<p>If he spent his money on falconry, would that be more or less irritating?</p>
<p>If he climbed the 29 highest peaks in the world, would that be more or less irritating?</p>
<p>Obviously he is perfectly free to do what he wants. And I don’t really care. But the only issue I could see with this path is if he is if he is attending state schools, getting any grant money, and taking student jobs to support all of this. Again, all of that is legal, but given the scarce resources and dire straits at some public schools I don’t think the intention of the taxpayers is to subsidize schools so people can become professional students. </p>
<p>I think the intention of most educational institutions is for students to earn a degree or two or three and make their mark elsewhere, or become acadsemics and contribute through teaching and research.</p>
<p>If he’s paying full freight at private schools, that’s a different matter. Or even if he is funding his education through actuivites apart from the school. I like taking clases myself every now and again. But exisitng in some sort of chrysalis, getting student discounts and paying for school with jobs at the school for your entire life (if that’s what he’s doing) I’ll admit that’s a little weird to me. </p>
<p>And the tassle collection, I find that strange as well.</p>
<p>Unless he’s breaking the law, what difference does it make? </p>
<p>There’s no evidence this man is a particular burden on the public. People avail themselves of all kinds of activities and programs subsidized by local, state and federal governments. What if he were independently wealthy and spent all day every day at the library? That’s not the typical way libraries are used, but who would it hurt if he did use it that way? </p>
<p>Bovertine mentions “scarce resources” at public institutions. To my mind, that would only be an issue if this man’s pursuits directly prevented someone else from taking advantage of a school’s offerings. There’s no mention of him, say, having taken a work-study gig and prevented a young whipper-snapper from working at the campus canteen. </p>
<p>And, anyway, there’s no need to get one’s knickers in a twist over one odd guy in Michigan. We are not on a slippery slope here. It’s unlikely that this man’s eccentric behavior is going to inspire lots of people to spend their lives in school, thereby robbing the country of thousands of productive citizens. </p>
<p>I see this as a lifestyle choice for him and his family. It would irritate me … If I were his wife. But I ain’t. So …</p>
<p>There was a thread a while ago about statistics for people on food stamps increasing at an alarming rate for those with PhDs or advanced degrees. I wonder if he counts 29 times the number?</p>
<p>Follow up on annasdad’s comment: sure, I would love to learn everyday, but basing my education on the number of degrees goes against my view on education.</p>
<p>Conservatives need to learn that ideas they cherish were once liberal, even radical. Christ had radical ideas. Christianity was radical and against the norms of society for a long time. People, gasp, disobey their parents everytime they go against the family religious traditions. Should every European have remained pagan? Or do we let the clock tick and everyone is Roman Catholic? Or Anglican/Episcopalian? Protestantism was liberal thinking. Defining religion according to your whims- aka “nondenominational” is change making. The Republican party was once new ideas. etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hernce my use of the word “if”. “If” that parking attendant job was one that a young student earning his first degree could have used then I don’t think that was the intention of work -study programs at schools. Not illegal, not unfair, but probably not what the regents had in mind for student work study programs. </p>
<p>And the notion of people unable to find jobs staying in school to use financial aid programs is not unheard of. I personally know people who have done that and ended up with tons of debt, in addition to using lots of grant and scholarship money. I’ve also known people registering for the minimum number of classes at a community college so they could make a career out of tutoring and get financial aid of one sort or another… </p>
<p>And BTW - as I also wrote, I don’t care. I think it’s strange. I think it’s a ridiculous waste of time, particularly some of the degrees he earned which seem like repetition of basically the same topics. That’s my opinion. It certainly doesn’t anger or irritate me. </p>
<p>
Is this posted in the right thread?</p>
<p>I caught your “if,” bovertine. But why go there without any evidence he is doing any of the things you say you’d object to?</p>
<p>^^^
Because I personally know people from my own college years, and more recently, who did precisely what I speculated in my post. THere was one guy who was famous for collecting degrees,although he was also well known for being both a pothead and a real bonafide genius with a 4.0 in multiple rigorous programs. He was really famous for acing O-Chem without ever attending class.</p>
<p>But I bet in these economic times hanging around college when you can’t find a job is not that uncommon</p>
<p>As far as this guy, I have no idea. I just think he’s a little weird - especially the little shrine to his mortarboard tassles.</p>
<p>It sounds to me like no one has an issue with his wife’s 7 degrees. That is an acceptable number?</p>
<p>Fair enough, bovertine. If you’ve seen this sort of thing happen, you’re better positioned to speculate than I am.</p>
<p>As to the shrine of tassels . . . Shrug. People collect and display weirder things, IME.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s a misuse of resources because slots are limited in many programs, especially graduate programs. And he keeps taking up slots that could be filled by people trying for their first masters instead of their 23rd and who plan do actually do something with the degree beyond simply collecting it.</p>
<p>^You have no way of knowing whether any of the programs he has been in have been limited in slots and whether this guy got a space that someone else was excluded from as a result. You are also assuming that he contributes nothing in terms of the student body. Departments are not being forced to admit him, so there must be some reason they continue to do so.</p>
<p>I am with sylvan8798. This guy can’t coerce any graduate program into admitting him. If he has been getting into programs (whether or not they have limited slots), it’s because admissions committees have been letting him in.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yeah, more fools they. It’s the schools that are wasting their resources. And if they are public schools or are private schools that get government grants they are wasting taxpayers’ resources too. There is no legitimate reason for them to continue to enable this guy’s odd hobby.</p>
<p>^^^I guess, but they may also be wasting resources on younger students who don’t belong in these programs for whatever reason. In any given year, he’d be one of 700K* or so people getting master’s degrees; he may not be the worthiest of this bunch but he may also not be the biggest joke (we just don’t know about those people because they are not taking a Guinness Book of World Records approach to their educations). </p>
<p>*FWIW, I visited the site for the National Center for Educational Statistics, as I wanted a reference point and was curious (not because I’m a data hound!).</p>
<p>
Is there an assumption that every master’s program at every school has people waiting in line to get in and that he is always taking a seat that someone else would be taking if he were not? I find that unlikely. </p>
<p>If there are seats available, and he is a paying customer, then there is no reason not to let him “buy” one of them. If you run a one-year program and you can have as many as 20 students for a given year, but you only have either 10 or 11, which option do you choose? How is 11 paying students a waste of resources, while 10 is more desirable?</p>
<p>
The problem is that at many schools tuition does not even come close to covering the expenses to educate a student. In California the UC and CSU schools are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. Extra students, even full pay students, cost the university money. If the school has money allocated for a program with an expected number of students and can’t even fill that quota they should expand other programs with that money, especially when there are students clamoring to get into impacted programs at some schools.</p>
<p>And I can’t believe the guy hangs around long enough to contribute significantly to scholarship in any one area, with the exception possibly of Education where he earned a PhD.</p>
<p>
So schools should eliminate all the low population programs? Every year or just in the years they don’t make the quota for the program? How does that make sense? What marginal cost, exactly, does this student engender if his class is 11 rather than 10?</p>