[ccurtis189]

http://i.imgur.com/A0zdV.jpg

I don't think there's any hope left for this country...

[Roosh]

Looks like sarcasm.

[Excelsior]

Lol I remember this

Lynzee Stauss

[Gmac]

(01-25-2012 07:51 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Lol I remember this

Lynzee Stauss

[Basil Ransom]

It's funny, I agree with the satirical piece somewhat - from my community, I know plenty of girls that go to college and even graduate school, and they get married at like 23 or 24. And it's like, come on, you're just going to end up a housewife, and I won't think any less of you because of that... but all this education of yours is just a colossal waste of money.

[Tuthmosis]

Is it just me, or did Lynzee Strauss (if those two are really the same girl) put on a few pounds?

   

[Tuthmosis]

(01-25-2012 08:02 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

It's funny, I agree with the satirical piece somewhat - from my community, I know plenty of girls that go to college and even graduate school, and they get married at like 23 or 24. And it's like, come on, you're just going to end up a housewife, and I won't think any less of you because of that... but all this education of yours is just a colossal waste of money.

There was a whole piece in the NY Times a year or so back about girls at the nation's top schools enrolling there with the sole intention of snaring a quality man. They were, presumably, smart (or at least accomplished) enough to get there, but they had other priorities.

Back in college, I knew some girls at these same schools who, when asked what their major was, would respond, "Husbandry." Pretty funny. They were pretty feminine and attractive. If they held up their end of their bargain, this might not be so bad--at least in theory. They were still in their prime, they would instruct any children with a top-rate education, and they knew their role. Old-school.

I'm not sure Lynzee Strauss meets these requirements, judging by her skanky tattoos and woefully inadequate grammar.

[Basil Ransom]

(01-25-2012 08:08 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 08:02 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

It's funny, I agree with the satirical piece somewhat - from my community, I know plenty of girls that go to college and even graduate school, and they get married at like 23 or 24. And it's like, come on, you're just going to end up a housewife, and I won't think any less of you because of that... but all this education of yours is just a colossal waste of money.

There was a whole piece in the NY Times a year or so back about girls at the nation's top schools enrolling there with the sole intention of snaring a quality man. They were, presumably, smart (or at least accomplished) enough to get there, but they had other priorities.

Back in college, I knew some girls at these same schools who, when asked what their major was, would respond, "Husbandry." Pretty funny. They were pretty feminine and attractive. If they held up their end of their bargain, this might not be so bad--at least in theory. They were still in their prime, they would instruct any children with a top-rate education, and they knew their role. Old-school.

I'm not sure Lynzee Strauss meets these requirements, judging by her skanky tattoos and woefully inadequate grammar.

Ha. The girls I met weren't so humorous. More like earnest. They're convinced they're going to take the corporate world by storm, and seriously planned on extensive careers. A few years in, they see it's a whole lot less glamorous than it was made out to be, and the attractive ones marry a man and drop out. Having kids is a path out for them.

I live by this wealthy little town that's chock full of sexy blonde MILFs that do nothing but yoga, sushi, botox and Whole Foods all day (you probably know exactly where I'm talking about Tuth), then pick up the kids from school in the Range Rover. Then they obsess over their kids' education right as they leave them in the hands of a maid who didn't graduate from high school and hardly speaks English, for eight hours a day. They go on tropical vacations just so they can brag about it to their friends afterwards, who invariably have done the same exact thing.

[MiXX]

I'm officially afraid to write on this forum now. Ivy League SOB's from Brown University like Athlone McGiniss might give my post an F too!


Mixx

[Excelsior]

(01-25-2012 08:52 PM)MiXX Wrote:  

I'm officially afraid to write on this forum now. Ivy League SOB's from Brown University like Athlone McGiniss might give my post an F too!


Mixx

As much as I'd love to take credit for that lovely piece of satire, it wasn't my work. No worries bro.

[Timoteo]

(01-25-2012 08:08 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 08:02 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

It's funny, I agree with the satirical piece somewhat - from my community, I know plenty of girls that go to college and even graduate school, and they get married at like 23 or 24. And it's like, come on, you're just going to end up a housewife, and I won't think any less of you because of that... but all this education of yours is just a colossal waste of money.

There was a whole piece in the NY Times a year or so back about girls at the nation's top schools enrolling there with the sole intention of snaring a quality man. They were, presumably, smart (or at least accomplished) enough to get there, but they had other priorities.

Back in college, I knew some girls at these same schools who, when asked what their major was, would respond, "Husbandry." Pretty funny. They were pretty feminine and attractive. If they held up their end of their bargain, this might not be so bad--at least in theory. They were still in their prime, they would instruct any children with a top-rate education, and they knew their role. Old-school.

I'm not sure Lynzee Strauss meets these requirements, judging by her skanky tattoos and woefully inadequate grammar.

Tuth, I recall a piece in the NYT a few years ago about IVY educated women who didn't want to enter the workforce at all...they just wanted to start families. The article dealt with the question of whether or not they should have been occupying a highly-coveted seat in some of the world's finest institutions of higher learning, and essentially wasting mommy and daddy's money for an expensive, framed piece of paper that they weren't going to put to any use.

There are still plenty of girls that go to good colleges that are there to latch on to a smart guy that looks like he has a bright future. Sure, they may work for a few years themselves, but that's just until they can find a high-riser in the corporate world so they can quit.

[Excelsior]

(01-26-2012 12:16 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Tuth, I recall a piece in the NYT a few years ago about IVY educated women who didn't want to enter the workforce at all...they just wanted to start families. The article dealt with the question of whether or not they should have been occupying a highly-coveted seat in some of the world's finest institutions of higher learning, and essentially wasting mommy and daddy's money for an expensive, framed piece of paper that they weren't going to put to any use.

There are still plenty of girls that go to good colleges that are there to latch on to a smart guy that looks like he has a bright future. Sure, they may work for a few years themselves, but that's just until they can find a high-riser in the corporate world so they can quit.

That's a good point. I can personally think of a few females with this mindset on my campus. I'd never looked at it that way before, but you're right-they really aren't going to make the most out of an Ivy degree.

Many will just come here and major in Art History, Languages or something similarly flimsy ("flimsy" in the sense that high-paying jobs in those fields aren't common and average the grade inflation in those departments is absurdly high), "find themselves" (read: sleep around with fratstars, dick around in Europe for a few months, drink, do coke, etc), work a little after graduation (maybe investment banking if they're particularly ambitious, which they can get via connections or teach for Americ/US Senata/ Art/Fashion or Media internship, etc) and marry as soon as they find the "right" (tall, most likely white, good pedigree, and good job preferably in finance, etc) guy, at which point they'll use the degree even less.

In theory, this is "unjust"-these women are taking spots that more serious academic-types could make better long-term use of. But when you understand what many Ivy League schools REALLY are (read: safe havens for the elite to deposit their kids, allow them to network and give them something to do/learn in order to perpetuate the wealth for another generation), it makes sense. In most cases (my Ivy fits this bill particularly well), they're not designed to be all that practical and altruistic. They're merely the intellectual tools of the wealthy, who run the boards, build the buildings, determine the school's culture and donate hundreds of millions annually.

The wealthy quite like it this way. They have little girls that they love, and they want them to live well. They also want them to marry well. Sending them to an Ivy allows their girls to get their intellectual stimulation, network (so they can work and earn money if they feel like it down the line) and puts them in position to marry well with a man in good standing via interconnected alumni networks or campus socializing. Thus, sending them to an Ivy (and ensuring the Ivy takes them) makes perfect sense, whether the girls want to use the degree or not.

That, and money talks. Rich men want their daughters educated as much as they want their sons in the door, and these aren't men you can ignore.

[Tuthmosis]

(01-27-2012 04:56 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

In theory, this is "unjust"-these women are taking spots that more serious academic-types could make better long-term use of. But when you understand what many Ivy League schools REALLY are (read: safe havens for the elite to deposit their kids, allow them to network and give them something to do/learn in order to perpetuate the wealth for another generation), it makes sense. In most cases (my Ivy fits this bill particularly well), they're not designed to be all that practical and altruistic. They're merely the intellectual tools of the wealthy, who run the boards, build the buildings, determine the school's culture and donate hundreds of millions annually.

This is where me and several of you guys part company. What I say below will be an unpopular, minority position.

I don't see a university education--especially an elite university education--as simple trade-school training. Call me a romantic or old-fashioned, but I see it as enlightenment. I'm an old-school arts-and-letters man, through and through. I don't think trade-oriented majors (business, for instance) have any place at the university, especially the "good schools." I think universities are for learning shit that may or may not be practical. Writing well, for instance, is a less and less valued (and, quite frankly, paid) skill. The arts and letters (like beauty itself) are by their very nature impractical. Learning about literature is about as practical as wearing high heels or long-ass hair. We like the latter for the same reason that the former is worthwhile.

I don't see women at these places as "taking up space" that could go to some social-climbing, would-be capital accumulator. I think that's precisely what ruins these schools: women and men with "agendas" to go to some paper-chasing Wall Street. These are places for scholars and learners, not corporate-drones-in-waiting. I, for one, support having bitches learn something and then go be at home or chill with me. I'd much rather be fucking a cute girl that can tell me about some paintings than some girl who just learned Human Resources Management at the local state school. If I ever breed with some girl, I would mind her being able to school my offspring in the advancements of Western Civilization.

I'm, in fact, a recent addition to my current rotation went to an elite school like this. After boning down last week, we went out to some pizza and she drew me some pictures with skills she acquired in her totally impractical, "space-taking" Art major. I saved the drawings and it enriched my evening.

[iknowexactly]

(01-27-2012 05:27 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I saved the drawings and it enriched my evening.

+1
Right on bro!

Down with sneering hedgies and their ultimate goal of coating the world with Skynet approved self-monetizing plastic!

CONVERSATION WITH A VACUOUS RICH WASP:
"He was really successful. "
"Really, what did he do?"
"He was in finance and did VERY well."
"You mean he made a lot of money?"
"Yes"
"And what else? "
"What do you mean?"

==========

“The beautiful is as useful as the useful." He added after a moment’s silence, "Perhaps more so”
― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables

[Excelsior]

(01-27-2012 05:27 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

This is where me and several of you guys part company. What I say below will be an unpopular, minority position.

I don't see a university education--especially an elite university education--as simple trade-school training. Call me a romantic or old-fashioned, but I see it as enlightenment. I'm an old-school arts-and-letters man, through and through. I don't think trade-oriented majors (business, for instance) have any place at the university, especially the "good schools." I think universities are for learning shit that may or may not be practical. Writing well, for instance, is a less and less valued (and, quite frankly, paid) skill. The arts and letters (like beauty itself) are by their very nature impractical. Learning about literature is about as practical as wearing high heels or long-ass hair. We like the latter for the same reason that the former is worthwhile.

I don't see women at these places as "taking up space" that could go to some social-climbing, would-be capital accumulator. I think that's precisely what ruins these schools: women and men with "agendas" to go to some paper-chasing Wall Street. These are places for scholars and learners, not corporate-drones-in-waiting. I, for one, support having bitches learn something and then go be at home or chill with me. I'd much rather be fucking a cute girl that can tell me about some paintings than some girl who just learned Human Resources Management at the local state school. If I ever breed with some girl, I would mind her being able to school my offspring in the advancements of Western Civilization.

I'm, in fact, a recent addition to my current rotation went to an elite school like this. After boning down last week, we went out to some pizza and she drew me some pictures with skills she acquired in her totally impractical, "space-taking" Art major. I saved the drawings and it enriched my evening.

I see where you are coming from. Hell, I'm not a hard sciences major myself (History), so I can't throw too many stones.

That being said, I don't intend on chilling out after college or settling down. I fully intend on going to grad school and entering the professional world with a professional degree, using it to kickstart a long (and what will at times be challenging) career.

I mention this because of the concept of ROI-Return on Investment.

For someone in my position, shelling out $50,000 annually to go to school (or angling via scholarship/aid to get someone else to do so) makes sense. I'm expensive to train, sure, but I'll be using that training daily for a very long time to perform a significant economic function (upper level white collar employee, in my case a lawyer).

Somebody who goes to school for engineering or medicine and intends on entering that field is probably even more valuable from an ROI perspective. Not only will his use of the training regularly for the rest of his life recoup its cost (and provide a large benefit to society), but he'll also be able to personaly recoup its cost with his earnings (assuming he's built up some debt, as most students do). The return on the large investment spent training him in undergrad is solid for just about everyone-him, his school (who presumably will receive some of those earning back) and society, who'll receive another high-functioning employee doing good work.

Things change when you consider some of the women Timoteo and I mentioned. They also shell out $50,000 a year annually. While they're expensive to train, they do not intend to lean on this training as heavily as my prior examples (read: they don't see themselves becoming career women). They're unable or unwilling to use the $200,000+ product they purchased, and also unable to recoup much of that cost.

Thus, what you see here is a poor ROI.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the concept you outline-there are obviously many benefits for a woman in education.
That being said, if you're a woman who isn't keen on a career, $200,000+ seems like quite a bit to spend. You don't maximize that education's use in a career and you won't earn nearly enough to recoup the costs of it all, instead likely saddling any future husband with the debt (something men should watch out for-this is how a lot of sugar babies and desperate late-20's/early 30's husband hunters are born).

Only the rich (to whom $100-200,000 really isn't that much) seem justified in taking this road. If you're not a rich girl and you're not keen on becoming a career woman, it doesn't seem sensible to spend $200,000 just for the hell of it. The only ones who benefit from your doing so are college accounting/budget offices and banks. A more affordable, yet still valuable education can be had at a number of other schools-yes, even the public ones.

Bottomline: While I understand your desire to breed with a more enlightened, educated woman, would you also be willing to pay the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt she's accumulated via college (went to expensive school + didn't want a career)? Do you want to take on the bad credit that'll come with that too?

Again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a woman not being keen on a career and wanting instead to settle down-on the contrary, I prefer this mindset in a potential wife. But if that's your goal, you can get there for less.