I D E O L O G Y

they're swamping me in debt

Academia doesn't really allow for any ideology that doesn't help to maintain the status quo. Don't look for any revolutionary intelligentsia at universities, public or private

I mean, I guess what im saying is I realize the guy doesn't like Trump, and thats all well and good, but it just doesnt have anything to do with Dao, Tao, Kongzi, Longzi, Laouzi, Zhuangzi or anything that im there to learn about.

stem degrees are the only reason to go to a university. everything else is tainted by post-modernist filth to the point of no return

as should any research/educational institute be

private universities are a disgrace. thank god in eu most countries still have free education at least

I took economics at a private university and it was pure capitalist ideology. Like straight from Milton Friedman, an economy functions at optimum with no state interference, and we even learned "free the market, freer the people"
style bullshit. We didn't really even learn much about Keynesian economics except in the most rudimentary way so we could contrast it with the neo-classical stuff.

If you ever wonder why mainstream academic economists are in lockstep with the ruling classes on every issue, its because friedmanint vews are presented as the only valid viewpoint in economic thought.

modern economics are literally capitalist apologia man, what did you expect?

What do all these people with economy degrees even do? At least where I'm from everyone who is actually working on economic models and in finance and so on studied math

Perhaps it is unprofessional if he isn't finding ways to connect it and it is a random distraction during class rather than before or after class starts. I didn't realize it was an Eastern Philosophy class. However, that's one anecdote that you should probably bring up in your course evaluation.

I'm finishing up my master's in secondary ed, so we get into debates about politics of CCSS and PARCC testing as well as Betsy DeVos as of recent, so current politics isn't really out of place for me.

Language learning

even that i'm afraid.

H?
O?
W?

foucault

Nigga what the fuck
give some examples, you're not for real

On a scale from "and so on" to "my gott", I would say a resounding "my gott"

...

read foucault fuccboi, he has written a ton of post-modern """""theory""""" on language

Private universities depend on bourgeois trustees and donors for stable functioning, and their hiring and policy decisions reflect the individual preferences of the bourgeoisie.
Public universities depend on government funding, and thus hiring and policy decisions reflect the aggregate preferences of the bourgeoisie.

This. Self-proclaimed "radical" scholarship at universities is almost necessarily going to be diversionary and useless, when it doesn't cozy up to the status quo outright. This isn't a conspiracy, but the natural self-interest of the individuals making these decisions.

Kek.
Universities are gatekeeping agents of class rule. Not only do they actively promote ruling class ideology for the sake of the ruling class itself, due to association ruling class ideology and social mores "signal" professionalism and success, and the market decides these things are intrinsically valuable and demand adjusts accordingly.

What did he mean by this?

I've attempted to read relativist post-modernists many times, but every time i stop because i feel tumor cells slowly developing on my retina.

If you think someone is going to drop your grade because of your politics, you're fucking deluded friend. If you substantiate your claims with actual well thought out points, you are going to do fine. It's really fucking dumb that reactionaries attack education for being biased and unfair without substantiating proof in the student's grades. Most likely because they're too cowardly to actually write about what they believe in because they're paranoid as fuck.

Now the university itself as a gatekeeper? Yes, society has kept out people of lower SES from attending college through systematic oppression in public schooling. Schools in low income areas aren't properly attended to and because of this, many students in university are well-off.

but this happens in my uni all the time

only the profs are lefties and boost commie youth grades

You might find this interesting
philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
It's a pretty thorough critique of postmodern methodology and the many reasoning mistakes it not only makes but depends on and codifies as matters of course.

Ah. See, my grades substantiate this. The only B's I've ever gotten were in humanities classes, with a higher incidence the more explicitly "SJW-ey" they were. Every time I would ask politely about the grade, I'd get a slew of washy non-answers and misdirection. Never did I get a direct admission of any shortcoming in my work, any "course expectation" I'd fallen short of, any concrete "suggestion for future improvement," anything. Twice when this happened in high school, I got A's in the second semester without changing anything about my approach (because I'd gotten no information to inform such a change.) Whether this is a case of "oh, he's onto me, better tone it down" or a case of subpar work getting undeservedly inflated because of a personal appeal, which I highly doubt, it still proves my point.
Markschemes are written with an unusually wide latitude for "teacher discretion" and inconsistent interpretation, so their subjectivity can be used as a cudgel, or as charity. Of course, a stellar paper getting a C would be hard to defend to the administration, if it wants to maintain plausible deniability, since most people can recognize good writing, arguments, and evidence. But the "border between" A and B can be made as fuzzy as one likes in a humanities course, and the goalposts moved miles away, and people will write it off as "every class has different expectations, and who am I to say what the difference between 'good' and 'great' work is in this case?"
I resent the implication that I'm paranoid and have never expressed myself. In fact, I've never been particularly confident in arguing a position counter to my own, because its flaws just become too obvious and difficult to patch over. I wish I was better at that, because you do pay a price for sincerity.

This is absolute nonsense. Applicants are assessed by class rank and the rigor of their course load relative to the school's offerings. You can get into a top flight university by doing marginally well at a shit school easier than you can by excelling at a great school. Especially with diversity quotas. Ahem, excuse me, 🍀🍀🍀holistic admissions.🍀🍀🍀 Also, can we lay to rest this "students depend on a teacher to learn" nonsense? Who taught you marxist/anarchist theory?
Literally anybody can just self-study for an AP exam and then take it. They even have fee reductions and waivers for lower SES students. You're not in any sense constrained by the school you attend, that's just a convenient fiction.

And yes, it is a gatekeeper even so long as its method of assessing applicants is based on the faulty data generated by a fundamentally broken system. But unless you neglect class analysis entirely, you have to concede that its decisions are informed by class interests.

I'm not going to argue about the grades because it's anecdotal and can't be proven to me through your own experience unless I literally followed you around everywhere to see it. It seems like an honest waste of time to argue abut that and I think the teachers that would do that are in the minority, and very likely to be fired.

But, what percentage of kids at that school are graduating compared to other schools? Do you think it's just the culture of that area or some other reason why they aren't doing well? It's probably the school and the local government. Besides, once they get in, it's likely that they'll be behind. CCSS is trying to change that by mandating what must be taught at each grade, but some states still don't follow that and there are serious issues with the common core. Since this happens, some students don't stay past their first semester because it's too different and they weren't properly prepared.
I learned it myself, yes, but who taught me how to read? Who taught me literacy strategies? Who taught me to construct arguments and organize my thoughts? Teachers. That is something that is difficult to hone by yourself. It requires a lot of metacognition which kids do not have right away. If someone grows up in an area that has a shit school, they're probably going to get a shitty elementary education and be like a lot of the kids I teach who are really behind on their reading grade level.

I didn't think I'd be debating about whether or not schools in low-income areas are in a condition that keeps the students from escaping poverty into adulthood on Holla Forums

First you say that you can't support the claim without the grades to back it up, and when I provide that, you say you can't really trust that it's not some elaborate hallucination unless you've followed me around every waking minute to confirm it?

My argument is that the system is deficient because it is prone to abuse, or abuseable. It's one of potential. A single example of such abuse is sufficient to confirm that the possibility exists, whereas a deductive argument would be necessary to prove it categorically does not. Compare police violence - I doubt that you'd contest the abuseable nature of law enforcement just because you haven't followed around the individual minority suspects, and others, who allege it.

But in either case I was using it merely as an illustrative example. You can critique any system based on its own internal logic and contradictions, which is what I've done here. And in the total absence of "experiential evidence," such an argument remains. For instance, even if nobody had ever been falsely accused of rape in the past, the fact would remain that treating an accusation as sufficient evidence for conviction is an abuseable system, because accusation doesn't require and hence imply guilt.

And you're the one going in on me for anecdotes? Yes, you yourself may have learned those from teachers in a formal school setting, but that doesn't mean everyone must necessarily learn from them, or not at all. Especially in the internet age. There are books and online guides on how to write an essay, construct an argument, and pretty much every subject that isn't cutting-edge research. And we already choose our own "teachers" to a great degree in the material we consume. All it really takes is cognizance of the need to improve some aspect, which I will concede takes some maturity and experience. Political discussions are a common vector for developing in this way.

I wasn't really talking about or looking to debate early childhood education, or who needs to intercede to lift up underperforming students and how, but the things schools, universities and teachers already actively do, and their effects. Particularly where "basic educational success" is already a foregone conclusion, and where the school experience is an elaborate project of demonstrating yourself "beyond mediocrity."

Forgive me if I can't take "I got admitted to a school so far above what I'm qualified for that I can't graduate from it unless I do some extra work on my own" as the epitome of "systematic oppression"

Access to information should be free, there is a reason public libraries were very sucessful before the Internet. Education as a service, however, maybe should not be completely free. Higher education should be reserved for only the brightest.