The US News Prestige Rankings

College Search & Selection
201

<p>
[quote]
It all gets down to market incentives. The higher the payout in certain fields, the more that people will want to enter those fields.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is precisely why many of those from the "wrong side of the tracks" are lured into crime and drug dealing. Think about it - a "successful" drug dealer can make more in one weekend than what any of his fellow compadres will earn in a year "doing the right thing" sweeping floors at Mickey D's (and he doesn't feel the bite of the Federal gov't taking their share either).</p>

<p>Yes, the occassional drive by shooting / turf war will snub out a few - along with incarceration - but as Sakky said - the huge risks of "not making" is fully justified in their minds esp. when they see "Tyrone rolling around in his Bentley" - the other point is, what do they have to lose? It's not like they are giving up much by taking their shot at the brass ring - so why not?</p>

<p>There is the same kind of mentality for those wanting to become rap stars. Shows that glorify, celebrate and validate this kind of "easy lifestyle" abound: look at MTV's "Cribs" for example.</p>

<p>Why work your ass off when you can get things handed to you on a plate? The path of least resistance has never looked sweeter. I think its a combination of what Sakky has said (marginal rewards for education) + the further "dumbing down" of America + social messages / media rewarding this kind of lifestyle --> kids who either lack the motivation to work hard and succeed or don't see the point of hard work when you can skip right to the dessert.</p>

202

<p>I’m not one to step into the middle of a conversation. However, Sakky seems to rely too much on economics to explain human behavior and wants. I understand this is the very nature of economic theory, but it is not something with which I agree. People who try to rationalize a person’s behavior using economic theory make a huge assumption; they assume that a person’s actions can indeed be rationalized by some sort of economic constant. This is something that I for one do not believe. </p>

<p>“There is the same kind of mentality for those wanting to become rap stars. Shows that glorify, celebrate and validate this kind of "easy lifestyle" abound: look at MTV's "Cribs" for example.”</p>

<p>This is just the kind of statement that out-of-touch with reality. Yes the draw of the “easy life” is what makes some children want to be rappers, but one should not think any less of them because they do. One could even argue that anyone who chooses to be a lawyer instead of a doctor, or say a PhD, just took the easy way out, by skipping out on the extra time in school. Many, however, would disagree with this, although it is the same principle as what is being argued here about rapper and entertainers. The fact is that there are MANY other social factors underlying such a decision than just unwillingness to work hard. Such an explanation, one relying on economic theory alone, is a huge oversimplification. </p>

<p>“Why work your ass off when you can get things handed to you on a plate? The path of least resistance has never looked sweeter. I think its a combination of what Sakky has said (marginal rewards for education) + the further "dumbing down" of America + social messages / media rewarding this kind of lifestyle --> kids who either lack the motivation to work hard and succeed or don't see the point of hard work when you can skip right to the dessert..”</p>

<p>-It is a huge mistake to assume that those who rap or act or play professional sports have not in fact worked hard to get and maintain those lifestyles. It’s just plain wrong to say that a college graduate has in any way worked harder than a rapper to get what he wants out of society. Again, there are underlying social factors for every decision a person makes. Such decisions can not so easily be rationalized or even justified by relying on economic theory alone.</p>

203

<p>"Such decisions can not so easily be rationalized or even justified by relying on economic theory alone."</p>

<p>as much as i almost never agree with sakky, this is a completely ridiculous thing to say, since the very intention of "economic theory" is to model all of these things... you're very much shortchanging the field of economics</p>

<p>maybe it's inappropriate to model human choices with a simple economic model, but then a more complicated economic model might suffice</p>

204

<p>“as much as i almost never agree with sakky, this is a completely ridiculous thing to say, since the very intention of "economic theory" is to model all of these things... you're very much shortchanging the field of economics”</p>

<p>Much of what is argued by economists is often disputed by sociologists. This is the basis of what I am arguing. Using economics to try to rationalize the behavior of members of society is just plain wrong. It’s also not an accurate thing to do. Despite what economists wish to believe, persons in society do not always display behavior reflective of economic constants. </p>

<p>“maybe it's inappropriate to model human choices with a simple economic model, but then a more complicated economic model might suffice”</p>

<p>The only thing the model will show us is how people have chosen, not why they have chosen or what that will choose in the future. It is impossible to model a person’s total experience in society, and thus impossible to (with any accuracy) rationalize the actions he takes. While some will say that the model could indeed answer the “why”, this is completely unfounded.</p>

205

<p>woah, calm down boys and girls, u r just college students taken some social science classes here and there... your pathetic efforts looking smart in this forum is just..... pathetic :rolleyes:</p>

206

<p>O....k........</p>

207

<p>so b4 you go to bed think about this three topics. The first is free will: We ordinarily think that much of what we do is done freely. Is this ordinary thought correct? Is it compatible with the plausible view that everything, including our own actions, is in principle amenable to prediction and explanation? The second topic is material constitution: What is the relation between material objects, such as statues, and the stuff they're made out of, such as portions of metal?The final topic is time: Is it coherent to think that time passes? Do past and future things exist, or is the present all there is? And perhaps: Is time-travel possible? :rolleyes:</p>

208

<p>^Looks like somebody took Intro Philosophy and watched a couple Star Trek episodes. What a buzz-kill. Let the boys scrap. And there's a physics prof at the U of Connecticut who claims he's making progress on the time machine. Joan Rivers is first in line.</p>

209

<p>If it were a rational decision to try to be a rapper or teen queen you would not be seeing so many poor people. You can say it is rational to spend $20 on a lotto ticket because it is a small portion of your income but would it be rational to spend all your income on the still small chance of wealth--not really. The downside (probable poverty) is worse than the small chance at being rich. You have to remember the declining marginal utility of money.</p>

210

<p>“If it were a rational decision to try to be a rapper or teen queen you would not be seeing so many poor people.”</p>

<p>-What? You can’t be asserting that aspiring to be a rapper or entertainer is causing poverty. Why are there so many poor people? There are a million and one answers to this question. There is, however, no causal relationship between trying to become an entertainer and becoming impoverished. </p>

<p>“You can say it is rational to spend $20 on a lotto ticket because it is a small portion of your income but would it be rational to spend all your income on the still small chance of wealth--not really.”</p>

<p>-Rationality changes from person to person. It is impossible to determine what is rational for everyone in every situation, as, again, everyone has difference preferences based on his life experiences. One could just as easily say it is irrational to spend any percentage of one’s income on a lottery ticket, compared to earning interest on said percentage in a bank. Neither answer is more correct than the other, as, rationality changes with each subject.</p>

<p>“The downside (probable poverty) is worse than the small chance at being rich.”. </p>

<p>-This is the same argument people argue for those who commit murder. They argue that the possibility of being imprisoned on given the death penalty is not worth the committing of the crime. Yet, murder rates in many places remain constant, and prisons are overfilled. Why? Because a person’s actions are not dictated solely by what is deemed “rational” by the majority of society.</p>

211

<p>
[quote]
I’m not one to step into the middle of a conversation. However, Sakky seems to rely too much on economics to explain human behavior and wants. I understand this is the very nature of economic theory, but it is not something with which I agree. People who try to rationalize a person’s behavior using economic theory make a huge assumption; they assume that a person’s actions can indeed be rationalized by some sort of economic constant. This is something that I for one do not believe.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, nobody, least of all me, is saying that people are COMPLETELY rational. But the point is, people aren't completely irrational either. Rather, people are somewhat rational. </p>

<p>My point is simple - that the rewards of education are really not that high, and certainly not as high as some of the other career paths avalable to people. Let's face facts. A lot of college grads end up with crappy jobs. People see that, and then they think that getting an education isn't that valuable. And rightfully so. The sad truth is that education really isn't the guaranteed road out of poverty the way that some pundits and policy makers would like to market it as being such. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. What if we lived in a world where all college grads made at least 200k a year right out of college? I think we can all agree that we'd have people coming out of the woodwork to get an education in such a world. Bur the truth is, we don't live in such a world. We live in a world where plenty of college grads get crappy jobs with crappy salaries - not much more than they could make without the degree. People, especially poor people, see that and realize that a college degree really isn't a guaranteed way out of the ghetto. That's why many of them would rather concentrate on sports or entertainment (or drug dealing) because that is a verifiable path out of poverty, even if only a few make it out that way. </p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I like that things are this way. I wish things were different. But we have to deal with the world the way it is, not the way we wish it was. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The only thing the model will show us is how people have chosen, not why they have chosen or what that will choose in the future. It is impossible to model a person’s total experience in society, and thus impossible to (with any accuracy) rationalize the actions he takes. While some will say that the model could indeed answer the “why”, this is completely unfounded.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above. Again, if college grads got paid more, you'd have more people wanting to graduate from college, a notion to which I think very few people would disagree. So while I agree that people aren't always rational, they aren't completely irrational either. The sad truth is that the reason why college attendance rates in the US aren't higher has a lot to do with the fact that college grads, on average, don't get paid that much more than non-grads. According to various studies, the average college grad gets paid something around 35k to start. Frankly, that's not significantly more than what you could make as a good waitress, or a good bartender.</p>

212

<p>
[quote]
It is a huge mistake to assume that those who rap or act or play professional sports have not in fact worked hard to get and maintain those lifestyles. It’s just plain wrong to say that a college graduate has in any way worked harder than a rapper to get what he wants out of society. Again, there are underlying social factors for every decision a person makes. Such decisions can not so easily be rationalized or even justified by relying on economic theory alone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When did I ever assume that those who make a successful living as a rapper or actor or who play professional sports have not worked hard? </p>

<p>What I said was what gets GLORIFIED, what gets the airtime, what gets the attention (via commercials, entertainment programs, MTV, etc.) is ONLY the "easy life" - rarely do we get to see the huge sacrifice and LONG LONG odds of making it in "the biz" (whatever that biz may be).</p>

<p>Let's put it this way - in a hypothetical ghetto / poor neighborhood in Anywhere, USA - who do you think gets idolized:</p>

<p>A) Jimmy, the local boy who had some musical talent - makes it BIG as a rap star after serving as a back-up vocalist in a hip-hop group that gets gunned down and he is the lone survivor, and is now on the top of the hip-hop charts, owns his own jet, stars in a movie about his own life, starring himself, started a clothing label and a homemade porn video starring Jimmy, Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan is currently crashing servers worldwide due to bandwidth download capacity contraints.</p>

<p>B) Jimmy, the local boy and local basketball star who made it all the way to the NBA lottery. He is now an all-star and jets around the world as part of the Team USA dream team, hangs around with supermodels, has a multi-million dollar contract and multi-million dollar shoe deal - and just released his new cologne.</p>

<p>C) Jimmy, the local boy who made good, studied hard, went to state school full ride (academic), then comes back to the community to start a small business - and spends unhealthy amounts of time on College Confidential.</p>

213

<p>“What I said was what gets GLORIFIED, what gets the airtime, what gets the attention (via commercials, entertainment programs, MTV, etc.) is ONLY the "easy life" - rarely do we get to see the huge sacrifice and LONG LONG odds of making it in "the biz" (whatever that biz may be).”</p>

<p>-This is true, but how often do we see the sacrifice it takes to get an engineering degree? How often do we see how difficult it is for future doctors, lawyers, architects, nurses, etc? The news is the news. It is not exciting or entertaining to report about things that won’t be attention-grabbing. Middle income jobs and difficult lifestyles are generally not exciting to the general public, and thus aren’t well represented in the media. How often does the media report on Duke’s impressive faculty and student body?... Almost never. If you ask many in the general public about the school, however, I’m sure they would be able to tell you a few things about its basketball team and rape scandal. </p>

<p>“Let's put it this way - in a hypothetical ghetto / poor neighborhood in Anywhere, USA - who do you think gets idolized:”</p>

<p>My point is: why should the average person be idolized? Why should people care about Jimmy the small business man? This simply is not news. I agree, the nation should rethink its priorities, but we can’t overlook the fact that everyday people just don’t make for good news.</p>

214

<p>One could make a fine argument for a skilled bricklayer being paid the same, or more, as a professor of Art History.</p>

<p>(Not to pick on you AH profs out there)</p>

215

<p>
[quote]
This is true, but how often do we see the sacrifice it takes to get an engineering degree? How often do we see how difficult it is for future doctors, lawyers, architects, nurses, etc? The news is the news. It is not exciting or entertaining to report about things that won’t be attention-grabbing. Middle income jobs and difficult lifestyles are generally not exciting to the general public, and thus aren’t well represented in the media. How often does the media report on Duke’s impressive faculty and student body?... Almost never. If you ask many in the general public about the school, however, I’m sure they would be able to tell you a few things about its basketball team and rape scandal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
My point is: why should the average person be idolized? Why should people care about Jimmy the small business man? This simply is not news. I agree, the nation should rethink its priorities, but we can’t overlook the fact that everyday people just don’t make for good news.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your logic has an inherent paradox. You say that the average person/average engineer should not be idolized, but then you want the nation to rethink its priorities. Yet the fact is, the nation's priorities are highly influenced by what is idolized in the news. </p>

<p>Principally, I don't think you are taking into account the newsMAKING aspect of journalism. The media doesn't just report the news. The media actually MAKES news, in the sense that the media deems certain stories to be worthy of coverage, and other stories unworthy. And when I say media, I don't just mean mainstream journalism. I am also talking about corporate marketing, PR firms, and basically the entire industry that is devoted to telling Americans what we should think. </p>

<p>Let me give you three examples. </p>

<p>First off, take sports. Why is football such a big sport in the US, but rugby is not? The two are almost the same sport! In fact, American football is actually descended from rugby. Rugby is an intricate and elegant sport that is highly popular in Commonwealth countries. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be popular in the US. Yet the fact is, star football players make multimillions in the US and grace magazine covers, and star U.S. rugby players either toil in obscurity or head off to England or Australia to make money. </p>

<p>The same could be said for why soccer is wildly popular in every country except the US. The biggest sports event in the world is not the Superbowl, it's not even the Olympics, it's the FIFA World Cup. Or why baseball is popular in some countries (i.e. the US), but cricket is popular in others (principally the Commonwealth countries). For example, baseball is highly popular in certain countries in East Asia, i.e. Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, but not in others. For example, baseball is practically unknown in the Philippines, mainland China, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Vietnam. Similarly, why is boxing popular as a professional sport in the US, but not kickboxing, wrestling (not professional wrestling, but real wrestling), judo, tae kwon do, or any of the other one-on-one combat sports? Lots of Americans can name some famous professional boxers like Muhammad Ali or George Foreman. How many Americans can name a single judo star? Or kickboxing star? Why is track more popular in Europe than in the US, such that the best US track stars usually have to go to Europe to make good money? </p>

<p>The answer, of course, is that the big money sports have a lot of marketing to back them. There is no inherent reason why American football is popular in the US, but rugby isn't. It's not like American football is a "superior" sport to rugby. There isn't anything inherent in rugby that makes it less "newsworthy". The answer is simple - American football has a lot of marketing to back it up. The NFL is a great marketing machine. So is the NCAA. The marketing draws viewers, viewers draw advertisers, and advertisers (with their money) draw star athletes who can make millions, and these star athletes draw more viewers who want to see them, drawing still more advertisers, etc. etc. In other words, the marketing is MAKING NEWS where no news really exists. Honestly, does it really matter to your daily life whether Terrell Owens is arguing with Bill Parcells? Does it really matter who the starting quarterback of the Arizona Cardinals is going to be this year (either Kurt Warner or Matt Leinart)? Let's face it. This stuff is not really news. It's just salacious gossip. But that's the power of marketing - it can make you care about things that don't really matter. </p>

<p>As a contrast, consider the relative unpopularity of the Arena Football League, or the XFL, or the Canadian Football League. The rules are different, but it's still recognizably football. Nor is it the quality of the athletes. I would argue that the average quality of the athletes in either of these 3 leagues is better than that of college football. Yet these leagues are relatively unpopular. </p>

<p>Historical quirks also play a strong role. For example, the reason why baseball is popular in Japan is simple - the US occupied Japan militarily after WW2, and US servicemen brought the game with them and taught the Japanese how to play. Similarly, US servicemen brought baseball to South Korea during the Korean War and resultant US military garrison in S Korea. If the US military had not established bases in Japan and S Korea, baseball would not be popular in these countries. </p>

<p>The point is simple - marketing influences what is "news". Baseball is popular in the US because MLB has marketed itself extremely well to the American public. If rugby or cricket had the same strong marketing, then they would be popular in the US. Marketing MAKES news.</p>

<p>My second example is on a more serious note. The media does not treat stories evenly. You mentioned yourself that a lot of people know about the Duke lacrosse rape story. But really, honestly, is that really news? Obviously, if what is alleged is true, then that's very sad for the victim. But the truth is, rapes and murders occur every day. What's so special about the Duke story? For example, when Harvard student Sinedu Tadesse stabbed her roommate 45 times and then hung herself, why didn't that make the cover of Time and Newsweek? When former Harvard student Alexander Pring-Wilson was convicted of manslaughter for killing a man in a scuffle (charges later overturned), why didn't that make national news? When MIT student Elizabeth Shin killed herself by setting herself on fire, why didn't that make national news? I don't see why the Duke story was such big news, but these other tragic stories are not. </p>

<p>Or consider the news on international conflicts. For example, why was the media fixated on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, when there are so many other stories out there to report? 1000 people have died in that conflict, which is clearly 1000 too many, but still, compare that to some of the other things that have happened around the world. I think one of the most wildly underreported stories in modern history has been the lack of coverage of the civil war in Congo - where an estimated 4 million people have died. That's the bloodiest conflict since WW2. Or how about the conflict in Darfur where slow-motion genocide may be happening, and about 400 thousand people have died? Or how about the conflicts in Chechnya (First and Second Chechen Wars), where around 200-300 thousand have died? How about the Kashmir earthquake of 2005 that killed about 85 thousand people and have left millions homeless? Why don't these stories ever make front-page news? </p>

<p>What all this is getting at is the newsMAKING aspect of the media. The media doesn't just report the news. The media actually has power to DECIDE what is news. Inexplicably, 4 million dead people in Congo is apparently not news. The media would rather talk about frivolous things like whether Lindsay Lohan is jealous of Hilary Duff, or whether Britney Spears didn't use a car seat to transport her baby son, or about Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch. Honestly, why is that stuff important? Why is that newsworthy? </p>

<p>It's sad to me that many Americans know more about the breakup of Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey than about Congo or Darfur or Chechnya. But that goes to show you the power of the media. The media has the power to shape culture. </p>

<p>The point of all this is that the media could definitively shape American's opinions regarding education by simply promoting it. For example, instead of reporting on Paris Hilton's pet dog, take that time to report on the top academic achievers in the country. Instead of reporting about how Christie Brinkley's husband cheated on her, report the winners of the Intel/Westinghouse Science Talent Search. </p>

<p>Now, I know what you're going to say - you're going to say that the American people WANT to know about silly celebrity gossip. While that is true, I would argue that that's because the media MAKES them want to know about it. For example, I know celebrity gossip. Why? Because I know that other people know about it, so it gives me something to talk about with them. It's a good conversation starter. But it's only because they know it that I choose to know it. If they didn't know it, then I would have no reason to care about celebrity gossip. The media creates the desire the care about things that you wouldn't otherwise care about. After all, that's the whole point of marketing and PR. Marketing and PR people are paid to make people care about things that they wouldn't otherwise care about. That's their whole raison d'etre.</p>

216

<p>“Your logic has an inherent paradox. You say that the average person/average engineer should not be idolized, but then you want the nation to rethink its priorities. Yet the fact is, the nation's priorities are highly influenced by what is idolized in the news.”</p>

<p>-I’m not saying that the average person SHOULD NOT be idolized. What I am saying is that the average person IS NOT idolized. This is manly due to the function of the mass media in society. Indeed I think also that America should rethink its priorities. There is absolutely nothing paradoxical about this, however.</p>

<p>Rethinking priorities would lead to a change in what is deemed important to report by the media, and thus could, and most likely would, change whom within society is “idolized”. </p>

<p>“Principally, I don't think you are taking into account the newsMAKING aspect of journalism.”</p>

<ul>
<li>I understand greatly the role the media plays in creating, editing, and reporting the news. This is, after all, one of the things I am studying.</li>
</ul>

<p>“The media doesn't just report the news. The media actually MAKES news, in the sense that the media deems certain stories to be worthy of coverage, and other stories unworthy.” </p>

<p>-This is exactly what I have said…..</p>

<p>“And when I say media, I don't just mean mainstream journalism. I am also talking about corporate marketing, PR firms, and basically the entire industry that is devoted to telling Americans what we should think.”</p>

<p>-That IS mainstream journalism. Most media are, first and foremost, businesses. The only way they will change what they report is if the consumers (Americans) stop buying and supporting their product. This would force a change in the market, and would subsequently alter both what is reported to the public and how it is reported. </p>

<p>“Now, I know what you're going to say - you're going to say that the American people WANT to know about silly celebrity gossip. While that is true, I would argue that that's because the media MAKES them want to know about it.”</p>

<p>-This is a sort of “chicken and the egg” concept. Is it the mass media that is fabricating the wants of the American people, or is the media simply responding to said wants? Personally, I think it is the latter. </p>

<p>“But it's only because they know it that I choose to know it. If they didn't know it, then I would have no reason to care about celebrity gossip.” </p>

<p>-Exactly. This is, however, a function of society. In this situation it is not the media which has created your need for specific information; it is those in your peer group. You wish to be able to engage your peers with common knowledge, and thus seek said knowledge. The media simply is providing you with what you wish to know- and not telling you what to know. It’s like if someone argued that the fact that food stores exist makes people hungry. In actuality, it is not the fact that these institutions exist that makes a person hungry, but his hunger that sparks their existence.</p>

<p>Again….. chicken or the egg?? </p>

<p>-It is impossible for citizens to receive information without any kind of institutional bias. Even PBS has to pander to its viewers to receive funding. Again, the only way the mass media will change what it reports is if Americans change what they want to see reported. This is simple supply and demand.</p>

217

<p>No Wake Forest?
I mean i do go there, but honestly...
Wake gets screwed by PA...</p>

218

<p>
[quote]
Exactly. This is, however, a function of society. In this situation it is not the media which has created your need for specific information; it is those in your peer group. You wish to be able to engage your peers with common knowledge, and thus seek said knowledge. The media simply is providing you with what you wish to know- and not telling you what to know. It’s like if someone argued that the fact that food stores exist makes people hungry. In actuality, it is not the fact that these institutions exist that makes a person hungry, but his hunger that sparks their existence.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your analogy is not apt. In this analogy, what I really 'need' is for a common language to speak to my peers, and if celebrity gossip and pop culture happen to be that common language, then so be it. That means I have to spend time learning about things that are, quite frankly, useless, in order to maintain a common standard with my peers. However, if my peers knew about Darfur or Chechnya, then I would spend more time learning about that. And that, frankly, is more useful to know than who Jennifer Aniston happens to be dating right now. </p>

<p>What we are talking about is the nature of sociological PATH-DEPENDENCE. There is nothing inherent about celebrity gossip that makes me want to know it. I only know it because it gives me a conversation starter with other people who also know it. But if they knew something else, then I would choose to know more about that something else, whatever it is, whether it's rugby scores or whatever. In other words, this is a situation with MULTIPLE EQUILIBRIA. We are, right now, in an equilibria where people choose to learn about celebrities. But we could easily have been in another equilibria where people care about other things. Celebrity worship in particular is largely an American phenomenom. Many other countries do not worship celebrities to the same level that we do. What that also means is that we as a society could theoretically change equilibrium points. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Rethinking priorities would lead to a change in what is deemed important to report by the media, and thus could, and most likely would, change whom within society is “idolized”.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
-This is a sort of “chicken and the egg” concept. Is it the mass media that is fabricating the wants of the American people, or is the media simply responding to said wants? Personally, I think it is the latter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think it is quite obvious that it is NOT the latter, under my definition of the word 'media', which is a larger definition than what you are using. Principally, my definition of media includes corporate marketing departments, PR firms, and other such firms that are basically engaged in propoganda of one kind or another. It also includes media of closed societies, i.e. the state media of dictatorships that promulgate propaganda, as well as counter-dictatorship media such as the American backed Voice of America and Radio Marti. Basically, this is all propaganda.</p>

<p>My point is, under this larger definition of media, it is quite clear that the media shapes opinions. You can look throughout history at military coups and revolutionary movements - one of the first things they do is take over the TV and radio stations. The Soviet Union was infamous for engaging in 'false news' and 'false history', to the point of even airbushing its leaders out of photographs and otherwise deliberately lying to its own people. Many countries today, like China or North Korea, do not enjoy a free media. </p>

<p>So ask yourself - why do all these dictatorships control the media, if the media does not shape opinions? Are these dictatorships stupidly wasting their time in trying to control something that doesn't matter? Why does the US even have the concept of 'freedom of the press' in the First Amendment, if media freedom is not important? Were our Founding Fathers obsessing about something unimportant? </p>

<p>I think that the fact that there has been so much conflict throughout history over press freedoms must indicate that there is something inherently important about control of the press. The Soviet Union clearly used its state media to exhort communism and to denigrate capitalism, and Stalin also used the state media to have its people ignore all of the atrocities being committed around them. Hitler did the same thing with the control of the state media in Nazi Germany. North Korea clearly has successfully used its own media to brainwash its own people. These dictators all understood the power of media political propaganda. </p>

<p>But let's stop talking about politics. Let's talk about business. Companies around the world collectively spend trillions of dollars on marketing and advertising their products. Marketing is basically corporate propaganda. Why are companies doing this, if it doesn't shape opinions? Are companies just being stupid? Why spend money on Superbowl ads, if it doesn't shape opinions? Are all these companies just throwing their money away? </p>

<p>
[quote]
-That IS mainstream journalism. Most media are, first and foremost, businesses. The only way they will change what they report is if the consumers (Americans) stop buying and supporting their product. This would force a change in the market, and would subsequently alter both what is reported to the public and how it is reported.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, this is a far too ideal of the way the media industry has actually worked throughout history. The fact is, media is not really a free market business. Many news divisions are cross-subsidized by other divisions within the same media company. For example, most news divisions of the major broadcast networks have rarely been highly profitable, something that famous network executives such as William S. Paley and David Sarnoff have admitted. The networks created news divisions basically as public services, largely in order to justify their control of their transmission licenses. The American public has repeatedly shown a disinterest in world/international news, but the networks insisted on providing that news anyway. This week's issue of The Economist features a story that details the pain that media companies are now facing from the Internet, and specifically how the Internet allows people to search out the news stories they really care about and ignore the rest. In other words, the Internet is serving to UNBUNDLE the media package. </p>

<p>For example, in the old days, a lot of guys that I know would buy a newspaper just to get the sports page. But the newspaper was sold as a bundled package that included world news. So basically the sports department was subsidizing world news. But now, these same guys don't buy papers at all - they just go right to ESPN.com or Sportsline or some other sports site and read all the sports stories there, without having to purchase a bundle that contains world news stories they don't care about. They see Internet ads at those sites (hence, they see corporate propaganda), but these sports sites ad sales don't cross-subsidize any world news coverage. </p>

<p>But my general point is this. I think we all understand the shaping effects of the media. Dictators certainly understand it. Companies understand it, especially the marketing departments. Media company executives understand it. The media does not simply reflect demand. That is far too naive of a view of the role of the media. The media can actually create demand. That's why corporate marketing budgets are so large. </p>

<p>Hence, that points to a possible solution. The government can simply start a marketing campaign to enhance the stature of education. If Anheuser Busch can create the most famous brand-name in beer (Budweiser), even though Budweiser is pretty crappy beer, and McDonalds can successfully market pretty crappy food (except for the fries), then just think about what a good marketing campaign could do to shape the desire for education. Or think about the tobacco companies. The whole marketing strategy behind Big Tobacco was to make smoking look "cool" even though smoking is a nasty habit. If tobacco companies can use good marketing to make smoking seem cool, then it can't be that hard to promote education as being 'cool'. Honestly, what's better for you - reading a book, or smoking a cigarette?</p>