SAH doesn't support change,
Find a Conversation
SAH doesn't support change,
| Sat, 08-26-2006 - 4:58pm |
"SAH doesn't support change, it supports going backwards to the 1950's,"
Statement in a post below.
I wholeheartedly disagree. To me, SAH is a choice. How is that going back to the 1950s, when a lot of women didn't have much of a choice.

Pages
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You're 21 or 22.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You know, for my dad, I think it was really more about missing out on the educational opportunity more than it was about later career opportunities. It was expected that he would go into the family business either way, so it didn't really affect his career. But he still felt he missed out on something.
ITA that going to college at 18 is *way* easier than doing it later, and like you, I admire those who do it later.
I think it {not needing gen ed courses because of AP credits) would be especially true in top-tier private colleges where most of the incoming freshmen not only took all the available AP courses but also scored 4's and 5's on them. "General ed" would assume to have been completed in high school with no necessity of repeating material--I'm thinking of survey classes like American history, in particular.
I didn't attend an Ivy or anything close, but from my student who attended Harvard I've gotten the impression that although Harvard did accept 5's on her AP exams, AP credits did little to speed up her degree--because there really aren't general ed requirements. She went right into quite specialized, although broadly scoped, courses, so instead of taking gen ed, say survey of Brit lit pre and post 1850, she instead might study the work of women in the first half of the 20th century.
My students who go to state schools with lots of AP credits end up taking advanced courses sooner, skipping out on the "gen ed" courses and perhaps double majoring with the extra courses available.
The private colleges tend to turn out more well-rounded thinkers, whereas the state schools seem more focused on career training. On the other had, an intelligent and thoughtful individual probably can receive a true liberal arts education either place.
I don't know if that makes sense or not. Just my musings, I guess.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
the less educated,ambitious bank teller who loves her job sets the better example than the college educated but miserable professional whose only doing it for the bucks.
edited.
Edited 9/3/2006 8:04 pm ET by egd3blessed
A bachelor's degree in 3 years - while working - is quite hard to believe. Maybe some on-line programs make offers to that effect, but I would be wary - especially about the degree being recognized by employers and other educational institutions.
Nursing school or other vocational programs can certainly take less than 4 years - but they don't result in a bachelor's degree.
Yep -I bought that book - 100 college scholarships for the taking! (or whatever it was called) and wrote to dozens without a single one resulting in so much as a dime.
There *is* money out there, but it tends to be very narrowly targeted. Getting some of that money is great - but it just can't be a primary plan to pay for college.
Pages