UT alumni. 
What is true is that UT once had room for above average and good students, but does not anymore because of population growth. 
Nevetheless UT the institution is and was elite. Really silly to pretend otherwise.

Well, hmm.  UT was most assuredly not selective in the 80s and 90s.  "Room for above average and good students" pretty much excludes elitism.  I suppose that depends on the definition of elite, but most of them include highly selective and the current eliteness is a product of the selectiveness imposed by "top __%."

But I think its outcomes, particularly in certain fields, were elite.

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That last part is false. It’s a mathematical impossibility that most of the top Texas kids went elsewhere.

You’re hiding your metrics. What do you consider “elite” or “top,” on a percentile basis? 

I went to UT in the 90s and I believe I was the highest ranking student in my very large high school class to do so. I was somewhere between top 3-5%. The kids ahead of me went to places like Rice, Duke, Harvard, Yale, Northwestern, etc. Most of my high school friends who ended up at Texas were well below that range. 

UT had some ridiculous sliding scale for admissions back then, too. I remember that based on my SAT score (which was good, but not Ivy League good), I could get in with something like a C average. 

Here’s another data point: in the 1990s, UT had generous merit scholarship programs. For example, National Merit Finalists received full tuition scholarships. This was done to attract top students who otherwise would go elsewhere. Elite schools do not offer NM scholarships, because they don’t have to. 

Don’t fall into the same trap as suburban nitwits do, convincing themselves they’re on the same team as billionaires because they leased the top of the line F150 and bought a bass boat on a 30-year note. UT provided a great education and attracted some very good students, for a variety of reasons. But it was not remotely “elite” in the 1990s and in many ways still isn’t.

Edited by BrickHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

UT had some ridiculous sliding scale for admissions back then, too.

I found an example from the middle of the decade. Check this shit out. If you were Top 25% in your HS class, you only needed a 1050 SAT to get PRIORITY admission. Top 50%? No worries: score a measly 1150 or higher.

Those are not even remotely elite admissions criteria. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Are we talking quality of education elite, or quality of incoming students elite?  It’s two different measurements. 

Quality of female students walking though the south mall on a Spring day.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, South Austin said:

Quality of female students walking though the south mall on a Spring day.

That was most certainly elite. And they were dumb as fuck, too, which made it even better.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Quality of female students walking though the south mall on a Spring day.

It is why I went to UT. Oh, and the fucking kickass LatAm department. I was top 1% from a NOVA public school. Had offers from a few places, but met Dr. Burnett and said nope, I am going to Texas. 

But the decision at the end of the day was how bad ass the Arcade on the drag was, good coffee, and a great day in March checking out the Coeds studying on the West Mall. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Quality of female students walking though the south mall on a Spring day.

Man, that's some rainbows and unicorns walking through a field of wildflowers stuff.  Sigh.

Posted
2 hours ago, South Austin said:

Yeah, but those Mackovic years.

it will never cease to amaze me that texas fans - when pointing to the shittiest football years in history - always point to mackovic instead of mcwilliams. objectively speaking, while the teams were not elite, the 94-96 teams were somewhat fun to watch. mcwilliams was way shittier. way, way shittier. like so shitty that charlie strong's teams were the only ones that were competitively as bad since ww2. even the one decent season in 90 was a complete fucking farce of unbelievably shitty opponents that miami put on full dispaly to cap things off.

but because he was a texas guy (and i guess the gardere outcomes against ou), mcwilliams gets off the hook while everyone points to mackovic. to me, mcwilliams and strong are the co-presidents of the texas football makes you suicidal club. mackovic won the last swc, the first big 12, and was responsible for my favoite horn ever in ricky. mcwilliams got abused by everyone except gary gibbs.

sorry for football'ing (the single shittiest board on this site - kind of like mcwilliams) the cr.

just needed to say that.

Posted
2 minutes ago, sidis said:

it will never cease to amaze me that texas fans - when pointing to the shittiest football years in history - always point to mackovic instead of mcwilliams. objectively speaking, while the teams were not elite, the 94-96 teams were somewhat fun to watch. mcwilliams was way shittier. way, way shittier. like so shitty that charlie strong's teams were the only ones that were competitively as bad since ww2. even the one decent season in 90 was a complete fucking farce of unbelievably shitty opponents that miami put on full dispaly to cap things off.

but because he was a texas guy (and i guess the gardere outcomes against ou), mcwilliams gets off the hook while everyone points to mackovic. to me, mcwilliams and strong are the co-presidents of the texas football makes you suicidal club. mackovic won the last swc, the first big 12, and was responsible for my favoite horn ever in ricky. mcwilliams got abused by everyone except gary gibbs.

sorry for football'ing (the single shittiest board on this site - kind of like mcwilliams) the cr.

just needed to say that.

Fair.  But I wasn't at UT for the McWilliams era.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, South Austin said:

Yeah, but those Mackovic years.

 

3 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Those years sucked. 

Try the McWilliams years. Mackovic looks like Saban.

 

EDIT: Already posted. Delete post, ban user.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Posted

Here's how I know UT wasn't elite back in the day:  I got admitted undergrad AND grad.  I got turned down by fucking Purdue (although they did say "hey, if you'd like to study chemistry, come on!".  Uh, no.)

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, VABuckeye said:

Fucking Purdue is a damned good university.

Yeah, but I wanted to study engineering, not chemistry.  Plus the chicks at UT were WAY WAY WAY better.  Easy decision.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

The more interesting debate is whether UT is elite now. It might seem obvious given how difficult admission has gotten. But that’s driven entirely by Texas’s hyper focus on one flawed metric. On other academic measures, the Texas student body is pretty unimpressive.

According to this site, UT ranks #133 in the US in terms of median SAT score of enrolled students. 

Considering the ranking appears not to include test-blind schools (which would include some of the most prestigious public universities in the country: eg UC Berkeley, UCLA), that ranking is pretty eye-opening. 

Edited by BrickHorn
Posted
12 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

The more interesting debate is whether UT is elite now. It might seem obvious given how difficult admission has gotten. But that’s driven entirely by Texas’s hyper focus on one flawed metric. On other academic measures, the Texas student body is pretty unimpressive.

According to this site, UT ranks #133 in the US in terms of median SAT score of enrolled students. 

Considering the ranking appears not to include test-blind schools (which would include some of the most prestigious public universities in the country: eg UC Berkeley, UCLA), that ranking is pretty eye-opening. 

Hey, at least we're 133 and climbing, while aggy is 242 and falling like a rock

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

I found an example from the middle of the decade. Check this shit out. If you were Top 25% in your HS class, you only needed a 1050 SAT to get PRIORITY admission. Top 50%? No worries: score a measly 1150 or higher.

Those are not even remotely elite admissions criteria. 

As I recall during the last year of Fred Akers tenure, admissions was guaranteed if you were either in the top 25% of your class or made 1100 or better on the SAT. 
I remember this because in the 11th grade I made exactly 1100 the first time I took the SAT and proceeded to to screw off the rest of high school and managed to drop out of the the top 25% by graduation.  

  • Haha 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

As I recall during the last year of Fred Akers tenure, admissions was guaranteed if you were either in the top 25% of your class or made 1100 or better on the SAT. 
I remember this because in the 11th grade I made exactly 1100 the first time I took the SAT and proceeded to to screw off the rest of high school and managed to drop out of the the top 25% by graduation.  

I think most kids drop in their HS rankings by graduation simply because their "class size" drops, due to kids dropping out.

Posted
5 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

That's nonsense. You get connections at the best high schools and universities that are worth more than education, but the quality of the actual education itself isn't that much better. Donald Trump is a Wharton graduate and he can barely read.

Often, though, you've already got the connections if you're able to get into the best high schools and universities. A line I really appreciated from the book "Paying for the Party" talked about the mid-level, highly connected and poorly motivated college students- "They and the faculty had an unspoken agreement to not demand too much of each other".

 

5 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

One of the central failures of the progressive movement was to put their efforts not into ensuring that public high schools produced workforce ready graduates, but rather into making it easier for working and middle class people kids with no particular academic interests to go six figures in the hole so someone could tell them to read Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. 

Hey man... that's not a very quality way of looking at things. What did Robert Pirsig ever do to you?



×
×
  • Create New...