Student Loans Getting Close to Implosion!

[LC]

While $58k is not a tremendous amount of cash, consider that they get EXCELLENT healthcare, they get a pension, they get summers off, and they get plenty of paid holidays and other minor benefits.  Add it all up, and it is rather significant.

 

Teachers with a Master's degree, or special certifications make more.  Teachers in suburbs can make significantly more than in DPS.

 

So hopefully people will see this and realize what exactly is going on.

 

I always wonder when these types of criticism are made against a certain "rent-seeking" class: Where are the customer's yachts?

 

These fat-cat teachers, where are their yachts?

Do they keep them docked on the private island to make sure they can back the 2004 toyota corolla out of the driveway to work?

 

Here's a pretty accurate representation of what teaching is really like (particularly in large minority urban areas):

https://quillette.com/2019/02/10/public-educations-dirty-secret/

[DTEJD1997]

While $58k is not a tremendous amount of cash, consider that they get EXCELLENT healthcare, they get a pension, they get summers off, and they get plenty of paid holidays and other minor benefits.  Add it all up, and it is rather significant.

 

Teachers with a Master's degree, or special certifications make more.  Teachers in suburbs can make significantly more than in DPS.

 

So hopefully people will see this and realize what exactly is going on.

 

I always wonder when these types of criticism are made against a certain "rent-seeking" class: Where are the customer's yachts?

 

These fat-cat teachers, where are their yachts?

Do they keep them docked on the private island to make sure they can back the 2004 toyota corolla out of the driveway to work?

 

Here's a pretty accurate representation of what teaching is really like (particularly in large minority urban areas):

https://quillette.com/2019/02/10/public-educations-dirty-secret/

 

LC:

 

What you've got to remember, is that $58k  ayear in the Detroit area is probably like $120k in NYC.  A person making $58k a year can EASILY afford a house in Detroit OR most of it's suburbs.  You can afford to drive a car, take vacations, and so on.  This is DOUBLY the case with pension, A+ healthcare, and paid time off. 

 

In fact, most people would go so far as to state that you are "rich".  Please see:

 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/05/18/detroit-median-household-income/622687002/

 

As for the conditions in the skools...that is kind of sort of what is going on here....Detroit might arguably be worse...but end result is that GENERATIONS of students are not educated.  That is one of the reasons why I so adamantly opposed to compulsory education.  Think of how much of society's precious capital is being wasted in these institutions of learning.  It has been going for longer than I've been alive.  Trick now is that the educators are seriously milking the system.  It is simply not going to be able to go on too much longer.

 

Schools need to be for learning and DISCIPLINE.  They are not test beds for SJW non-sense and make work for "teachers" and administrators.  Schools are to teach/train the next generation.

 

Institute reform, start teaching & learning.  Let those who wish to learn come in and benefit, throw out those who do not.  Simple as that.

[LC]

According to that article 110K in NYC is "rich". Let me tell you that is simply not the case.

 

Regardless, I simply cannot disparage teachers when the average salary for a US teacher is 58K. So no, I would say these people are riding some gravy train.

 

Like I said, where are the yachts?

[Castanza]

According to that article 110K in NYC is "rich". Let me tell you that is simply not the case.

 

Regardless, I simply cannot disparage teachers when the average salary for a US teacher is 58K. So no, I would say these people are riding some gravy train.

 

Like I said, where are the yachts?

 

58k a year may not be quite equivalent to others such as engineers etc. But at the same time teachers are public servants. No public servant job should use salary as the primary "attractant." How about go compare teachers salaries to the average wages of everyone in the cities who pay taxes to support them. You'd find the majority make much less and have much worse benefits (healthcare, guaranteed pension, summers off, tenure, etc) and completely over looking all the social benefits as well. Looking up my old hometown (high paying SD) the average salary was 34k for average citizens while teachers avg salary is 57k and range from 45-71k. That's a big difference and I'd be willing to wager that is a similar ratio wherever you look. I'm sure areas of discrepancy do exist.

[LC]

Now in terms of the actual classroom experience: Teachers simply cannot impose discipline in their classes. This is an institutional problem and it requires a comprehensive solution.

 

Teachers/administrators must be able to do certain things (suspend students, kick them out of classes, etc.) - but parents should also be enforcing the same. All too often this is lacking.

 

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard stories from teachers about how the problem wasn't even the kid - it was that the parents simply did not care to enforce any work ethic or discipline at home, or would rather threaten to "sue the school" rather than teaching their child to behave himself.

 

In short it is a societal problem with multiple factors. Casually blaming "teachers" in quotes as if they are leeches without a care for students just strikes me as a bit naive and looking for the easiest scapegoat.

[LC]

How about go compare teachers salaries to the average wages of everyone in the cities who pay taxes to support them.

 

Average US median wage is 51k. For teachers it's 56K. I do not think a 10% premium is so extravagant.

[DTEJD1997]

How about go compare teachers salaries to the average wages of everyone in the cities who pay taxes to support them.

 

Average US median wage is 51k. For teachers it's 56K. I do not think a 10% premium is so extravagant.

 

Teachers in DPS make about DOUBLE what local residents make ($26,250).  This is purely in take home pay...They also get summers, holidays, healthcare, pensions and other benefits. 

 

I personally know of some educators that are making 3.75x average Detroit resident, and one that makes almost 7X local residents. 

 

Please see:

 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/05/18/detroit-median-household-income/622687002/

 

As for "teachers" not imposing/being able to impose discipline in their classrooms...Teachers should not get 100% of the blame, and I will also rail against the administrators.  DPS teachers have a difficult job, a very difficult job...but too many of them are simply there to go along to get along.  They are part of a corrupt & failed system.  It is true that many of the teachers have little to do with discipline, but they sign the checks, they take the money.  There has to be some amount of blame and shame, some amount of accountability.  They may be a small cog in the wheel, but they are part of the failure factories.

 

How many of the teachers are fighting the unions?  Fighting the board of education?  Trying to fix or at least make substantial changes to the system?  How many of them are railing against single parent households?  Trying to improve society? Very few.  Very few indeed.

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

Education is broadly comped on a 2x4 matrix of private vs public vs University, College, High School and Junior School. Within each cell there is also division by experience, qualification, years of service, function, etc. The higher the level you participate at, the more required of you, and the more you get paid; no different to working in any large corporation.

 

Most often, the higher the level, the fewer educators there are, and the more they get paid. For most people; over a working lifetime in education, industry vs education total comp is largely comparable. Educators just receive less cash in their early years (earn over 8 months versus 12), and more in their later years (when pensions kick in).

 

A great many people do their 20-25 in industry, and retire to part time college/university teaching in the subjects they’ve worked in. It’s a great gig, there’s no real retirement age limit, and everyone benefits. A great many others, also change careers into education part-way through their working lives; as obviously you are not the same person at 50, that you were at 25.

 

Educators were also students once; so hardly surprising that the same issues come up. They’re just now seeing both sides of the coin.

As in all things, some will game the system and others will not; power to them.

 

Nothing prevents anyone from getting in/out of education, at any time. If someone thinks it’s a great gig, they are free to put their time in and go for it like everyone else. However, the grass may well NOT be greener, but rather just a different shade of green.

 

SD

 

[DooDiligence]

I've had other students ask me to read papers they've written & all I can say is damn.

 

Anyone who has to read some of that crap & give it a grade & write in critical notes, deserves to be compensated.

 

All joking aside, the exams we have to take for my major are not simple multiple choice & the instructors have a lot of work on their hands when grading them. Not to mention the difficulty of conveying the concepts to students throughout the semesters.

 

The attrition rate is high & we just lost half our class going into the 3rd semester so it does become a bit easier for the instructor.

 

We can & should be criticical of our educational systems, but a lot of the criticism should be directed at uninvolved parents who send their little poorly disciplined snowflakes to school expecting some miracle to happen.

 

Either way, the US & Canada have done pretty well & will continue to do so as our educational systems slowly evolve for better & for worse.

[SharperDingaan]

Couple of add-on's ....

 

The majority of educators teach at the Junior and High School level.

For many its a vocation, and as in any industry - the best rise to the top. If they can, they vote with their feet, and they teach at the private schools - not the inner city, or suburban schools. Higher pay, different environment, different risks. 

 

Of course, not everyone can vote with their feet.

Do you really think that most teachers in a school with gun and/or rape violence want to be there? Do you really think the students want to be there? Do you really think that anybody wants to put up with the abuse? Teachers and students do so because they have no other choice.

 

Just as everybody thinks they can run a restuarant, everybody thinks they can teach.

The spectacular 1st year failure rate in the restaurant industry says otherwise, as does most parents inability to have the 'money' &/or the 'sex' talk with their kids. Yet, everybody is SURE they can do better, therefore the educator should get paid less than they are (average wage in the community). Majority rules, and it gets what it deserves - the typical life of inner-city school.

 

The reality of course is that for most people, at the time their kids are going to school - the educator has a higher social ranking than they do (as evidenced by pay), and that is what rankles. When the economy is doing well and everybody is taking home bonus cheques, it's not a problem - because everyone is earning more than the educator. When the economy is poor ..... we need somebody to blame.

 

All industries have their issues - education is no different.

But is anyone going to reform it? probably not.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

[DooDiligence]

Personally, I think the whole readin', writin' & 'rithmatic model needs to change.

 

Up until 2nd grade, kids learn to read & then they read to learn.

 

Basic numeracy shuld be related to real life (finance, budgets, understanding measurements).

 

After that, students should be evaluated for what they have a facility for & encouraged to learn the things that they enjoy.

 

If a kid likes solving math problems, put them on a heavy math track.

 

Same for science, history, writing, music, etc.

 

These could all lead into the various disciplines associated with the basic skill sets.

 

I know this is an oversimplification of a difficult task in creating individualised syllabuses but I don't believe that cramming algebra down a kids throat when they are clearly more interested in liberal arts (and vice versa) will motivate anyone.

[Guest]

Teachers with a masters degree are paid pretty well. My brother and his wife are both taxes. They have a pension, make okay money, and are off work roughly 4 months out of the year.

[Jurgis]

I know this is an oversimplification of a difficult task in creating individualised syllabuses but I don't believe that cramming algebra down a kids throat when they are clearly more interested in liberal arts (and vice versa) will motivate anyone.

 

I think the issue of cramming algebra to kids who are not interested in it is relatively minor in the education picture (although still important).

 

The much bigger issue is teaching kids who have little to no background/motivation/parental supervision/parental role models/peer support/supporting environment/etc. skills that would allow them to make something productive from their lives. Possibly to ambivalent or even hostile kids. This is very hard to do and it's not surprising that even best intentions and programs don't work (like Bill Gates discovered).

[DTEJD1997]

I know this is an oversimplification of a difficult task in creating individualised syllabuses but I don't believe that cramming algebra down a kids throat when they are clearly more interested in liberal arts (and vice versa) will motivate anyone.

 

I think the issue of cramming algebra to kids who are not interested in it is relatively minor in the education picture (although still important).

 

The much bigger issue is teaching kids who have little to no background/motivation/parental supervision/parental role models/peer support/supporting environment/etc. skills that would allow them to make something productive from their lives. Possibly to ambivalent or even hostile kids. This is very hard to do and it's not surprising that even best intentions and programs don't work (like Bill Gates discovered).

 

I think it depends on where you are at, which school district, and sometimes even the school.

 

As was highlighted in the article link by LC, there are NUMEROUS children (and families & culture) who do not value education.  Some might say that they are even hostile towards education.

 

So why force them to do something they don't want/appreciate?  Society is spending billions & Billions & BILLIONS on this.

 

Why not make education voluntary?  Promote it, work with community leaders, run PSA announcements like "Mr. T says Don't be a FOOL, STAY IN SCHOOL!".

 

Let ANYBODY who wants an education in the system.  Work to educate them to the best of their capability to learn.

 

HOWEVER, the student has a duty to be reasonably well behaved, show up the vast majority of the time, attempt to do the work to the best of their ability, and so on.  If they mis-behave or don't want to be there, that is fine.

 

If a child mis-behaves, they are EITHER out of the system OR if the parent consents, they will be disciplined and if the behavior is bad enough, they are sent to remedial classes where they will dealt with appropriately.

 

If the child & parents don't care, why should we?  Why should burn precious capital in a futile gesture?  Perhaps most importantly of all, why should we allow trouble makers to sabotage OTHER children's education?

 

Change is desperately needed!

[DooDiligence]

Plenty of arguments here in favor of abortion remaining legal.

[Spekulatius]

The real difference between good schools and bad schools aren’t the teachers, it’s the parents of the kids attending the schools.

http://freakonomics.com/2007/10/04/more-evidence-on-the-lack-of-impact-of-school-choice/

[TwoCitiesCapital]

The real difference between good schools and bad schools aren’t the teachers, it’s the parents of the kids attending the schools.

http://freakonomics.com/2007/10/04/more-evidence-on-the-lack-of-impact-of-school-choice/

 

I generally agree with this. As someone who has moved around the country, I've been some of the best schools and some of the worst. Quite literally, I attended the #1 middle school in the country, at the time, for math & science and went to the high-school/college in Mississippi (the worst state for education).

 

I had good and bad teachers in both systems. I also had many friends/acquaintances that succeeded from both as well as people who failed to reach their potential from both. 

 

From my anecdotal experience with people, it has little to do with the school/teachers and more to do with the drive/discipline of the student themselves.

 

The only thing I'd say the good school did "better" is it had higher expectations of its student body in terms of curriculum and most of the students rose to meet that challenge. For example, the school I went to in Texas had algebra and basic trig as part of the math curriculum for 6th graders. In Mississippi, those classes were reserved for 8th and 9th graders and I was forced to retake both. Generally, I'd say it was roughly the same % of the student population who excelled at it so it seem like setting the expectations to get that done earlier was just fine and that Mississippi is simply wasting time and resources while not improving the outcome.

[Cigarbutt]

^Individual student merit should not be underestimated but I think that parental involvement and especially parental attitude towards education plays a pivotal role, irrespective of parental academic or wealth achievement.

[KJP]

I know this is an oversimplification of a difficult task in creating individualised syllabuses but I don't believe that cramming algebra down a kids throat when they are clearly more interested in liberal arts (and vice versa) will motivate anyone.

 

I think the issue of cramming algebra to kids who are not interested in it is relatively minor in the education picture (although still important).

 

The much bigger issue is teaching kids who have little to no background/motivation/parental supervision/parental role models/peer support/supporting environment/etc. skills that would allow them to make something productive from their lives. Possibly to ambivalent or even hostile kids. This is very hard to do and it's not surprising that even best intentions and programs don't work (like Bill Gates discovered).

 

I think it depends on where you are at, which school district, and sometimes even the school.

 

As was highlighted in the article link by LC, there are NUMEROUS children (and families & culture) who do not value education.  Some might say that they are even hostile towards education.

 

So why force them to do something they don't want/appreciate?  Society is spending billions & Billions & BILLIONS on this.

 

Why not make education voluntary?  Promote it, work with community leaders, run PSA announcements like "Mr. T says Don't be a FOOL, STAY IN SCHOOL!".

 

Let ANYBODY who wants an education in the system.  Work to educate them to the best of their capability to learn.

 

HOWEVER, the student has a duty to be reasonably well behaved, show up the vast majority of the time, attempt to do the work to the best of their ability, and so on.  If they mis-behave or don't want to be there, that is fine.

 

If a child mis-behaves, they are EITHER out of the system OR if the parent consents, they will be disciplined and if the behavior is bad enough, they are sent to remedial classes where they will dealt with appropriately.

 

If the child & parents don't care, why should we?  Why should burn precious capital in a futile gesture?  Perhaps most importantly of all, why should we allow trouble makers to sabotage OTHER children's education?

 

Change is desperately needed!

 

What about the children who are mis-behaving because their home life is a catastrophe and their parents don't care about them or their education?  What responsibility, if any, does society at large (via its government) have towards those children?  Should public schools be, in part, an effort to try to help those children overcome the handicap of parents who don't care?  Or should we just wash our hands of them?

 

I'm no education expert, but I agree that more money probably won't help teach someone who doesn't want to learn. 

[DooDiligence]

I know this is an oversimplification of a difficult task in creating individualised syllabuses but I don't believe that cramming algebra down a kids throat when they are clearly more interested in liberal arts (and vice versa) will motivate anyone.

 

I think the issue of cramming algebra to kids who are not interested in it is relatively minor in the education picture (although still important).

 

The much bigger issue is teaching kids who have little to no background/motivation/parental supervision/parental role models/peer support/supporting environment/etc. skills that would allow them to make something productive from their lives. Possibly to ambivalent or even hostile kids. This is very hard to do and it's not surprising that even best intentions and programs don't work (like Bill Gates discovered).

 

I think it depends on where you are at, which school district, and sometimes even the school.

 

As was highlighted in the article link by LC, there are NUMEROUS children (and families & culture) who do not value education.  Some might say that they are even hostile towards education.

 

So why force them to do something they don't want/appreciate?  Society is spending billions & Billions & BILLIONS on this.

 

Why not make education voluntary?  Promote it, work with community leaders, run PSA announcements like "Mr. T says Don't be a FOOL, STAY IN SCHOOL!".

 

Let ANYBODY who wants an education in the system.  Work to educate them to the best of their capability to learn.

 

HOWEVER, the student has a duty to be reasonably well behaved, show up the vast majority of the time, attempt to do the work to the best of their ability, and so on.  If they mis-behave or don't want to be there, that is fine.

 

If a child mis-behaves, they are EITHER out of the system OR if the parent consents, they will be disciplined and if the behavior is bad enough, they are sent to remedial classes where they will dealt with appropriately.

 

If the child & parents don't care, why should we?  Why should burn precious capital in a futile gesture?  Perhaps most importantly of all, why should we allow trouble makers to sabotage OTHER children's education?

 

Change is desperately needed!

 

What about the children who are mis-behaving because their home life is a catastrophe and their parents don't care about them or their education?  What responsibility, if any, does society at large (via its government) have towards those children?  Should public schools be, in part, an effort to try to help those children overcome the handicap of parents who don't care?  Or should we just wash our hands of them?

 

I'm no education expert, but I agree that more money probably won't help teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

 

I believe it's in our best interest to make an effort because otherwise these future losers will be a drag on all of us, whether through crime or going on the dole or being charismatic enough to get a job & then being extremely crappy at it.

 

It's like healthcare.

 

A healthy, competent & motivated populace is better for all of us (in the US & the entire world).

 

I also really think that elements of philosophy & psychology should weigh in as well in an attempt to try & get youngsters to understand the difference between reality & delusion so they don't grow up to be mouth breathing Fox news sheeple.

 

Many will never get it but that's humanity.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

^Individual student merit should not be underestimated but I think that parental involvement and especially parental attitude towards education plays a pivotal role, irrespective of parental academic or wealth achievement.

 

Agreed. I think parental involvement and discipline is often, but not always, the cause of the students drive and motivation.

[Jurgis]

I know this is an oversimplification of a difficult task in creating individualised syllabuses but I don't believe that cramming algebra down a kids throat when they are clearly more interested in liberal arts (and vice versa) will motivate anyone.

 

I think the issue of cramming algebra to kids who are not interested in it is relatively minor in the education picture (although still important).

 

The much bigger issue is teaching kids who have little to no background/motivation/parental supervision/parental role models/peer support/supporting environment/etc. skills that would allow them to make something productive from their lives. Possibly to ambivalent or even hostile kids. This is very hard to do and it's not surprising that even best intentions and programs don't work (like Bill Gates discovered).

 

I think it depends on where you are at, which school district, and sometimes even the school.

 

As was highlighted in the article link by LC, there are NUMEROUS children (and families & culture) who do not value education.  Some might say that they are even hostile towards education.

 

So why force them to do something they don't want/appreciate?  Society is spending billions & Billions & BILLIONS on this.

 

Why not make education voluntary?  Promote it, work with community leaders, run PSA announcements like "Mr. T says Don't be a FOOL, STAY IN SCHOOL!".

 

Let ANYBODY who wants an education in the system.  Work to educate them to the best of their capability to learn.

 

HOWEVER, the student has a duty to be reasonably well behaved, show up the vast majority of the time, attempt to do the work to the best of their ability, and so on.  If they mis-behave or don't want to be there, that is fine.

 

If a child mis-behaves, they are EITHER out of the system OR if the parent consents, they will be disciplined and if the behavior is bad enough, they are sent to remedial classes where they will dealt with appropriately.

 

If the child & parents don't care, why should we?  Why should burn precious capital in a futile gesture?  Perhaps most importantly of all, why should we allow trouble makers to sabotage OTHER children's education?

 

Change is desperately needed!

 

What about the children who are mis-behaving because their home life is a catastrophe and their parents don't care about them or their education?  What responsibility, if any, does society at large (via its government) have towards those children?  Should public schools be, in part, an effort to try to help those children overcome the handicap of parents who don't care?  Or should we just wash our hands of them?

 

I'm no education expert, but I agree that more money probably won't help teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

 

I believe it's in our best interest to make an effort because otherwise these future losers will be a drag on all of us, whether through crime or going on the dole or being charismatic enough to get a job & then being extremely crappy at it.

 

It's like healthcare.

 

A healthy, competent & motivated populace is better for all of us (in the US & the entire world).

 

I also really think that elements of philosophy & psychology should weigh in as well in an attempt to try & get youngsters to understand the difference between reality & delusion so they don't grow up to be mouth breathing Fox news sheeple.

 

Many will never get it but that's humanity.

 

What Doo said.

+1

[CorpRaider]

I am currently reading How Kids Succeed, by Paul Tough.  So far it is a decent narrative survey of some of the theories/research in the field of achievement, educational and otherwise, (that the thread seems to have evolved to discuss) by like Angela Duckworth (grit) and James Heckman (University of Chicago).  Based on comments, some of you might enjoy it as well.

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

I am going to suggest that some people on this board simply have NO IDEA what is going on in some of the skool districts in this country.  This is doubly true for inner city districts such as Detroit.  Kind of out of sight, out mind problem. 

 

I see it, I interact with it, and I'm telling you guys there is a bad, Bad, BAD problem.

 

Words written on the interweb simply can not convey how bad the system/issue has become.  This is also not a new problem.  It has been a problem for varying lengths of time in different places, but here in Detroit, it has been going on for longer than I've been alive.  You've got multiple generations of people going through the system with little/no hope of being able to get an education. 

 

You've got the teachers & educators constantly dissembling about what the problem is.  Teachers & administrators are ALWAYS agitating for more money.  Most people in MI think that teachers are vastly underpaid, can barely make ends meet...truth is that in DPS, average teacher salary is about 2X local populace....sometimes 3x or more.  They also get summers/holidays off, pension, and healthcare.  They also have reasonable job security.  So teachers have MANY benefits that "regulars" don't.

 

So how much money will solve the problem?  When it is a societal/structural problem, NO amount of money will solve the problem.

 

Heck, why does Detroit spend MORE per student than Grosse Pointe?  $15k per year is not enough?  What about $20k? $25k, $50k? more?

 

What is being spent?  What are the results?

 

We are spending a TON of money, hardly anybody is getting an education.

 

Why are we trying to educate students who are unruly, disrespectful, disruptive, not wanting to be there?  Whose parents also don't want education?  $15k per year, per student for this?  For these results?  Meanwhile, those students who are on the fence OR who do want an education get their's ruined by the troublemakers?

 

I wish that we could save some of these kids...maybe even a good chunk of them.  Letting things run as they have condemns thousands & thousands every year.  The word has to get out, we need awareness of the problem, we need structural change NOW!

[SharperDingaan]

You might find Gladwell's: "David and Goliath" an interesting short read; as about a quarter of the book covers the fact that the money versus effectiveness of education plots out as an inverted U-Curve. If you start with nothing (the illiterate) - throwing money at education (more schools, teachers, etc) will improve effectiveness. But it's a diminishing return ... continue to throw money at education, and the net benefit sinks to zero, and then becomes seriously toxic. 

https://www.amazon.com/David-Goliath-Underdogs-Misfits-Battling/dp/0316204374

 

It has long been recognized that throwing money at the best students in an impoverished neighborhood, via an extended 'full-ride' scholarship to an Oxford, is the most effective way of 'educating' - but sadly it's not scalable. There are only so many people in an impoverished neighborhood that will beat the odds; to qualify for a Rhodes/Beit Scholarship AND graduate - despite the 'pressure of expectation'. But those that do .... are the truly exceptional, that really do change the world.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-oxford-bound-meet-four-of-canadas-latest-rhodes-scholars/

 

To many, the issue with education is that little Johnny/Suzie cannot seem to APPLY what they have learned.

Johnny/Suzie come out as intelligent idiots - sure they've learnt something valuable, but no idea 'how to' build the algos applying what they know. It is a large part why trade or co-op or 'night-school' courses are often preferred - as 'application' is favored over theory. Sadly, it has now gone on for so long, that many now question the value of education at all; ignorance and exploitation is preferable.

 

SD