Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The point of education?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 10:34:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is it?

To have an educated youth, or to distinguish between them? To find out who's the best?

Take for example, someone studying to be an engineer. Hopefully, after becoming an engineer, they would benefit society in some way, by doing some engineering work.

How does one know a person is a qualified engineer? The institutions of learning bestow a "degree" upon that person, which society accepts as proof.

Now, to get that degree, it's sufficient that the student pass the tests. As long as the student passes, the student becomes qualified.

Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? Why have grades, or percentile or marks or any such devices that aid in differentiating between them?

All society should care about is whether the student has passed or not. As long as they pass, they are qualified.

Same should be applied in all the schools.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 10:41:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Passing tests is a pathetic way to determine how qualified someone is for a job or career. We need more specific and cumulative representations of that skill to more accurately find ones degree of qualification. Passing multiple choice tests, which is virtually the only expedient form of standardized tests is pretty easy. I passed my history final with an A+ even though I guessed on 25% of it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 2:38:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To me the purpose of education is to bestow knowledge and the understanding of that knowledge to students. Tests are designed to assess this understanding. Unfortunately, due to a flawed marking system, studying resulting often in short term, not long term understanding that circumvents the test purpose and other factors the ability to properly assess understanding is lacking in education.

On the point of differentiation, I do agree that a pass mark is sufficient for qualification (assuming the test is designed for 50% to show decent understanding) . However, there should definitely be differentiation as it allows employers and such to pick people who are more skilled.

Would you rather hire the 50% or 90% scoring employee? The 90% is more likely to be highly knowledgeable and quick to pick things up. Furthermore, this form of discrimination is seen in other walks of life, like the marketplace. In the market people of all levels of selling skill can sell their products, but that's no reason not to differentiate between them.

First step is to improve our ability to assess understanding though.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 3:57:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 2:38:52 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
To me the purpose of education is to bestow knowledge and the understanding of that knowledge to students. Tests are designed to assess this understanding. Unfortunately, due to a flawed marking system, studying resulting often in short term, not long term understanding that circumvents the test purpose and other factors the ability to properly assess understanding is lacking in education.

On the point of differentiation, I do agree that a pass mark is sufficient for qualification (assuming the test is designed for 50% to show decent understanding) . However, there should definitely be differentiation as it allows employers and such to pick people who are more skilled.

This is exactly the point. Insitutions of learning should NOT be concerned with helping employers. Its only purpose should be to educate people. Every student who can pass its test should be equal in its eyes.

The employer can find out on their own who is the best candidate for their requirements.

Once employers start accepting these grades as a starting point, the students will just concentrate on getting those grades, one way or the other.

If an employer has to look at thousands of candidates who have passed successfully, it will become incumbent upon the students to make themselves more capable, thus forcing them to gain real knowledge, delve deep into the study material, etc. And they will do this only if they are interested in their field of study.

In the long run, it will be beneficial to society, which is what the point of education is anyway.

Would you rather hire the 50% or 90% scoring employee? The 90% is more likely to be highly knowledgeable and quick to pick things up. Furthermore, this form of discrimination is seen in other walks of life, like the marketplace. In the market people of all levels of selling skill can sell their products, but that's no reason not to differentiate between them.

I don't want any differentiation like 50% or 90%. As long as the candidate is able to pass the test, he's fine. If he is really above and beyond the other students who got passing grades, he will find a way to show that. Maybe he will write papers, or work on projects, or do something that will distinguish him from the others.

First step is to improve our ability to assess understanding though.
Obviously.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 5:34:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 3:57:56 PM, Indophile wrote:

I'll focus on the points of interest. You raise some interesting points to consider.

This is exactly the point. Insitutions of learning should NOT be concerned with helping employers. Its only purpose should be to educate people. Every student who can pass its test should be equal in its eyes.

Agreed, in the sense that they are all capable and qualified.

The employer can find out on their own who is the best candidate for their requirements.

Agreed, but I don't see why employees shouldn't be allowed to examine the marks if they are interested. They can then place a value of their own on the marks importance.

Once employers start accepting these grades as a starting point, the students will just concentrate on getting those grades, one way or the other.

Again, employers can place the importance of their choice on higher scores. The 'starting point' should be qualification, which students already have to 'get' .

Make no mistake, I'm against an increasing emphasis on testing (primarily due to our inability to accurately assess) , and find it ironic that while test centric cultures are becoming more like Western countries in their ways the West feels it must 'catch up' on international scores. See Yong Zhao's writings if you're interested.

If an employer has to look at thousands of candidates who have passed successfully, it will become incumbent upon the students to make themselves more capable, thus forcing them to gain real knowledge, delve deep into the study material, etc. And they will do this only if they are interested in their field of study.

This is a particularly interesting point. One could argue that there's a degree to which students showcase initiative through high exam marks, but there's the obvious counter of study preparation. The only way to resolve this dispute is to improve our testing ability (or ability to determine what showcases initiative) or get rid of the ability to study through unknown examination times (an idea I'm tinkering with currently - see my thread) .

In the long run, it will be beneficial to society, which is what the point of education is anyway.

I don't want any differentiation like 50% or 90%. As long as the candidate is able to pass the test, he's fine. If he is really above and beyond the other students who got passing grades, he will find a way to show that. Maybe he will write papers, or work on projects, or do something that will distinguish him from the others.

We've got the issues of prior showcasing of student initiative and whether employers should be allowed to access the results so that they can determine their importance to resolve here, which directly impact on the issue of differentiation.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 5:38:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My high school debate coach had a bumper sticker in her classroom:

The point of education is so you get the joke.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:31:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 5:38:14 PM, bluesteel wrote:
My high school debate coach had a bumper sticker in her classroom:

The point of education is so you get the joke.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 10:07:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 3:57:56 PM, Indophile wrote:
This is exactly the point. Insitutions of learning should NOT be concerned with helping employers. Its only purpose should be to educate people. Every student who can pass its test should be equal in its eyes.

? ummm, why? its purpose is to give them a skill that they can use to be a useful part of a society, why should people that are less skilled be lumped in with the best? its not just helping the employer but society at large.

The employer can find out on their own who is the best candidate for their requirements.

but why make it extra difficult for them? your not just arguing that schools should not help employers but should actually go out of their way to make things harder for them. sounds healthy.

Once employers start accepting these grades as a starting point, the students will just concentrate on getting those grades, one way or the other.

yea by learning the material, doing the class projects, and having a basic level of natural skill to back up the effort.

If an employer has to look at thousands of candidates who have passed successfully, it will become incumbent upon the students to make themselves more capable, thus forcing them to gain real knowledge, delve deep into the study material, etc. And they will do this only if they are interested in their field of study.

they have to do this anyway, i mean do you think that there is no hiring process? looking at grades merely weeds out the lazy so that they can focus on the people who actually put in a bit of effort, they still have interviews and other checks. they dont just say oh this guy got a 100 on his physics test heres a plot of land build a nuclear reactor kthnx.

In the long run, it will be beneficial to society, which is what the point of education is anyway.


yea it is the point the only thing youve changed so far is to make it more difficult and less helpful.


I don't want any differentiation like 50% or 90%. As long as the candidate is able to pass the test, he's fine. If he is really above and beyond the other students who got passing grades, he will find a way to show that. Maybe he will write papers, or work on projects, or do something that will distinguish him from the others.

like i said they do this already, but its so competitive that you dont need to bother with people too lazy to not get an A on the test. they can do other work thats not as intense.

it just seems to me that everything youve suggested is based on appeal to emotion and not helpful to anybody.

and as for the west "catching up" the west is ahead and has been for a while. i mean we dont force every single citizen to learn everything but the ones who do get educated are clearly top notch as we have been dominating the tech world for quite some time.

if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 10:08:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 10:34:01 AM, Indophile wrote:
What is it?

To have an educated youth, or to distinguish between them? To find out who's the best?

Take for example, someone studying to be an engineer. Hopefully, after becoming an engineer, they would benefit society in some way, by doing some engineering work.

How does one know a person is a qualified engineer? The institutions of learning bestow a "degree" upon that person, which society accepts as proof.

Now, to get that degree, it's sufficient that the student pass the tests. As long as the student passes, the student becomes qualified.

Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? Why have grades, or percentile or marks or any such devices that aid in differentiating between them?

All society should care about is who is best: : Same should be applied in all the schools.

fixed
if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 11:57:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 3:57:56 PM, Indophile wrote:

This is exactly the point. Insitutions of learning should NOT be concerned with helping employers. Its only purpose should be to educate people. Every student who can pass its test should be equal in its eyes.


If your skill doesn't make money then it is useless in this society. I mean, great, you have a Philosophy degree. But what can you do with it? What good is a degree if you can't make money using it? Sure, you learned a bunch of stuff. But nobody cares about that.

People care about grades because it differentiates those who are high achievers from those who just want to make the bare minimum effort.

To go to a Grad school in my program the minimum requirement is a B+ average. However, I am in a Specialized Honours Program (undergrad) and to be in this program you need a B+ average. Therefore everyone in my program has a B+ average. What good does that to anybody if there are 1500 applicants to any given graduate program and only 10 spots?

In terms of employer, I don't know of any employer that looks at your grades anyway. They just look at whether you obtained the degree.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 11:59:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 11:57:36 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 11/18/2011 3:57:56 PM, Indophile wrote:

This is exactly the point. Insitutions of learning should NOT be concerned with helping employers. Its only purpose should be to educate people. Every student who can pass its test should be equal in its eyes.


If your skill doesn't make money then it is useless in this society. I mean, great, you have a Philosophy degree. But what can you do with it? What good is a degree if you can't make money using it? Sure, you learned a bunch of stuff. But nobody cares about that.

People care about grades because it differentiates those who are high achievers from those who just want to make the bare minimum effort.

To go to a Grad school in my program the minimum requirement is a B+ average. However, I am in a Specialized Honours Program (undergrad) and to be in this program you need a B+ average. Therefore everyone in my program has at least a B+ average. What good does that do for anybody if there are 1500 applicants to any given graduate program and only 10 spots?

In terms of employer, I don't know of any employer that looks at your grades anyway. They just look at whether you obtained the degree.

fix'd
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 5:55:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The people who get degrees 'today"would have been considered uneducated 35 years ago.
Education today is all about self esteem and social integration. The last time I looked at a college text I thought I was looking at a grade school book. A few indicators of the decline.
Critical thinking has replaced Logic
Modern Language is not required
Calculus used to be a freshman Course
Biology and Chemistry are ignored

Today graduates are schooled in the skills of looking busy and given inflated view of themselves, but have little if any, ability to use the little information they have. We should re-institute the comprehensive exam, an all day test involving the core curriculum and your declared major. One would be required to score 78% to pass. Subjects tested in core are; English Lit, American Lit., Calculus, Biology, Chemistry, European and American History, Ancient philosophy and Logic. and a Modern Language. Also a test in your stated major where a score of at least 85% is required. In my experience though, testing such as is would eliminate most engineers, business admin. and Psych. majors.

As an aside, When my grandfather graduated, a BA was sufficient to become a Lawyer, by the time of y parents the dumb down had begun and law school was required, in many States.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 10:49:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:07:11 PM, kogline wrote:
At 11/18/2011 3:57:56 PM, Indophile wrote:
This is exactly the point. Insitutions of learning should NOT be concerned with helping employers. Its only purpose should be to educate people. Every student who can pass its test should be equal in its eyes.

? ummm, why? its purpose is to give them a skill that they can use to be a useful part of a society, why should people that are less skilled be lumped in with the best? its not just helping the employer but society at large.

If a person is able to "pass" the test, aren't they skilled? Why pass anyone that is "less skilled" according to you? Do you want less skilled people building bridges or performing surgeries? Either make everyone who passes same, or make the passing grade such that only the best can pass.

The employer can find out on their own who is the best candidate for their requirements.

but why make it extra difficult for them? your not just arguing that schools should not help employers but should actually go out of their way to make things harder for them. sounds healthy.

The schools are there to teach students, and make sure they learn the subject. Once they have done this, won't the students be automatically employable? All I want is that students who are able to pass be treated equally.

Once employers start accepting these grades as a starting point, the students will just concentrate on getting those grades, one way or the other.

yea by learning the material, doing the class projects, and having a basic level of natural skill to back up the effort.

If you think everybody who gets good grades in schools actually knows the subject very well, then obviously you won't find any problems in the existing method.

If an employer has to look at thousands of candidates who have passed successfully, it will become incumbent upon the students to make themselves more capable, thus forcing them to gain real knowledge, delve deep into the study material, etc. And they will do this only if they are interested in their field of study.

they have to do this anyway, i mean do you think that there is no hiring process? looking at grades merely weeds out the lazy so that they can focus on the people who actually put in a bit of effort, they still have interviews and other checks. they dont just say oh this guy got a 100 on his physics test heres a plot of land build a nuclear reactor kthnx.

Yes, so tell me. How come people who are lazy able to pass? Does passing have no meaning anymore? What does it mean "He is good enough to pass, but too lazy to be employed"?

In the long run, it will be beneficial to society, which is what the point of education is anyway.


yea it is the point the only thing youve changed so far is to make it more difficult and less helpful.

How will having the best skilled people be less helpful?

I don't want any differentiation like 50% or 90%. As long as the candidate is able to pass the test, he's fine. If he is really above and beyond the other students who got passing grades, he will find a way to show that. Maybe he will write papers, or work on projects, or do something that will distinguish him from the others.

like i said they do this already, but its so competitive that you dont need to bother with people too lazy to not get an A on the test. they can do other work thats not as intense.

You mean anybody who does not get an A is automatically worthless?

it just seems to me that everything youve suggested is based on appeal to emotion and not helpful to anybody.

If, as you say, grades are really symbolic of a person's knowledge, then there is n problem.


and as for the west "catching up" the west is ahead and has been for a while. i mean we dont force every single citizen to learn everything but the ones who do get educated are clearly top notch as we have been dominating the tech world for quite some time.

You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 4:25:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 10:49:43 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/19/2011 10:07:11 PM, kogline wrote:
At 11/18/2011 3:57:56 PM, Indophile wrote:
This is exactly the point. Insitutions of learning should NOT be concerned with helping employers. Its only purpose should be to educate people. Every student who can pass its test should be equal in its eyes.

? ummm, why? its purpose is to give them a skill that they can use to be a useful part of a society, why should people that are less skilled be lumped in with the best? its not just helping the employer but society at large.

If a person is able to "pass" the test, aren't they skilled? Why pass anyone that is "less skilled" according to you? Do you want less skilled people building bridges or performing surgeries? Either make everyone who passes same, or make the passing grade such that only the best can pass.

see now it sounds like your arguing that college should be harder, (which i would agree with) before you were arguing that people who aren't as familiar with the subject material should be considered equal to those who are the most familiar.

The employer can find out on their own who is the best candidate for their requirements.

but why make it extra difficult for them? your not just arguing that schools should not help employers but should actually go out of their way to make things harder for them. sounds healthy.

The schools are there to teach students, and make sure they learn the subject. Once they have done this, won't the students be automatically employable? All I want is that students who are able to pass be treated equally.

but their not equal. and your forgetting that there is limited employment in most fields. all i want is that the best get the job.

Once employers start accepting these grades as a starting point, the students will just concentrate on getting those grades, one way or the other.

yea by learning the material, doing the class projects, and having a basic level of natural skill to back up the effort.

If you think everybody who gets good grades in schools actually knows the subject very well, then obviously you won't find any problems in the existing method.

i agree that having good grades doesnt mean you know the subject well. thats actually kinda what you have been advertising. your saying that anyone who gets an A should get hired, im saying sort through the A's to find the best. dont bother with less than them because those students are not commited enough for serious employment.

If an employer has to look at thousands of candidates who have passed successfully, it will become incumbent upon the students to make themselves more capable, thus forcing them to gain real knowledge, delve deep into the study material, etc. And they will do this only if they are interested in their field of study.

they have to do this anyway, i mean do you think that there is no hiring process? looking at grades merely weeds out the lazy so that they can focus on the people who actually put in a bit of effort, they still have interviews and other checks. they dont just say oh this guy got a 100 on his physics test heres a plot of land build a nuclear reactor kthnx.

Yes, so tell me. How come people who are lazy able to pass? Does passing have no meaning anymore? What does it mean "He is good enough to pass, but too lazy to be employed"?

not really, not when way more people pass than are needed for the work to be done. like someone said above, colleges are more dumbed down and availiable to all people instead of being a priveleged intellecual elite. the consequence of that is that employers have to sort through more crap to find the diamonds.

In the long run, it will be beneficial to society, which is what the point of education is anyway.


yea it is the point the only thing youve changed so far is to make it more difficult and less helpful.

How will having the best skilled people be less helpful?

because you dont want the best skilled people, you want everyone who has just enough skill to put their names in a hat. then the employer hires the luckiest person instead of the most skilled.

I don't want any differentiation like 50% or 90%. As long as the candidate is able to pass the test, he's fine. If he is really above and beyond the other students who got passing grades, he will find a way to show that. Maybe he will write papers, or work on projects, or do something that will distinguish him from the others.

like i said they do this already, but its so competitive that you dont need to bother with people too lazy to not get an A on the test. they can do other work thats not as intense.

You mean anybody who does not get an A is automatically worthless?

in fields where there are far more applicants than jobs? yes they are. at least until they decide to get their act together.

it just seems to me that everything youve suggested is based on appeal to emotion and not helpful to anybody.

If, as you say, grades are really symbolic of a person's knowledge, then there is n problem.

to an extent they are, i havent said they they are complete and the only thing worth looking at, i merely said that they are your first tool. take the people who got a's since they have some level of skill and knowlege and then search for the one who has the most.


and as for the west "catching up" the west is ahead and has been for a while. i mean we dont force every single citizen to learn everything but the ones who do get educated are clearly top notch as we have been dominating the tech world for quite some time.

if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 4:54:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 4:25:00 PM, kogline wrote:
see now it sounds like your arguing that college should be harder, (which i would agree with) before you were arguing that people who aren't as familiar with the subject material should be considered equal to those who are the most familiar.

All I was arguing for was that a person who can "pass" is to be considered as being familiar with the subject. Why pass someone who is not familiar with the subject?

but their not equal. and your forgetting that there is limited employment in most fields. all i want is that the best get the job.

Then make it so that only the best can pass.

i agree that having good grades doesnt mean you know the subject well. thats actually kinda what you have been advertising. your saying that anyone who gets an A should get hired, im saying sort through the A's to find the best. dont bother with less than them because those students are not commited enough for serious employment.

I never said anyone who gets an A should be hired. I said that anyone who can pass, should be eligible for employment. Who actually gets employed depends on the employer.

What this will do, that is, making everybody who passes being made eligible, is make the students stand out by learning their subject very well and making a resume that will stand out from among the others.

not really, not when way more people pass than are needed for the work to be done. like someone said above, colleges are more dumbed down and availiable to all people instead of being a priveleged intellecual elite. the consequence of that is that employers have to sort through more crap to find the diamonds.

So why are colleges getting dumbed down? Because they give passing grades to anybody?

How will having the best skilled people be less helpful?

because you dont want the best skilled people, you want everyone who has just enough skill to put their names in a hat. then the employer hires the luckiest person instead of the most skilled.

Well, wouldn't the "most skilled" person be able to stand out from the others who only have "enough skill"? You are saying that the only way to differentiate between the most skilled and adequately skilled is through grades. I find that hard to accept.

You mean anybody who does not get an A is automatically worthless?

in fields where there are far more applicants than jobs? yes they are. at least until they decide to get their act together.

Some of the best people are those who do not even have college degrees. It's this concentration on getting good grades that is making people lose sight of the real reason for education.

to an extent they are, i havent said they they are complete and the only thing worth looking at, i merely said that they are your first tool. take the people who got a's since they have some level of skill and knowlege and then search for the one who has the most.

You must know a lot of people who have been through college. Can you personally confirm that the best students in any college are among those who have got all A's? There have been no good students among those who have not gotten A's? Can you verify that with even your personal experiences, let alone looking through every college?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 5:15:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i really don't see how what you're saying is different than the way things are done right now.

i'm not saying that grades are the only way to differentiate people, i'm saying it is a step in the differentiation process.

why do these skilled people not get A's? because they are so smart and talented they get bored with tests? i'm sorry but i don't care if you're a genius if you don't have the work ethic. it's a combination of naturaly talent and work ethic, if you don't have an A you are missing at least one. that doesn't mean everyone with an A is the best it means that they at least have some combination of the two. thats when the other steps in differentiating come into play. like making sure the student didn't cheat the system in some way, or that the system itself is correct.
if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 7:31:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is silly. Grades only measure you ability to master the material on the test. We are a society of idiot savant, as defined by WFB, knowledgeable to the extreme in one area and ignorant of all others.
kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 7:41:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/22/2011 7:31:05 PM, logicrules wrote:
This is silly. Grades only measure you ability to master the material on the test. We are a society of idiot savant, as defined by WFB, knowledgeable to the extreme in one area and ignorant of all others.

good, i prefer us to be skilled masters of a single trade rather that lowly jacks of many trades.
if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 10:36:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thinking someone who went to college is qualified to do anything is one of the the biggest lies ever perpetrated upon man kind. Some of the dumbest most inept useless people I have ever met in my life have college degrees. Utterly devoid of common sense. And on the same note some of the smartest people I have ever met never got past the eighth grade. Without common sense, all the education in the world wont help you.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
alem124max
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:04:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
hi,
welcome to this forum site, here u can find lots of things. For your questions you should refer to your parents and friends.
--------------
[url=http://www.animationnotes.com...] Animation Tutorial [/url]
alem124max
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
hi,
welcome to this forum site, here u can find lots of things. For your questions you should refer to your parents and friends.
--------------
Animation Tutorial
http://www.animationnotes.com...