Thoughts on our circumstances...: The Best Thing American Parents Can Do Is Take Their Children Out of the Schools and Universities

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

The Best Thing American Parents Can Do Is Take Their Children Out of the Schools and Universities

Source: Confessions of a College Professor

Higher Learning Commission: Accreditation Is No Sign Of Quality

Sunday, November 10, 2019 | by Professor Doom

The College Meltdown recently had a post which basically said what I showed years ago in my book: accreditation is a fraud.

Before going on, a quick overview of accreditation: well over a century ago, our institutions of higher education got together and decided to share ideas on how to run their institutions. It was a completely voluntary system, and so what rules there were, were given as suggestions, with an underlying assumption of good faith.

Because accredited schools were willing to do extra work, to always have an underlying goal of improving, accredited schools were viewed as superior. It's also worth noting that, in times past, a school first became an established good school and then, only after that, would they seek to become accredited. In any event, schools willing to do this were considered superior schools.

We live in inverted times today, and now schools' only purpose upon opening their doors is to become accredited, and being a good school first if at all is irrelevant (although admin will tell you they'll care about quality after getting accredited). It'd be nice if this were the only inversion, but the reason for this inversion is key to the rest: the student loan scam. Only accredited schools qualify to get the ridiculously huge torrent of Federal student loan and grant money.

I taught at an unaccredited school for a few years; I assure the gentle reader that when students were paying for classes with their own money...they cared more. Once that school became accredited, it basically doubled in size from one semester to the next, and then again, but classes were filled with kids who believed they were going there "for free" and no longer cared.

Insiders in higher education have been well aware of the corruption inherent in accreditation, but few speak of it publicly. The way the system works, accreditors like the Higher Learning Commission receive most of their their money from member schools, which gives them a vested interest in keeping their customers viable, even among their worst or most predatory performers.

The above quote is rather telling: everyone who works in this industry knows accreditation is a fraud. The faculty at the fake schools know it the most, although at least a few think the school is defrauding accreditation (that's what I thought, until I went line by line through the accreditation rules and saw with my own eyes it's basically impossible to defraud the accreditors, because they just don't care).

Rather than acting as auditors, higher education accreditors for decades have acted as shills for whomever they accredit, and that can include some of the most predatory and substandard schools in America.

Part of the reason accreditation is a fraud is they get paid, and paid handsomely, by the schools wanting to become accredited. Accreditation used to be a voluntary process, but almost no school can compete with the kind of money an accredited school gets. So, each school pays the fees, which can add up to hundreds of thousands per school per year. This may not sound like much but the accreditor does almost nothing for that money, because accreditation was built from the ground up to be a voluntary process only for schools willing to do all the work themselves.

It's a great deal.

Another big reason for the fraud is the people working for the accreditors are also working for, or used to work for, the schools. The conflicts of interest here are multitudinous, little different than the Congress/lobbyist relationship we see in our government.

"I really worry about the intrusion of the profit motive in the accreditation system. Some of them, as I have said, will accredit a ham sandwich, and I think it's very important for us to make sure that they're independent and not being bought off by the Internet." -Mary A. Burgan, General Secretary of the American Association of University Professors (2000)

Since the rules are basically voluntary, it's quite rare for a school to lose accreditation, almost every rule is something the school "should" do, not "must" do. The only exception, of course, is to pay those fees. That rule cannot be violated! (Accrediting fee schedule here, for those interested.)

As I said before, we live in inverted times. Modern medicine sickens, schools mis-educate, media misinforms, food malnourishes...so many lies. Granted, the very observant can read food labels, be wary of doctors, ignore our mass media misinformers, and be extraordinarily wary of doctors...but when it comes to higher education, for generations we were given to believe accreditation was a seal of legitimacy.

No, it's just one more inversion. Accreditation is, far more often than not, a sign that the school has been corrupted by our student loan scam, and nothing more.
________

Source: The Unz Review

Fincel Rebellion: Some Career Advice for Young Men

By GUILLAUME DUROCHER • NOVEMBER 16, 2019 • 130 COMMENTS

"Wow, you sure know your Nietzsche and FBI crime statistics. Your future employers will be super impressed by your general knowledge!"

It seems that more and more young Western men are finding it difficult to find their place in the world. In the United States, men's wages have stagnated over the last four decades, while women have been closing the gap. Perhaps not coincidentally, there has been a steady increase in both male and female involuntary celibacy ("incels)", with a growing percentage of childless and never-married Americans. Half of Americans are either single, divorced, or never married.

The media helpfully observes that, with the economic decline of men, women are less and less able to find a man who meets their financial expectations. Simple observation would suggest that men have evolved to provide and women have evolved to care (or, as Schopenhauer and Gandhi pointed out, to spend). As a result forced economic equality between two different, to not say unequal, sexes translates into sexual and romantic misery for more and more Americans.

So much for the overall trends, but let's not worry about them too much. The question is: How can you make the most of your personal situation and thus, improve both that situation and the society's?

Personally, I had no understanding of the realities of professional life growing up. I hope this article can help at least a few men on their career paths.

First of all, forget the idea that your "education" is in any way supposed to prepare you for life or the workplace. Personally, I lean towards Michel Houellebecq and Ed West's view that the schools need to be emptied and child labor reinstituted. The best thing would be to shut down most of the universities and, even, senior high schools, using the savings to provide tax cuts for companies hiring young people.

Do not think your academic (under) performance reflects anything of any relevance to the professional world. Study only as much as you like: either passionately because you find the subject to be of intrinsic value or just as much as is necessary to get any rubber-stamp diploma you might need. Either is fine.

On finding a job: get the necessary qualifications for whatever field you are looking into, be willing to move (ideally to somewhere where you have some relatives, family friend, or potential mentor, this can help enormously, both socially and professionally, or simply in terms of feeling at home), and go out and meet people. Find the people and organizations with money!

On actual professional advice, I tell everyone the same thing: read Hagakure. This book of samurai savoir-vivre has all you need. In short, never complain, criticize only to improve others or rectify a situation (never to injure), serve, and listen. Your little sacrifices and good faith will radiate to others, leading them to in turn listen to you, serve you, and promote you.

Try to join a field or company which is booming, the sooner you get in the faster you will rise. Don't be afraid to "game" the system. It took me a long time to understand that professional success has little to do with merit or actual economic productivity. A promotion is often a question of being in the right place at the right time. In politics and bureaucracies, everyone is just waiting for their superior to die off or be taken down by a scandal.

If I were to sum up how I think a man's career progresses, much boils down to two factors: Inspiration perspiration. By inspiration, I mean sincere and spontaneous pursuit of a goal of intrinsic worth, one which interests us as such, about which we are passionate, regardless of any immediate economic gain. By perspiration, I mean something more prosaic: reliability, serving others, hopefully having a useful skill, without any particular bells and whistles.

A "traditional" career path is realized through perspiration, game-changing is achieved through inspiration. Most people, being uninspired, will rise up either as useful practitioners or boring ("reliable") bureaucrats. A few – a Jeff Bezos, a Julian Assange, a Donald Trump – will take the chance and change the game altogether. All really successful careers, ones that don't immediately burn out in a glorious blaze, will in fact have episodes of exhilarating inspiration and longer periods of more humdrum perspiration.

[Ed.'s note: We disagree on the idea Jeff Bezos "took a chance" since he is a "project."]

My instinct is to tell young men to follow their inspiration as much as possible, but there is something to be said for a more straightforward career path, especially if one gets in on things early. This is ideal if you have a family tradition or a mentor in the field in question. It makes sense to study to be a doctor or an engineer if you have some spontaneous attraction to the field. You must enjoy what you do on some level.

I understand that if a young American joins the U.S. military at 16 or 21, he may retire with a pension at 36 or 41: certainly twenty years of service in the world's most powerful fighting force (or its bureaucracy) will provide a man with character and insight into the ways of the world, and leave him the bulk of his life, if he so wishes, with the leisure to engage in patriotic politics.

[Ed.'s note: Don't join the military.]

Please go to The Unz Review to read the entire article.
________

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: Anti-white discrimination is ESCALATING