quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, Japan is 7th on the list of nations represented in US schools. It isn't unusual to see over a dozen countries represented at any given TOEFL session.

Your original assertion stands unproven, and your bringing ethnicity into it seems beside the point.

In spite of a useless primary system, the US universities offer something of value to the world. In many cases, I suspect it because the students would have been denied the right to an education back home because of social standing, or being fast tracked into the trades by the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, Japan is 7th on the list of nations represented in US schools. It isn't unusual to see over a dozen countries represented at any given TOEFL session.
Your original assertion stands unproven, and your bringing ethnicity into it seems beside the point.
In spite of a useless primary system, the US universities offer something of value to the world. In many cases, I suspect it because the students would have been denied the right to an education back home because of social standing, or being fast tracked into the trades by the government.

This statement is somewhat of a miss-representation. The highest rated college in the world for education in 2012 was Harvard University. So of course, any who would want the best education would go there. But, at 2012, the tuition of said Harvard was $57,950 not including transportation. So that sort of cut out those unfortunate souls who were smart enough to get in but didn't have that 60K a year to pay.Do we have some of the best colleges in the world, you bet. At 60K a student and an average enrollment of 27,392 a year, that is a nice wad of cash to put towards keeping the place at the top in terms of teachers, tools, and atmosphere. US universities, the good ones, offer value because they cost enough to. Are there some good ones that don't cost your first born to attend, sure. But those you have to search for, or get lucky enough to find. And meanwhile, kids who may have been able to cure cancer, or solve cold fusion, are working at McDonalds because they couldn't afford the good school.

quote:

This statement is somewhat of a miss-representation. The highest rated college in the world for education in 2012 was Harvard University. So of course, any who would want the best education would go there. But, at 2012, the tuition of said Harvard was $57,950 not including transportation. So that sort of cut out those unfortunate souls who were smart enough to get in but didn't have that 60K a year to pay.Do we have some of the best colleges in the world, you bet. At 60K a student and an average enrollment of 27,392 a year, that is a nice wad of cash to put towards keeping the place at the top in terms of teachers, tools, and atmosphere. US universities, the good ones, offer value because they cost enough to. Are there some good ones that don't cost your first born to attend, sure. But those you have to search for, or get lucky enough to find. And meanwhile, kids who may have been able to cure cancer, or solve cold fusion, are working at McDonalds because they couldn't afford the good school.

quote:

I didn't conflate them, reality did. 'The right to an education' is simply a slogan.
The educational system is a mess.

But then again, someone would have to want to actually *fix* the problems in order to start with step one... admitting they exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If education is a human right, that is, a right tied to the being being a human (as opposed to a dog, cat, chupacabra, etc.), how is it that it has an age limit or attainment level cap? Is education's point to maximize society, or a tool for a person to use to improve him/herself? If it's the latter, by not supporting all people equally (regardless of whatever metric you use to determine "merit"), you are supporting the creation of separate classes of citizens. The person that didn't merit a post-secondary education has just been given a much more difficult path towards lifting hi/her lifestyle, while you've just made it "easier" for the kid that merit a higher education.

It is both a tool for self actualization AND a benefit to community. Along with Rights come Responsibilities. If a young person has squandered that Right by failing to achieve a minimal level of merit to continue it simply imperils any further right to financially supported education. However, there are community colleges and other venues for remedial education available to that person to reclaim some merit and then go on to post-secondary education. The Right is still available.

I would not be so quick as to cast aspersions on those that don't succeed in education as "squandering" their right. If the parents aren't supportive or aren't providing a supportive environment, is it the kid's fault for the lack of merit achievement?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If education is a human right, that is, a right tied to the being being a human (as opposed to a dog, cat, chupacabra, etc.), how is it that it has an age limit or attainment level cap? Is education's point to maximize society, or a tool for a person to use to improve him/herself? If it's the latter, by not supporting all people equally (regardless of whatever metric you use to determine "merit"), you are supporting the creation of separate classes of citizens. The person that didn't merit a post-secondary education has just been given a much more difficult path towards lifting hi/her lifestyle, while you've just made it "easier" for the kid that merit a higher education.

It is both a tool for self actualization AND a benefit to community. Along with Rights come Responsibilities. If a young person has squandered that Right by failing to achieve a minimal level of merit to continue it simply imperils any further right to financially supported education. However, there are community colleges and other venues for remedial education available to that person to reclaim some merit and then go on to post-secondary education. The Right is still available.

I would not be so quick as to cast aspersions on those that don't succeed in education as "squandering" their right. If the parents aren't supportive or aren't providing a supportive environment, is it the kid's fault for the lack of merit achievement?

Whatever the reason does not change the fact that the Right is available. The reasons for lack of achievement, effort, motivation, etc are an entirely different issue, doncha think?

quote:

If it is a human right, it is due solely because the person is a human, not because of age, merit, or anything else. A human right can only be taken away in extreme cases (ie. as punishment for inhuman crimes). If it comes down to a money issue, well, that's now a privilege, is it not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

This statement is somewhat of a miss-representation. The highest rated college in the world for education in 2012 was Harvard University. So of course, any who would want the best education would go there. But, at 2012, the tuition of said Harvard was $57,950 not including transportation. So that sort of cut out those unfortunate souls who were smart enough to get in but didn't have that 60K a year to pay.Do we have some of the best colleges in the world, you bet. At 60K a student and an average enrollment of 27,392 a year, that is a nice wad of cash to put towards keeping the place at the top in terms of teachers, tools, and atmosphere. US universities, the good ones, offer value because they cost enough to. Are there some good ones that don't cost your first born to attend, sure. But those you have to search for, or get lucky enough to find. And meanwhile, kids who may have been able to cure cancer, or solve cold fusion, are working at McDonalds because they couldn't afford the good school.

Harvard University has an invested endowment fund worth about $31 billion. "Endowment supports academic programs, research, and financial aid programs; 60% of students receive need-based scholarships" SOURCE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, Japan is 7th on the list of nations represented in US schools. It isn't unusual to see over a dozen countries represented at any given TOEFL session.

Your original assertion stands unproven, and your bringing ethnicity into it seems beside the point.

In spite of a useless primary system, the US universities offer something of value to the world. In many cases, I suspect it because the students would have been denied the right to an education back home because of social standing, or being fast tracked into the trades by the government.

This statement is somewhat of a miss-representation. The highest rated college in the world for education in 2012 was Harvard University. So of course, any who would want the best education would go there. But, at 2012, the tuition of said Harvard was $57,950 not including transportation. So that sort of cut out those unfortunate souls who were smart enough to get in but didn't have that 60K a year to pay.Do we have some of the best colleges in the world, you bet. At 60K a student and an average enrollment of 27,392 a year, that is a nice wad of cash to put towards keeping the place at the top in terms of teachers, tools, and atmosphere. US universities, the good ones, offer value because they cost enough to. Are there some good ones that don't cost your first born to attend, sure. But those you have to search for, or get lucky enough to find. And meanwhile, kids who may have been able to cure cancer, or solve cold fusion, are working at McDonalds because they couldn't afford the good school.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
The man I was dating lives here. It had nothing to do with education, and waiting a couple of years by getting a BA at home first would have defeated the purpose of moving.

Thank you for taking my questions as intended.

Why would it have defeated the purpose of moving?

Because the goal in moving wasn't getting an education, it was to be closer to the man I dates. Delaying that move for several years by getting a BA at home, to then have a decreased chance of getting a visa would have made the focus of the move education, which I could get at a better, higher, and cheaper level back home. The goal was to increase time spend with him as much as possible, as fast as possible, and as easily as possible... spending time getting a BA at home while keeping us apart would have probably ended the relationship, and if the relationship had ended before even moving, there wouldn't have been a point in moving. So getting a BA first, would have defeated the purpose...

Edited to add: When you find foreign students in less prestigious American colleges, especially at the community college level, there's a good chance they're far more interested in getting into the US than they are about getting a US education. They may be -and probably are- still interested in getting an eduction, but the reason they're getting it here instead of abroad has got little to do with their interest in American colleges specifically, and everything to do with their interest in getting an easy green card.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The 'misrepresentation' is all yours, since your post has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, Japan is 7th on the list of nations represented in US schools. It isn't unusual to see over a dozen countries represented at any given TOEFL session.

Your original assertion stands unproven, and your bringing ethnicity into it seems beside the point.

In spite of a useless primary system, the US universities offer something of value to the world. In many cases, I suspect it because the students would have been denied the right to an education back home because of social standing, or being fast tracked into the trades by the government.

This statement is somewhat of a miss-representation. The highest rated college in the world for education in 2012 was Harvard University. So of course, any who would want the best education would go there. But, at 2012, the tuition of said Harvard was $57,950 not including transportation. So that sort of cut out those unfortunate souls who were smart enough to get in but didn't have that 60K a year to pay.Do we have some of the best colleges in the world, you bet. At 60K a student and an average enrollment of 27,392 a year, that is a nice wad of cash to put towards keeping the place at the top in terms of teachers, tools, and atmosphere. US universities, the good ones, offer value because they cost enough to. Are there some good ones that don't cost your first born to attend, sure. But those you have to search for, or get lucky enough to find. And meanwhile, kids who may have been able to cure cancer, or solve cold fusion, are working at McDonalds because they couldn't afford the good school.

quote:

If it is a human right, it is due solely because the person is a human, not because of age, merit, or anything else. A human right can only be taken away in extreme cases (ie. as punishment for inhuman crimes). If it comes down to a money issue, well, that's now a privilege, is it not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather


Nope, if you simply follow what you were talking about from the beginning, that the 10% foreign student ratio was a defining reason for why other countries flock here for education instead of staying in their own, my example proves otherwise. It is because of the cost vs. quality that attracts them. Honestly didn't think I would need to explain that, but there you go

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

I said international students, I didn't call them 'foreign'... you need to own that yourself.

Second, the notion that the 10% figure is the 'defining reason' that international students come to the US is utterly irrational, and I never said anything even remotely resembling it. What I actually posted was that that in many cases the reason is that the government back home decides for the student what their educational and career lot in life will be, and a US diploma is a way to improve one's chances.

And finally, you chose to conceal the most obvious fact, which is that international students don't pay US tuition rates, they pay rates that are 2, 3, even 4 times higher... making any assertion that they come here because it is so cheap, illogical.

So again, the misrepresentations are all yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather


Nope, if you simply follow what you were talking about from the beginning, that the 10% foreign student ratio was a defining reason for why other countries flock here for education instead of staying in their own, my example proves otherwise. It is because of the cost vs. quality that attracts them. Honestly didn't think I would need to explain that, but there you go

quote:


Which is why our colleges are around 10% international students... because of US isolationism and our inferior universities...

quote:


I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, Japan is 7th on the list of nations represented in US schools. It isn't unusual to see over a dozen countries represented at any given TOEFL session.

Your original assertion stands unproven, and your bringing ethnicity into it seems beside the point.

In spite of a useless primary system, the US universities offer something of value to the world. In many cases, I suspect it because the students would have been denied the right to an education back home because of social standing, or being fast tracked into the trades by the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If it is a human right, it is due solely because the person is a human, not because of age, merit, or anything else. A human right can only be taken away in extreme cases (ie. as punishment for inhuman crimes). If it comes down to a money issue, well, that's now a privilege, is it not?

Well no. That is not the way Article 26 of the Declaration of Human Rights reads:
Article 26.
• (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Shall be made equally accessible . . on the basis of merit. It is quite clearly stated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

If it is a human right, it is due solely because the person is a human, not because of age, merit, or anything else. A human right can only be taken away in extreme cases (ie. as punishment for inhuman crimes). If it comes down to a money issue, well, that's now a privilege, is it not?

This is a very odd claim to make - that human rights cannot be limited by any exogenous factor. Many of our existing and operative human rights are limited by external factors such as age.
One everyday example is the right to vote, which is limited by age in every country that allows people to exercise this right. I have never heard any one assert that the right to vote should be open to all regardless of age.
It seems to me that you are taking a dubious philosophical position - that we are entitled to our human rights purely because of our physical humanity, that they are somehow inherent in every living being* - and applying it very literally.
* There is a school of thought that argues that this is a convenient fiction -that human rights are really human inventions - and locating their origin in the body is a way of 'naturalising' them, of placing them beyond dispute. This is not a comment on the inherent worth of those human rights, more a reminder they were conceived and constructed through human thought, that they aren't 'given in Nature'.

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

quote:

If something doesn't have basis in a person's humanity, then it isn't a human right. And, it isn't a "very odd claim to make" considering:
quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Voting rights aren't human rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

If something doesn't have basis in a person's humanity, then it isn't a human right. And, it isn't a "very odd claim to make" considering:
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Voting rights aren't human rights.

Most of the world bases their approach to the question of human rights on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the American document) which opens with:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," (emphasis added)
This declaration states as Article 21:
"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
which, in my reading, adds up to a right to vote as part of our overall human rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Most of the world bases their approach to the question of human rights on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [...]