<p>that didn’t answer my question at all</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, because the only college experience that matters is the one you went through.</p>
<p>Consider the way your post reads as well. It’s ambiguous to the point of offensiveness.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure what you mean, how is it ambiguous? Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough that while I’m focusing on discussing a “full” college experience, I’m in no way saying that you can’t enjoy community college (obviously). Just that socially speaking, it’s in a completely different league.</p>
<p>1. A college that is not “reasonably good” for your major is a college you shouldn’t be at in the first place. I’m assuming that the OP (and most college students, hopefully) wants a good education first and foremost, so I think it’s fair to limit the discussion to good colleges in the context of an enjoyable and satisfying college experience overall.</p>
<p>2. Purely commuter colleges do not have a “college experience” so to speak, it’s nothing but classes. You still live at home, the same life as always. You might as well just drive to the library, or take online courses. I’m not saying you won’t have a good experience at a community college, just that “full” college is a lot more enjoyable. Remember, the topic of the thread is “college is overrated” – perhaps I’m wrong here, but I assume this refers to the “full” college experience, since I’m pretty sure most people agree that there’s nothing all that special about community college (like I said, not much better than driving to the library every day).</p>
<p>
I’m not sure what else you want to know.</p>
<p>Yeah…no</p>
<p>The point of college as it was originally conceived is to transfer knowledge from professors to students. Yes you can do it at a library, but it is significantly different than receiving knowledge directly from experts in the field you are studying. Also remember the point of a GE liberal arts education is to give someone a well rounded set of knowledge.</p>
<p>I assume you by “full college experience” parties, ****ing girls/guys, drinking, social event, etc. Yes all of these within the college bubble are different than in reality, I would say the frequency is amplified. This is where I see a flaw in your argument. I believe that college, like high school, is a place you go to to get an education and come back home. At home I have my social life (granted I don’t have a girlfriend or ever did during high school, nor did I attend parties) which is enjoyable. Therefore I would theoretically attend an institution of higher learning to get my education and degree and have an enjoyable social life at home.</p>
<p>You need to accept that people have different values and expectations in this world. My values are my education, service to my community, and my childhood friends at home. My expectations (which I failed to meet) were to go to either UCLA or USC, drive or bike to class, do some work helping out the campus, and continue life at home with my best friends.</p>
<p>"I’m not sure what else you want to know. "</p>
<p>I’d like to know what you actually did, like your job title or something. Not a fortune cookie proverb :P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Reasonably good?” Wow. I didn’t even note the ambiguity that arises with that statement. I thought you were talking about quality, which is the obvious and direct reading of that statements. But you’re right, arbitrarily assuming that it means good “fit” makes much more sense.</p>
<p>1) Not knowing what your major is going into college introduces many problems with your approach</p>
<p>2) Not everyone has the option or ability to attend a college that would be deemed “reasonably good” for their major. The idea that one cannot have an enjoyable experience in spite of academic drawbacks seems to conflict with your earlier sentiment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? So it is impossible to get something out of community college, which is what you just stated (otherwise it would not be the same life as always)? I can think of at least one person whose eyes would be opened by a CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. I’m so glad that you have done two things:</p>
<p>1) Experienced both community college and “real” college firsthand</p>
<p>2) Definitively established that YOUR opinion about the worth of these options applies to everyone in an absolute manner</p>
<p>The ambiguity of the post lied in the classification of community colleges – why don’t they count? Because you don’t live on-campus? Because they are not “reasonably good?” Both? etc.</p>
<p>I cannot believe that someone would post the things that you just posted.</p>
<p>Notblue- I really should be spending my time studying for an exam I will take pretty soon but I will respond to you:</p>
<p>You conformed from the minute you entered College. It doesn’t matter if you attend a community college or Harvard you are still a product in the system. Everyone on these forums is a product of the system.</p>
<p>You seem to think your experience(Going away to College, and enjoying life as much as you possibly can) is the right way to experience College. Community college is “like a trip to the library every day” so this is much less enjoyable. You even mention that make $70,000 a year before you went to College which only further explains your chain of conformism. </p>
<p>While I do not disagree with you are writing directly, you seem to think that your experience is the right way to enjoy College.</p>
<p>The OP has specifically stated he only wants to get an education and have his social life revolve around what he likes to do at home.</p>
<p>I don’t see anything wrong with this, and if he doesn’t fit your agenda then stop arguing against him!</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity- Are you a boy or a girl NotBlue?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not going to be possible for the OP because he/she is going away for college and wont be with friends from home. So instead of sitting around and b*tching about life and dwelling about the situation he/she’s in, the OP can try to make the most of it and go in with a positive attitude and at least give it a shot instead of shutting the idea down because with that attitude what could be a good time would be spoiled. </p>
<p>I think that’s what notblue is trying to say too.</p>
<p>Wow, a lot of stuff to respond to.</p>
<p>
Well I want to remain anonymous, so I don’t want to give out anything too specific. A somewhat vague job description is “software engineer”.</p>
<p>
If you don’t know what major you want, you’d better join a college that is good at all of the one’s you’re considering. I don’t see any problems with this approach.</p>
<p>
I know not everyone can attend a good college. More importantly though, I never said you can’t have a great experience in spite of academic drawbacks. I’m just trying to maintain focus to the OPs situation. I’ll quote the OP for your convenience:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Notice he’s distinctly referring to the idea of on-campus college being overrated, as opposed to commuting.</p>
<p>
I think you need to read my post again. I explicitly stated quite the opposite of what you think I said – that you can certainly have a great community college experience, just that socially, it’s not significantly different socially (better or worse) from a public library or your normal life at home. Again I suggest you remember that the OP is discussing on-campus college (away from home) being overrated vs. commuting.</p>
<p>
They’re not opinions, they’re logical evaluations. If you want to dispute my logic, then feel free - I encourage it in fact. But if you can’t debate logically (and civilly, I might add), don’t try to reframe my argument into an opinion so you can automatically dump it. Yeah, I give opinions and personal experiences here and there, but most of what I’m saying here is as quantifiable as any human experience could be.</p>
<p>
I still don’t understand why you’re so offended. What things? About excluding community college since the OP is talking about on-campus college? How is that unreasonable?</p>
<p>
No, not at all. By full college experience I simply mean living on campus, with a lot of opportunities, and just doing what you enjoy most under the circumstances while you get a good education. Like I said before, there are tons of people who have a great college experience away from home that doesn’t involve drinking or partying, etc. (myself included).</p>
<p>
I’m not saying you wouldn’t have greatly enjoyed greatly commuting and maintaining your lifestyle at home. I’m saying that if you think that you can’t enjoy living at another college away from home, you’re wrong.</p>
<p>I certainly didn’t get into my top choice college, and a lot of people don’t. My point was simply that there is no reason why you can’t have a great life at college away from home, if you only allow yourself to enjoy it.</p>
<p>
I don’t call it conforming to a system, I call it working within a system (which you could say is inherently conformant). But then you’d have to say most everything you do that is not radical is ‘conformant’, and that everyone in the world is a ‘product of the system’.</p>
<p>For example, I don’t see how my joining college (for my various reasons) is conforming any more than buying a plane ticket is conforming to the “product of the system of scheduled flights”.</p>
<p>
No, I said that a certain set of character traits / attitude is the only right way to enjoy college/life in general. Not implying that everyone is devoid of them, just trying to help cowman understand that his time in college away from home doesn’t have to be miserable as he seems to make it out to be.</p>
<p>
I’m not arguing against him! He expressed that since he cannot have his first preference of college lifestyle, he’s feeling that the on-campus “college experience” is overrated and he doesn’t think he’ll enjoy it at all.</p>
<p>All I’m saying is this: With a few exceptions (which don’t seem to be the case), there’s no reason why he can’t enjoy this college experience just as much as his life at home – it’s just a matter of mentality. It’s important that he know this, otherwise the negative attitude will definitely make him miserable. Maybe I shouldn’t care that he (as he stated himself) is headed towards being miserable in college, and this clearly doesn’t have to be the case?</p>
<p>
Boy. Just out of curiosity, why do you ask?</p>
<p>
Exactly!</p>
<p>Maybe I want my first choice of lifestyle because I think the typical college lifestyle is overrated/not for me?</p>
<p>The college I am going to is:</p>
<ol>
<li>My last choice, I only applied because it was free</li>
<li>Not good at my major, at all</li>
<li>Has a general culture that I don’t enjoy</li>
<li>Is not in a big city</li>
</ol>
<p>Therefore life at this college is just not for me</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, yes, that makes sense. Let me predict which classes on material to which I have never been exposed will actually interest me enough to consider that relevant major. I can pick whatever college I want, because Daddy is so wealthy that he can buy me places in all of them.</p>
<p>Tell me, how do I guarantee acceptances to such universities and find ways to pay for them for sure? It’s obviously inconceivable that I get <em>gasp</em> rejected at the “reasonably good” choices or am unable to afford them. And God forbid that I pick a major that I’m not considering now.</p>
<p>Tell me, do you live in a nice clean house with no imperfections and a white picket fence? Do you ride to work on rainbows and talk to butterflies on the way there.</p>
<p>Let’s see…70k job out of HS, naive outlook; yes, yes, I DO believe you are living in fantasy-land.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then there was no need to specify in the way you did – you could have simply stated that your posts related to the OP’s situation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read what you stated. You said, with little wording change, that one’s life at a community college doesn’t change because of the college, unlike “full” colleges. You had previously established that college is a learning experience and you “set roots” and “lived your life” and things like that. I will let you figure out the obvious implication of these statements. I will also note your almost unbelievable arrogance in claiming to know the inherent experience of a community college as well as the individual experiences of the many thousands (perhaps millions) of students who attend them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on your own narrow mindset and without any larger empirical justification.</p>
<p>Show me where the right way to live life has been laid out. In a study. Please, go ahead. I completely dismiss your claim that they are logical evaluations because the premises – what you value – have not been established as justified by all sides. So, yes, perhaps the sequence given an assumption is logical, but the assumption itself is totally illogical.</p>
<p>But if you can’t debate logically (and civilly, I might add), don’t try to reframe my argument into an opinion so you can automatically dump it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is an opinion. One, I didn’t even reframe it. Two, reframing wouldn’t change the nature of the argument. I can’t reframe fact as opinion (or the reverse).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Why don’t you prove it.</p>
<p>This discussion is becoming a waste of my and everyone else’s time, so I’m not going to tediously respond to details that don’t help anyone or personal insults like telling me I’m living in fantasy land or lying or whatever.</p>
<p>
You should have said all that before now, because it completely changes the topic. Your original topic seemed pretty clearly addressed at college experiences in general:
In no way did you refer to any specific college originally, but rather accused the whole “it will change you and be the greatest thing […] shpeel” about college being false in general.</p>
<p>Still, I encourage you to approach college with a positive attitude and try to make the best of it anyway.</p>
<p>
Think positive, enjoy yourself, respect others :)</p>
<p>Anything else is either at least partially negative (harmful) thinking, misery, or disrespect. Show me how any of these are not the wrong way to live life.</p>
<p>Baelor = best ■■■■■ ever.</p>
<p>[/endthread]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You said it was quantifiable. I said it was not. It is therefore obvious how I am unable to show how those things are not the wrong way to life, because it is something totally subjective.</p>
<p>I have my own opinion, based on my assumptions. You clearly have yours. But it is something that requires assumptions, and is therefore not measurable or empirical in the scientific (/quantifiable) sense.</p>
<p>In other words, prove it using science. You can’t, so stop wasting everyone’s time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:* Probably the nicest thing anyone has said to me on this forum.</p>
<p>
Again, you might want to re-read what I said. Here’s what I said: “[it’s] as quantifiable as any human experience could be.” Big difference.</p>
<p>And yes it’s quantifiable. I’ll explain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not difficult to formally prove logically that the principles of “thinking positive, enjoying yourself, and respecting others” are as much a correct way of life as “thinking negatively, being miserable, or disrespectful” are incorrect ways. I think we can agree in the contexts of ways of living, that “incorrect” can be defined as anything where the individual or others suffer as a result. If you are pro-suffering, then don’t even read any further - just go away.</p>
<p>Therefore, as is the extent to which the incorrectness of “thinking negatively”, “being miserable”, and “being disrespectful” can be quantified, so is the extent to which the correctness “thinking positively”, “enjoying yourself”, and “respecting others” can be quantified.</p>
<p>I’m not going to do all the research for you, but there is definitely strong scientific evidence showing that thinking negatively and feeling miserable is not only bad for your mental health, but physical as well. And I don’t think I need to explain how “being disrespectful” is an easily quantified cause of pain to others.</p>
<p>Anyway, like I said, I admit in many of my posts I presented rather extreme examples and explanations, so forgive me if it sounds like I’m telling anyone what to do with their life. At most, I’m presenting a logical argument advocating positivity and respect, that applies no matter what you want to do in life.</p>
<p>The internet is an inherently poor debate medium. It is like dealing with a cockroach, or someone worth about as much as a cockroach: do not debate them, instead crush them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You just contradicted yourself.</p>
<p>“It’s as quantifiable as any other human experience.” What a nicely vacuous statement. If it’s not quantifiable, it’s based on assumptions, and therefore the request for me to demonstrate in some fashion that a certain perspective on life is “wrong” is resolved as simply as my stating that I reject your starting assumptions.</p>
<p>In other words, the only possibly interesting meaning to your statement occurs when the caveat of “any other human experience” is ignored completely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To quote former Sen. Stevens, “NO! No, I will not!” I reject those assumptions in the strongest manner possible!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ignoring people who disagree with you…well, I think I’ve found a trait we can add to your list of incorrect ways of approaching life. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for equating them, given their ability to be quantified as…oh, right, nonexistent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above for an answer to your “logic.”</p>
<p>For someone who doesn’t like wasting time on this argument, you seem to be sticking around a rather long time.</p>
<p>
No, first I said that originally I didn’t say it was flat out quantifiable, but rather comparatively quantifiable. I was just giving an example of an out of context quote, because otherwise your argument is not relevant, strictly speaking.</p>
<p>Then I said that it is in fact quantifiable if you really want me to get into it, and went on to demonstrate how. Look up the scientific research I mentioned if you like.</p>
<p>
Nothing can be quantified with 100% precision, simply by the nature of perception. Extremely few properties in the real world are even suspected to be purely quantifiable. To say “it’s either quantifiable or it’s not” just silly, if you really understand quantification theory in mathematics and empirical science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Strictly speaking, very very few things are purely quantifiable (mostly in abstract mathematics). We can only gauge real-world quantities to a certain level of precision and accuracy.</p>
<p>What I was saying was that the quantitative precision and accuracy of certain principles correctness can be mathematically and logically shown to be the same as the quantitative precision and accuracy of the inverse principles incorrectness. The only assumption in this statement is that “incorrect” is the inverse of “correct”.</p>
<p>You still haven’t show me any logical fallacies in my previous post, just comments like “what a nice vacuous statement” without giving any logical support as to why you think so (at least formally speaking).</p>
<p>
As a matter of fact, I do reject some peoples opinions, and I bet you do too. I reject Hitler’s opinion about the jews, for example. I reject the opinion that non-white races are inferior and non-human. I reject the opinion that suffering is a good thing, as do I reject the opinion that torture is okay. There are a lot of opinions I reject, and I hope you reject these as well.</p>
<p>
Are you pro (or indifferent to) suffering? Because answering that will end this debate once and for all (I can hope, anyway), because it will clear up what angle you’re coming from.</p>
<p>
For anyone reading this, I am glad to show be able to advocate a healthy positive attitude from a sound logical foundation. For your sake, I only hope you come to understand some day that indifference to suffering is inhuman and cruel. I mean you no disrespect in pointing out these things, but seriously, suffering is bad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Relatively quantifiable” is a useless term if none of the things being discussed is quantifiable at all; cf. my statements above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That still rests on assumptions. For example, consider a hypothetical finding, “Sex leads to greater happiness in humans,” or “Good nutrition builds critical thought.” Those are only relevant if “greater happiness” and “critical thought” are established as goals worth pursuing (i.e. "good"s). Have they? I must have missed where that was empirically demonstrated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do. But there’s are distinct levels of certainty – math manages to be incredibly quantifiable while relying on relatively few postulates. Your views on human life rely entirely on assumptions. There’s indeed a big difference. Psychology is less quantifiable than, say, reactions of identical cells in a petri dish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m totally anti-suffering. In fact, I’m the most absolutist person I have ever met, at least in terms of morality and outlook (much to the anger of people with whom I associate).</p>
<p>What’s your point?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it’s bad.</p>
<p>Based on what, though? Why is it bad?</p>
<p>Now you’re contradicting yourself and now your logical argument to me is extremely foggy - I don’t even know what exactly your trying to say because you say one thing then say the complete opposite.</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<p>
Yes, psychology or social science is less quantifiable than the reactions of cells in a petri dish (hence phrase “relatively quantifiable”). Certainly neither of these are not at all quantifiable, considering entire branches of science are built around them.</p>
<p>
So now social science is not at all quantifiable? Certainly, it’s one of the least quantifiable of sciences, but you can’t say it’s measurements and observations are of no relevance.</p>
<p>If you can’t wrap your head around the formal ways of referring to this, perhaps it would be clearer if I said it this way:</p>
<p>As humans, as surely as we know that ‘negative thinking’, ‘misery’ and ‘disrespect’ induce suffering, we similarly know that ‘positive thinking’, ‘enjoying yourself’ and ‘respect to others’ induce the opposite of suffering. We can therefore assume that ‘positive thinking’, ‘enjoying yourself’, ‘respect to others’ are essential to a correct life, if an incorrect way to live is defined as one that causes suffering.</p>
<p>We know this as surely as we know just about anything about human experience, and recent scientific studies on these effects has only quantitatively reinforced this.</p>
<p>I’m starting to think to convince you of anything I’ll need to write out this whole thing in formal logic / mathematical notation. I might do that, since it would be an interesting exercise. In any case I think most readers here understand my argument (I hope anyway).</p>
<p>As to the logical foundation of why suffering is bad, PM me if you want and I’ll try to answer, because it’s kind of off-topic here.</p>