tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post9092966386823839283..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Student Attitudes: 60s vs 90sLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88719420525196926972009-07-09T19:31:23.618-04:002009-07-09T19:31:23.618-04:00What I wonder is, couldn't a person want both?...What I wonder is, couldn't a person want both?Ærynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08013624323319090702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37369708903873470092009-07-09T17:02:31.892-04:002009-07-09T17:02:31.892-04:00There is a certain extent to which these results a...There is a certain extent to which these results are influenced by circumstances.<br /><br />In the 1960s, everyone had just spent the better part of a decade convincing themselves that they were all going to die in global thermonuclear war -- but the economy was still booming and between much lower tuition and more enlightened loan policies, college students were by and large graduating without debt, or at least with minimal debt.<br /><br />Fast forward to the 1990s: although there's still the chance of global thermonuclear war (Israel acting on its own could set off WWIII in about 3 days, for example) the apocalyptic gloom is gone. But at the same time, college costs have risen all out of proportion to inflation, nearly all the blue-collar jobs are gone, and it is increasingly difficult to graduate from college without being in serious (as in "takes a decade or more to pay off") debt.<br /><br />(It's worth noting that this change was deliberately set in motion: during the 1960s, the American right wing realized that the GI Bill and the low cost of tuition had led to a large population of informed, literate college students who were resentful of being controlled, whether for good or ill. I used to have a link around somewhere to a set of primary sources tracing the rise of anti-higher-education rhetoric and legislation; back then they were quite explicit about the need for a stupider population, and there are lots of juicy quotations available. The fact that this would involve making more Americans ill-informed and unable to think, thus crippling the American economy in the long term, was considered to be secondary to keeping the population docile. I'll have to see if I can find that URL again. Many of the people quoted became fairly major public figures a few decades later, under Reagan.)The Vicarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17905660294525550342009-07-09T16:10:26.898-04:002009-07-09T16:10:26.898-04:00As a student of biochemistry who was recently thro...As a student of biochemistry who was recently thrown into the job market, I can't help but think that I should have gone with a more career oriented field. Sure, I have skills, but I can't help to get the feeling that I should have gone into something like engineering instead or something more directly medical.<br /><br />I would love to worry about philosophy, but I'd much rather do so while employed.Venehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252114756864644059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68657724713507748312009-07-09T15:36:59.472-04:002009-07-09T15:36:59.472-04:00OK, a few questions:
1. Do we agree that the curr...OK, a few questions:<br /><br />1. Do we agree that the current materialistic culture is leading us to an ecological catastrophe or not?<br /><br />2. If we do agree on that, do we agree that we can't prevent that catastrophe if we don't change people's attitudes - this means not only making them realize that if you have enough food and a decent house you don't really need much more material possessions to be happy (very importantly, both sexes need to understand this in order for that to work); it means also creating a scientifically literate society, where religion plays no role. I think we are too late for any of that, I don't even think they are possible, but the question is, do we agree on principle that we need that or not?<br /><br />3. If we agree on that, could we ever hope that it is going to happen if we aren't working towards it?Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27058094671985265712009-07-09T14:02:42.640-04:002009-07-09T14:02:42.640-04:00Seems to me they gave a bull-shit set of options, ...Seems to me they gave a bull-shit set of options, in order to generate exactly the result they want. You want to guaruntee to make everyone seem like a materialistic a-hole - give them the choice between money and mental masturbation...money will win every time.<br /><br />I think this generations lack of idealism puts them in a better position than the students of the 60's - no impossible visions of a euphoric future. That puts you in a much better starting place that a pie-in-the-sky mentality. But then again, I'm a cynic...<br /><br />Maybe this is just me, but it seems to me every time someone points out the euphoric ideals of the '60's that they always fail to mention its that exact same generation who created the crass materialistic society in which we live...Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16672407110077541595noreply@blogger.com