What should schools teach?

[Jtalk4456]

35 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

I also dont think that school, particularly public school, is an environment where one goes to learn people skills.

 

Not to sound rude here, but that's literally one of the main purposes to learning in a school based environment surrounded by peers vs self learning or apprenticeships of the past. The social aspect is very important to the idea of schools. Not saying they do it well, but it's definitely one of the main reasons we have school

[Volbet]

50 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

She didnt murder off characters she disagreed with in her books either. Please give me an example of that happening, as i have read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I think i would remember such a morally contradictory action as that in a book by someone who preaches non-aggression.

Forgive me for not remembering the chapter, but it's the scene with the Comet going through the Winston Tunnel. 

The scene where a series of events, caused by equal parts ineptitude and lack of responsibility, leads an antiquated coal locomotive taking it's carts through a tunnel that is too long for the train pass safely, leading to all the passengers suffocating to death. 

If the scene had ended on that note, I would actually have found it a cool, although a bit trife, narrative tool.

 

However, the scene does not end on that note. 

It ends with Ayn Rand listing the passengers by name, occupation and "sin". 

She frames their death as being by their own doing, becuase they feed into the system that lead to the Comet going on a suicide mission. 

In Ayn Rand's framing, these people deserved death for standing up for, or at least feeding into, a political cause with which Ayn Rand disagreed. 

Narretivly speaking, the people on the train deserved death for not being objectivists. 

 

50 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

I dont agree with everything Rand said, but to assert that objectivism would imply that one should start human trials immediately is absurd. If you actually read the book youd know that her philosophy centered around the non-agression and trader principles.

See, now you're just being condecending for no reason. 

You asseret that I've not read the books for disagreeing with Ayn Rands philosophy, which is a downright cretious idea. 

I've also read Das Kapital and One-Dimensional Man, but neither has convinced me to overthrow the bourgeoisie nor the state. 

 

50 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

For those old enough to remember the 2008 financial crisis with virtual nationalization(TARP and the bank/auto bailouts, appointing of incompent financial "czars", yes they called them fucking czars, etc.) was like something straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

Sure, but it also sounds like something straight out of Das Kapital and that doesn't make Karl Marx anymore correct. 

Both Marx and Rand had lived through major economical changes (the industrial revolution and the Russian revolution respectivly), so both were capable of observing what happened, project it and frame it according to their own philosophy. 

 

50 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Rand wasnt right about everything, and her writing is intentionally long winded and hyperbolic, but her books and philosophy are better than any of the drivel they make kids read in school these days.

That doesn't mean that she's right, though. 

[Amazonsucks]

36 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Not to sound rude here, but that's literally one of the main purposes to learning in a school based environment surrounded by peers vs self learning or apprenticeships of the past. The social aspect is very important to the idea of schools. Not saying they do it well, but it's definitely one of the main reasons we have school

I dont mean that one doesnt naturally learn to socialize in school. That happens automatically. Put a bunch of random kids or adults together and theyll self organize into groups.

 

Im saying that you cant have teachers teaching kids to be kids in school. It just doesnt work to force socialization like that. And the fact that schools have become so huge, overcrowded and essentially useless is because of the societal problems that have transformed schools from necessary, small, respectable learning institutions to glorified daycares/brainwashing facilities.

 

Ask a kid in school what they learned in the last few months if you need proof.

 

Ask a kid if they think what theyre doing in school is important, relevant, gives them intellectual satisfaction, or do they get all those things elsewhere?

 

31 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Forgive me for not remembering the chapter, but it's the scene with the Comet going through the Winston Tunnel. 

The scene where a series of events, caused by equal parts ineptitude and lack of responsibility, leads an antiquated coal locomotive taking it's carts through a tunnel that is too long for the trek, leading to all the passengers suffocating to death. 

If the scene had ended on that note, I would actually have found it a cool, although a bit trife, narrative tool.

 

However, the scene does not end on that note. 

It ends with Ayn Rand listing the passengers by name, occupation and "sin". 

She frames their death as being by their own doing, becuase they feed into the system that lead to the Comet going on a suicide mission. 

In Ayn Rand's framing, these people deserved death for standing up for a political cause with which Ayn Rand disagreed. 

Narretivly speaking, the people on the train deserved death for not being objectivists. 

 

See, now you're just being condecending for no reason. 

You asseret that I've not read the books for disagreeing with Ayn Rands philosophy, which is a downright cretious idea. 

I've also read Das Kapital and One-Dimensional Man, but neither has convinced me to overthrow the bourgeoisie nor the state. 

 

Sure, but it also sounds like something straight out of Das Kapital and that doesn't make Karl Marx anymore correct. 

Both Marx and Rand had lived though major economical changes (the industrial revolution and the Russian revolution respectivly), so both were capable of observing what happened, project it and frame it according to their own philosophy. 

 

That doesn't mean that she's right, though. 

Oh i remember that part of the book well. You are definitely projecting though. There is no remote implication that they deserved death or were killed because they werent objectivists.

 

The obvious moral there was not to put incompetent assholes in charge of peoples' safety. Pretty good lesson really. I think the "listing of sins" was more to show that the people were apathetic and clueless than anything else.

 

I guess your subjective interpretation is different from mine though. I read most of the book as a cautionary tale about not standing idly by while incompetent people ruin the world.

 

And your interpretation isnt the narrative. Its your subjective assessment of events. Only she could answer which interpretation was her intended message.

 

With all the ideologically motivated murder she escaped and preached against(the rise of socialismand communism), i doubt your interpretation was her actual intended message though.

 

I wasnt being condescending. I just cant believe anyone who read the books could possibly interpret the philosophy of non-aggression to the point where competent, moral people literally had to hide in a Galt's Gulch from the psychotic leadership, and get "it would make irresponsible human trials ok" from it.

 

Comparing Rand and Marx is like comparing a person who wrote a cautionary book about the rise of the Nazis, warning people about the danger with someone who says that Nazis are great and we should welcome their rise to power. 

 

One is warning you, the other is cheerleading. They are diametrically opposed and not morally or philosophically equivalent. 

 

I didnt say that made her right. Her undeniable accuracy in predicting the way a financial catastrophe unfolded, and the many times history proved her right about economics is what made her right about those things. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

Lucky you, my last 2 years of Highschool were harder than my first year of University. And I even learned Geology content in highschool that was taught in a 3rd year Geology University course. I still don’t understand why my High School had to be so hard. The Highschool diploma isn’t worth much.

You're smarter because of it. 

[Volbet]

18 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Oh i remember that part of the book well. You are definitely projecting though. There is no remote implication that they deserved death or were killed because they werent objectivists.

 

The obvious moral there was not to put incompetent assholes in charge of peoples' safety. Pretty good lesson really. I think the "listing of sins" was more to show that the people were apathetic and clueless than anything else.

But that is far from how the scene is framed. 

Rand lists their "sins" as being everything that's in opposition to objectivism. Everyone from teaches of altruism, over people who were indifferent to the political system, to people who weren't aware of their own abilities. 

 

The whole scene is proceeded by their fate being sealed by the system they feed and bookended by the sight of Wyatt's Torch, a symbol of objectivism used throughout the book. 

I fail to see how this is just to show how apathtic the passengers were.

 

In the broader context of the book, we can create a parallel between the death of the passengers in the Comet and the suicide of Cherryl.

Cherryl's suicide is treated as a tragedy by Ayn Rand. A tragedy which was caused by James and his complete incompetence as a husband and a business owner.

All the while the death the train passengers is treat with apathy at best and, at worst, with sadistic glee.

 

18 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

With all the ideologically motivated murder she escaped and preached against(the rise of socialismand communism), i doubt your interpretation was her actual intended message though.

I fail to see how you can deduce this. Lots of revolutions were born out of regimes that enforced politically motivated violence, yet the revolutionaries ended up just as violent as the regimes they replaced. 

 

As you mentioned Orwell "Four legs good, two legs better"

 

Also, least we forget how Rand, not only proposed, but praised taking up violent action against tribalistic, savage and "new left" cultures, stating in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution how people that subscribed to such systems had forfeited their basic human rights.

 

18 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

I wasnt being condescending. I just cant believe anyone who read the books could possibly interpret the philosophy of non-aggression to the point where competent, moral people literally had to hide in a Galt's Gulch from the psychotic leadership, and get "it would make irresponsible human trials ok" from it.

Where are you getting this stuff about trials? I have neither in this thread nor the thread I linked talked about the judicial system.

 

 

18 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Comparing Rand and Marx is like comparing a person who wrote a cautionary book about the rise of the Nazis, warning people about the danger with someone who says that Nazis are great and we should welcome their rise to power. 

 

One is warning you, the other is cheerleading. They are diametrically opposed and not morally or philosophically equivalent. 

See, the opposite would likely have been said by a follower of Marx. 

It's a way to reject an argument becuase it goes against your sensibilities. You're essentially rejecting an argument becuase you don't like it. And you're doing this without any demonstration of why it's a bad argument. 

 

And this goes for your last point as well, and you seem to have completly missed the point.

The only reason why you see Rand as a herald and Marx as a cheerleader is due to your preconception. 

A marxist would have the exact opposite reaction to you and would point to passages in Das Kapital to point out Marx's genius when compared to Rand. 

 

The truth of the matter is that both Rand, Marx and pretty much every political and economic theorist have made predictions that have come true. 

But that speaks more to the predicable nature of humans on a large scale than it does to the truth value of the theorists' writing, 

 

The weird thing about is that the goal of Marx and the goal of Rand weren't that dissimilar. 

Both envisioned a future were materialistic epistomology ruled our reason, where every man could live up to their full potential without being hindered and were every man was as free as possible. 

The only real difference were in the devils they saw. Marx saw the industrialists and the state as the enemy of the proletariat, while Rand saw the state, the parasites and the looters as the enemy of the men of talent. 

Both also saw potential in their enemies. The looters could become men of talent and the bourgeoisie could become equal partners to the prolitariate. 

[Andreas Lilja]

On 11/1/2018 at 7:54 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

How to write a check (I still write checks and it's handy in a pinch for that one archaic dinosaur that doesn't want to go electronic)

No. God no.

 

Not showing how to fax stuff either, let it die.

 

Also, cursive.

[Amazonsucks]

47 minutes ago, Volbet said:

But that is far from how the scene is framed. 

Rand lists their "sins" as being everything that's in opposition to objectivism. Everyone from teaches of altruism, over people who were indifferent to the political system, to people who weren't aware of their own abilities. 

 

The whole scene is proceeded by their fate being sealed by the system they feed and bookended by the sight of Wyatt's Torch, a symbol of objectivism used throughout the book. 

I fail to see how this is just to show how apathtic the passengers were. 

 

I fail to see how you can deduce this. Lots of revolutions were born out of regimes that enforced politically motivated violence, yet the revolutionaries ended up just as violent as the regimes they replaced. 

 

As you mentioned Orwell "Four legs good, two legs better"

 

Also, least we forget how Rand, not only proposed, but praised taking up violent action against tribalistic, savage and "new left" cultures, stating in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution how people that subscribed to such systems had forfeited their basic human rights.

 

Where are you getting this stuff about trials? I have neither in this thread nor the thread I linked talked about the judicial system.

 

 

See, the opposite would likely have been said by a follower of Marx. 

It's a way to reject an argument becuase it goes against your sensibilities. You're essentially rejecting an argument becuase you don't like it. And you're doing this without any demonstration of why it's a bad argument. 

 

And this goes for your last point as well, and you seem to have completly missed the point.

The only reason why you see Rand as a herald and Marx as a cheerleader is due to your preconception. 

A marxist would have the exact opposite reaction to you and would point to passages in Das Kapital to point out Marx's genius when compared to Rand. 

 

The truth of the matter is that both Rand, Marx and pretty much every political and economic theorist have made predictions that have come true. 

But that speaks more to the predicable nature of humans on a large scale than it does to the truth value of the theorists' writing, 

 

The weird thing about is that the goal of Marx and the goal of Rand weren't that dissimilar. 

Both envisioned a future were materialistic epistomology ruled our reason, where every man could live up to their full potential with being hindered and were every man was as free as possible. 

The only real difference were in the devils they saw. Marx saw the industrialists and the state as the enemy of the proletariat, while Rand saw the state, the parasites and the looters as the enemy of the men of talent. 

Both also saw potential in their enemies. The looters could become men of talent and the bourgeoisie could become equal partners to the prolitariate. 

First, my bad because when i tapped the link to the other thread it took me to the OP, not your post so ignore what i replied to from the OP. Ive got the flu and a bunch of codeine and xanax in my system making it hard to focus so i thought you were the OP.

 

I havent read the new left stuff, but i assume she would have said that they forefeited their human rights by initiating force? If its self defense i dont find that problematic.

 

As for rejecting an argument because it goes against my sensibilities, i have posted at length why socialism and communism are immoral, demonstrably detrimental systems. If you go through my post history some of it might still be there but a lot was "cleaned".

 

While i am not an objectivist, i do find much more that is correct incorporated into her philosophy than the diametric opposite of her position.

 

However, over the years i spent studying cellular automata theory, chaos theory, emergent phenomena and self organized systems i gained insight into human behavior and society that i dont think any purely philosophical writer could give. 

 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, Raskolnikov said:

No. God no.

 

Not showing how to fax stuff either, let it die.

 

Also, cursive.

• I still write checks regularly and it's a quick way to transfer funds between my primary and secondary bank accounts.
  • I learned how to write checks in elementary school. It was also a great segue in managing money because the teacher also made us balance our accounts. Granted I don't actually balance my accounts because I can find out readily online, but it at least drilled in some basics about money management.
• Cursive is a neat way to write your signature, unless kids these days print their names or something as their "signature." Though I guess scribbles are fine too since a signature can literally be anything as long as its consistent
• Faxes are primarily a business thing, they'll teach you how to do it if they need you to.

Edited November 3, 2018 by M.Yurizaki

[mrchow19910319]

11 hours ago, kokakolia said:

Otherwise crony capitalism and consumer culture will take over. 

hmmm... looks like what's happening right now to be honest... 

[Speed Weed]

2018 kids: England is my city

 

 

[Volbet]

7 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

I havent read the new left stuff, but i assume she would have said that they forefeited their human rights by initiating force? If its self defense i dont find that problematic.

She's not talking self-defense, unfortunately.

The basic premise of her argument is the human rights is the product of Western culture, which Rand defines as an adherence to capitalism, reason, individualism and industrialization.

Rand then argues that anyone that doesn't adhere to Western values and culture can't expected to be protected by the rights born from those values.

This is why Rand on several occasions praised the genocide of Native Americans, since they acted like "savages" and therefor shouldn't be afforded rights by the European settlers (most notably in her 1974 West Point Academy speech).

Essentally, it's a continuation on the objectivism doctrine of rejecting the primitive.

 

Another problem arise when Rand decides to use terms such as savages, tribalistic cultures and the new left when discussing who's rights can be stripped away (or not granted in the first place).

Non of these terms are precis, so who Rand is talking about is rather open ended.

 

7 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

First, my bad because when i tapped the link to the other thread it took me to the OP, not your post so ignore what i replied to from the OP. Ive got the flu and a bunch of codeine and xanax in my system making it hard to focus so I thought you were the OP

 

All well and good.

I was just really confused and thought 8 had missed something impo.

[Amazonsucks]

55 minutes ago, Volbet said:

She's not talking self-defense, unfortunately.

The basic premise of her argument is the human rights is the product of Western culture, which Rand defines as an adherence to capitalism, reason, individualism and industrialization.

Rand then argues that anyone that doesn't adhere to Western values and culture can't expected to be protected by the rights born from those values.

This is why Rand on several occasions praised the genocide of Native Americans, since they acted like "savages" and therefor shouldn't be afforded rights by the European settlers (most notably in her 1974 West Point Academy speech).

Essentally, it's a continuation on the objectivism doctrine of rejecting the primitive.

 

Another problem arise when Rand decides to use terms such as savages, tribalistic cultures and the new left when discussing who's rights fan stripped away (or not granted in the first place).

Non of these terms are precis, so who Rand is talking about is rather open ended.

 

All well and good.

I was just really confused and thought 8 had missed something impo.

Never read that stuff but i definitely disagree with her there. Also there are ancient structures that modern engineering and materials science cant explain or reproduce so, she was clearly arguing from ignorance or bad faith if she claimed those things. Its a very interesting field of study that ive recently gotten into. Interestingly, its another that isnt taught correctly in schools. Maybe someone who is currently in school can see what their text books say about the ages of the Great Pyramid, Machu Picchu or Puma Punku. 

 

Im a big fan of western culture but i think if i had to pick a single culture that "gets it right" most often, it would have to be Japan, which is definitely not western. Though, what works in Japan cant be accomplished or attempted in the west for a list of reasons too long to discuss here.

 

As far as forefieture of rights, i go back to my own philosophy 101 class from almost 20 years ago when we discussed "universalizing the rule" and why one cant universalize principles like "murder is ok" or "theft is ok". The Golden Rule basically applies. If she was advocating something that went against the principles she espoused, then thats hypocritical. Though given what she escaped from, its reasonable to assume she was probably quite pissed off and cynical.

 

Not sure when she wrote that either, but like many writers or artists, sometimes they lose their touch and sometimes they regress or go off the rails. I never really got the whole rejecting the primitive thing from her but i interpreted it to align with my ideas of rejecting the immoral and nonadaptive.

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

21 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Im a big fan of western culture but i think if i had to pick a single culture that "gets it right" most often, it would have to be Japan, which is definitely not western. Though, what works in Japan cant be accomplished or attempted in the west for a list of reasons too long to discuss here.

I would argue their basis in Buddhism and Shintoism have something to do with it. Because otherwise, the way the Japanese (if we defined it as being a Japanese national) behave in certain regions is vastly different from one another once you dig down a bit.

 

I'm starting to think Tokyo (or maybe the Kansai region in general) disproportionately seems to represent Japan.

[kokakolia]

23 hours ago, mrchow19910319 said:

hmmm... looks like what's happening right now to be honest... 

I have lost all my faith in humanity in Canada. But whenever I go to France all is well. 

[Donut417]

How about a class called Life. Where they teach basics of cooking, how to do a little sewing, how to manage personal fiances, how to change oil in your car and how to change a tire. 

 

*Rant alert*

At my job I have a manager who is 18 years old. His tire in his new car went flat. This mother fer was like Im going to see if my mom and her ex boy friend can come up here and change it for me. I was like " you dont know how to change a tire?" JESUS CHRIST on a motor bike. Its not hard. This is why I tell all of them at work that Generation Z is a bunch of worthless pieces of crap. Because they are either stupid or lazy. Pretty much the same thing that the Baby Boomers said about us Millennial.

 

*Rant Over*  

[kokakolia]

11 hours ago, Donut417 said:

How about a class called Life. Where they teach basics of cooking, how to do a little sewing, how to manage personal fiances, how to change oil in your car and how to change a tire. 

 

*Rant alert*

At my job I have a manager who is 18 years old. His tire in his new car went flat. This mother fer was like Im going to see if my mom and her ex boy friend can come up here and change it for me. I was like " you dont know how to change a tire?" JESUS CHRIST on a motor bike. Its not hard. This is why I tell all of them at work that Generation Z is a bunch of worthless pieces of crap. Because they are either stupid or lazy. Pretty much the same thing that the Baby Boomers said about us Millennial.

 

*Rant Over*  

Chill! He’s only 18. And it’s never too late to learn stuff. When you’re 18 you’ve been in school almost all of your life. Your only skills are probably math, reading, writing and some basic history. Nothing terribly useful. 

[Dash Lambda]

Math. And I don't mean Algebra or Trig.

 

I firmly believe that everyone should learn at least up to differential equations with an introduction to probability and statistics. It angers me to see people complain about how they had to learn basic algebra in school that they think they've never used since in the "real world." Math isn't about doing endless arithmetic, it's about logic and critical thinking. By learning mathematical reasoning and arguments, you learn how to think and demonstrate things rigorously. By learning about continuous math (calculus and diff eq) you gain an understanding of how the world works on a physical level. Probability and statistics is absolutely fundamental to almost every vaguely technical field in existence, including economics.

 

But instead schools (and even universities) just push humanities. Half my credits for a math degree are humanities classes but maybe a fifth of a literature major's credits are STEM related. It's absurd.

 

And it frustrates me even more how the way they teach math in middle and high school makes people think it's just a bunch of memorization and number crunching. I absolutely hated math through 8th grade, then in high school I was allowed to take higher level classes. This is my first year of university and I'm a math major, the vice president of the math club, and regularly compete in math competitions.

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, kokakolia said:

Chill! He’s only 18. And it’s never too late to learn stuff. When you’re 18 you’ve been in school almost all of your life. Your only skills are probably math, reading, writing and some basic history. Nothing terribly useful. 

Which is why they need a fucking class called Life. Ive been driving since 16 and I learned how to change a tire before I started driving. PLUS there is a fucking manual in the car that tells you where to jack the car up and how to change the tire. It called READING. But a vast majority of America's population doesn't have this skill. 

[kokakolia]

28 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Which is why they need a fucking class called Life. Ive been driving since 16 and I learned how to change a tire before I started driving. PLUS there is a fucking manual in the car that tells you where to jack the car up and how to change the tire. It called READING. But a vast majority of America's population doesn't have this skill. 

You are very self centred. Not everyone will start driving at 16. Not everyone is brave enough to change a tire the first time, even with a manual. If you expect everyone to be as able as you then you will be very frustrated. 

 

As a human, you should strive to teach people your skills and learn from others. If you shame people for their deficiencies they will resent you and themselves. And that’s not how you move things forward. So stop being a raging angermuffin telling people how incompetent they are for not being able to change a tire! You’re not helpful. 

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, kokakolia said:

You are very self centred. Not everyone will start driving at 16. Not everyone is brave enough to change a tire the first time, even with a manual. If you expect everyone to be as able as you then you will be very frustrated. 

Its part of owning a car. You should know basic maintenance. Also Im from Romulus which is 28 miles west of the Motor City aka Detroit. So if you dont drive in these parts your pretty much fucked. Because we have NO public transit. 18 years old means you can be drafted by the military and can vote, your legally an adult and you have to suck it up butter cup. 

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

in India sex education, coz we ain't getting any. 

no one ever in India gets any sex ed, the only time we even hear body parts would be on one class in 8th in biology. that's it

 

this is an accurate representation of India's sex ed, it's a skit.

 

 

[kokakolia]

Just now, Donut417 said:

Its part of owning a car. You should know basic maintenance. Also Im from Romulus which is 28 miles west of the Motor City aka Detroit. So if you dont drive in these parts your pretty much fucked. Because we have NO public transit. 18 years old means you can be drafted by the military and can vote, your legally an adult and you have to suck it up butter cup. 

That’s the sink or swim attitude that I absolutely hate about North Americans. You’re individualistic AF. Can’t you just help your peers out and be kind? Or do you want everyone to struggle because you struggled as well? You know, solidarity isn’t detrimental to hard work and self development. That person was 18, c’mon! That’s incredibly young to be a fully grown mature adult that can competently do all of the adult things. Give me a break! Seriously.

 

Hey, not everyone lives inside a dystopian American town as well. Places like that are far less common outside of the USA and Canada. 

[Trik'Stari]

How about teaching financial responsibility? Teaching them to avoid credit where possible and only taking loans or debts that they can actually pay off?

 

How about teaching them how to start or run a business, or pay taxes?

[wasab]

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

How about teaching financial responsibility? Teaching them to avoid credit where possible and only taking loans or debts that they can actually pay off?

 

How about teaching them how to start or run a business, or pay taxes?

And teach them how to invest, how to choose and purcahse a car, and how to actually ace a job interview and write proper cover letter+resume. Schools focus too much on academic and exclude important life lessons these days. The age old apprentice system offers better real world edcation. 

[Donut417]

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Teaching them to avoid credit where possible

Problem is the way the economy works you have to have and use credit. If you have shit credit its hard to get a house, car or loan. Its more like teach them how to use credit wisely. So that you build up your credit without incurring a lot of debt. 

 

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

and only taking loans or debts that they can actually pay off

Then no one but the rich could afford school here in the US. Id like to say a semester at EMU costed me  like $1,200 a class. And now days you have to spend that if you want a bachelors degree because an Associates Degree gets you no where.