Accreditation today in the US applies more to transfer between schools than it does actual employment potential. All universities are NOT accredited, and accreditation is NOT required in order for a school to call itself a university. 50 years ago the term "University" carried prestige - today it's just a fancy title to make the school look/sound more appealing to potential customers - aka students.

Many universities are only regionally accredited, if at all, very few nationally or internationally, and accreditation is granted entirely by private accreditation organizations, not the local or federal government. Further, even regional accreditation does not guarantee your credits will be accepted or recognized by another school in the same region. It entirely depends on the school you're transferring to as to whether or not their review board accepts your transfer credits - read: how much tuition they want to soak you for. Because when it's all said and done, colleges/universities are nothing more than an industry - one of the largest industries in this country, possibly THE largest - and their first priority is making money. "Student Advisers" are little more than sales reps that are trained to tell you whatever it takes to get you to sign loan papers.

That's why it's so important to research the school you're wanting to attend, AND the potential job market for the degree you're pursuing. A business degree from Phoenix University or DeVry University is by no means the same as a business degree from Harvard or UCLA or even UCF. And even then, the Harvard of 2012 is a far cry from the Harvard of 1912.

As for degrees or diplomas being "useless", it really depends on the degree/diploma and who the employer is that's looking at it at the moment. And in this economy, it really doesn't matter where your degree comes from, because the chances of a college grad finding work right now are pretty damned slim, considering nearly 30% of recent college grads are unemployed or barely employed in the US (last I checked - it may be higher than 30% now) and we just broke the $1-trillion mark on defaulted federal student loans in the last couple months.


This just doesn't even make any sense. I wasn't talking about Obama's robot planes, or shooting anything down.

Please. See how I'm in the 'recent visitors' part of your profile? I know you checked on this thread because I checked your profile for 'last activity' a little bit after I posted my response. I wanted to make sure that you saw it and ignored it so I could call you out on it later when you would try to play it off like you could care less. Kind of like right now.

But carry on. I can't stand to be wrong, so I tried to hold you emotionally hostage with my 'I FOUGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM' card to win an argument.

Oh, you've been on my profile? Then you'll also notice that I haven't really been online very much lately. This thread, and the one I started recently about Jared Polis should be the only threads I've seen recently. Does this mean I read your replies and shuddered with fear? No.

You're taking this very seriously, Versus. I went ahead and bolded part of your reply for you, so you can see what you've said.

I'd like you to know that we all love you, even if you do have a bit of a reality issue. I'm here for you, if you want to talk about it. About what serious business the internet is, rustled jimmies, the whole nine yards.

I know, I know. Calm down, little one

There there, now, let mamma's voice soothe you

Let me go fix you some tea. Wouldn't that be lovely? A nice cup of tea?

Tea is lovely.

First, anybody here can vouch that I say when I am wrong, so fuck off.

It DOES mean that you read AshleyO's response saying that he'd call it good if you apologized, but decided to ignore it. Not a "My bad, bro" or even just a "Fuck you!" Nothing.

I'm pretty sure you're intelligent enough to realize on some level that what you said in this thread was completely fucked, but you're too immature to actually humble yourself enough to admit it. It says a lot about your character and where you are in life.

He was being sarcastic, dipshit.

At this point, it doesn't even matter if he apologizes for his dickbaggery or not. He wants to be wrong, let his stupidity serve as an example to onlookers. Even the worst of us can serve a good use for posterity.

Firearms again? Gnet's cyclic nature continues.

Switching between numbers and percentages, between murders and crimes, and between deaths and percentage changes in deaths is a misleading way to make a comparison.

As for which country's citizens are safer: if Stern's figure of 50 people dying from gun related deaths in the UK and Ireland is right, then even using your figure for gun murders in the US (8775), the US has a firearm murder rate ~37x higher per capita than the UK and Ireland. That's assuming that Stern's number is for murders: if it's for deaths then the UK/Irish per capita number will be even lower.

Sooooo? I've never heard of the term "university" ever been something you had to meet certain criteria for. You know you can call yourself a doctor if all you do is prescribe water that has once touched shark oil because you believe water has memory? The title of doctor once had so much prestige!! Especially back when leeches were a cure for the headache.

The Department of Education has a HUGE list of schools that are accredited by organizations they trust. And it does go a long way to tell if a school is legit, if they didn't bother or didn't qualify to get accredited, something is fishy.


Yeah, universities need to make money, unless you're suggesting they should be fully publicly funded with tax money and free for anyone, like it is in countries like Norway. If you don't think that should be, you can kindly go fuck yourself because this is how capitalism works. Until then, tuition is the only thing that keeps it going, and departments lose funding if they can't fill the seats. A lot of arts departments are getting funding cut actually because everyone goes to trade school now thinking that'll save them from unemployment. Or they get very specific degrees like a Nursing degree, because we always need nurses, right? Well, that was true until the graduating class this year found that Eastern Health is faced with budget cuts and have a hiring freeze. Two years ago we were just desperate for nurses. We're all told B.As are useless, but they're the most flexible.

And actually a lot of grad programs fund students to go there if you got the grades and even employ you while you work on your masters or PhD. Its actually possible for Harvard to be cheaper than state university in California because they operate on a sliding scale if you got the grades.

And regarding transfers, here all recognized universities have an agreement that you can transfer credit equivalents in the first two years of undergrad. In the states however a school has a right to say no whatever their reasons are. I would imagine with so many more universities its trickier to coordinate what all other schools equivalences are. For example, lets take Religious Studies. One school only focuses on Abrahamic religions. Another school allows students the choice to focus on Eastern religions, contemporary religions, or the philosophy of religion, what have you. The credits about Eastern Religions are useless to a program that only teaches Abrahamic religions.

And that's something else about a degree, an undergrad degree usually ends up with you focusing on something, and a masters degree even more so. When you apply for a masters, you have to find a professor at the universities you're looking at that has a topic that interests you AND you had some experience with in your undergrad. On a masters level its no good for me to go on to study Confucianism if I've only learned about it once in an intro course in my first year, and I can't speak Chinese. So if a transfer ultimately leads to no real focus, you're kinda fucked.

Yeah, Harvard was much better back when we didn't know what DNA was.

Uh, not quite. I have a lot of friends who went to this private college that can be okay if you're learning a demonstrable skill like photography, but otherwise everyone knows its a terrible school and only certain trades that have been vetted by provincial committees will get you a job.


So why would you need a gun?

I don't have a problem with schools making money. I have a problem with them making it hand over fist at the expense of their students who are being misled/lied to and forced to retake classes they've already taken just because they transferred schools. Credits that don't apply to a specific subject is not the same thing as gen ed credits not being accepted by one school just because they weren't taken at that school.

Same scenario applies to many fields right now, it's not specific to nursing.

Tech schools are generally cheaper, and will get you into the work force faster and can, at times, allow for a much broader selection of employment options, depending on the degree.

But many students don't go to grad school these days, so how does that benefit them?

What are the employment options of someone who holds a degree in religious studies, aside from teaching?

I chose my degree based on my interest in the field, the huge income potential, the vast majority of employment options that are opened to me (outside of the entertainment industry), and its constant future growth and expansion potential.

Self defense, same reason most people who own guns have them. Because making guns illegal doesn't stop criminals from getting them, it only makes the innocent easier targets for them.

That's why I'm a socialist.

So you agree socialism is the answer here?

Maybe. I know a lot of people who don't have jobs in their field (well, one guy who went to tech school, now works as a salesman at minimum wage at an electronics store that hires people without any post secondary schooling), and there's also the problem that you have to keep up with technology changes or perish. My dad was a computer tech but went to school when DOS was the thing. All he does now is fix debit machines.

Having the options?

My plan is more or less to go on to grad school, if I don't lots of jobs that require a BA or more specifically a social sciences BA would be open to me, to list off some jobs I've seen posted lately, education coordinator at Planned Parenthood, volunteer coordinator, jobs that center around social issues such as women's shelters or homeless shelters, event planning, editing, museum interpreter, and not to mention the value of being able to win most debates about religion.

Another option is that since I'd have a BA with good marks and lots of volunteer experience, I could go on to do a 2 year fast track Social Work degree that would normally take four years. Some people go on to work as clergy but its actually a minority.

Wait, didn't you say you're dirt poor and eat noodles most of the time?

Actually, Canada's illegal handguns come from America. I do believe the same for Mexico. Where would the guns come from if America banned handguns?

I love how Deviant admitted to being a socialist.

I love how his self defense argument was already brought up and he still choses to ignore it.

I love lamp.

Not necessarily. I don't think socialism is needed in order to make schools comply with their accreditation status, so that accreditation actually means something beyond a status symbol.

I've never denied having socialist views on some issues. I've always believed in equal rights for everybody. I don't believe in special treatment for anyone, and I don't believe full on socialism is the answer for everything.

Socialism has destroyed the quality of public schools in the US, dumbing down some kids just to make others feel smarter, instead of forcing them all to live up to the expectations of the real working world and in the long run has made most of them idiots. But parents are just as guilty as the schools for that.

Many fields require continuous training throughout your career in order to stay ahead of the curve, especially in the realm of computer technology. That's not the fault of the school, only the student. And it doesn't always mean you have to go back to school, it just means keeping up with what is going on in your field by networking, reading books on new programming languages, etc. Especially with the amount of information available today, a programmer doesn't necessarily need a degree, and has no real excuse for not keeping up with it. The school I attended offers life long refresher courses to all their grads at no additional cost in order to keep up with the latest trends. That's one of the few things I actually still like about that school.

Cool. I never thought of those as options for such a degree, but it makes sense now that you point it out.

Never said I was "dirt poor" that I can remember. The current conditions could be much better, but that has a lot to do with my own choices over the last few years and where I'm currently living, but I make the best of it with what I have. The equipment and software I use is expensive, and is where the majority of my income goes. My focus has always been in entertainment, specifically character design - more specifically, hyper realism and anatomy, but my degree easily translates over to the more technical aspects of CAD. Outside of working in film and games, there are options for me in just about any industry that requires or utilizes CAD, from advertising, to forensics, military training sims, medical devices, the list goes on. One area that I find extremely fascinating is 3D printing technology, which is still in its infancy but is well on its way to revolutionizing the way everything in the world is manufactured. You asked where guns will come from if America banned them? There is virtually nothing that cannot be produced with 3D printing, and with any material. It may seem crazy but it is where manufacturing is going, and CAD artists and designers are at the head of it.

Currently I'm working on getting my Adobe certification and will follow it with Autodesk certification, which will open up my options even further. In another year or two I should have enough experience to get an instructors position at just about any school in the country that has an animation department, should I choose to go that route, which I've thought about off and on, but would much rather build my own full fledged studio, none of which currently exist where I live, but the market potential is there.

"Socialism sucks because public education sucks."

I love this. I LOVE how Americans seem to have this almost mechanical view on socialist policies and conveniently ignore the very fact that their very own government has people in power who are more interested in seeing these policies fail then seeing them triumph.

It's almost as if they seriously believe that our government is ran by well meaning socialists instead of politicians with a bone to pick with the proletariat and therefore, every short coming of public infrastructure is a result of the inadequacy of socialism.

It's almost as if they can't see that maybe SOME people in power are out to sabotage policies and programs specifically so the voter will believe that privatization is the answer to all things.

Fucking... no intellectual access or communication with the "every man".

I mean, let's not even go there with the religious right's full on assault on science education.

I didn't see where self defense was brought up. Maybe I missed it. I just saw a lot of bitching between you and some other dude.

Still, making guns illegal will not make them go away. Making drugs illegal has not made drugs go away. Name anything that's illegal that is no longer in circulation.

If it were up to you, what would you do to improve public schools?

Firstly, fuck you.

I didn't say they would no longer be in circulation. I said that gun crime rates would drop. A lot. That is a fact. I take examples from every other fucking country that has done it.

I can see it now. Next you're going to say that if you make owning handguns illegal because they're dangerous, you should do the same for kitchen and fast cars.

That wasn't the point of my post, but as far as improving public schools; I do have at least a precautionary approach to the solution.

First off, the point of my post was to balk at the American idea that privatization of anything is an improvement out of hand. Rarely is it the case that anything is improved publicly or privately by switching hands.

My initial approach would be to cut the military funding and bring that kind of cash spending back home on several public services. If you think spending that much was bad and sent our economy to shit, then we've got a bigger problem on our hands and in which case, I'm not entirely sure, but I can see that privatization isn't exactly the solution.

But back to that kind of spending. If that spending is still possible, then we don't need to dismantle the institution of education, but improve it. My initial desire would be to teach a course in anthropology each semester starting from 7th grade to 12th. What I actually like about teaching anthropology is that it gives religious communities an avenue to have students learn about religions, cultures, different kinds of people, ect so that they don't go trying to invade in places they have no business being in like science classes. That sounds like an appropriate compromise and inoculates future generations from several different kinds of magical thinking. This could potentially break certain indoctrinations that kids are subjected to by the faith imposed on them. At least it gives them a chance to make educated decisions about society and their role in it without being force fed one world view.

I would also have History classes reworked. The American narrative of history is pretty false especially when it comes to revolutions and war. Both sides of those conflicts should be taught in an unbiased and objective framing. So yes, what this means is that a lot of kids will learn that Americans and the European settlers weren't good guys in the least or at least not all the time.

I'm getting ahead of myself and giving you too much already for something I wanted to be really short.

My post doesn't account for the culture of America. Americans tend to be anti-intellectual. Even with the things I proposed, Americans would bristle at the mention that the USA was ever a bad guy in war. Americans would still gnash their teeth over their children being taught evolution in the science classroom. There seems to be a certain fear of facts in the American dialogue and that's not exactly something that can be fixed by privatizing education. Not only are Americans anti-intellectual, but they're also not exactly wealthy enough to afford private education across the board. But if you want to know what I think about the state of education, it'd be that; really. Education is probably suffering most from the cultural mirage of anti-intellectual sentiment.

Going back to something Saya said, gun ownership is legal in Canada and Mexico, so where is the justification that illegal guns in either country only come from the US? Both countries allow gun ownership at 18 - in Canada, as young as 12 in some cases. In the US, the legal age for rifles is 18, handguns, etc is 21. And all guns manufactured in the US have to be marked and serialized.




Crime is going down in the US anyway, as I've already pointed out and backed up with source directly to the FBI's website. Statistically, violent crime is the lowest it's been since 2000.

Most gun crimes in the US are committed by gangs who do not obtain their guns via the legal route. Making guns illegal is not going to stop that.

You cannot legally own a gun if you have a criminal record.

You cannot legally own a gun if you have a history of mental illness.

I'm well aware that these laws do not always prevent criminals or mentally ill people from obtaining guns, such as the case with VA tech where - IIRC, the shooter had a history of mental illness but somehow was still able to purchase a gun. That is the fault of whoever was in charge of his records tho, not the fault of gun laws.

While I agree with and support legislation that makes background checks more thorough, and makes it more difficult to obtain guns via alternate means, such as craigslist, flea markets, etc., without going through proper background checks - I even support legislation that requires training courses at purchase, on how to properly handle a firearm - I will never support making gun ownership illegal and neither will the vast majority of Americans. And yes, it very much is a sense of entitlement, which is provided by the 2nd amendment. Many would argue that it is also a responsibility as a citizen.

I've always been around guns. For as long as I can remember, both my grandfathers owned guns (one being a wwII vet, the other a korean war vet), my dad has always owned guns, my uncle casts his own bullets and has for decades, which he learned from his dad. Who knows how much ammo that man has by now. At last count my brother has 7 or 8 guns and shotguns. All growing up, my one granddad kept a revolver strapped to the bottom of the kitchen table pointed at the door "just in case". It's still there 7 years after he's gone. While it's a little extreme, we've always thought it was more than a little comical. I can't remember any of them ever using their guns for hunting or going to any shooting ranges. They keep them for protection, not sport.

I don't even know how many guns my family owns, but I have never once been tempted to grab one and go on a spree no matter how pissed off I've gotten. I see them as a means of defense, not aggression. It provides an extra sense of security knowing that if some fucker breaks in my house or tries to rob me while I'm out somewhere I always have a gun within reach and while I may not live through the confrontation, I will make damned sure he won't either. And I really don't give a fuck if that offends you or anybody else. It is my human right to defend myself and my family from an aggressor, as it is everyone else's, and that is what the majority of responsible gun owners in the US see it as.

I don't know of any public schools that still teach religion. I know that in Nevada nothing about religion of any kind can be mentioned in schools, which is fine on the surface but goes too far when it limits the areas of world history that can be discussed, which I think is bullshit. You can't learn about ancient Egypt, for example, without learning about their religion and culture, therefore those areas of history are avoided or grazed over in a sentence or two.

I like the idea of anthropology classes, as this could very well lead to an ease of racism as well.

I think teaching them how to read, write and count again would be a better start though.

What are your thoughts on the voucher system in conjunction with the reallocation of funding?

The latest Spree Shooter picked a "Gun-Free Zone" to carry out his rampage inside a Colorado Movie theater.

And yet you lot prattle on about bullshit that has no real meaning.

You claim to be a gun person, but yet you post this here?


Ok, lets break this down logically, you know, using some basic common sense and reason here...

The shooter was covered from head to toe in level 3 body armour. He was in a crowded movie cinema with the lights dimmed. He has a fully automatic assault rifle with a 100 round drum.

YOU are saying that if for example some guy had a concealed handgun they would have been able to stand up in the ensuing melee and confusion in dim light with people running everywhere get a proper bead and take down the heavily armed and armoured man with a handgun?

First off, handgun bullets would bounce off like they did in say for example the Bank Of America robbery years ago. The best you could hope for is to piss him off so he turns his fire on you. That's even before you try to take into account the people running, pushing, and screaming you would have to deal with and of course the horrible lighting conditions which would be present. After he started firing the air would have been filled with smoke as well, so a movie being projected through the middle of the room with all the smoke would have made for even more chaos.

You think during all of that you, or someone else, would have been able to magically stand up without being noticed, draw your weapon, and get a proper bead on the target before you were shot or in anyway disturbed by the crowd, in those conditions. Your are either high or just plain stupid.

Odds are you would have died, quick, and more than likely killed a few innocent members of the crowd by accident before you got killed. That's also not taking into account the police arriving and possibly shooting you since you are the only one there with a gun who is also firing off rounds inside a cinema.

But please, continue that train of thought because if someone there had a handgun I'm sure rainbows would be shooting out of their arse and they would have been able to go all Bruce Willis on him and shoot him right in a weak spot and killed him with one shot sure saving countless lives.

Yes, this scenario exists in that great world where if a tyrannical government in America were to take over it could easily be taken down by people with guns, because the US government never would be able to stop a group of people with guns *cough* waco *cough, cough*.

You know. I would imagine that Deadman has a fairly impressive armory by civilian standards. I would also argue that Deadman, gun for gun, gear for gear, is MASSIVELY outclassed by cops and the military.

He could not mount an effective assault or defense against a capability like that and THIS shooter came close to being about as capable as any guy decked out in SWAT gear.

This is not the time or place Deadman should be making his points.