<p>With all due respect, hmom, this sounds like you’re living in a timewarp. The good ol’ boys and the good ol’ boys clubs that you’re describing no longer have the monopoly on good jobs in this country. The creative class is who is doing the moving and the shaking. The world of Andover / St. Paul’s / Groton and the world of Top-10-or-don’t-bother is a really dated way of looking at the world. It only matters or makes a difference to a very small bubble. </p>
<p>Honestly, are all these white-shoe law firms and all the i-bankers / hedge fund managers who have the proper (WASP) credentials completely unaware of the fact that the money they manage and the businesses they help finance are being created by people who, as often as not, don’t have the fancy schmancy education but have really good ideas? </p>
<p>I get why those firms still want to keep their recruiting to the same half a dozen universities – it’s working for them, they get smart kids, they can’t interview everywhere in the world, and those half a dozen universities serve a signaling function for them. Great. But if they don’t see that the world of big ideas out there – the ideas from people who are actually creating products and services, not just moving money around – is coming from a broader set of backgrounds – well, then, they’re really not all that bright.</p>
<pre><code>* If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.
</code></pre>
<p>My friends and I all went the other way. Conservative in our early twenties when our focus was maximizing our pocketbooks, liberal the older and wealthier we got.</p>
<p>Niightchef - I was going to respond to you but then I read BCEagle’s post and I see he responded perfectly.</p>
<p>When someone who is a citizen of another country, a student no less who is conrtributing nothing financially to society, comes on here with a misplaced sense of entitlement and complains about financial aid and the American system for handling this process as compared to her countriy’s more socialist bent - well she garners no sympathy from me</p>
<p>50% of Americans spend more than they make every year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not what I’m seeing. From the traditional elite jobs on WS and in law and consulting to the top jobs in Silicon Valley, I’m seeing the same few schools being recruited and connections playing a big part in who is getting the elite jobs.</p>
<p>I also found it interesting that Desperate Housewives has had a recent story line about a women execs being penalized for getting pregnant. Things are clearly not changing much for women.</p>
<p>You can certainly make the argument that the schools that have a monopoly on the top jobs are more diverse today, but have things really changed much? Not from where I’m standing.</p>
True, but “go home if you don’t like it here” is not a criticism, just a petulant outburst.</p>
<p>
Yes, but if you don’t have the time or energy to refute someone’s argument, the civil, grown-up thing to do is admit it, note your dissent and let it go, not indulge in ad hominem Parthian shots. </p>
<p>
So, whatever works? The end justifies the means? </p>
<p>Where I come from the point of discussion isn’t to win, it’s to illuminate. You argue hard for your position because you believe it’s true and needs to be understood, not because it’s imperative that you come out on top. A tactic that isn’t “kosher” is off limits because, by definition, it is not illuminating.</p>
<p>Instead of putting words in someone’s mouth, at least be honest enough
to quote what they wrote.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ah, but ad hominem attacks are so effective. If you know that you’re
right, you can always clean up later or cut and paste in an article
where someone else has already done the work.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Have you ever worked on optimization problems?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I work in a highly technical area and people often ask me about why
this can or cannot work. Many of these people don’t have the technical
background to understand a simple explanation. A complicated
explanation might take an undergraduate course as a backgrounder.</p>
<p>Parents have the benefit of life experience over younger folks.
Younger folks eventually figure this out. But they often can’t
feel it or often argue against it because it doesn’t make sense
to them.</p>
<p>There’s an appropriate quotation for this. Finding it is left as an
exercise to the reader.</p>
<p>My point is not that Canadians who don’t like our system should go home.</p>
<p>My point is that it is too easy to look at the complex maze of financial systems in place in the US for financing higher education and to conclude that it’s better someplace else.</p>
<p>Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. For sure it is better to be a top student in the UK, to get tracked into University admissions level A and O level work in middle school, and if you have the chops, to attend Cambridge and not have to worry about merit, need, EFC, being gapped, ROTC, work/study, or whether your parents small business is being counted as an asset (since even if it has market value, once you sell it there is no more income being generated.)</p>
<p>I agree. This is better.</p>
<p>But if you are a B+ student who is not on the Oxbridge track, I’m not sure a majority of Brits would agree with you that their system is superior. And if you are a B student in the UK, you may look at options like U New Hampshire or Quinnipiac or Northeastern (public, private, and private but with coop option) with some envy. </p>
<p>If you are a Canadian who is looking for a Swarthmore/Amherst type college experience, the fact that you can attend U Toronto for a lot less money may make you question your assumptions that taxpayer funded U’s are always better.</p>
<p>So don’t misquote me. I’m not suggesting the Canadians should go home- but they should develop a more nuanced view of why the public/private/philanthropic/taxpayer maze that has grown up in the US provides lots and lots of options- some of which an individual may prefer under certain circumstances.</p>
<p>Just curious as to where you got this statistic. Certainly not questioning its validity in the least, just would like to know for future reference. Using HMom as a source probably wouldn’t work anywhere with the exception of cc. :)</p>
<p>To see if one gets it right. It may be a silly argument, but at times this is the only way to find out if the other party in the discussion gets it right. If your correspondent does not agree with your paraphrase then you need to regurgitate some more.</p>
If this is so clear, I’m sure you will be able to explain why–though if you hold true to form, you will probably say you don’t have time, and invite us to fill in the blanks as a homework assignment. </p>
<p>Yes, they teach this in couples communications classes. Especially when one
person reads a ton of stuff into what someone else says. When they usually
just mean what they said.</p>
<p>In general, it’s a lot more efficient to just assume that what the person said
is what they meant.</p>
<p>They do this on Saturday Night Live sometimes.</p>
If you really can’t see that “I’m sure Canada would love to have you back” is a backhanded way of saying “why don’t you go back there,” then you and I learned to interpret language on different planets.</p>