BYU-I Teach let go

[omni]

21 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I love you stem but sometimes you are hard to take seriously.

Let's say I go on FB right now and post about how I disagree with the CEO of my company on X, Y, and Z.  I would rightfully be fired. I get paid to make the company successful. If my public actions run counter to the stated mission and goals of the firm, I am hurting the company.  Why would any rational person pay someone who openly opposes their policies and goals?  That's absurd.

 You have to get this, brother.  You aren't dense.  You just ask these silly questions to get peopled riled up. And then when you are called on it, you play "who me!?"  LOL.  Basically your OP argues that the Anti Defamation League would be in the wrong to fire an employee who posts neo-Nazi memes on FB.

BEST. TROLL. EVER.

Wow, it only took six pages to invoke Godwin's Law.

You really don't see a difference between what the adjunct professor did and your neo-Nazi example?

Let's try this one instead.  What if a professor from Liberty or Bob Jones University was fired for stating on Facebook she believed Mormons were Christian.  

Would you support her firing with as much fervor?  

Yes, the Church has a legal right to fire Robertson, but does that make it right?

 

 

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you mean was she using her teaching position to promote her personal view?

She claims she never taught it in class, but she has also publically stated she was less than forthright in her interviews on her level of disbelief (says she is "struggling", has no intention on leaving the Church, does not correct the "member in good standing" comment, etc while on Reddit she says she has been mentally out for over 6 months and calls herself "exmo"), so I see little reason to trust her to be truthful when it fits her agenda of trying to change people's minds:

"When presenting these issues, in order for members to accept change, you have to be soft. You have to make them see you as one of them. Exmormons aren't as effective at making changes in the church and that's why I phrased things the way I did in interviews."

exmofeministq on Reddit 

If she is the same person who has posted on Reddit, then there is much more to this story than was reported by the press.  

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I totally agree with the above statement.  College these days (in practice, at least) seems to be mostly about learning to conform to what the teacher thinks and says. There is a huge power imbalance between the student and teacher.  The teacher can have a lot of power to ruin the life of the student (especially a young one).  The student learns quickly that they need to agree with the teacher. Most college students I know have had the experience of having their grade lowered for disagreeing with the teacher.

My wife just started taking classes on line from BYU Idaho (through the pathway program).   Although she still dreams about getting a degree, she had to really cut back on the classes because of their tendency to try and take over her life.  

The the things they teach you tend to be outdated, as well since the professors often do not have the time to keep up with what is going on in the real world.  I know that in my profession, were I to go back to college to study tax law, I would most likely graduate knowing less about the subject than if I just continued my practice.  The real world will often force you to learn in a week what it takes a semester to learn in the University.

I am sure this type of thing happens, but it has not been my experience.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you mean was she using her teaching position to promote her personal view?

She claims she never taught it in class, but she has also publically stated she was less than forthright in her interviews on her level of disbelief (says she is "struggling", has no intention on leaving the Church, does not correct the "member in good standing" comment, etc while on Reddit she says she has been mentally out for over 6 months and calls herself "exmo"), so I see little reason to trust her to be truthful when it fits her agenda of trying to change people's minds:

"When presenting these issues, in order for members to accept change, you have to be soft. You have to make them see you as one of them. Exmormons aren't as effective at making changes in the church and that's why I phrased things the way I did in interviews."

exmofeministq on Reddit 

This is new information.  That changes alot

[carbon dioxide]

"This is my official announcement and declaration that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural and neither is sinful."

Compare with Mosiah 3:19

Mosiah 3:19  "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

 If she accepts that passage than it does not matter whether something is NATURAL or not.  To steal another man's property is natural.  To kill out of jealousy is natural.  Marriage and monogamy are really not that natural.   Christ demands that we put off our natural impulses and live within his standards.  Simple sexual orientation is not a sin.  It is what one does with it that can be a sin.

Edited July 20, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[6EQUJ5]

1 hour ago, omni said:

Wow, it only took six pages to invoke Godwin's Law.

You really don't see a difference between what the adjunct professor did and your neo-Nazi example?

Let's try this one instead.  What if a professor from Liberty or Bob Jones University was fired for stating on Facebook she believed Mormons were Christian.  

Would you support her firing with as much fervor?  

Yes, the Church has a legal right to fire Robertson, but does that make it right?

 

 

I don't you think you know what Godwin's law is. The word you are looking for is hyperbole.

In answer to your question, I would support Liberty or Bob Jones 100%. Any other view would make me a hypocrite.

Liberty Div school students are required to disavow the BOM explicitly. And that's perfectly OK too.

https://www.liberty.edu/media/9932/School_of_Divinity_Questionnaire.pdf

Edited July 20, 2017 by 6EQUJ5

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

I hadn't heard of that before, that's perfect.

Probably because Pournelle is a conservative right-winger and a believing Catholic.  He writes hard science-fiction that tends to feature uncomfortable political and economic themes, especially if one is a leftist, but even if one is not.  I consider him very underrated.

I was just going to leave it at that, but I wanted to add that he is one of my all-time favorite science-fiction authors.  He has described himself politically as "somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan".  He's more a libertarian than that suggests, however.  You can read more about him on Wikipedia: Jerry Pournelle.  From his writings it also appears that he doesn't think highly of the LDS Church, but I forgive him for that!

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

We spend trillions on fighter jets. The money is there, it just needs to be allocated appropriately.

 

Oh fer cryin' out loud.  The money is there, my foot.  Let's see, how much debt is the federal government in again?  How many trillions?  

I think we could start by ceasing to pay for things the federal government was never intended to pay for.  

But then we'd be starving all the children and little old ladies, so...

[Calm]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

If she is the same person who has posted on Reddit, then there is much more to this story than was reported by the press.  

I believe she has confirmed it on Facebook.

If the two reports (on an alleged student, one secondhand by an alleged relative of an alleged student) are correct, there were a number of student complaints about her bringing her politics and religious beliefs into the classroom.

The press reported nothing from the school side originally.  According to her Facebook page, there are iirc four new interviews including one by Dehlin.  Hopefully at least the SL Trib reported a more balanced story.  While they generally lean liberal, they also tend to report both sides imo.

I really don't get anyone assuming because they have heard one side, they know enough to make a judgment about what is happening.  I would be as doubtful if there were just comments from the school.

One red flag for me is she was more or less forced into this position by her own story.  She had an expectancy of privacy apparently and did not believe her bosses would learn of her position.  She reports she was quiet about it in class and it was only the FB post that got her in trouble.  Granted when she had the choice to remove it according to her story, she didn't, but I still don't see how that was outstandingly grave or high moral integrity because up to that moment she was by her own description hiding her beliefs from her employer and her students.

And her posts on Reddit have her again compromising her personal beliefs for the sake of her agenda, which is her cause, but why not be honest about who she is as well?

She doesn't even sound that committed to the cause because she knows her posts on Reddit are public and she is willing to put her personal desire to promote her disbelief there over her stated agenda to be "soft" in order to be more convincing to the press and church members...she is trying to have her cake and eat it too imo.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Calm

[Freedom]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Would you care to address the Target example that I posed, because I think its relevant to this discussion.  Would you be in favor of Target taking comments that their employees have made that negative towards the transgender community, and using that as a means for firing employees?  

It is  bit of a flawed comparison because the teacher was let go for challenging doctrine not a corporate policy, and the teacher was a very public figure rather than an invisible backroom worker. If a marketing director of Target made such a comment, they should be fired most certainly. 

[Calm]

I am doing the Front Page for FairMormon and reading articles and came across this comment by Robertson:

“I knew when I posted it it would be kind of controversial,” she said, “but it never crossed my mind that I would lose my job.”

http://www.rexburgstandardjournal.com/news/education/byu-idaho-faculty-member-says-she-was-fired-for-facebook/article_718b30da-763b-500b-8230-d4f3b51f08ae.html

So apparently she didn't actually make any sort of stand because she didn't think she was going to be fired even when she refused to take it down.  So the whole moral integrity amounts to dealing with family and friends, which I admit can be quite harsh, but I don't see it as that unusual as lots of people vary from their family's position.

[strappinglad]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

“I knew when I posted it it would be kind of controversial,” she said, “but it never crossed my mind that I would lose my job.”

 

Stunningly obtuse !!  Reminds me of some millenials I know.

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The purpose behind education isn't to get a job. The purpose of an education is to have a more enjoyable life. The Iron law of Labor is that there is always someone that will work for less. All the Supply in the world will not increase Demand in the slightest. There is a reason why Buggy-whips aren't big sellers any more.

2

Seriously, you need to take Economics 101.

First of all, that thought, "the purpose of education isn't to get a job," is why there are so many people getting degrees in silly subjects, degrees that lead to no gainful employment (because there are very few jobs out there requiring a degree in Women's Studies, for example), but still drag foolish students into enormous education debt. If your degree is not in a commercially viable field, you better count on working for minimum wage and you better hope your parents funded your "education" 100%.  

Your Iron Law of Labor is made of plastic.  That's because there isn't always someone that will work for less. It can be true, but only if there is an oversupply of those ready and willing to work in the field in question.  

Now on the other hand, you're absolutely right that supply does not affect demand -- But that's because demand tends to drive supply, not the other way around. Talk about carts before horses.  If the demand is high, then supply will increase to match it.  How high the price goes depends upon how easily or quickly the demand can be satisfied.  In the case of labor, a job will pay more if there is a relative scarcity of candidates able to do the work.  This is why a job at McDonalds flipping burgers pays enormously less than a job at Microsoft developing software. It isn't that flipping burgers isn't an important task, it is that the available supply of workers able and willing to flip those burgers is enormous. And the employer can offer as little as the law allows. Heck, I'm qualified to flip burgers!  And so are you.  But can you program computers, like I can?  It's a necessary job with a demand less than supply that needs to get done, and one requires a non-trivial amount of education and training to do it successfully.  When I retired, after two years of training and 30 years of experience, I was making well above minimum wage.  And there was no chance in hell that my employer could find someone to replace me at a much lower salary.  Because there were darned few people qualified to do the work I was doing.  

If the supply of something is at all elastic (meaning the demand can be met by quickly increasing supply), then the market-clearing price will be reached likewise quickly and the price will stabilize at a low level.  But if the supply is inelastic (meaning the demand cannot be easily satisfied), then the price will continue to increase until it is well above that for the good or service with a more elastic supply.  To go the other way, if demand is low, and there's an oversupply, this will tend to drive the price lower.  In other words, if 100 people apply for 1 opening for a job that requires little or no training, you better believe the employer will be able to pay as little as they can get away with, because your Plastic Law of Labor will kick in.  But if the job can only be performed by people with significant training and/or experience, and the demand exceeds the supply, the employer may still want to pay as little as he or she can get away with, but won't be able to get away with a low wage -- because the employer will have to hire someone, and all the candidates will know they have the potential employers over a barrel -- always assuming the candidates are qualified, of course (this is because employers are competing against each other for workers, and it's a seller's market in such cases).  In still other words, when demand exceeds supply, supply drives the price down, but when supply exceeds demand, demand drives the price up.  This applies in all aspects of economics, regardless of the good or service in question.

As in all human things, there are occasional exceptions to the law of supply and demand -- and one source of exceptions is government -- but at the end of the game, the Law of Supply and Demand is king, and woe betide those who think they can flout it for very long.

Oh, and there's a reason why buggy-whips aren't big sellers these days -- it's because there's no demand for buggy whips.  The supply exceeds the demand.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

$1.45 trillion the F-35 alone.

http://time.com/money/4310099/f-35-budget-pay-free-college-student-loans/

 

 

Are you just trying to troll, or do you really think the US doesn't need to keep on the cutting edge of military technology?  I suppose you think we can keep all those old aircraft flying for another 50 years and stay competitive.  Maybe you're right.

And I think that that is JUST what the country needs: millions of entitled young adults who didn't have to contribute a dime towards their own education.  Who cares that if there's one law of economics that is nearly immutable is this: the higher the demand, the higher the price -- stated in other words as "the more money that is thrown at something, the more it will cost."  You feed the greed at your own risk.

And just how many people with degrees in Gender Studies do you think the country needs, anyway?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Stunningly obtuse !!  Reminds me of some millenials I know.

And portrayed differently in many of the articles.  

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Seriously, you need to take Economics 101.

First of all, that thought, "the purpose of education isn't to get a job," is why there are so many people getting degrees in silly subjects, degrees that lead to no gainful employment (because there are very few jobs out there requiring a degree in Women's Studies, for example), but still drag foolish students into enormous education debt. If your degree is not in a commercially viable field, you better count on working for minimum wage and you better hope your parents funded your "education" 100%.  

Your Iron Law of Labor is made of plastic.  That's because there isn't always someone that will work for less. It can be true, but only if there is an oversupply of those ready and willing to work in the field in question.  

Now on the other hand, you're absolutely right that supply does not affect demand -- But that's because demand tends to drive supply, not the other way around. Talk about carts before horses.  If the demand is high, then supply will increase to match it.  How high the price goes depends upon how easily or quickly the demand can be satisfied.  In the case of labor, a job will pay more if there is a relative scarcity of candidates able to do the work.  This is why a job at McDonalds flipping burgers pays enormously less than a job at Microsoft developing software. It isn't that flipping burgers isn't an important task, it is that the available supply of workers able and willing to flip those burgers is enormous. And the employer can offer as little as the law allows. Heck, I'm qualified to flip burgers!  And so are you.  But can you program computers, like I can?  It's a necessary job with a demand less than supply that needs to get done, and one requires a non-trivial amount of education and training to do it successfully.  When I retired, after two years of training and 30 years of experience, I was making well above minimum wage.  And there was no chance in hell that my employer could find someone to replace me at a much lower salary.  Because there were darned few people qualified to do the work I was doing.  

If the supply of something is at all elastic (meaning the demand can be met by quickly increasing supply), then the market-clearing price will be reached likewise quickly and the price will stabilize at a low level.  But if the supply is inelastic (meaning the demand cannot be easily satisfied), then the price will continue to increase until it is well above that for the good or service with a more elastic supply.  To go the other way, if demand is low, and there's an oversupply, this will tend to drive the price lower.  In other words, if 100 people apply for 1 opening for a job that requires little or no training, you better believe the employer will be able to pay as little as they can get away with, because your Plastic Law of Labor will kick in.  But if the job can only be performed by people with significant training and/or experience, and the demand exceeds the supply, the employer may still want to pay as little as he or she can get away with, but won't be able to get away with a low wage -- because the employer will have to hire someone, and all the candidates will know they have the potential employers over a barrel -- always assuming the candidates are qualified, of course (this is because employers are competing against each other for workers, and it's a seller's market in such cases).  In still other words, when demand exceeds supply, supply drives the price down, but when supply exceeds demand, demand drives the price up.  This applies in all aspects of economics, regardless of the good or service in question.

As in all human things, there are occasional exceptions to the law of supply and demand -- and one source of exceptions is government -- but at the end of the game, the Law of Supply and Demand is king, and woe betide those who think they can flout it for very long.

Oh, and there's a reason why buggy-whips aren't big sellers these days -- it's because there's no demand for buggy whips.  The supply exceeds the demand.

I've taken Econ 101 and 201. My statement still stands. In my professional life I went to 6 years of university. What I learned there is long past useful in my career. It simply opened a door, the real learning was that first day on the job, as a Social Worker facing my first clients. The class that gave me the most continuing satisfaction was an art appreciation class.

Off topic video removed. Those who are discussing economics will be removed if they don't get back on topic.

[omni]

10 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I don't you think you know what Godwin's law is.

I don't?  

Godwin's Law

"is an Internet adage which asserts that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"^[2][3]‍—‌that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds."

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

If you knew me better you would know how funny this is. Seriously, I'm somewhat of a privacy nut.

Sorry, but I wasn’t talking about big data, big brother, or privacy in general. My comment was about this case in particular. And I stand by my statement that I don’t think it’s an invasion of privacy to access information about people when they themselves are the ones who have voluntarily placed into the public sphere to begin with.

Posting comments on social media (e.g., Facebook) is the modern day equivalent of standing on a soap box and sharing your thoughts in the middle of town square. If you want to complain about your company in public you are free to do so, but it isn’t a violation of your privacy if somebody overhears your whining and tells your boss about it (and you get canned).

I'm concerned about this perception that facebook comments = sharing your voice in the middle of town square.  I just don't see them as equivalent.  Especially when a person has some control, via privacy settings on facebook, my posts are only viewable by friends by default, but I'm sure those comments could get out if someone pulled a screen shot and shared it.  

Either way, doesn't it concern you, if you are so much of a privacy nut.  Do you want a world where everything we do is recorded and can be used by companies and governments for whatever purposes they wish?  

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

Political speech isn’t always treated the same as regular speech. Some jurisdictions have laws which prohibit employers from discriminating against workers do to their political views, affiliations, or activities. Most states don’t have these kinds of restrictions, but I believe California is one of the states that does. So, in some of those cases it very well may have been illegal for employers to discriminate against LDS employees who supported Prop 8 – though it would depend on the totality of the circumstances (there are exceptions to every rule).

As I said before, I believe that employees are hired to advance their employer’s interests, not to undermine them. And in general I believe that companies are the ones best suited to determine which employees will advance those interests. That seems like a fairly reasonable position to me as an employer. How about a similar question then, in reverse:

Let’s say that the NAACP discovered one of its employees is also a member of the KKK who, on his own time, advocates for the return of Jim Crow laws. Would you favor using the force of government to punish the NAACP if they decided to fire him for his private efforts to undermine their work? 

Your question about a KKK member is a good one, so thanks for engaging in the discussion on this.  This is a hard one for me.  I am so decidedly against racism and the KKK and all the evil perpetuated by that organization, I have little tolerance for people advocating these things.  But I'm not sure how I would answer that question, it has me stumped.  

I'm not trying to say that I think the solution is government intervention, so I'm sorry if you got that impression.  I wonder if there are some protections that could be put in place to help protect privacy and free speech, while at the same time giving employers the ability to hire and fire people that they feel aren't good for their organization.  I don't have an answer on the limits or the specifics for the protections.  This isn't an easy topic, but is increasingly relevant in our modern age.  

The thread will be closed if it veers into politics, Hitler or KKK.

[6EQUJ5]

1 hour ago, omni said:

I don't?  

Godwin's Law

"is an Internet adage which asserts that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"^[2][3]‍—‌that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds."

Clearly you don't.

Please cite where I mentioned Hitler or compared anyone to Hitler.

Read that Wiki article more carefully.

ETA:  6EQUJ5's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone referencing Godwin's law without knowing what it actually means approaches 1."

Edited July 20, 2017 by 6EQUJ5

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Freedom said:

It is  bit of a flawed comparison because the teacher was let go for challenging doctrine not a corporate policy, and the teacher was a very public figure rather than an invisible backroom worker. If a marketing director of Target made such a comment, they should be fired most certainly. 

The comparisons aren't perfect, you point out some differences, I agree.  I'm not sure a marketing director at Target would get fired for this though, I would be interested to know if Target has fired any employees for making negative comments about the transgender community.  I found this interesting article on the subject.  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659024/Macys-allegedly-fires-longtime-employee-over-transgender-bathroom-incident.html

On another note, I found a ton of articles about Target boycotts by conservative groups that are very bigoted towards the LGBT community.  I won't link to those, but I was saddened by what I read in some of those articles, there is a lot of hate and evil out there masquerading as righteousness.  

 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Are you just trying to troll, or do you really think the US doesn't need to keep on the cutting edge of military technology?  I suppose you think we can keep all those old aircraft flying for another 50 years and stay competitive.  Maybe you're right.

Competitive with whom, exactly?

 

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And I think that that is JUST what the country needs: millions of entitled young adults who didn't have to contribute a dime towards their own education.  Who cares that if there's one law of economics that is nearly immutable is this: the higher the demand, the higher the price -- stated in other words as "the more money that is thrown at something, the more it will cost."  You feed the greed at your own risk.

 

Instead of investing in education, I guess we could always flush the money down the toilet on some boondoggle military project. Feeding that greed is okay, but investing in education is bad?

 

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And just how many people with degrees in Gender Studies do you think the country needs, anyway?

Yes, that's literally the only degree young people are getting these days.

 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

My English PH.D prof sister is teaching grade 5.  She got tired working from semester to semester for ten years or more.

Yes, we have a Ph.D in our ward who is teaching high school. Same reason. Universities are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Gray]

19 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Creating more teachers as independent contractors is a way of cutting costs by avoiding having to pay health insurance for employees under Obamacare. So yes, Obamacare does have something to do with it in the sense of why PhDs are being hired as independent contractors. With less supply, the market would correct so that fewer PhDs would accept work as independent contractors. Again it's simple supply and demand.

You seem to be confusing ACA plans with employer sponsored plans. Not the same thing.

 

19 hours ago, RevTestament said:

No, the money is not "there." New spending out of non-existent revenue is financed through issuing debt. Being that there are not enough people or foreign governments to buy all this debt, the Federal Reserve is purchasing this debt. With what? Largely, with money it has printed. No offense, but you clearly do not understand economics. Go take a course in government finance. It will be an upper level economics course.

I have gotten off the subject of the thread though which is dealing more with right to fire than the economics of her situation as an independent contractor/"employee." So, I probably won't address this subject further.

You seem to be under the impression that people who disagree with your political views "don't understand economics." That's not actually how it works.

[omni]

3 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Clearly you don't.

Please cite where I mentioned Hitler or compared anyone to Hitler.

Read that Wiki article more carefully.

ETA:  6EQUJ5's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone referencing Godwin's law without knowing what it actually means approaches 1."

Did you read the portion of Godwin's Law I bolded?

"sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds"

I'm not sure why I need to explain this, but here it goes.  You made an analogy in which you referenced neo-Nazis.  Nazism or neo-Nazis are inextricably linked to Hitler and would be considered one of "his deeds".  So even though you didn't explicitly mention "Hitler", your comments would still fall under Godwin's Law.

I don't want to further derail the thread, so this will be my last comment on Gideon's Law.

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by omni

[Stargazer]

On 7/20/2017 at 8:31 AM, Gray said:

Competitive with whom, exactly?

 

Yeah, that's right, there's nobody to compete with these days.  Let's just disband the whole thing.  Two countries spring to mind: Russia; and China.

Quote

Instead of investing in education, I guess we could always flush the money down the toilet on some boondoggle military project. Feeding that greed is okay, but investing in education is bad?

 

Typical deflection.  If I were to say that the purpose of the federal government is not to build schools, would you ask me why I hate education?  That's exactly what you just did here: put words in my mouth and then show faux outrage over my smallmindedness.  Sorry, ain't buying it.

And "investing"?  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you seem to think it means.

Quote

Yes, that's literally the only degree young people are getting these days.

 

Of course it is.  There you go again!  

If you throw too much money at a problem, people, being inventive and always on the lookout for an easy time, will find ways to use that money, for better or worse.  You spoke of boondoggles earlier.  I know a man who, after getting a two-year degree in computer programming under the GI bill, went back and got a second two-year degree he didn't need, just because he hadn't yet used his entitlement up. Arguably, the government's money was used appropriately for the first degree, and after getting it he continued in that profession as a contributing member of society until he retired, 30 years later.  He got the second degree just because the money was available, and the monthly stipend after expenses (tuition, books, etc) amounted to a second, part-time job.  He didn't violate any law doing what he did, but he later felt that what he did was unethical -- and it was.  The money that he received for getting that second degree wasn't wasted, per se, but it did represent an opportunity cost -- it was was money that could have gone for something else more valuable -- taxes were wasted.

At the education institution level, the same thing is observed to occur for such things as the aforementioned Gender Studies, as well as other areas of study with very tenuous grasps on reality (and employability).  There are a few institutions of higher learning, for example, that will teach you how to enter the exciting world of surfing -- not how to surf, per se, but how to manage sporting events featuring surfing: The Surf-Specific Degree.

 

OFF TOPIC