Is college an unwise investment debate
The Cambridge Union Society is hosting a debate tomorrow together with +Versus. You can get free tickets (I think also for non-members) but you can also follow it here at +Google+
Maybe something also debate worthy for the +Science on Google+ people.
Originally shared by +Intelligence Squared
Is college an unwise investment?
Tomorrow evening our panel of experts will debate this very question. Head over to http://versus.intelligencesquared.com/ now to cast your vote, then tune in from 7pm-8pm UK Time #VsUni
7 Replies to “Is college an unwise investment debate”
What is better, to be poor in a rich nation or rich in a poor nation?
THAT IS A DEEP THOUGHT . WISDOM IS BETTER THAN RICHES , AS LOVE IS BETTER THAN LUST.
+Randall Lee Reetz that all depends how rich you are in the poor country. If you see how some of the dictators of Africa can have second houses in Paris and London I think we can clearly state that being rich in a poor country is better 🙂
Not actually. I enjoy all the knowledge I learned in University – however, I haven't got a Diploma and I may not get one ever. I decided to live with the people instead. I traded the promise of feeble security for a life. Maybe I lost a chance, but I feel that the things I gained are far more important.
So, College is a good investment – but since knowledge is practically infinite, you'll never have learned enough. It's all artificial in the end. It boils down to the question if you can work when somebody needs it.
Wait, the answer to my question must be scalable. Meaning, it is meaningless to talk about being a king as only a few people can ever be king. Rich people in a poor country as a demonstrable segment doesn't include kings. Rich in a poor country means having lots of money in a currency that has no value anywhere else.
+Randall Lee Reetz I knew you meant that – I just took the "obvious" step to highlight it is all about what reference we are really talking about. How poor is poor and how rich is rich.
In the end both can be the correct answer as it all depends on "how happy" you can be in that given situation and quality of life is not a quantitative trait that you can just measure.
Although, saying that I think we can all agree that being poor in a country with social securities will triumph being poor in a country without!
OK. And that sort of makes me sick. Only the rich from the richest countries would ever think that poor is equivalent to insightful or enlightened. Only the rich from rich countries would ever forget so completely how hard it is to think clearly and deeply and concerted when you are thinking about your wife that just died in childbirth. Your kid that just died in a local militia conflict, your husband that just died because he couldn't get to a hospital during a mud slide, your mother who was raped 20 times in a civil war, your father who battled intestinal parasites and malaria… life in a poor country isn't accurately described as having a grand old time performing ancient fire-pit dances under the starlight… and having less cash. Poor countries are poor. Poor means dying young and dying in pain and squalor. Poor countries have poor infrastructures, poor education access, shitty health care, non-existant transportation, non-competitive vocational training and job markets, crapy communications and media, no libraries, no plumbing, disease and pestilence, oppressive and unstable governance, a culture of dishonesty and graft, epic fear and paranoia, reactionary fundamentalism and cult of personality rule by force and threat leaders, back room dealings, insane superstitious and spirit world oppression, intense those-people-aren't-as-human-as-us-people racism and tribalism, sexist control over women, arranged weddings, forced extreme punishment for breaking harshly oppressive rules, etc. etc. etc.