The sad evolution of Jenny Grace Makholm.

Over at collegefix.com I encountered a post defending her alma mater, Emerson College. Jenny is an actress who graduated from Emerson with a BFA and now is an actress living in NYC.

As she writes, she came from a devout Christian household where she was taught that homosexuality was a sin. She also had issues with what she was taught about the earth while attending Emerson; apparently whatever she was taught at her Catholic high school made her confused once she took science courses. Here's her entire passionate post that barely addresses how fellow Emersonians treated a conservative student -

 "Emersonian alum here.

No one should be bullied. I myself was a devout christian who had some conservative values when I entered Emerson College in 2000. I was met with nothing but love, acceptance, and a positive college expereince that I will cherish, as well as life-long friends.

The education alone is enough, but honestly, Emersonians have been some of the most wonderful people I've ever met. Almost without fail, if I happen upon a fellow alum in my travels, I make a friend.

I'm so sorry this woman had this experience. That was not my expereince there.

I will say that I entered Emerson knowing that it is among the MOST socially liberal schools on the east coast. Having been raised in a deeply religious household, I didn't exactly know what that would mean.

What that meant for me was meeting and befriending the first openly gay people (now gratefully of many) who taught me so much about LGBTQI rights. After having been taught it was a sin for so long, I actually met and befriended gay people and started really understanding LGBTQI rights from a personal perspective. I learned empathy and understanding. I learned tolerance and humility from them. I now am a happy advocate and ally for LGBTQI folks, and a better person for it.

It meant learning about evolution from the now sadly deceased genius Alan Hankin, who cradled my thirst for knowledge and answered all of my difficult questions (for the first time to my satisfaction in my academic career) with patience and enthusiasm, combating years of confusion I got from religious schools who taught that dinosaurs walked amoung us, or that the world was only 3,000 years old. He didn't shame me, instead he lit an intellectual fire in me that has burned even brighter in my adulthood; science used to hold dubious interest for me, now I am a enthusiast.

I sat in the student center, huddled along with all of my classmates the day the towers went down on 9-11. I watched a student body be shaken and traumatized by those events. We wept together, terrified and unsure of what the future would hold. Emerson has a great deal of foreign students. Among them was an Afghani princess who regularly spoke before 9-11 about the human rights atrocities going on in her country. Many muslim students were unsure what 9-11 would mean to their place at Emerson, tales of hate crimes against people who appeared to be Muslim were on the rise. They were embraced and defended.

I watched a student body argue respectfully about the war that we then entered, all opinions aired and debated. I went from an independant voter who had voted in the past for both Republicans and Democrats, to a politically empowered citizen. I marched alongside my fellow students.

In class, I had the pleasure of being taught by the now deceased Rhea Gaisner. She taught me so many lessons, but among them was that all Art is in some way political-- Art is a reflection of the times; it can't help but comment on the world. I remember at her memorial an old classmate of mine standing up and telling a story about Rhea: "I was sitting in the hallway on the 3rd floor. Rhea walked past me with her ususal speed. She stopped, looked at me, and asked point blank: 'Did you vote today?' To be honest, I hadn't realized that the midterm elections were that day. I made some excuse about absentee ballots or something, which she waved away with annoyance. 'Not good enough! Voting is your duty as a citizen.' And she walked away. I have voted in every election, rain or shine, since."

I could give you story after story about Emerson and how it made me the more educated, more empathic, more creative, more informed, more progressive person I am today. I am sad for this woman's experience, but know that this was not my experience, and not the expereince of all of the folks I went to school with.

I have my qualms with Emerson-- the expense is a huge issue, and the then college President Jackie Liebergott's sometimes VERY contentious descisions.

I'll say this: if one goes to a highly progressive, highly liberal school, as I did, if one is religious as I was or more conservative, as I was, one cannot expect not to have those values challenged, as mine were. I greeted those challenges with some enthusiasm, and some resistence, but I did understand that I had chosen a place where those things would be called into question. In short I had chosen to have my opinions challenged. I had my pick of schools, but I chose Emerson, and I knew that meant I would have to really start thinking about my political and social values-- not change them, but be able to argue them.

If I wanted a place that did not challenge me or force me to evolve and grow, I would have chosen the Christian colleges many of my friends went to. I'm so SO grateful I did not do that."

90% of it is saying how amazing Emerson is and how her encounters with LGBT people and her professors made her into an empathetic, compassionate, informed and progressive person. The other 10% is how the threatened student should've stayed and become challenged. That's all well and good, the encouragement of staying, but it's not entirely unbiased -



Don't let that first passionate post fool you. She's an actress who, when she has time, has decided to fight those anti-SJW, MGOTW, AllLivesMatter people - she's on their side. Now how does a devout Christian, from a deeply religious household, who attended a Catholic high school basically become an LGBT ally (and she's states her life is better because of it) and an atheist? It's a complex answer but I'm sure it's somewhat obvious in Jenny's case. She posted a link to a picture of her back in her Emerson days when another poster was skeptical of her proclamation of being an Emerson alumnus. This is what she wrote about her final year at Emerson:

When our BFA 2004 class graduated, Sara R. and Maragaret put up 14 of these fliers, one for each of us, as a sort of ad for our vacant spots. I changed a lot that year- chopped off all my hair, dyed it blonde, left my fiance, moved in with frat boys, started cussing like a sailor, and drinking like a fish- even smoking a few cigarettes when the mood inclined- the departure from my old habits was pronounced to say the least. I still have my BFA Vacancy poster, oh yes I do.

Left her fiance? Left? Not called off the engagement or broke off. Left. Maybe that's exactly what she meant, but given the "shedding one's old self" tone I doubt it. Moved in with frat boys? I wonder what happened there. Since she left her fiancee there's no need for commitment and dignity, right? Gotta cuss and drink like a sailor because dammit it's my senior year in college!

I'm not sure what age Jenny entered university life, but it's currently 2017. She said she graduated in 2004. 13 years. Let's say she entered college at 18. That would mean she's about 35 yrs old. I don't believe she's married. It doesn't appear she has any kids. After living in Boston for college she immediately moved to NYC and has stayed there ever since.

I also want to say that she appears to be cordial and reasonable when presenting herself. Clearly not so if we take into consideration her "WOKE FOLKS" FB post. I will guess WOKE means white. Or maybe it means "awoke" as is I'm a aware of the - isms that plague the world.

Jenny Grace Makholm before Emerson: devout Christian with some conservative values.

Jenny Grace Makholm after Emerson, 13 years later: feminist, LGBT ally & advocate, atheist, unmarried and childless.

Ms. Makholm is your typical garden variety "progressive" actress in NYC. All she left out is admitting she got her tubes tied.

What non-Americans think of America's higher educational system.

When non-Americans comment on America's higher educational system these are the things that I've heard -

1. That their degree(s) cost 1/3 (or anything less than the amount the average America pays for a BA) of that of an American degree.

2. American graduate students are babied and that graduate students at say, Oxford, are treated with independence where a greater amount of maturity is expected.

3. If your degree isn't from the Ivy League, Stanford, University of Chicago or MIT it's crap.

These came from several Englishmen, an Australian and I believe some European from continental Europe. Of course, one of the Englishmen was the father of a Cambridge student and the Australian had a law degree, so go figure about the snot coming from their nose.

New link added.

Campus Reform.

Please fuck off Mr. Coastal.

I understand attending a specialized university would bring its own unique experiences. A university based on the teaching of Catholicism would be one element. Add the fact that its location is in middle America. After reading a the review of Franciscan University this came particular review raised these issues -

"I attended Franciscan University in the early 2000's and had a good experience. I made good friends and learned a lot about my faith and about myself.

It was a culture shock at first. I'm from New York City and most of the kids were from small towns. A lot of kids were home schooled which was something I hadn't even heard of before I went there. NYC is a diverse place and I grew up experiencing many different cultures and ideas, but there weren't a lot of kids like the ones I met at Franciscan. It is not a very diverse place in terms of race or even ideas. The school is extremely conservative. If that's what you're into, then you'll love it. I'm happy I went there. I have good memories. I also now have an insight into the upside down thinking that most of middle America has."

The demographics probably has changed since the early 2000s. Even then, I found it a little patronizing and hypocritical of this poster to conclude what he did. Not universities are created equal and most universities have a liberal bent - institutions like Franciscan University not withstanding.

There have been countless stories, documents and recorded, of conservative students on liberal campuses on the coasts being ostracized, blackballed and mocked by their fellow students and even professors. This is not to say that whatever lack of diverse ideas is be defended, but it helps to put things in perspective. If I attend a university similar to Franciscan University I won't be expecting NYU or UCLA type of diversity in race or ideas. The institution attracts a certain type of student as do the MITs and the Warren Wilsons of the world. I'm not sure what he was expecting at the university.

How does spending four years in Steubenville, Ohio, population of approximately 18.5K, give insight on "most of middle America"? Not only that but the ideas the poster was exposed to he considers "upside down thinking" though he gave no examples of what ideas came as a culture shock to make him think so. No offense to the city and the university but they don't speak for other states.

If anything, this is the failure of critical thinking of the coastal "enlightened" (well I'm from NYC where it's so diverse!) to think that because he spent 36 months in middle America they have a sound understanding of the region. Let's visit Midwestern liberal arts colleges: Kenyon, Beloit, or Oberlin. Would spending 36 months at either college be a fair amount to say one can objectively judge middle America? Maybe. It depends on what they studied, who they interacted with, and what they did within their studies. If we just

It's clear to see this poster's thinking - homogeneous student body, high percent of home schoolers, conservative, Catholic, and middle America equates to backwards thinking. I suppose all that consumption of diverse cultures and ideas in NYC didn't produce a truly enlightened person he thinks he is.

The never ending road to "nowhere."

It always makes me chuckle when people say "we got a long way to go" when talking about social issues, say, campus rape culture or civil rights. It's usually those that believe that 1 out of 4 women are raped on any college campus. It's usually those that, for whatever reason, think LGBT's are a legit victim group.

In the Boston Globe there's an article concerning campus rape. Campus rape is horrid, but I'm skeptical of these surveys. They always end in destroying traditions (Harvard final's club) and always point to fingers at greek life. Take this comment

"On a recent flight I watched the old WWI movie, "A Farewell to Arms", made in 1932. I was appalled to see that what was called a "romance" started when the main character stalked and harassed a nurse. When she rejected his advances, he kept touching her and insisting, until she finally slapped him. And then he kept on, and eventually she "gave in." This was date rape, characterized as a classic romance. I would say things are improving these days, but obviously there is still a long way to go."

Christian Hoff Sommers further expands on why she thinks surveys and studies depicting campus rape as frequent as opening a book are wrong. The danger to not believing the surveys are people who are taken aback who say, "Well, that one survey had interviews with the sample. Are you daring to question the responses of the women who were interviewed?" Yes.

Rape is a horrid crime, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt the organizations being blamed for rape (fraternities, all-male final's clubs) and look with an equally stern eye to the women and administrators who accuse. UVA turned out to be a false story. The Duke lacrosse story also was deemed highly inaccurate. 

Besides comments totally buying into the survey there were the usual comments dismissing conservatives.

"Gee, I missed that policy message. Where did you find that ? Glen Beck, Limpbag? O'Really? Faux News?"

The only people who bring up such people and network in that way are leftists. I remember watching an interview with the Harry Potter trio where each actor needed to say a word with an American accent, with Daniel Radcliffe receiving "Glenn Beck" in a card. He immediately responded that he didn't want to. I found this strange and rather presumptuous. This was in 2010. Radcliffe was 18 at the time; I was rather liberal when I saw the video but even I didn't have an issue with Glenn Beck being on the card. Without fail the man's an atheist and supports LGBT rights as if the LGBT in either the UK or US were being thrown off of buildings. There's no doubt Radcliffe believes what comes out of BBC and there's no doubt that those he admires have influenced his beliefs.

But back to "the never ending road." SJW's see injustice everywhere. They step out of their room and look out the window and they see injustice. Harvard, the most well-known academic brand, is not immune to "righting the wrongs." Students of the university's law school have successfully petitioned to change the program's seal. Why? Because it has sheaves of wheat which reminds people of slavery.

I do see where the sheaves of wheat is controversial, but I ultimately am not compelled to be angered over it. Yes, Isaac Royal Jr., the land benefactor of Harvard Law School, was a slave owner. So what. Hypothetically, if Royal's house was built by slaves and was put on the shield instead would indignation be present? I'd say no. But because sheaves of wheat are usually associated with slaves in America it's "inconsistent with the values of both the university and the law school." (I could not find Harvard Law "values.")

This isn't the only incident where Harvard was desperate to shed of any connotation of slavery or racism. Recently it has been decided to remove the title of "master" for faculty positions heading the university's residential houses, and instead have renamed them "faculty dean." The damn title, "master," in this case wasn't even slave related, but one of authority and respect towards the undergraduates.

So how many more miles do we have to go? 

You know they have an agenda.

Sociology Phil Zuckerman, an atheist, says that children in secular households turn out better than kids raised in religious homes.

Studies are lauded when it shows that children come from same-sex households "show no difference" when compared to kids raised with a mother and father. In fact, the narrative goes even farther: kids raised in same-sex households sometimes turn out better.

Studies like the Mark Regnerus study showing that same-sex households raising kids are worse? You get sites like TheRegnerusFallout.com coming into existence. You get a very disdainful sociology professor at SIU (who has a blog that shows his true side) tearing it apart. You get a governing body of social research to send a professor, said SIU professor,  to vet every page.

I mean, really?

The end goal is to officially establish The New Normal.

We have young couples in San Francisco, opposite sex, who wish that their kids turn out to be LGBT because it'll be more interesting and they'll score extra points for being so open-minded towards their LGBT child.

We have people calling couples of the opposite "breeders."

And we have pissed off college students who actually believe in "white privilege."

These people don't need (sound) studies or debate. All they need is momentum. 

Sewanee caves into the feminists.

Over at Ivy Style, editor-in-chief Christian created a wonderful post about the joyous day of commencement at the University of the South, or simply known as Sewanee. It's a marvelous tribute to the tightness of the campus and to the well-dressed students.

But all was not well.

The post was so marvelous that Sewanee put it on their facebook page, only for it to be later taken down due to backlash of how the students were described. As Christian writes -

"So I was monitoring Google Analytics and social media today, and Sewanee put up a link to this post on its Facebook page, leading to another giant traffic spike that lasted for several hours.

Initial comments on FB were proud and positive. Then the feminists started complaining. I say feminists because the most vocal used that term in reference to her studies, and said she felt “erased” by the quote from the reader who said the female students in the post from last fall looked “ladylike.”

Several others complained that this post is sexist because of the terms “ladylike” and “fresh-faced and pretty.”

I went out for a couple hours and when I got back the link and discussion thread had been removed from Sewanee’s Facebook page."

The feminists are on every campus, even if it's in The South. It's almost a guarantee that someone will be offended if you give words that are complimentary to a woman that is genteel in nature. I can only assume that this is seen as a sin because, if I wear my feminist cap, unconsciously puts women "in a box" and creates images of a picket fence, marriage and - I dunno - slimness. A housewife may have popped into their feminist head alongside submissiveness. Modern day feminists don't like that.

Maybe they were triggered and thought that Christian's words were hints of sexual harassment.

What else? Fresh-faced and pretty. As suppose to what, hot? Babe? Bangable? Fuckable? Dour?

Maybe those that complained want the words like "independent," "strong," "empowered" as descriptive words instead of "fresh-faced and pretty." There's no doubt in my mind that the "fresh-faced and pretty" women captured in the Sewanee photos would describe themselves as such.

As a guy, I greatly prefer "fresh-faced and pretty." Add in "ladylike" as well. I suggest that you don't erase such a standard, or else you risk the future of young women not knowing was "ladylike" is and what it entails. You also don't want young men who have forgotten what being a gentlemen is, because without a lady, a gentleman would be incomplete - in some way.

EDIT: Since the Ivy Style Sewanee post was taken down from the university's Facebook page, a handful of students have ventured to the site and have expressed their views.

Students, Isabella Lilly and Rachel Head, wrote the following -

Speaking of privilege -

EDIT 4: I've met this mentality before - the scoffing off when someone mentions political correctness. That person was a homosexual. Go figure.

I've written back to most of these losers and I said that opposing views have taken into account the microaggression brigade. The reason why they're mad is because the "fellows" (the clowns, creeps and bores at Ivy Style) won't apologize; C'13 and his crowd are bitter because people actually stand up to their shit. The irony.

Come up with a better argument before you decide to pick a fight with your better-equipped peers online.

 You mad, bro?

I'm not sure what's so "short-sighted" about the article since it really didn't say anything about the university or student body besides acknowledging the sense of community and pride that permeates the pictures. It's obvious that C'13 is not up-to-date on the tracking and discussions about the feminist/microaggression crowd done by conservative blogs (see: College Fix, Minding the Campus) and think tanks (see: Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute, YAF) and that the disparages are not without thought. Also note the arrogance of the poster. He believes that Isabella's and Rachel's posts were excellent counters to the article, and that the disparages are shallow.

This fucker actually believes that his indignant side is the "A-Team." He actually thinks that the people who expressed disagreement are in over their heads.

Then we get into some "you've been token up' heavily, eh?" territory.

EDIT 2: Paula Jones cared to join.

If you tell off the feminists, accusing them being "PC Stalinists," and refuse to apologize, you're the delicate snowflake according to poster "Ol' Nippy" -

"Me thinks the overly sensitive ones are the clowns calling out the “PC Stalinist” crowd. Who is the real snowflakes here?"

We got cunts who want to throw out all the accusations and then some. They're in the right. They aren't the snowflakes. You can't win because they aren't honest and they don't practice logic.

Clowns? Bores? These are all used to mock, denigrate, and silence the people they deem ill equipped to handle important discussion.

Note: Both C'13 and Paula use "better equipped" when referring those - and I don't who they're referring to - that no doubt feed their psychological imbalance.

EDIT 5: Sewanee student "Paul [Gibson] Naumann" issued this set of posts -

Since the article featured mostly whites (maybe he expected to see more minorities?) he accuses his own campus of having "white male privilege." Given a quick google search and if I can derive anything from his name, Naumann is white himself. As I try to make sense of his first post he's also accusing the article of having racist and classist undertones because it pictures mostly white and well-dressed students.

Naumann is the same student who wrote this student piece back in 2013. The topic? Douchebag frat boys and sexism. The boy even says that men assert their male privilege in the workforce and depend on it to get ahead while females have to work harder. Given his writing ability Naumann has demonstrated that he's a dumbass.

In his article Naumann posits that since the university's Alpha Phi Omega chapter, alongside others, is led by women that "male excellence" is debunked. I was in APO at my university and there were more females than male members, about 70-30 ratio. During my undergraduate years my chapter's president was male and then I later become president. Unless there's an even distribution of male to female at Sewanee's chapter, and that a male lost an executive position to the eventual winner who so happens to be female, Naumann's premise just doesn't work. He then accuses SGA (Student Government Association) of sexism since it's been dominated by males - too closed minded and lazy to elect a female. (Are we talkin' Hillary Clinton here?) That's weird, because Mizzou's SGA's executive board is led by a male. Yes, the Peyton Head who rang a false alarm about seeing a KKK member on campus. Not only does Mizzou has to deal with BLM, but also sexism! Naumann better give the heads-up to Mizzou! Right the wrong! What's strange is that Sewanee has more female students then male. I'm not aware of SGA at Sewanee being accused of male bias in the past, so I think Naumann is seeing things that only he sees due to his poorly developed brain.

Isabella and Rachel probably know each other. C'13 and BB c'17 probably have some ties to said students. Same with Paula. Paul is the perfect white knight.

#FogeyGate

University of San Francisco's Intercultural Center goes full-retard.

You cannot make this stuff up.

Are any of the staff practicing Christians? As a Catholic I never asked for a day off nor did my parents or their friends who are also Catholic. I never needed one for religious reasons. I don't know how they came up with this Christian privilege.

The other sad part is other universities thought it was a good idea and implemented it on their campus as well, reports the San Francisco Foghorn campus newspaper.

 “The posters were shared thousands of times on social media sites, especially Tumblr and Facebook, and published in feminist online publications Jezebel and Bitch Media. As a result, there have been numerous requests from colleges across the nation to use the materials on their campuses.” 

This is something straight out of tumblr's Loserville section. If you check the Intercultural Center's staff bios you can get some idea of how this became about.

If we just look at the staff group picture there are a few white females who are no doubt feminists. There's one white guy who I will presume is a White Knight. There's a couple of fat chicks, a black guy trying to act cool, a bunch of Asian girls, an Indian girl, couple of black chicks and a fat Hispanic. No Asian guy. No Middle Eastern or Indian guy. Heck, there's not one person who is physically handicapped in one way or another. Are any of these people veterans?

We have a bunch of indignant assholes whose "awareness" is making naive college & high school students believe that "Check Your Privilege" is some legit movement worth investing in.

Social Work.

The helping field where you don't take a vow of poverty, but you sure are expected to suck it up and somehow be all fucking happy about it.

It currently dawned on me that for MSW's 10 month internship for school social work is unpaid. You're basically forced to work for free if you want to successfully complete your degree and there's no guarantee you'll even land a job that pays at least 40K six months after graduation. But you'll be over 15K in debt. For a "masters."

During my undergraduate years my internships, besides one, was paid (summers were paid, semesters weren't). The difference is that the paid internships were only two-three months long; and even then not being for that duration was sorta fine if it came to it since the duration was short. A school work internship being unpaid - for the entire school year - is fucking ludicrous. 

My friends that became elementary teachers only had one semester internship for their program (music, English, social studies) in their senior year and they're certified teachers once they graduate.

This field becomes more of a bizarre joke once I delve deeper into the abyss of social justice.

Highlights of March 9th, 2016.

INT. COLLEGE CLASSROOM,  AFTERNOON

ME: I'm from [American city]. I'm currently [a job].

WOMAN: I'm from [same American city as me]. I do [a job].

AN HOUR PASSES

WOMAN: So me and my wife are going on our honeymoon this June. Will I be able to attend the online class in our hotel? Is that okay?

INSTRUCTOR: Yes! That's fine! You have to tell her that you'll do 'some work' on the computer when you're at the beach.

SOME CHUCKLE

EXT. COLLEGE CAMPUS, AFTERNOON

MOTHER AND TWO SONS 

SON: The Republicans just seem like backstabbing people . . . 

INT. PIZZA PARLOR,  NIGHT, SAME DAY

YOUNG MAN: Look, I I work 14 hrs a day. After my first job I go home and eat. Straight afterwards I go to my next job.

OLDER MAN: I understand. I'm just saying that polls are open at these hours. The election is up to you if you choose not to participate.

YOUNG MAN: I have a family to feed. SHAKES HEAD.

CASHIER LOOKS AT THEM WITH CONCERN.

OLDER MAN LEAVES 

CASHIER 2: Have you've been helped yet?

ME: No.

CASHIER IS STILL LOOKING AT YOUNGER MAN WITH CONCERN

I never felt "panicky" until now.

 Add on a little depressed as well.

I'm about to incur 45K in student debt for a damn Masters in Social Work. Fuck this shit.

Should higher education be free? Fuck no. Should the masters level be free? Fuck no. But G_d dammit why the fuck do a majority of institutions charge so much for a degree in a sector that pays crap? You'll be lucky to have a 50K yearly income as opposed to 30-40K yearly income.

A MSW ROI is the complete opposite when compared to an MBA. In fact, I bet one can do more effective good with an MBA than with a MSW. I'll most likely be the only conservative in my cohort and the one who says, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." I'm entering leftist territory here. The academic belly of the beast.

I mean, if I become a social worker how the heck I'm gonna live? How the heck am I gonna buy a wedding ring for my future wife, let alone afford the church ceremony & reception, and raise a family? If I find a suitable wife I can't be "the man" making a poultry 30-40K salary. Fuck no. It's ironic, really, since social workers no doubt give direct service to those on welfare (if you're in child/family specialty) and have no conscious problem suggesting abortion clinics. Some welfare recipients also have more babies to get more welfare checks. And I can't even start my own family because I'll be employed by a shitty sector with shitty pay with leftist retards and the "governing" body that is the CWRE? Everything is backwards here. Social workers might as well get on welfare and join the people they try to help.

Fuck the pathetic pay.
Fuck social work being bloated.
Fuck the welfare queens.
Fuck the anti-"pull yourself up by your bootstraps" people.

All of a sudden an MBA from Cornell's Johnson program looks like gold. Maybe greed is good. You have a good chance of landing a low six figure salary if you make good, that's why. Add on promotions that pay (unlike social work) and versatility of the degree. I suppose the downside is instead of being surrounded by idiots who are leftist retards you're surrounded by assholes who think they're G_d. Meh. At least the ROI gets you starry eyed and say you're a graduate from a top program. In social work it doesn't actually matter where you get your degree from, so paying for a UPenn MSW is messed up. It's a little over 40K a year. Their MSW is a two yr program if you are a full-time student. At the end, for that Ivy pedigree, you'll be over 80K in debt working for half of that once you're in the work force.

What the fuck are UPenn MSW student paying for? I'll tell you: The name. They're going to get the same pay and the same jobs as a MSW student in the New Mexico State program.

Note: I need find a new job and drop out of this program ASAP. When I told my parents that I got accepted into the program they gave no shits. I knew I should've went big and applied for T-25 MBA. But no - I had to go the fucking social work route. I'll be swamped by do-gooders who don't know how the world work while they stupidly say, "We help people!" Yea, so do Wal-mart associates who help stock the shelves. 

CA raises minimum wage to $15.

They're getting what they want. By "they" I'm referring to the "living wage" people. If you do the math for a full-time line-cook at a dinner in CA, working 40 hrs a week, he'll be making $2, 400 a month. If he works for 12 months straight he's before taxes income is $28, 800.

Non-profits who mostly hire people who are college graduates don't get paid much - I've read some are earning anywhere between $30-35K a year. That's the range for a starting position. You're lucky if you're earning $45K within five years.

Now I'm no economic whiz, but that reality sort of leaves me a little bitter. A college graduate wanting to dedicate his life to public service is earning $10K above the official USA poverty line. A line-cook is $2K just underneath him. The salt in the wound part, say for social workers who belong to CSWE, is that CSWE isn't known to advocate for a higher wage for social workers -- a group almost uniformly supporting the "living wage" concept. There is a common rhetoric from social workers to say that they do so much for people yet their pay is diddly squat for a working professional. Now that's a tough pill to swallow. Adding more insult to the injury, many who advocate for a "living wage" are mostly talking about the McDonald's cashier, the Wal-mart greeter and the line-cook. They aren't including the social worker or the non-profit employee.

 The disastrous march towards "equality" and "fairness" is leaving a dusty road filled with irony.  I bet a decade from now the minimum wage will be pushed towards $20. Why even attend university then? I suppose the great joke about this is is that any potential future Leftist would be spared the debt, the four years of "enlightenment" and the posturing of other bushy-tailed 17-18 yr olds. They might get a job as a line-cook and add something to society, because, truth be told, I am fan of dinners. More line-cooks, longer hours,  more food for me! I suppose I can rationalize it as a fair exchange.

New link added.

The (infamous) John McAdam's blog, Marquette Warrior.

You can google the man and how he became infamous. Some say he's a bully. Some say that his right to free speech is/was being violated. Some say that "free speech doesn't mean immunity to the consequences (unless you're a leftist)." Whatever. I haven't really formed my opinion on the matter. What I have formed is that I like his blog. Many of the topics he writes about are the topics that bounce through my head when it comes to politics and modernity.

Calm the f_ck down you d_ck.

Jenna A. Robinson, a contributor over at The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, or simply known as The Pope Center, wrote an article entitled "Five Ways You Can Improve Higher Education." It's an interesting read.

1. Stop giving money to your alma mater—and tell them why!
If you send money in response to annual appeals, it allows university administrators to spend that money on whatever they choose: instruction, research, athletics, centers, campus speakers, or even administration. The money may support programs or ideas with which you don’t agree, such as a diversity center, social justice courses, or “student life” activities that you might not consider very wholesome.

Or your donation might simply fund waste. For example, take a look at pass-through rates for campus giving. At one school in the UNC system, 71 percent of all donations fund the campus giving office. If you considered donating to a charity, you would never choose one with that kind of wasteful spending. You should apply the same standards when giving to a university.

If you do give to your alma mater and try to direct your gift to a particular cause, the university may not abide by your wishes. Universities have a poor track record of respecting donor intent.

Two examples illustrate this. In 1992, Mattie Kelly gave her 13-acre waterfront homestead to Okaloosa-Walton Community College in Destin, Florida. Kelly expected the land to be the home of a cultural and environmental institute. Instead, the college sold the land to a housing developer. Also, in 2006, Tulane University eliminated its women’s affiliate, Newcomb College, and took over Newcomb’s endowment. Josephine Louise Newcomb, who donated $3 million to the women’s college more than 100 years ago, expected her money to be used for a women’s college. Her heirs sued Tulane, but lost in state court.

2. Support a school that takes no federal money.
Several schools take no money from the federal government. That means they accept no grants, no student loans, no funding whatsoever from Uncle Sam. You’ve probably heard of Hillsdale College and Grove City College, but Pensacola Christian College, Patrick Henry College, Christendom College, New Saint Andrews College, and Wyoming Catholic also operate independently.

This allows the schools to spend their money on instruction instead of administration. (Federal compliance costs thousands of dollars per student, per year.) It also allows schools to ignore federal mandates that run counter to both good practices and traditional values. (They can ignore the “Dear Colleague” letter, for example, which demands that universities trample the due process of students accused of sexual assault.)
You can support a school like Hillsdale in two ways—either send them a check or encourage your children, grandchildren, and friends to attend.

3. Support a center or institute that focuses on ideas that are important to you.
Around the country, there are many privately funded academic centers that preserve and promote the knowledge and perspectives that are disappearing from the academy, with an emphasis on undergraduate education. The Pope Center’s director of state policy analysis wrote a report on the topic early last year called “Renewal in the University.”

Many of these academic centers engage in the same type of work that occurs across the broader university, but without the activist leanings that are present in so many schools today. They: Engage in research; sponsor speakers and debate series; support undergraduate fellowships and services; distribute books; partner with local communities; and (of course) offer classes to undergraduate and graduate students.

4. If you are an employer or hiring manager, stop insisting on a degree when making hiring decisions.
Here’s why: Many students don’t actually learn much. In their 2011 book Academically Adrift, authors Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa found, “with a large sample of more than 2,300 students, we observe no statistically significant gains [after two years] in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills for at least 45 percent of the students in our study.”

Executives who employ recent college graduates can confirm that finding. In a 2014 poll by Hart Research Associates, business leaders said that many new graduates are not “well-prepared” for the workforce. The poll results revealed that many employers believe that the majority of graduates are deficient in terms of their ethical judgment and decision-making, oral communication, statistics skills, critical thinking, and creativity.
Instead of assuming that a B.A. or B.S. is a guarantee of competence, ask for evidence of a person’s grit, intelligence, and work ethic. For example, ask for a portfolio; carefully read the cover letter; and get recommendations from Scout Masters, youth group leaders, or former bosses. Yes, as an employer, the hiring process will be a little more onerous, but you’ll end up with employees who are more likely to have proven worth instead of just a piece of paper.

5. Stop relying on U.S. News and World Report to evaluate colleges and universities. 
This resource bases its ratings on measures that don’t actually affect student learning. Instead it includes the opinions of administrators at peer institutions; how well faculty are paid; and how selective the student body is. That last measure, of course, invites universities to game the system. They issue invitations to apply to far more students than they can actually admit, artificially inflating their “selectivity” numbers.

Other resources are much more helpful for students and parents, including the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s Choosing the Right College, FIRE’s free speech ratings, and the Brookings Institute’s new value-added assessment of graduate salaries.
You can also take a look at ACTA’s “What Will They Learn” website, which assesses universities’ general education curricula. It grades universities from “A” to “F” based on whether students are required to take core courses like math, science, literature, and American history.

Citizens, parents, and students can make a difference to the future of higher education. Together, you can change the market with your actions and contributions.

 I think all are decent tactics, especially the last one.

Apparently one poster, "DrOfNothing" (an apt name), thought it was nonsense and went on a pathetic tirade.

Absolutely ridiculous and irresponsible suggestions on all fronts. How can a center that repeatedly bemoans ideology in education so recklessly advocate measures that are purely ideological? This is the absolute height of hypocrisy, and truly reveals the Pope Center's tagline of "pursuing excellent in higher education" for the duplicitous double-speak that it is.

1.) Stop giving money to your alma mater—and tell them why!
- Of course, because every private individual in an absolute _expert_ on higher education infrastructure. Don't bother looking into the larger picture of their finances, which would reveal that the overwhelming majority of a university's expenditure is on teaching and research. Instead, trust us, the Pope Center, when we tell you that it all goes to fat-cat administrators, Title IX regulations, and Liberal professors!!!

2.) Support a school that takes no federal money.
- Why give money to your struggling local university when you can give it to a god-fearing Christian school instead? After all, this country was founded on the principle of promoting Christian ideology, especially in governance . . . oh, wait, wasn't there some bit about separation of church and state? Never mind, just right a check for some bible college in Florida. Or better yet, send your bright and inquisitive teenagers there. I can just imagine the conversation: "well, Bobby, we know you got into UNC-Chapel Hill, but we're going to insist you attend Hillsdale College instead. It may not have anywhere near the teaching quality and the diploma might barely be worth the paper it's printed on, but gosh darn it, they're good Conservatives and have notable alumni such as Arizona Cardinals offensive tackle Jared Veldheer!" Or you could send them to Biola University. No doubt the evangelicals will encourage their rational inquiry into science and religion! Onward Christian donors!!!
3.) Support a center or institute that focuses on ideas that are important to you.
- Yeah, to hell with the priorities that experts in the fields of science, medicine, technology, law, the humanities and social sciences set. You have a BA, you read Pope Center articles, YOU are the expert. You should only fund ideas you agree with--that way, no one can ever tell you that you're wrong! What better way to cultivate free speech and intellectual freedom than defunding anything that disagrees with our ideology? That's how we at the Pope Center work, whooppee!

4.) If you are an employer or hiring manager, stop insisting on a degree when making hiring decisions.
- Seriously, who needs a college degree? Education is _obviously_ just a Liberal conspiracy, and all that evidence that college degrees invariably lead to higher earnings and a better lifestyle is just propaganda. What you really need to do is encourage narrow-mindedness and ignorance, and focus on the only thing that matters in this world--money! We certainly didn't look for any flimsy "qualifications" when we built our staff at the Pope Center. As long as they had "grit," that was enough for us. All the degrees we hold are just for wall decoration, and none of them have anything to do with educational policy anyway.

5.) Stop relying on U.S. News and World Report to evaluate colleges and universities.
- Absolutely, you shouldn't trust the globally-recognized system of assessing the quality and prestige of a university. You can also ignore all those so-called "scientific" rankings by QS, ARWU, and Times Higher Education. Algorithms are for suckers. Forget that they've all been doing this for decades, and that employers read them, professors respect them, and they've become an essential metric of educational prestige throughout the world. Instead, you should rely on these niche rankings put together by the completely biased groups that agree with our ideology. Spurn Georgetown University (#21 nationwide, and top 100 in the World) and shun the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (#59 in the world, 23 Nobel Prizes to its name, and a leading center in the development of artificial intelligence, cybernetics and robotics). FIRE don't like 'em! Instead, you should go to Mississippi State University, the center of agricultural and veterinary science in the rebel state. Go Bulldawgs, woof, woof!!!

And, as further incentive, the first 10 subscribers to this whacked-out agenda get a free "Vote Drumpf" baseball cap and a copy of Allan Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind."

It's clear this poster is a Grade A douchebag (he has had his say on numerous Pope Center articles). The guy is the typical Leftist, so enraged by a thoughtful alternatives - though flawed, that he just throws cliches and assumptions like most Leftists do when criticizing a work that does not embrace the given the common belief amongst the average American on higher education. Let me point out his #5. Even students, parents and academic counselors are realizing that solely focusing on US News rankings is a flawed way of going about selecting a university (collegeconfidential,com). Obviously this poster takes the guide for granted and doesn't question it. All of Robinson's reasons for not relying on US News rankings have been already been supported by even the most college crazed parents and counselors.

The man has issues. In recent comments on other articles he has made sharp tones towards "market based" and "consumer students." I suppose that he is not for the research oriented universities (state) as opposed to ones that mainly focus on the students (hence why he holds the US News rankings in high regard) like liberal arts schools and privates like the Ivies.

But the poster was all too friendly on an article where the writer said she was attaining her Maters in History for the sake of learning. Oh he was gushing and offering his kind words and advice!

He's curious because he doesn't think what they said was anything controversial  (even though youtube, Campus Fix and Minding the Campus have proven professors are arrogant bastards). Jane S. Shaw politely declined his request.

UPDATE: This cunt bag has replied to my posts. I wonder if I should fully engage.

UPDATE: I have decided to become the "goon," the enforcer, between us. I'm just going to troll his posts on The Pope Center. My comments may be deleted - I might even get banned (ban #4 for me, if so), but I'll make clear that, without much bias, that he's a straight-up tool which is something, if we ever meet in real life, I'll say straight to his face.

Speaking of being banned, I've been banned from the following sites;

Dappered.com
The Hollywood Reporter
Red State

God's Not Dead: Real Life

You can't make this stuff up.

“Don’t take this class if you believe the Bible is inspired or infallible.”

That was how a professor at UC Berkeley had launched his “Jewish Civilization I: The Biblical Period” course, a class in which a stunned doctoral student David Kurz sat.

“This stuff isn’t taught in synagogues or churches because they don’t want to piss people off,” the professor had continued. “… Anyone can take this class, as long as you play by the rules of the game. … If you disagree with the approach we use, that’s an F.”

Kurz — who earned his bachelor’s degree in ecology and evolutionary biology from Princeton University and master’s degree in biological science from the University of Cambridge — was shocked at the professor’s declaration.

Kurz decided to challenge the professor:

I politely peppered my professor with questions to try to better understand his intellectual paradigm. Just to be clear, there is a correct answer you want us to accept, I asked. “Correct.” What about rigorous biblical scholarship claiming, for instance, that Moses did, in fact, write the vast majority of the Pentateuch? “That doesn’t exist.” It does, I argued. “I don’t want people who are going to disagree with me all semester,” he repeated. I thought a university was an environment in which multiple viewpoints and debates were encouraged, I countered. “Not in this classroom” came the maddeningly smug response.

After the class, I was left shaking my head, a mixture of indignation, sadness, confusion and frustration exploding inside me. As I packed up my things, other students came over to me and thanked me for my questions, explaining that they, too, were upset about the professor’s overly harsh attitude toward religion and religious students. We all felt the arrogance of the professor and the injustice of the situation, but did not know what to do about it.

And the comment box ... Classic. Atheists found their way to the article and act as typical Gnus that they are.

I also want to note that CollegeFix.com, depending on the article's topic, tends to get its typical posts from opposing groups e.g. God's Not Dead gets atheists and such groups usually play the standard cards of which I'm all too fluent it.

There are have been numerous accusations that the stories on CollegeFix.com are exaggerated (see: Steven Glick story, David Kurz story) and many who believe that the atmosphere once inside the classrooms on the majority of campuses, whether they be private or public institutions of higher learning, is not liberal -- many believe that it's a neutral atmosphere. Clearly, as sites like CollegeFix.com and Mind the Campus prove otherwise. What's interesting about those who say that both Glick and Kurz are lying is that both have written articles about their respective incidents in their school newspaper, detailing what has happened to them (unlike pieces written in Yale Daily News about racism and sexism without actually giving clear examples). The notion that maybe misunderstanding in on the students part is reasonable, but as I think about it I do not believe that is necessarily so. I am convince that what both Glick and Kurz write about is fairly accurate on how the event(s) took place. If they were indeed lying then the professors that they accuse would have called them out on being liars. So far they have not issued a statement to clear things up.

Of course I'd support it. How could I not?

Do college Democrats actual know the underlying philosophy and details of the stances of which they support and advocate? I don't think they do. If they do, it's a superficial understanding.

How about college Republicans? I have the same concern, but less so. This group tends to know why they support a certain issue and a certain candidate beyond the simple bullet points. There's a deeper understanding of the concepts of the issues they oppose.

Why is this? I think it's because college campuses are highly liberal places. Expressing thoughts that are deemed "anti-woman" and homophobic or anti-gay are quickly squashed -- not because such thoughts are thoughtfully refuted, but because the zeitgeist carries them unto victory. It's intimidation.

What are these stances that are deemed anti-woman, homophobic and anti-gay stances? Not supporting a women's "choice" is deemed anti-woman. Thinking that women are more natural caregivers is deemed anti-woman. Thinking that there are prominent physical, emotional and psychological differences between a man and a woman is deemed anti-woman. Thinking that modern day feminism is a sham is anti-woman. Thinking that a woman who engages in casual sex, and them thinking nothing of it, is unattractive is deemed anti-woman.

Let's move on to supposed homophobic or "anti-gay." If you think same-sex acts are wrong and unnatural then you're called a homophobe. If you do not support same-sex "marriage" you are chastised. If you believe that having same-sex attraction is a disorder, and that nothing about it is okay or beautiful, you are labeled a bigot. Accusations of being narrow minded, unintelligent and redneckish shall be in full force.

Never mind the philosophy behind these views. Those that disagree with you might want to hear about it, but often times they fail to fully grasp the concepts presented even when they do. Why is this? That's another issue that should be talked about thoroughly. I suppose it's due to pride, arrogance, naivety and idealism. Add in smugness and how they were raised. It truly is not enough to "raise kids who don't harm anyone"; that's the bare minimum. It's like teaching your kid to write his full name or know his home number or his address.

New link added.

The College Fix.

This is a great site that keeps an eye on the leftist soaked, hallowed halls of higher education.

At least she's cute.

On the bright side she can say she was on national television and has "student organizer" on her resume for One Million March. She can also say to her grandkids, if she even decides to have kids, that during her college years she was part of an "exciting" time where she fought for "equality" and "fairness."

 Here's a gem of a comment -

"Fuck you Neil Cavuto - and fuck all you idiots who don't get it - it's simple - the system is rigged and we're sick of it."

I suppose the person who made this comment is under serious educational debt.

And another -

Person A: "Fox news propaganda at it's finest! They are really good at misleading their base."
Person B:  "Liberalism at its dumbest."
Person A: "Its not because liberalism is too nuanced for you to understand that makes it dumb. But I see  where your coming from."

You heard it here, liberalism is too nuanced for troglodytes. 

Another poster said that since he couldn't find information on One Million March and on Keely Mullen, the students, that the movement and "Keely" was all "fake." He said that Fox News (not Fox Business News) was trying to intentionally paint those who dedicated their lives advocating for free education, higher minimum wages and free health care in a bad light. That's a lot of effort if it were even slightly true. He also said that Fox News had a past on making fake stories up. 

How could you NOT believe!

If you don't believe that racism/sexism/rape happens on a daily basis on college campuses, or even daily on a single campus, and if you deny that such incidents are growing, then that's the same as denying anthropological global warming. Poster "robinhoodOO7" mentioned "isolated events" - by this he means Yale's Halloween Costume Chaos.  

"Lacykat66" misread his post and thought he was referring to campus rape and racism incidents. Way to go, Lacy, you reveal how a SJW's mind, filled with stupidity, works.  

#Lunacy

The oxygen in safe spaces has caused you to go full-retard. Students across the nation have marched in support of Mizzou's and Yale's racial "crisis" while attaching movements like "free tuition."

Even though I'm irritated by the arrogance that resides in the hearts of all those that participated, I can't but admire their cleverness to bandwagon the current racial tension.

#MillionStudentMarch will be a day of local actions all across the country to show support for tuition-free public college, a cancellation of all student debt, and a $15 minimum wage for all campus workers. Each action will be a march followed by a rally.

Never go full-retard.

Someone said this about #MillionStudentMarch, "You see why now Hillary is going to win…… its the entitlement generation that is ruining America and their ranks continue to grow."

This is a huge gain for HRC and Bernie Sander if they were struggling to find traction. Every thing the movement wants Clinton and Sanders promise. Let's list 'em: Free tuition ("Hey, Europe does it, why not the US?"). No student debt ("Capitalism just doesn't work!"). Rise of the minimum wage ("It's inhumane to pay so low!"). 

There's one demographic that the GOP will never win over: The college students. It's not because the student know any better or see what the GOP really is, it's just that The Left have taken over college campuses. The college campus is their church; the professors & administrators are their priests. Obama is the pope that will be "replaced" in November of next year. Who will be the next pope for The Left, Clinton or Sanders?

I will call it before it even happens - I don't believe the GOP will win the 2016 POTUS race. The momentum is too strong for the DNC and The Left - culturally. I don't think it'll be a blowout, though. I have Hilary beating out Sanders for the DNC nomination and later defeating whoever the GOP nominee is.That's three terms of Democratic power in office. I know the Reagan Administration and Bush H.W. Administration counted three for the Republicans, but that seems like it really had no stronghold on the nation. The Left took over academia, entertainment and journalism. They now control the courts. This POTUS race will be defining in that it will dictate how the economy in the US is reformed, the further irrelevancy of how religion plays into the lives of the country's citizens, and how the GOP will further slip down the path of irrelevancy due their inability to actually accomplish something when they do win elections. 

Lights out, America. And shame on you conservatives over 35 for failing to fight. Shame on you.