Repairing the Infrastructure

3101 views
89 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,866 posts
Repairing the Infrastructure
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, August 01, 2019 7:24 AM

Could the economic impact of lowering wages, the humanitarian crises, and a decent life for those who have already immigrated be coupled in a massive Federally-funded program to repair bridges, roads, railways, transit systems, and increase grade-crossing eliminations, even extend to schools and hospitals?

The expenditure would put the Nation further in debt, but it would be a wise investment in the future and be more productive than more jails.

Maybe High-Speed-Rail would be part of the program?

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,640 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, August 01, 2019 8:11 AM

daveklepper

Could the economic impact of lowering wages, the humanitarian crises, and a decent life for those who have already immigrated be couopled in a massive Federally-funded program to repair bridges, roads, railways, transit systems, and increase grade-crossing eliminations, even extend to schools and hospitals?

The expenditure would put the Nation further in debt, but it would be a wise investment in the future and be more productive than more jails.

Maybe High-Speed-Rail would be part of the program?

 

+1

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,083 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 01, 2019 8:57 AM

daveklepper
Could the economic impact of lowering wages, the humanitarian crises, and a decent life for those who have already immigrated be coupled in a massive Federally-funded program to repair bridges, roads, railways, transit systems, and increase grade-crossing eliminations, even extend to schools and hospitals?

The immediate problem I see here, not to 'politicize' the thing, is that it's very quickly going to go to discussions of the Todt Organization building roads ... and further into the pit from there.

If you tie 'work at low Government wage' to tolerance of immigration, it becomes tantamount 'enough' to slave labor that one party will always invoke arguments against the other if they were to try it.

If the Government wage is artificially increased to eliminate this perception, you have the same issue as much of the Green New Deal: it isn't even remotely possible to arrange for all the 'dollars' without ruining fiscal or monetary policy as we know it.  Which might not be that much of a bad thing in some respects ... but there would be nothing practical to replace any of what we have with anything better, in any presumable term.

If you open up the 'infrastructure corps' to fair hiring practice, you're going to have the usual problems with the usual entitled cohorts, and the usual get-rich-quick and see-my-attorney professional litigation pressure groups (doubtless with ad-hoc consortia of lawyers piling on as we now see for "bad drugs" or now-soft environmental chemical targets).

The question I have for Mr. Klepper is: what strict engineering safeguards against runaway costs or creeping incompetence covered by metastasizing change orders is he proposing to implement -- and how do you keep Godwin out of the discussions that result?

  • Member since
    December, 2018
  • 313 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 9:01 AM

daveklepper
The expenditure would put the Nation further in debt, but it would be a wise investment in the future and be more productive than more jails.

Maybe High-Speed-Rail would be part of the program? 

Improvements in the nation’s roadways, electrical systems, water systems, communications networks, etc. could be made without increasing the national debt.  Just increase the user fees to pay for the improvements.
 
Why does the United States need to copy other country’s high-speed rail systems?  Upgrading existing rail lines so that they can deliver average speeds between 90 and 100 mph over 200 to 250 miles may be the best outcome.  Assuming the enhancements will attract more customers willing to pay higher fares for a better ride, the cost of these improvements should be passed through to the users.
 
Amtrak already carries more passengers between New York City and Washington, D.C.  than its commercial competitors.  Moreover, it has a substantial portion of the commercial market between New York and Boston.  Spending billions for a high-speed line between Washington and Boston does not seem to make a lot of sense.
 
The unemployment rate in the United States is between 3.3 and 3.7 percent. In Texas, at least, finding qualified persons to work is construction is a major challenge.  A major public works program would only acerbate the problem.
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,083 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 01, 2019 9:24 AM

You're one of the posters with the most distinctive competence to address the various issues in this idea.  But I would comment on a couple of the assumptions you're using so far:

JPS1
The unemployment rate in the United States is between 3.3 and 3.7 percent.

Some portion of this is what economists call 'structural unemployment' -- including people who are technically 'between jobs' or whose jobs have become technologically obsolescent or economically unviable during the analysis period, although training might put them 'back in a job' quickly thereafter -- and this shouldn't be counted in any analysis of policy as if it could be 'solved'.

Note that neither the methodologies nor the data actually collected gives you much of a handle on this, or on whatever policy responses might affect it.  That's not to say it can't be done; just that it needs to be before drawing further conclusions on 'umemployed' as potential pools for enhanced Government make-work projects, or as more than transient workers making a few bucks between jobs, which I think is not the kind of worker likely to do a professional job on infrastructure projects. 

In Texas, at least, finding qualified persons to work is construction is a major challenge.

But this is precisely the situation Mr. Klepper is talking about addressing with his new program: finding, qualifying, and allocating large numbers of (presumably-dedicated) workers strictly to infrastructure, and presumably freeing up some number of, say, framers or concrete men for work on other 'construction.'

 

A major public works program would only exacerbate the problem.

Only if it weren't strictly addressed to projects that "private industry" couldn't touch, or would struggle with and overcharge for.  Mr. Klepper's project is strictly 'earmarked' for precisely the sort of things no private entity of any size will undertake effectively.

There are a couple of related issues that come into this discussion.  One is 'trades' -- I think it unlikely (some of the reasons you've already given) that most of the trade unions are going to want resources applied either to train the 'new' Government workers or to provide some legal review or certification that they're qualified to do trades work.  Let alone let even 'qualified' participants in the program join or participate in the existing training program (e.g., novice/journeyman/master) to become additional 'skilled trades' in the general employment pool.  Some combination of policy and incentive will be needed to address this, specifically for a wide range of potential areas.

There's also the question of recessions.  What happens if you oversupply a pipeline of qualified workers, construction goes 'soft', and those who have dreamed their way to citizenship start competing with the 'native-born' or entitled?  There's a LOT of additional policy, and current excuses for 'democracy' are likely not to produce very happy results no matter what sort of Arrow-impossibility-theorem voting scheme is chosen.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 16,653 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 01, 2019 10:45 AM

Remember why we have a immigration problem in the first place - those 'upstanding businessmen' who sought out a undocumented workforce that could be extorted to work for sub-standard pay and working conditions that still offered more than could be found in their home country under any circumstance that was available to them.  People don't leave their 'home' unless they feature they can better their lot in life in a new location. 

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,866 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, August 01, 2019 11:31 AM

A number of real and important problems have been posted as affecting the realizatin of my basic idea.  However, there are models of programs that can be studied for their successess and shortcomings to optimize approaches to realizing the idea.  Among the programs that can be reviewed.

 

Construction of New York City's subways

Construction of TVA facilities

The Depression CCC Program

The Manhattan Project (Atomic Bomb)

The Interstate Highway Program

Follow-up after the WTC disaster, both buildling construction and subway repair

Repairs after Sandy

Israel's resettlement of 400,000 Holocaust survivors and 750,000 refugees from Mediteranian countries after WWII.

Sending a man to the Moon

The Alaska Highway

The current implementation of PTC

Building the Phila. - Camden - Lindewold Heavy Rail Line, 1st use of highway funds for rail.

USA's 1st new Light Rail. San Diego - San Yesidro

Construction of the Astradome, 1st of its kind

China's, France's, Germany's and Spain's implemenetation of HSR

The move of MIT from BakBay Boston to its Camhridge campus over 100 years ago

The planning and constructinn of Washington, DC over 200 years ago, and the movement of the Capitol from Philadelphia

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,155 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:08 PM

Dave, I think we are in the midst of turning the country around right now.   I think we will go through about 10 more years of arguing and probably a financial crisis of some sort and we will be fiscally conservative again with both social and domestic spending.    In the meantime, I definitely think we need a catch-up Infrastructure program with part of that going to both freight rails and passenger service.

For starters I think we need to get some Federal grants out there and kick some of the Class I's in the pants to fix some of these regional logjams they seem to have in places (around Chicago specifically but I see Kansas City as being really congested as well  possibly a few terminals in the East as well.    We really need to have faster coast to coast Intermodal as well as freight service, I think it is still kind of slow right now.    Also, would like to see some decent grant money be spent on other than Class I's, say for example for E&LS to finally pull it's tracks out of the mud.........as well as other regional carriers with worn out rails.   Get the track in shape again to 25-40 mph operation with a nice bed of ballast and out of the weeds as well.

As for passenger service I think Amtrak could develope some basic corridors to a speed of possibly 90-110 mph with the intent they would turn them over to a private company to take over and improve the speed faster.    I just do not trust Amtrak will ever develop anything higher speed than 110 mph.........not efficiently anyways.

Can't wait for the infrastructure program to get through Congress, it's comming at some point in the next 2-3 years.

  • Member since
    December, 2018
  • 313 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:14 PM

Overmod
 In Texas, at least, finding qualified persons to work is construction is a major challenge. 

But this is precisely the situation Mr. Klepper is talking about addressing with his new program: finding, qualifying, and allocating large numbers of (presumably-dedicated) workers strictly to infrastructure, and presumably freeing up some number of, say, framers or concrete men for work on other 'construction.'

Most of the recent immigrants are not qualified to work in construction.  I have several friends that are contractors; they don't believe that unskilled immigrants are the solution to their problem.

Many of the immigrants that come across the Texas border, which is close to where I live, work in lawn care or other menial tasks.  

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,083 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:27 PM

JPS1
Most of the recent immigrants are not qualified to work in construction.

As were a fairly large number of the no-tooth applicants to Mike Fleming's framing gangs.  

I wasn't saying that the immigrants under Mr. Klepper's 'project' would be trained, but that they would have to be in order for the thing to work as he describes.  I don't think it would be difficult to train the necessary number of 'migrants' if they are sufficiently motivated and the methods used to teach are properly conducted and quality of result assured.  Whether or not that's a long-term good idea is another thing entirely.  So is the idea of, instead of a targeted infrastructure program, doing a CCC-like make-work program where immigrants fill potholes Detroit-style, or chip away at scaling concrete, or other low-skill things like you see "community-service" drunk drivers doing.  I think Mr. Klepper needs to explain how his plan will specifically address these concerns.

  • Member since
    December, 2018
  • 313 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:36 PM

Overmod
What happens if you oversupply a pipeline of qualified workers, construction goes 'soft', and those who have dreamed their way to citizenship start competing with the 'native-born' or entitled?  

I can think of two instances in Texas where the newbies pushed out the native born. 
 
When I moved to Dallas in the middle 70s, most of the glazers were guys that came from East Dallas or Oak Cliff.  One of them was married to a co-worker.  By the end of the 80s most of the glazers, so I was told by her, were first generation immigrants.
 
At least some of the native-born plumbers and electricians in McAllen, TX, which is just across the border, have been replaced by first generation immigrants.  I know of two plumbers that moved to Austin because they could not find a decent paying job in McAllen. 
 
I don’t have the statistics to show how many native-born workers have been displaced by immigrants.  I am not sure anyone has them.    
 

I am in favor of infrastructure projects where there is a real need for them and clear way to pay for them that will not acerbate the debt situation.  But it is important to make sure that there is a real need for them.  According to the CBO, many of the shovel ready projects that were included in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act turned out to be boondoggles. 

  • Member since
    December, 2018
  • 313 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:43 PM

Overmod
 I think Mr. Klepper needs to explain how his plan will specifically address these concerns. 

Mr. Klepper also needs to explain how his project wish list would be paid for,  and what would be the ROI.

As I mentioned, all of the highway related projects could be paid for by increasing the user fees.  The same applies for improvements to the electrical systems, water systems, natrual gas systems, telecommunication systems, etc.  

The rub, however, is political will.  Neither political party wants to raise fuel taxes, as an example, to pay for enhancements to the nation's highways. 

Readers may remember that Simpson/Bowles recommended, among other things, a gradual increase in the gasoline tax to pay for roadway improvements.  If I remember correctly, the recommendation was dead on arrival at the White House.  

  • Member since
    July, 2008
  • 1,299 posts
Posted by rdamon on Thursday, August 01, 2019 1:19 PM

Toll roads will be the new norm ..   no MPG benifit for anyone.  Just drove through Chicago and watched as my E-Zpass count was silently drained. 

 

Bring back trade schools ..  then watch College tuition drop

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • 2,257 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Thursday, August 01, 2019 1:43 PM

To answer the question as to why our European and East Asian trading partners have nice trains and other infrastructure the U.S. doesn't have, I turn to remarks made by CEO Kevin Conroy of Exact Sciences.  He is the "Elon Musk" of cancer screening.  Just as Mr. Musk has stated his mission to be solving the CO2 crisis through electric cars, Mr. Conroy's mission is to prevent people from dying of cancer through early-detection tests.

From his remarks at his recent shareholder meeting, colorectal cancer is the #2 cancer killer behind lung cancer.  We could really dial back lung cancer if people didn't smoke, although don't kid yourself that lung cancer in non-smokers doesn't happen.  There is some controversy as to whether early detection of cancer actually saves people or merely detects "less aggressive" cancers that may not amount to anything or a person's immune system can fight off.  With colorectal cancer, it is possible to detect "pre-cancerous" polyps and remove them.  It is regarded that if we could get "everybody" to be screened, we could save a lot of lives.

The "gold standard" of screening is a colonscopy.  Although it is not a "fun thing" and it has its own risks, the powers that be have persuaded a large portion of the over-50 set in the U.S. to submit to it.  It is not cheap, either.  Under the Affordable Care Act, if you have insurance it has to cover it without a co-pay because the "efficacy panel" determined that this test really saves lives or saves people from the misery of cancer treatment, although the insurance companies have figured out a dodge that if the doctor "finds something", it becomes "therapy" instead of "screening" and you may be stuck with the full bill with a high-deductible policy.  I guess the full bill can be in the 2-4 thousand dollar range.

Mr. Conroy's company is selling the "go-get-gone" Cologuard test, available if your doctor prescribes it.  You get this lab kit delivered to your home where you "give a sample" and return it to Exact Sciences in Madison, Wisconsin for analysis.  So apart from having to "collect the sample", it is a much less onerous or hazardous test.  It also has the capability of detecting polyps before they turn into cancer.  It is also much cheaper than a colonscopy -- list price is $600 and insurance companies have negotated discounts from that price.  Its one downside, by the way, is if it "detects something", you will be asked to go in for a colonoscopy, but Exact Sciences is working on reducing the false alarms.

My family has invested in Exact Sciences much as many people at the University and in Madison, WI have a stake in our home-town bio-tech company.  I asked a friend, a lawyer in private practice by the way who has high-deductible health insurance, if he thought there was a big overseas market for the Cologuard test.  According to him, they won't pay for a $600 test in England because $600 is what a colonoscopy costs "over there."  This "procedure" is done by a nurse-practitioner rather than by an physician specialist as "over here", and they don't even offer you any sedation or anesthesia.  If you have enough "issues" going in for this test in the U.S., think about how you feel about getting it under those terms.

Again, at the stockholders meeting, Mr. Conroy was asked if there was a market for Cologuard in Europe.  His response was "they won't pay anything more than $25 for a test 'over there.'  Exact Sciences is working on a blood test, but a blood test will never detect polyps.  It will only find out if you already have cancer, and that is the capability 'they' will get for $25."

I know a lot of people will weigh in with the burdern of having high-deductible health insurance or no insurance or how persons on Medicaid and in the VA system are short-changed along with the limitations of Medicare coverage and horror stories of insurane companies not paying for life-saving treatment.  But on balance, health care in the U.S. is head-and-shoulders above what is the standard almost anywhere else on the planet, including in our First World trading partners with good public transportation.

You do indeed get what you pay for, especially what you choose to pay for, and in the U.S., for better or worse, we have made different choices.  In advocating for passenger trains, the standard response is we could choose to pay less for a gold-plated military.  We could also choose to spend less on health care, as just about every other country does.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 1:57 PM

rdamon

Toll roads will be the new norm ..   no MPG benifit for anyone.  Just drove through Chicago and watched as my E-Zpass count was silently drained. 

 

Bring back trade schools ..  then watch College tuition drop

 

I haven't chimed in this, not feeling qualified to, but I'm in 100% agreement with rdamon.

Not so much "...bring back trade schools." they're out there, but definately increase the amount of them and "push" them aggressively.

In some quarters going to a trade school instead of college has aquired a "stigma," for lack of a better term.  Undeserveably so, one can go to a trade school and pick up a useful skill and make a damn good living at it.  

And, although the more egalitarian among us may not agree, everyone isn't college material, for a variety of reasons.

And let's be realistic, colleges don't care how marketable that major you picked is.  They just want your money.  Once you're out the door getting a job is your  problem, not theirs.

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 569 posts
Posted by Backshop on Thursday, August 01, 2019 2:16 PM

Flintlock76
 
 

 

And let's be realistic, colleges don't care how marketable that major you picked is.  They just want your money.  Once you're out the door getting a job is your  problem, not theirs.

 

Neither do many employers.  Here's a perfect example.  My older brother just retired as an A320 Captain at a US3 airline.  He went into the Army directly from high school to be a helicopter pilot.  He flew offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and Persian Gulf before being hired as a regional pilot.  He was then hired at a major and was grandfathered in when they merged with his last airline.  He had 22K+ flight hours (2.5 years +) and I'd trust him completely.  However, now airlines require a 4 year degree.  They don't care what it's in, as long as you have it.  What good does it do?  It doesn't help you fly the plane.  In many jobs, intelligence is more important than education.

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 3:00 PM

Backshop, full disclosure before I go on, I'm not a pilot myself although I've always had an interest in aviation.  In my readings going back 40 years I've gathered airline hiring practices have always been a bit of a mystery, especially to the aviation community itself.

Just guessing, and it's just a guess, it's a given that "like hires like."  By this I mean if the people running the airlines are college grad MBA types then they're most comfortable with others of the same stripe, and have probably never spent any time in a cockpit themselves.  HOW the prospective hire got his or her flight training is of secondary concern, either from the military or a civilian flight school.

Either that, or the college degree requirement is just a way to reduce the number of job applicants.  As I said, just a guess.  Only they know for sure.   

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 569 posts
Posted by Backshop on Thursday, August 01, 2019 3:04 PM

F76, you are correct.  My main beef is that there are untold thousands of people out there who are thousands in debt for degrees that they really don't need for their jobs.  Another category is military officers.  Why do they need BS degrees.  The British seem to do fine sending people to Sandhurst for less than a year.  Why do you need a college degree to run an infantry platoon or company?

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 3:33 PM

Backshop, as an old military guy myself I think I can asnwer the question.

First off, all the youngsters going to Sandhurst are college grads to begin with, so the British Army doesn't need to go that route.  

Now I'll state right off you don't need a college degree to command a platoon, a company, a battalion, or probably even a regiment for that matter, it's strictly a matter of training.  It's when you get up to those high ranking positions that need an ability to see the "Big Picture" in all it's forms that you need that higher-ed background.  And even then just being a service academy graduate isn't quite enough.  Many high-ranking officers have earned masters degrees as an aid to their careers.

If you look at the history of the US Military Academy at West Point you'll see the school was founded to fill a specific need.  There weren't too many colleges in the country at the time, and none turning out engineers.  West Point was founded to fill that need and to turn out polished, competent, "well-rounded" officers who could deal effectively with political office-holders as well as civilians in general which meant it was going to function as a four-year college as well as a military school.  The Naval Academy at Annapolis came along later with the same function. 

I don't want to make this a complicated dissertation, but I hope I've explained it a bit.  

Anyway, that's our system, it works for us.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 16,653 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 01, 2019 3:46 PM

Flintlock76
Backshop, full disclosure before I go on, I'm not a pilot myself although I've always had an interest in aviation.  In my readings going back 40 years I've gathered airline hiring practices have always been a bit of a mystery, especially to the aviation community itself.

Just guessing, and it's just a guess, it's a given that "like hires like."  By this I mean if the people running the airlines are college grad MBA types then they're most comfortable with others of the same stripe, and have probably never spent any time in a cockpit themselves.  HOW the prospective hire got his or her flight training is of secondary concern, either from the military or a civilian flight school.

Either that, or the college degree requirement is just a way to reduce the number of job applicants.  As I said, just a guess.  Only they know for sure.   

When I was at Purdue in the middle 1960's they had their 'Professional Pilot' cirriculum, which serveral of my dorm mates were enrolled in.  I forget what their tuition and 'lab' fees were - I just know that they were way, way more than my family could afford.  At that time I don't think there was such a thing as 'Student Loans'.

While in Florida I became aware of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University at Daytona Beach - which I believe offered a degree program in the various aspects of aviation.

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 3:49 PM

Right you are Balt, and Embry-Riddle's still there, one of the more famous of civilian flight academies.

  • Member since
    December, 2018
  • 313 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 3:59 PM

Flintlock76
 Right you are Balt, and Embry-Riddle's still there, one of the more famous of civilian flight academies. 

Not only is it still there, it offers highly rated four year degrees in engineering, business, etc.  

Its main campuses are in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Prescott, Arizona.  Annual tuition after credits is approximately $19,000 per year.  

Here is a link to a description of the Bachelor's degrees offered at Daytona Beach:

https://erau.edu/degrees?degree-level=bachelor&campus=daytona

  • Member since
    July, 2008
  • 1,299 posts
Posted by rdamon on Thursday, August 01, 2019 4:13 PM

I have a BSEE Degree From ERAU, quite a bit of non-flight degrees 

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,640 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, August 01, 2019 4:32 PM

Paul Milenkovic

 But on balance, health care in the U.S. is head-and-shoulders above what is the standard almost anywhere else on the planet, including in our First World trading partners with good public transportation.

You do indeed get what you pay for, especially what you choose to pay for, and in the U.S., for better or worse, we have made different choices.  In advocating for passenger trains, the standard response is we could choose to pay less for a gold-plated military.  We could also choose to spend less on health care, as just about every other country does.

 

I suggest you speak with people who live in Germany and healthcare professionals and not generalize a remark from the UK about the Cologuard product. 

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,640 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, August 01, 2019 4:38 PM

Flintlock76
And, although the more egalitarian among us may not agree, everyone isn't college material, for a variety of reasons.

I agree.College is not for everyone.

 

And let's be realistic, colleges don't care how marketable that major you picked is.  They just want your money.  Once you're out the door getting a job is your  problem, not theirs.

Please don't paint with such a broad brush. Some universities work very hard to help graduating students to find jobs. The growth of summer internships is an example. A good friend's niece went to Cornell, studied computer science and got an enineering degree. She spent two summers at IBM doing internships. Now she works there at over six figures just to start.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,640 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, August 01, 2019 4:44 PM

Flintlock76
First off, all the youngsters going to Sandhurst are college grads to begin with, so the British Army doesn't need to go that route.  

A small correction. Although over 80% of Sandhurst entrants are university graduates, a degree is not a requirement.

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 5:15 PM

charlie hebdo

 

 
Flintlock76
And, although the more egalitarian among us may not agree, everyone isn't college material, for a variety of reasons.

I agree.College is not for everyone.

 

And let's be realistic, colleges don't care how marketable that major you picked is.  They just want your money.  Once you're out the door getting a job is your  problem, not theirs.

Please don't paint with such a broad brush. Some universities work very hard to help graduating students to find jobs. The growth of summer internships is an example. A good friend's niece went to Cornell, studied computer science and got an enineering degree. She spent two summers at IBM doing internships. Now she works there at over six figures just to start.

 

 

 

My apologies, I should have used a "rifle" instead of a "shotgun."

The thing is, how many colleges say to a freshman, "Well OK, major in 'Women's Studies' if you want to, but how are you going to support yourself with a degree like that after you graduate?" 

Just an example.  

I think we're getting off topic here.  Back to infrastructure anyone?  I'm done.

  • Member since
    January, 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, August 01, 2019 5:18 PM

charlie hebdo

 

 
Flintlock76
First off, all the youngsters going to Sandhurst are college grads to begin with, so the British Army doesn't need to go that route.  

 

A small correction. Although over 80% of Sandhurst entrants are university graduates, a degree is not a requirement.

 

Maybe so.  But in today's modern military, any developed country's military, they wont go far without a degree of some kind.  They'll have to get one sooner or later. 

  • Member since
    July, 2016
  • 569 posts
Posted by Backshop on Thursday, August 01, 2019 5:52 PM

Flintlock76

 

 
charlie hebdo

 

 
Flintlock76
First off, all the youngsters going to Sandhurst are college grads to begin with, so the British Army doesn't need to go that route.  

 

A small correction. Although over 80% of Sandhurst entrants are university graduates, a degree is not a requirement.

 

 

 

Maybe so.  But in today's modern military, any developed country's military, they wont go far without a degree of some kind.  They'll have to get one sooner or later. 

 

But why?  I'm not saying that further focused education past high school isn't needed, but what does a 4 year liberal arts degree do for a soldier?  The Army Command and General Staff College and the like are needed for senior staff and are focused on courses that directly pertain to the military. They are like high class trade schools. Just like pilots get type ratings and such.  But to need a degree just to have one is stupid and a waste of time and money.

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 4,625 posts
Posted by Miningman on Thursday, August 01, 2019 5:56 PM

Afraid you are correct, need to get that head hammered flat so the hat fits.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy