Work school

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Tanko

I asked a contractor where he learned his many skills.

He told me he wasn't doing well in High School at all, so he dropped out and joined Job Corps, where he first learned roofing, then carpentry, electrical and plumbing.

Today he has a successful contracting business.

I know have met some people who have done this program. It seems like a great program (you get free food, housing, and a living stipend) while you get your HS Diploma and a Certificate (and I think potentially an Assoicates Degree) and actual hands on experience (that is the big part, getting experience with employers).

The downside (for most people) is it does involve sending an underage kid away to live at a remote location, so I am sure most stable families would be against it. The few people who I met who did enter the program as a minor, were not growing up in functional homes, so to them it was probably a great escape. In many ways this is similar to the Vo-tech and HS approach (though even more profitable since you earn some money while there, and all expenses are covered), you just have to be willing (and have parents that will sign off) on going away. That may be a generalization on my part based on who I have met, I am sure people from some great families go to this program as well.

In any case it seems the program pays off (and if you are trying to escape a bad family it serves that purpose as well, I think you can stay until you are 22 or something like that if you want). Also, its a good alternative for teenagers considering joining the military just to learn a specific job, who really don't want to be in the military overall (and just view it as paid training with the being in the military parts as something to just survive). I am actually surprised this program does not get talked about more, I hear about it so infrequently, every time I hear a story about it, its like the first time, you would think such a great opportunity would be advertised more.





(I agree with most of that, so I am replying to your last point).

But, that was my earlier point in my last post, some of those are self-fulling correlations. For example, defining as a positive metric as having higher education, and then well countries with the most education are at the top of this metric (of course).

For many of the countries "at the bottom", their immediate concern is clean drinking water, not being killed by the random militia of the day, and basic sanitation, they are probably not concerned with how many diplomas the government will subsidize. Literacy rates are a better metric than tertiary education for overall wellness, life expectancy, and general safety (if a country has below 30% there is no way you would even consider going there by choice). Much of the world is struggling with the basic problem of getting to the point that the majority (50% +) of their population being even basic level literate forget advanced level stuff. These countries are not worried about higher education (many of them are not even directly worried about literacy since they have more immediate threats)....

For example we can probably both agree that no sane American would want to live in Afghanistan by choice (outside of military assignments and government posts, etc....) [And, this may be a bad example, forget current events, making it even worse, lets say Afghanistan three years ago when it was still Democratic]. Would you not want to live in Afghanistan because the majority of the population does not have a High School Diploma or a B.A? Or would there be more tangible reasons?

I think that your correlation is fine. However, your conclusions are not looking at the whole picture, or taking societal evolutions into account. A wealthy, stable country, that is not undergoing a civil war, is going to have longer life, less STDs, higher literacy rates, more college graduates, etc.... This is because the country has entered a stage of stability, and the literacy (and then later higher education) will naturally follow.

For example in 1870 the literacy rate in America was lower than modern Afghanistan, if a wizard forced me to choose between living in 1870s America and modern Afghanistan, there would be no choice, 1870s America (especially as a white male, but even if that status was changed, I would still choose 1870s America over modern Afganistan). Because the literacy rate will soon climb, and this is because the country is restabilizing after a massive civil war, technological innovation, and political turmoil. Whereas in Afghanistan, literacy rates are about to plummet (especially now). Literacy and education are both fine metrics (I would argue literacy more so than education) for gauging the safety and stability of a country. But, you have to look at history and realize that increases in all standards don't happen in a vacuum, they happen because of increases in stability.

Once a country leave a point where if you are lucky enough to survive being birthed, lucky enough to survive childhood, luck enough to survive being a child soldier, lucky enough to not be killed randomly in a bombing, you are now maybe 30, and you will be happy to live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere. You are not worried about learning to read, forget higher education (and people younger than you certainly are too busy/scared/stressed to).

This is also a great example of female empowerment, if you judge literacy (as is the standard) by adults, then females make a solid majority (of adults) in virtually all countries, so if you live in a country that prohibits women from learning to read, on top of the men who just refuse or are unable to, by simple math you will never breach 50%.... So by barring the majority of the population from becoming literate, you are shooting yourself in the foot (especially because these countries already tend to have very low literacy rates even among those who are legally able to learn).

This is why literacy is far more accurate for predicting life expectancy, health, living standards, and GDP than higher education or even tertiary education.
A country has high literacy rates because it is a stable country, and country is not a stable country because it has high literacy rates.

Quote: rxwine

Until someone shows me some data that proves otherwise I'm going to keep referring to lists of the most educated countries in the world as a better correlation of overall success than anyone pointing out their personal experience of useless college degrees.

Quote: missedhervee

Not much success in the USA these days...BLM, antifa, homelessness, gun violence.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Tanko

I asked a contractor where he learned his many skills.

He told me he wasn't doing well in High School at all, so he dropped out and joined Job Corps, where he first learned roofing, then carpentry, electrical and plumbing.

Today he has a successful contracting business.

I know have met some people who have done this program. It seems like a great program (you get free food, housing, and a living stipend) while you get your HS Diploma and a Certificate (and I think potentially an Assoicates Degree) and actual hands on experience (that is the big part, getting experience with employers).

The downside (for most people) is it does involve sending an underage kid away to live at a remote location, so I am sure most stable families would be against it. The few people who I met who did enter the program as a minor, were not growing up in functional homes, so to them it was probably a great escape. In many ways this is similar to the Vo-tech and HS approach (though even more profitable since you earn some money while there, and all expenses are covered), you just have to be willing (and have parents that will sign off) on going away. That may be a generalization on my part based on who I have met, I am sure people from some great families go to this program as well.

In any case it seems the program pays off (and if you are trying to escape a bad family it serves that purpose as well, I think you can stay until you are 22 or something like that if you want). Also, its a good alternative for teenagers considering joining the military just to learn a specific job, who really don't want to be in the military overall (and just view it as paid training with the being in the military parts as something to just survive). I am actually surprised this program does not get talked about more, I hear about it so infrequently, every time I hear a story about it, its like the first time, you would think such a great opportunity would be advertised more.





(I agree with most of that, so I am replying to your last point).

But, that was my earlier point in my last post, some of those are self-fulling correlations. For example, defining as a positive metric as having higher education, and then well countries with the most education are at the top of this metric (of course).

For many of the countries "at the bottom", their immediate concern is clean drinking water, not being killed by the random militia of the day, and basic sanitation, they are probably not concerned with how many diplomas the government will subsidize. Literacy rates are a better metric than tertiary education for overall wellness, life expectancy, and general safety (if a country has below 30% there is no way you would even consider going there by choice). Much of the world is struggling with the basic problem of getting to the point that the majority (50% +) of their population being even basic level literate forget advanced level stuff. These countries are not worried about higher education (many of them are not even directly worried about literacy since they have more immediate threats)....

For example we can probably both agree that no sane American would want to live in Afghanistan by choice (outside of military assignments and government posts, etc....) [And, this may be a bad example, forget current events, making it even worse, lets say Afghanistan three years ago when it was still Democratic]. Would you not want to live in Afghanistan because the majority of the population does not have a High School Diploma or a B.A? Or would there be more tangible reasons?

I think that your correlation is fine. However, your conclusions are not looking at the whole picture, or taking societal evolutions into account. A wealthy, stable country, that is not undergoing a civil war, is going to have longer life, less STDs, higher literacy rates, more college graduates, etc.... This is because the country has entered a stage of stability, and the literacy (and then later higher education) will naturally follow.

For example in 1870 the literacy rate in America was lower than modern Afghanistan, if a wizard forced me to choose between living in 1870s America and modern Afghanistan, there would be no choice, 1870s America (especially as a white male, but even if that status was changed, I would still choose 1870s America over modern Afganistan). Because the literacy rate will soon climb, and this is because the country is restabilizing after a massive civil war, technological innovation, and political turmoil. Whereas in Afghanistan, literacy rates are about to plummet (especially now). Literacy and education are both fine metrics (I would argue literacy more so than education) for gauging the safety and stability of a country. But, you have to look at history and realize that increases in all standards don't happen in a vacuum, they happen because of increases in stability.

Once a country leave a point where if you are lucky enough to survive being birthed, lucky enough to survive childhood, luck enough to survive being a child soldier, lucky enough to not be killed randomly in a bombing, you are now maybe 30, and you will be happy to live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere. You are not worried about learning to read, forget higher education (and people younger than you certainly are too busy/scared/stressed to).

This is also a great example of female empowerment, if you judge literacy (as is the standard) by adults, then females make a solid majority (of adults) in virtually all countries, so if you live in a country that prohibits women from learning to read, on top of the men who just refuse or are unable to, by simple math you will never breach 50%.... So by barring the majority of the population from becoming literate, you are shooting yourself in the foot (especially because these countries already tend to have very low literacy rates even among those who are legally able to learn).

This is why literacy is far more accurate for predicting life expectancy, health, living standards, and GDP than higher education or even tertiary education.
A country has high literacy rates because it is a stable country, and country is not a stable country because it has high literacy rates.

That my conclusions perhaps don't reflect the horse pulling the cart, but the opposite, or perhaps even the horse running alongside the cart, I admit, I don't know. But I do have other theories why a broad education is more desirable no matter how useless it may seem.

i.e, everyone is a potential VOTER

An expert farmer with very non-related knowledge who knows farming should be able to evaluate why we may need someone studying oceanography of a corral reef that may be dying. Or why the manufacture of our own microchips in the USA is important. Why SOOPOOs son studies bugs in South America perhaps. How UKRaine could be important in the geopolitical realm. Whether a future energy source is a sound idea or not. Whether 5k is frying his brain. Etc., etc., etc,

We don't need experts in all these or other areas, but the more people who can grapple with broader knowledge of what's going on in diverse areas gives us more informed voter base. We need people who can evaluate as many relevant issues they may have a part in deciding such decisions rather than ignorant people.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Tanko

I asked a contractor where he learned his many skills.

He told me he wasn't doing well in High School at all, so he dropped out and joined Job Corps, where he first learned roofing, then carpentry, electrical and plumbing.

Today he has a successful contracting business.

I know have met some people who have done this program. It seems like a great program (you get free food, housing, and a living stipend) while you get your HS Diploma and a Certificate (and I think potentially an Assoicates Degree) and actual hands on experience (that is the big part, getting experience with employers).

The downside (for most people) is it does involve sending an underage kid away to live at a remote location, so I am sure most stable families would be against it. The few people who I met who did enter the program as a minor, were not growing up in functional homes, so to them it was probably a great escape. In many ways this is similar to the Vo-tech and HS approach (though even more profitable since you earn some money while there, and all expenses are covered), you just have to be willing (and have parents that will sign off) on going away. That may be a generalization on my part based on who I have met, I am sure people from some great families go to this program as well.

In any case it seems the program pays off (and if you are trying to escape a bad family it serves that purpose as well, I think you can stay until you are 22 or something like that if you want). Also, its a good alternative for teenagers considering joining the military just to learn a specific job, who really don't want to be in the military overall (and just view it as paid training with the being in the military parts as something to just survive). I am actually surprised this program does not get talked about more, I hear about it so infrequently, every time I hear a story about it, its like the first time, you would think such a great opportunity would be advertised more.





(I agree with most of that, so I am replying to your last point).

But, that was my earlier point in my last post, some of those are self-fulling correlations. For example, defining as a positive metric as having higher education, and then well countries with the most education are at the top of this metric (of course).

For many of the countries "at the bottom", their immediate concern is clean drinking water, not being killed by the random militia of the day, and basic sanitation, they are probably not concerned with how many diplomas the government will subsidize. Literacy rates are a better metric than tertiary education for overall wellness, life expectancy, and general safety (if a country has below 30% there is no way you would even consider going there by choice). Much of the world is struggling with the basic problem of getting to the point that the majority (50% +) of their population being even basic level literate forget advanced level stuff. These countries are not worried about higher education (many of them are not even directly worried about literacy since they have more immediate threats)....

For example we can probably both agree that no sane American would want to live in Afghanistan by choice (outside of military assignments and government posts, etc....) [And, this may be a bad example, forget current events, making it even worse, lets say Afghanistan three years ago when it was still Democratic]. Would you not want to live in Afghanistan because the majority of the population does not have a High School Diploma or a B.A? Or would there be more tangible reasons?

I think that your correlation is fine. However, your conclusions are not looking at the whole picture, or taking societal evolutions into account. A wealthy, stable country, that is not undergoing a civil war, is going to have longer life, less STDs, higher literacy rates, more college graduates, etc.... This is because the country has entered a stage of stability, and the literacy (and then later higher education) will naturally follow.

For example in 1870 the literacy rate in America was lower than modern Afghanistan, if a wizard forced me to choose between living in 1870s America and modern Afghanistan, there would be no choice, 1870s America (especially as a white male, but even if that status was changed, I would still choose 1870s America over modern Afganistan). Because the literacy rate will soon climb, and this is because the country is restabilizing after a massive civil war, technological innovation, and political turmoil. Whereas in Afghanistan, literacy rates are about to plummet (especially now). Literacy and education are both fine metrics (I would argue literacy more so than education) for gauging the safety and stability of a country. But, you have to look at history and realize that increases in all standards don't happen in a vacuum, they happen because of increases in stability.

Once a country leave a point where if you are lucky enough to survive being birthed, lucky enough to survive childhood, luck enough to survive being a child soldier, lucky enough to not be killed randomly in a bombing, you are now maybe 30, and you will be happy to live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere. You are not worried about learning to read, forget higher education (and people younger than you certainly are too busy/scared/stressed to).

This is also a great example of female empowerment, if you judge literacy (as is the standard) by adults, then females make a solid majority (of adults) in virtually all countries, so if you live in a country that prohibits women from learning to read, on top of the men who just refuse or are unable to, by simple math you will never breach 50%.... So by barring the majority of the population from becoming literate, you are shooting yourself in the foot (especially because these countries already tend to have very low literacy rates even among those who are legally able to learn).

This is why literacy is far more accurate for predicting life expectancy, health, living standards, and GDP than higher education or even tertiary education.
A country has high literacy rates because it is a stable country, and country is not a stable country because it has high literacy rates.

That my conclusions perhaps don't reflect the horse pulling the cart, but the opposite, or perhaps even the horse running alongside the cart, I admit, I don't know. But I do have other theories why a broad education is more desirable no matter how useless it may seem.

i.e, everyone is a potential VOTER

An expert farmer with very non-related knowledge who knows farming should be able to evaluate why we may need someone studying oceanography of a corral reef that may be dying. Or why the manufacture of our own microchips in the USA is important. Why SOOPOOs son studies bugs in South America perhaps. How UKRaine could be important in the geopolitical realm. Whether a future energy source is a sound idea or not. Whether 5k is frying his brain. Etc., etc., etc,

We don't need experts in all these or other areas, but the more people who can grapple with broader knowledge of what's going on in diverse areas gives us more informed voter base. We need people who can evaluate as many relevant issues they may have a part in deciding such decisions rather than ignorant people.

All of that starts with literacy, before you can even fantasize about such people existing in a society (let alone a society existing that would even have such problems to worry about). For example, I doubt that many people in Somalia are worried about the status of corral reefs or insects on the other side of the world (and if they are they have the wrong priorities, and that is not me being dismissive, but a statement of fact, until your country is safe and stable, you don't have the realistic ability to care about such things).

I am 100% sure that literacy is a better metric than education levels to gauge overall wellness (life expectancy, STDS, etc...) I think even America would be better off as a nation working to break 90% adult literacy than working towards 50% of adults having a B.A. (when this benchmark is met, nobody will probably notice a difference, whereas a 3-5% change in literacy could change everything in a short period of time). Its the difference between a small improvement and a huge improvement (if you are illiterate you are completely useless in modern society, you can't even legally drive).

If you can't read signs (literally and figuratively) you are going to get in trouble very quickly in the modern world.

I think our primary disagreement is how important it is to increase the percent of population with an undergraduate degree. I am simply not convinced it matters (in fact in some cases it is increasing faster than it should or naturally would by a combination of poorly designed incentives and social views). Again, I support free college and think people should be free (within reason if the government is paying for it) to take programs that interest them, but I don't think its some magic pill for society. Literacy is simply far more important for both a long term and short-term goal for a strong and stable country. As literacy increases, college will naturally follow. Literacy is a direct metric (that directly impacts how useful people are in society).

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Tanko

I asked a contractor where he learned his many skills.

He told me he wasn't doing well in High School at all, so he dropped out and joined Job Corps, where he first learned roofing, then carpentry, electrical and plumbing.

Today he has a successful contracting business.

I know have met some people who have done this program. It seems like a great program (you get free food, housing, and a living stipend) while you get your HS Diploma and a Certificate (and I think potentially an Assoicates Degree) and actual hands on experience (that is the big part, getting experience with employers).

The downside (for most people) is it does involve sending an underage kid away to live at a remote location, so I am sure most stable families would be against it. The few people who I met who did enter the program as a minor, were not growing up in functional homes, so to them it was probably a great escape. In many ways this is similar to the Vo-tech and HS approach (though even more profitable since you earn some money while there, and all expenses are covered), you just have to be willing (and have parents that will sign off) on going away. That may be a generalization on my part based on who I have met, I am sure people from some great families go to this program as well.

In any case it seems the program pays off (and if you are trying to escape a bad family it serves that purpose as well, I think you can stay until you are 22 or something like that if you want). Also, its a good alternative for teenagers considering joining the military just to learn a specific job, who really don't want to be in the military overall (and just view it as paid training with the being in the military parts as something to just survive). I am actually surprised this program does not get talked about more, I hear about it so infrequently, every time I hear a story about it, its like the first time, you would think such a great opportunity would be advertised more.





(I agree with most of that, so I am replying to your last point).

But, that was my earlier point in my last post, some of those are self-fulling correlations. For example, defining as a positive metric as having higher education, and then well countries with the most education are at the top of this metric (of course).

For many of the countries "at the bottom", their immediate concern is clean drinking water, not being killed by the random militia of the day, and basic sanitation, they are probably not concerned with how many diplomas the government will subsidize. Literacy rates are a better metric than tertiary education for overall wellness, life expectancy, and general safety (if a country has below 30% there is no way you would even consider going there by choice). Much of the world is struggling with the basic problem of getting to the point that the majority (50% +) of their population being even basic level literate forget advanced level stuff. These countries are not worried about higher education (many of them are not even directly worried about literacy since they have more immediate threats)....

For example we can probably both agree that no sane American would want to live in Afghanistan by choice (outside of military assignments and government posts, etc....) [And, this may be a bad example, forget current events, making it even worse, lets say Afghanistan three years ago when it was still Democratic]. Would you not want to live in Afghanistan because the majority of the population does not have a High School Diploma or a B.A? Or would there be more tangible reasons?

I think that your correlation is fine. However, your conclusions are not looking at the whole picture, or taking societal evolutions into account. A wealthy, stable country, that is not undergoing a civil war, is going to have longer life, less STDs, higher literacy rates, more college graduates, etc.... This is because the country has entered a stage of stability, and the literacy (and then later higher education) will naturally follow.

For example in 1870 the literacy rate in America was lower than modern Afghanistan, if a wizard forced me to choose between living in 1870s America and modern Afghanistan, there would be no choice, 1870s America (especially as a white male, but even if that status was changed, I would still choose 1870s America over modern Afganistan). Because the literacy rate will soon climb, and this is because the country is restabilizing after a massive civil war, technological innovation, and political turmoil. Whereas in Afghanistan, literacy rates are about to plummet (especially now). Literacy and education are both fine metrics (I would argue literacy more so than education) for gauging the safety and stability of a country. But, you have to look at history and realize that increases in all standards don't happen in a vacuum, they happen because of increases in stability.

Once a country leave a point where if you are lucky enough to survive being birthed, lucky enough to survive childhood, luck enough to survive being a child soldier, lucky enough to not be killed randomly in a bombing, you are now maybe 30, and you will be happy to live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere. You are not worried about learning to read, forget higher education (and people younger than you certainly are too busy/scared/stressed to).

This is also a great example of female empowerment, if you judge literacy (as is the standard) by adults, then females make a solid majority (of adults) in virtually all countries, so if you live in a country that prohibits women from learning to read, on top of the men who just refuse or are unable to, by simple math you will never breach 50%.... So by barring the majority of the population from becoming literate, you are shooting yourself in the foot (especially because these countries already tend to have very low literacy rates even among those who are legally able to learn).

This is why literacy is far more accurate for predicting life expectancy, health, living standards, and GDP than higher education or even tertiary education.
A country has high literacy rates because it is a stable country, and country is not a stable country because it has high literacy rates.

That my conclusions perhaps don't reflect the horse pulling the cart, but the opposite, or perhaps even the horse running alongside the cart, I admit, I don't know. But I do have other theories why a broad education is more desirable no matter how useless it may seem.

i.e, everyone is a potential VOTER

An expert farmer with very non-related knowledge who knows farming should be able to evaluate why we may need someone studying oceanography of a corral reef that may be dying. Or why the manufacture of our own microchips in the USA is important. Why SOOPOOs son studies bugs in South America perhaps. How UKRaine could be important in the geopolitical realm. Whether a future energy source is a sound idea or not. Whether 5k is frying his brain. Etc., etc., etc,

We don't need experts in all these or other areas, but the more people who can grapple with broader knowledge of what's going on in diverse areas gives us more informed voter base. We need people who can evaluate as many relevant issues they may have a part in deciding such decisions rather than ignorant people.

All of that starts with literacy, before you can even fantasize about such people existing in a society (let alone a society existing that would even have such problems to worry about). For example, I doubt that many people in Somalia are worried about the status of corral reefs or insects on the other side of the world (and if they are they have the wrong priorities, and that is not me being dismissive, but a statement of fact, until your country is safe and stable, you don't have the realistic ability to care about such things).

I am 100% sure that literacy is a better metric than education levels to gauge overall wellness (life expectancy, STDS, etc...) I think even America would be better off as a nation working to break 90% adult literacy than working towards 50% of adults having a B.A. (when this benchmark is met, nobody will probably notice a difference, whereas a 3-5% change in literacy could change everything in a short period of time). Its the difference between a small improvement and a huge improvement (if you are illiterate you are completely useless in modern society, you can't even legally drive).

If you can't read signs (literally and figuratively) you are going to get in trouble very quickly in the modern world.

I think our primary disagreement is how important it is to increase the percent of population with an undergraduate degree. I am simply not convinced it matters (in fact in some cases it is increasing faster than it should or naturally would by a combination of poorly designed incentives and social views). Again, I support free college and think people should be free (within reason if the government is paying for it) to take programs that interest them, but I don't think its some magic pill for society. Literacy is simply far more important for both a long term and short-term goal for a strong and stable country. As literacy increases, college will naturally follow. Literacy is a direct metric (that directly impacts how useful people are in society).

I guess my answer to that is all the Trumpers seem to know how to read, propagandist, charlatans, most banana republic dictators, and apparently many of the people who want Florida representatives supporting the "Don't say gay." bill that just passed.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Tanko

I asked a contractor where he learned his many skills.

He told me he wasn't doing well in High School at all, so he dropped out and joined Job Corps, where he first learned roofing, then carpentry, electrical and plumbing.

Today he has a successful contracting business.

I know have met some people who have done this program. It seems like a great program (you get free food, housing, and a living stipend) while you get your HS Diploma and a Certificate (and I think potentially an Assoicates Degree) and actual hands on experience (that is the big part, getting experience with employers).

The downside (for most people) is it does involve sending an underage kid away to live at a remote location, so I am sure most stable families would be against it. The few people who I met who did enter the program as a minor, were not growing up in functional homes, so to them it was probably a great escape. In many ways this is similar to the Vo-tech and HS approach (though even more profitable since you earn some money while there, and all expenses are covered), you just have to be willing (and have parents that will sign off) on going away. That may be a generalization on my part based on who I have met, I am sure people from some great families go to this program as well.

In any case it seems the program pays off (and if you are trying to escape a bad family it serves that purpose as well, I think you can stay until you are 22 or something like that if you want). Also, its a good alternative for teenagers considering joining the military just to learn a specific job, who really don't want to be in the military overall (and just view it as paid training with the being in the military parts as something to just survive). I am actually surprised this program does not get talked about more, I hear about it so infrequently, every time I hear a story about it, its like the first time, you would think such a great opportunity would be advertised more.





(I agree with most of that, so I am replying to your last point).

But, that was my earlier point in my last post, some of those are self-fulling correlations. For example, defining as a positive metric as having higher education, and then well countries with the most education are at the top of this metric (of course).

For many of the countries "at the bottom", their immediate concern is clean drinking water, not being killed by the random militia of the day, and basic sanitation, they are probably not concerned with how many diplomas the government will subsidize. Literacy rates are a better metric than tertiary education for overall wellness, life expectancy, and general safety (if a country has below 30% there is no way you would even consider going there by choice). Much of the world is struggling with the basic problem of getting to the point that the majority (50% +) of their population being even basic level literate forget advanced level stuff. These countries are not worried about higher education (many of them are not even directly worried about literacy since they have more immediate threats)....

For example we can probably both agree that no sane American would want to live in Afghanistan by choice (outside of military assignments and government posts, etc....) [And, this may be a bad example, forget current events, making it even worse, lets say Afghanistan three years ago when it was still Democratic]. Would you not want to live in Afghanistan because the majority of the population does not have a High School Diploma or a B.A? Or would there be more tangible reasons?

I think that your correlation is fine. However, your conclusions are not looking at the whole picture, or taking societal evolutions into account. A wealthy, stable country, that is not undergoing a civil war, is going to have longer life, less STDs, higher literacy rates, more college graduates, etc.... This is because the country has entered a stage of stability, and the literacy (and then later higher education) will naturally follow.

For example in 1870 the literacy rate in America was lower than modern Afghanistan, if a wizard forced me to choose between living in 1870s America and modern Afghanistan, there would be no choice, 1870s America (especially as a white male, but even if that status was changed, I would still choose 1870s America over modern Afganistan). Because the literacy rate will soon climb, and this is because the country is restabilizing after a massive civil war, technological innovation, and political turmoil. Whereas in Afghanistan, literacy rates are about to plummet (especially now). Literacy and education are both fine metrics (I would argue literacy more so than education) for gauging the safety and stability of a country. But, you have to look at history and realize that increases in all standards don't happen in a vacuum, they happen because of increases in stability.

Once a country leave a point where if you are lucky enough to survive being birthed, lucky enough to survive childhood, luck enough to survive being a child soldier, lucky enough to not be killed randomly in a bombing, you are now maybe 30, and you will be happy to live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere. You are not worried about learning to read, forget higher education (and people younger than you certainly are too busy/scared/stressed to).

This is also a great example of female empowerment, if you judge literacy (as is the standard) by adults, then females make a solid majority (of adults) in virtually all countries, so if you live in a country that prohibits women from learning to read, on top of the men who just refuse or are unable to, by simple math you will never breach 50%.... So by barring the majority of the population from becoming literate, you are shooting yourself in the foot (especially because these countries already tend to have very low literacy rates even among those who are legally able to learn).

This is why literacy is far more accurate for predicting life expectancy, health, living standards, and GDP than higher education or even tertiary education.
A country has high literacy rates because it is a stable country, and country is not a stable country because it has high literacy rates.

That my conclusions perhaps don't reflect the horse pulling the cart, but the opposite, or perhaps even the horse running alongside the cart, I admit, I don't know. But I do have other theories why a broad education is more desirable no matter how useless it may seem.

i.e, everyone is a potential VOTER

An expert farmer with very non-related knowledge who knows farming should be able to evaluate why we may need someone studying oceanography of a corral reef that may be dying. Or why the manufacture of our own microchips in the USA is important. Why SOOPOOs son studies bugs in South America perhaps. How UKRaine could be important in the geopolitical realm. Whether a future energy source is a sound idea or not. Whether 5k is frying his brain. Etc., etc., etc,

We don't need experts in all these or other areas, but the more people who can grapple with broader knowledge of what's going on in diverse areas gives us more informed voter base. We need people who can evaluate as many relevant issues they may have a part in deciding such decisions rather than ignorant people.

All of that starts with literacy, before you can even fantasize about such people existing in a society (let alone a society existing that would even have such problems to worry about). For example, I doubt that many people in Somalia are worried about the status of corral reefs or insects on the other side of the world (and if they are they have the wrong priorities, and that is not me being dismissive, but a statement of fact, until your country is safe and stable, you don't have the realistic ability to care about such things).

I am 100% sure that literacy is a better metric than education levels to gauge overall wellness (life expectancy, STDS, etc...) I think even America would be better off as a nation working to break 90% adult literacy than working towards 50% of adults having a B.A. (when this benchmark is met, nobody will probably notice a difference, whereas a 3-5% change in literacy could change everything in a short period of time). Its the difference between a small improvement and a huge improvement (if you are illiterate you are completely useless in modern society, you can't even legally drive).

If you can't read signs (literally and figuratively) you are going to get in trouble very quickly in the modern world.

I think our primary disagreement is how important it is to increase the percent of population with an undergraduate degree. I am simply not convinced it matters (in fact in some cases it is increasing faster than it should or naturally would by a combination of poorly designed incentives and social views). Again, I support free college and think people should be free (within reason if the government is paying for it) to take programs that interest them, but I don't think its some magic pill for society. Literacy is simply far more important for both a long term and short-term goal for a strong and stable country. As literacy increases, college will naturally follow. Literacy is a direct metric (that directly impacts how useful people are in society).

I guess my answer to that is all the Trumpers seem to know how to read, propagandist, charlatans, most banana republic dictators, and apparently many of the people who want Florida representatives supporting the "Don't say gay." bill that just passed.

Oh come on, that is a cheap point, Trump also has a college degree (and so do those Senators), so its completely self-defeating even if you leave it in play.

Anyway, what happened to metrics over anecdotes?

(Though interestingly, there are some conspiracies that Trump may be the first illiterate President in all of American history, its a stretch, but the basic premise is he often refuses to read unfamiliar documents when handed to him in front of others, often saying "I don't have my glasses" or makes other excuses and hands them to somebody else to read, and stumbles when asked about recently read books, until he learned to default to, "I love the bible I read it constantly" -despite not being able to cite a passage that he likes-, its also been confirmed that his books were ghost authored, and he had no part in the actual writing other than giving verbal interviews with the ghost author).
But, if that is somehow true, and Trump has a college degree while being illiterate, that makes your point even more self-defeating. I am not saying I necessarily believe this, but its an amusing theory (especially amusing if he spent all of those years insisting President Obama lied about his education, while turning out to be illiterate).

Though again this is way different than literacy rates in proportion to societal progress, as amusing as it may be.

The fact that we have a higher percentage of adult high school graduates than adults who are literate shows that some people do get pushed through the system even if they don't even have basic reading abilities (over 90% have graduated high school or a GED, and only 88% are literate, so there is a huge gap somehow, meaning at least 2% of people graduate high school with no grasp of reading comprehension, which I find shocking). So it would not surprise me compared to high school if some private colleges push people through occasionally (especially if their family are donors like certain families) who are illiterate.

Quote: Gandler

(Though interestingly, there are some conspiracies that Trump may be the first illiterate President in all of American history, its a stretch, but the basic premise is he often refuses to read unfamiliar documents when handed to him in front of others, often saying "I don't have my glasses" or makes other excuses and hands them to somebody else to read, and stumbles when asked about recently read books, until he learned to default to, "I love the bible I read it constantly" -despite not being able to cite a passage that he likes-, its also been confirmed that his books were ghost authored, and he had no part in the actual writing other than giving verbal interviews with the ghost author).
But, if that is somehow true, and Trump has a college degree while being illiterate, that makes your point even more self-defeating. I am not saying I necessarily believe this, but its an amusing theory (especially amusing if he spent all of those years insisting President Obama lied about his education, while turning out to be illiterate).

Quote: AZDuffman

Just a liberal conspiracy. Some "people persons", which Trump is, just hate to read things and prefer to just be told what the memo says. Ray Kroc hated reading memos. The whole QSC concept was made so he did not have to read more than a one page memo about any particular location.

I can vouch for the illiteracy in 1870s America as many is the deed I have researched where the wife signed "X" to it. But that same wife was probably very functional around the farm. The problem in poor countries today is the people are both illiterate but low functional at any other skills.

Quote: Gandler

I think it is more likley that Trump is illiterate than it is that Obama was born in Kenya. (I would also bet almost anything Obama has a higher GPA than Trump in undergrad, Trump never want to grad school so that cannot be compared).


However, my main point which is getting more pushback than it should, because it is self-evident, is that literacy is a better metric than higher education to determine the stability, saftey, and wellness of a country.

I really don't care if Trump is illiterate, or whoever graduated college with what GPA (other than to show fallacies in using that as a primary argument), I care more about the overall stats of a country, and for that literacy is what matters.