Princeton Review

[GretnaGrn]

My wife pointed out this binary outcome:

So you lead the nation in working for free, I thought you Tulane people were supposed to be smart, or you all are so rich you don't need money from your job.

She has a point, it is hard to pay the rent when you don't have an income.

1. There is a thing called "other driven." Your economics class should have covered it. If you're judging how smart someone is by their income then that's much more a comment on you than whoever you're judging.
2. There are many public interest jobs--with paychecks--that can cover rent.
3. Most employers don't care about where your skills came from, just that you can show you have them. Unpaid volunteering or internships all serve that purpose.

1) She's just pointing out she thinks working for free is stupid. She didn't come from money so that makes perfect sense to her.
2) True, but they don't pay much, and your spouse needs to make bank or you need to be independently wealthy otherwise you're going to have a lower standard of living (and then bitch about all those fat cats and occupy something).
3) I don't think that is in question.

1. I didn't come from money either. If she's judging a person's worth by their income then it's a very poor comment on her, all the more so if she didn't "come from money." I suspect our definitions of "come from money" are very different, however. Your statements imply that she is against anyone ever volunteering or donating to anything. If that's the case, again, that's a comment on her and a very negative one.
2. You can have a standard of living you like just fine on a public interest salary. Not everyone cares about having luxury items. I have personally done it and so have many other people.
3. Then why do you care if someone acquires the same skills through volunteering?

Don't go putting words in her mouth or you'll have an issue (remember she's the only person in the world that makes me cower). She didn't say anything about people's worth or value, she just said she thinks it not something to brag about that we lead the nation in jobs that don't pay because it means our grads can't get jobs or are such rich douches we don't need money.

You can have a standard of living you like just fine on a public interest salary.
Doubtful on a pure PI salary.

I don't.

You put what you claim to be a direct quote stating people are "stupid" if they do any public interest work or volunteer for anything; indeed, you say it twice. If you're misquoting her, that's hardly my problem. If she thinks that means our grads can't get jobs then she is simply misinformed; employment post-graduation is different statistic. And I cannot begin to tell you how little I care if you have an issue with me or anything about me; I've dealt with bigger and badder than you'll ever hope to be on every level, my friend.

You can doubt what you want; I spent ten years working at a public interest law firm with more than 50 attorneys all making public interest salaries. Very few of us were independently wealthy or married to higher earners. All of us paid rent just fine, thank you.

Different people want/need different incomes to feel comfortable. There's nothing wrong with that; people just prioritize things differently and have different needs. I have a very big issue with those who feel that people choosing to make less because they find other things more important are "stupid." Different priorities, yes. Stupid, no.

[GretnaGrn]

Heck, I think colleges should have mandatory financial literacy courses prior to graduation. I mean nitty gritty how to make budgets, how to not drown in debt, how to invest for that (seemingly) long off retirement--and I don't mean theoretical Econ 101 either. I know too many 20 and 30-somethings (and 40/50/60 too) who haven't a clue and we as a society will be worse off because of it. If even a few more learn something we are all better off.

Just because one chafes at mandatory requirements doesn't mean they cannot be good for you. Yeah, I get the don't tell me what to do yada yada yada arguments. I do. Some will get nothing out of them other than take pride in perpetually b!tching about having had their freedom infringed. Don't like it? Don't enroll. But maybe, just maybe, you will learn something useful that you might otherwise not have done on your lazy own dime.

And yes, I was in CACTUS (if it still exists) the three years I was on campus not including JYA, and I got so much more out of it than I gave. So there.

You are incredibly correct on every level.

[WaveProf]

TUPF--- CACTUS is still around. And very active. A good group of kids. And based on the interviews my wife did for homecoming court last year, a lot of post graduation employment interviews come from CACTUS involvement

[windywave]

Windy, that's a reasonable, rational, and fair response. So reasonable and rational I'll break my self-imposed rule and respond.

Basically every school in the nation (even VMI and Bob Jones) has service learning. They are the least controversial thing out there on college campuses. What is different (and controversial) about Tulane is that the school requires that you take two such courses. I have mixed emotions about this policy myself, and this is a legitimate bone of contention of yours. But, again, that isn't how you started out on this thread. Quite the contrary.

Meanwhile its also worth pointing out that no one forces anyone to go to Tulane. That's a choice, and it is worth remembering.

In the end, IMO, given the specifics of Tulane, New Orleans, and a host of other variables, it makes sense to me that Tulane has made this a priority and tried to be a national leader in something. But, I don't think requiring every student to do it is a good thing. But that's just me. And I could find a bunch of Tulane students who came to TU specifically because of the requirement. And Tulane is every bit as much "their" school as it is "your" school. My alma mater has changed its value set in a way I find abhhorant, and I'd fight tooth and nail to keep my kid from going there. Its a hard pill to swallow. But it doesn't make my version of VMI more authentic than anyone elses.

I wish you'd stop vacillating and pick a side.

Requiring it is antithesis of actual community service. . . . It's like saying doing community service to avoid jail is community volunteer work.

[windywave]

Heck, I think colleges should have mandatory financial literacy courses prior to graduation. I mean nitty gritty how to make budgets, how to not drown in debt, how to invest for that (seemingly) long off retirement--and I don't mean theoretical Econ 101 either. I know too many 20 and 30-somethings (and 40/50/60 too) who haven't a clue and we as a society will be worse off because of it. If even a few more learn something we are all better off.

Just because one chafes at mandatory requirements doesn't mean they cannot be good for you. Yeah, I get the don't tell me what to do yada yada yada arguments. I do. Some will get nothing out of them other than take pride in perpetually b!tching about having had their freedom infringed. Don't like it? Don't enroll. But maybe, just maybe, you will learn something useful that you might otherwise not have done on your lazy own dime.

And yes, I was in CACTUS (if it still exists) the three years I was on campus not including JYA, and I got so much more out of it than I gave. So there.

Illinois makes you take one to graduate HS. . . I took one from Beau Parent when at school.

[windywave]

My wife pointed out this binary outcome:

So you lead the nation in working for free, I thought you Tulane people were supposed to be smart, or you all are so rich you don't need money from your job.

She has a point, it is hard to pay the rent when you don't have an income.

1. There is a thing called "other driven." Your economics class should have covered it. If you're judging how smart someone is by their income then that's much more a comment on you than whoever you're judging.
2. There are many public interest jobs--with paychecks--that can cover rent.
3. Most employers don't care about where your skills came from, just that you can show you have them. Unpaid volunteering or internships all serve that purpose.

1) She's just pointing out she thinks working for free is stupid. She didn't come from money so that makes perfect sense to her.
2) True, but they don't pay much, and your spouse needs to make bank or you need to be independently wealthy otherwise you're going to have a lower standard of living (and then bitch about all those fat cats and occupy something).
3) I don't think that is in question.

1. I didn't come from money either. If she's judging a person's worth by their income then it's a very poor comment on her, all the more so if she didn't "come from money." I suspect our definitions of "come from money" are very different, however. Your statements imply that she is against anyone ever volunteering or donating to anything. If that's the case, again, that's a comment on her and a very negative one.
2. You can have a standard of living you like just fine on a public interest salary. Not everyone cares about having luxury items. I have personally done it and so have many other people.
3. Then why do you care if someone acquires the same skills through volunteering?

Don't go putting words in her mouth or you'll have an issue (remember she's the only person in the world that makes me cower). She didn't say anything about people's worth or value, she just said she thinks it not something to brag about that we lead the nation in jobs that don't pay because it means our grads can't get jobs or are such rich douches we don't need money.

You can have a standard of living you like just fine on a public interest salary.
Doubtful on a pure PI salary.

I don't.

You put what you claim to be a direct quote stating people are "stupid" if they do any public interest work or volunteer for anything; indeed, you say it twice. If you're misquoting her, that's hardly my problem. If she thinks that means our grads can't get jobs then she is simply misinformed; employment post-graduation is different statistic. And I cannot begin to tell you how little I care if you have an issue with me or anything about me; I've dealt with bigger and badder than you'll ever hope to be on every level, my friend.

You can doubt what you want; I spent ten years working at a public interest law firm with more than 50 attorneys all making public interest salaries. Very few of us were independently wealthy or married to higher earners. All of us paid rent just fine, thank you.

Different people want/need different incomes to feel comfortable. There's nothing wrong with that; people just prioritize things differently and have different needs. I have a very big issue with those who feel that people choosing to make less because they find other things more important are "stupid." Different priorities, yes. Stupid, no.

You are ascribing meaning and putting words in her mouth. Please demonstrate where my alleged quotes in any way indicate how she values people. She thinks that working for free is dumb. Adam Smith happens to agree with her. I don't have an issue with you, you on the other hand take time to make digs at me whenever you get the chance. I don't care, but seems petty on your part.

Why did you quit? Do you make more now? Could you support your present lifestyle on that salary? I know a bunch of public interest lawyers: most have family money or a second job.

Her reference BTW was to UNPAID JOBS AFTER GRADUATION!

[WaveProf]

Windy. That isn't vacillating. It's looking at a situation objectively in spite of my opinion on one aspect of it. And realizing the world is more complicated than just what "I" think about it

[windywave]

Windy. That isn't vacillating. It's looking at a situation objectively in spite of my opinion on one aspect of it. And realizing the world is more complicated than just what "I" think about it

You're saying on one hand we should do it and on the other it is abhorrent. That's hardly decisive.

[WaveProf]

I'm saying we should do it but we shouldn't require it. But I'm also saying there are plenty of TU students who came BECAUSE we required it and their voices don't matter less than yours. And they aren't stupid for feeling the way they do.

And I'm resistant to use the word "force" because no one is "forced" to go to TU

[gerryb323]

I'm saying we should do it but we shouldn't require it. But I'm also saying there are plenty of TU students who came BECAUSE we required it and their voices don't matter less than yours. And they aren't stupid for feeling the way they do.

And I'm resistant to use the word "force" because no one is "forced" to go to TU

But did they come because we REQUIRE it? Or did they come because it's available?

[WaveProf]

Gerry--- they don't come because we require it, they come because we are the unabashed leader in it. The school other schools study and present at conferences about. BUT the reason we have the numbers/impact/environment to be the clear #1 is because we require it. So there's the rub.

[windywave]

I'm saying we should do it but we shouldn't require it. But I'm also saying there are plenty of TU students who came BECAUSE we required it and their voices don't matter less than yours. And they aren't stupid for feeling the way they do.

And I'm resistant to use the word "force" because no one is "forced" to go to TU

Oh so close .... if only you had stopped after the first sentence