Why do they make it mandatory? There's usually so much more affordable options off campus.
No, not in Boca. They'd have to go 2 or 3 communities over to find anything affordable. We're the best option for affordable housing, trust me. Plus, the parents love that student activity/behaviors are being somewhat monitored on campus. For many of them, this is their first time living away from home unsupervised, so it adds an element of supervisions, but also support for students who aren't used to living on their own. It helps them transition into "adulting" as they like to call it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Everybody does know that, but it takes a special kind of person to believe that's the best of all possible systems.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
I joke about the hard work thing, but in reality it obviously takes a huge amount of work and ability to gain admissions to Harvard for anyone who's not a legacy student. Those very hard working and capable people could go anywhere to learn, but part of the prize for their hard work and ability is to join that elite community and gain the access it brings.
Dissolve Harvard and the same thing will just happen elsewhere.
It's the same reason people go to LA to get into movies, or go to New York to get into finance. It's the same reason many people immigrate to places like the US or Canada, so their kids can grow up in a privileged place.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I just find it bizarre that a supposed academic would read a post, whose main point is "the current system is bad for society and maybe we should strive for a better system," and then dismiss it with an ill-fitting ad hominem.
I guess "society could/should be improved upon" is SJW nonsense now.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I just find it bizarre that a supposed academic would read a post, whose main point is "the current system is bad for society and maybe we should strive for a better system," and then dismiss it with an ill-fitting ad hominem.
I guess "society could/should be improved upon" is SJW nonsense now.
I don't find it bizarre at all, those who benefit from a system are usually the ones most resistant to changing it, especially if those systems have survived long enough that even theoretically positive change seems more dangerous than the status quo.
That's how revolutions happen, though, institutions no longer adequately serve the society for which they were created, and a tipping point or crystallizing event happens where even theoretically negative change now seems preferable to an intolerable status quo. Burning down the palaces, even palaces of learning, starts to look appealing if your only other option is eternal and servile poverty.
Does that sound overly dramatic? Well, I doubt legacy admissions are going to start riots on their own, but they are just one feature of increasingly classist societies whose professed ideals of liberty, equality, justice, and opportunity no longer connect to reality even on the level of believable myths.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
An "academic" who uses "SJW" unironically definitely doesn't scream "completely out of touch."
It’s hilarious that you think all academics buy into the SJW (abbreviated so as not to harm anyone’s sensibilities) garbage on campuses. Most academics find the behaviors to have gone too far and are against such behaviors. The loud vocal minority gets the headlines, but most of the faculty, staff, and administrators find this noise as being disruptive and counter to achieving positive outcomes for the vast majority of students.
I get where Jammies is coming from. The system sucks. But the reality is that it based on human nature. Jammies’ revolution would require a rewrite of humans and their motivations and the total burning down of society in general. It’s not possible unless the whole world is destroyed and the human race is rebooted. We need change, but how does that change happen when the foundations of our societies, going back for forever, have to be removed? Pragmatically it is impossible to see it happen.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I get where Jammies is coming from. The system sucks. But the reality is that it based on human nature.
At the core, that's an appeal to nature. The history of humanity is a history of overcoming and/or adapting (or at least attempting to) our "nature" and nature itself to best ensure our long-term survival.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Is all of academia mired in the nihilistic idea that better things aren't possible, so why even try?
I dunno. Try discussing the dissolution of tenure with any academic who has it and see how they feel about things changing for the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
At the core, that's an appeal to nature. The history of humanity is a history of overcoming and/or adapting (or at least attempting to) our "nature" and nature itself to best ensure our long-term survival.
Sure, and how have we done that? Through constructs of control. There has always been rulers, always been a ruling class, and always been people willing to subjugate themselves to the will others, including the heirs of that ruling class.
“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Kennedy said. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”
“We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact,” Kennedy hedged.
Here, it seems, Dechert sensed the need for a new rhetorical tack, and let rip a loud, prolonged fart while yelling, as if to underscore his point, “I’m farting!”
The room, which included a handful of journalists as well as Kennedy’s campaign manager, former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, was stunned, seemingly unsure about whether Dechert was farting at Haden-Guest personally or at the very notion of global warming.
(Regrettably, we may assure readers that there was no room for doubt that the climate changed in the immediate environs of the dinner table.)
Fortunately, I believe that Kennedy’ only polling at 9% among Democrats. I hope he doesn’t impact Biden’s race against whoever the Republicans nominate.
Basically he’s famous because of his name, has never accomplished anything, and is a lawyer who actively misrepresents scientific data, despite knowing better.
For my part, I don’t people who are elected on name recognition. Clintons, Bushes, Kennedy’s… gtfo. I suppose the same goes for Trudeau, though that one feels less “entrenched”.
Trump wants to push the unified executive concept into overdrive should he be elected. I fear the country is headed to authoritarianism and will be forever lost if Trump wins office.
