From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: Tough Tests(Re: Education (was: Re: DOES AMERICA SAY YES 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:40:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.161834.17914@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>In article <BzBF3B.77K@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>> We cannot be sure that less violence and such is due to their social
>> welfare system, or if it is, that our crime, etc., would be cut down
>> significantly [especially when firearms in Europe have been under tight
>> control for a VERY long time, or illegal to own.  While that solution
>> to firearms works in Europe, we cannot do it in the US: too many gun owners
>> now - roughly 100,000,000+ - and that pesky Bill of Rights...]
>
>What about the view of rural hicks who are stereotypically stupid, eg.
>the stereotypical southerner, the character Woody on 'Cheers', (or here
>in NH) the entire Coos county (:-))?  Aren't these the sort of people
>more likely to own guns?  I don't think educated college graduates (ie.
>the type of Americans who would have passed the admissions standards
>for Western European countries) are as likely to own guns, or to think
>gun control is a terrible idea?  For example, most of my friends, even

Someone posted some gun-control statistics on current demographics, if
s/he could comment, I would appreciate it.  I recall there being a gap, 
but a suprisingly small gap (less than 5%) among almost all groups.  
Proabably those most likely to hunt, or brazenly display the guns, are
probably those types you mention.  I don't think College Education has
much to do with it, but I really don't recall exact numbers - so whoever
had the stats, please re-post!

>the conservative ones, seem to support some sort of limits on, say,
>assault rifles.  My parents, who are definitely blue-collar, say it
>will only increase crime because people will steal to be able to buy
>the guns.  I think the same would hold for things like the death
>penalty, the Gulf War, etc.

I personally think that gun limitations of one sort or another are
or should be implemented [waiting periods, mandatory safety courses,
no carry permit for convicted felons ever, or some such] but an outright
ban is totally unfair.  If someone wants to hunt with an assault rifle,
or just to own one/shoot one [not at people please! :)] so what?  If
it is not an assault rifle, it will be a deer rifle in a crime, just
as deadly in its own way.  I do agree with the ban on full auto weapons -
anyway most people couldn't afford to waste ammo like that! :)

>> I think that it is pretty obvious which schools are on which tiers, so
>> doesn't matter much - I would much prefer to allow anyone to get as
>> educated as he/she can stand than to say "Sorry, your scores on test
>> xx75 are too low for us to allow you to learn any more from a school."
>> 
>> Granted, some schools are pretty easy to get into though...
>> [you have to be breathing, and sign your name on that check...]
>
>But doesn't this corrupt the quality of the college degree?

As a status symbol, perhaps, but i feel it shouldn't be.  What becomes
the 'status' is the school you went to, not the degree itself.  I feel
it also allows as many people as possible to become educated, thereby
raising the level of our society as a whole.  I would like to see a
majority of people with higher education of some sort [technical or
college, your choice] - but then again, i am a bit egalitarian...:)

-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         | For a mere $50 these personal  | I will be gone: |
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | opinions can also be yours!    | 20 Dec - 4 Jan  |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa