Quoted from Rise Up, O Men of God
– President Gordon B. Hinckley Oct 2006
I call your attention to another matter that gives me great concern. In revelation the Lord has mandated that this people get all the education they can. He has been very clear about this. But there is a troubling trend taking place. Elder Rolfe Kerr, Commissioner of Church Education, advises me that in the United States nearly 73 percent of young women graduate from high school, compared to 65 percent of young men. Young men are more likely to drop out of school than young women.
Approximately 61 percent of young men enroll in college immediately following high school, compared to 72 percent for young women.
In 1950, 70 percent of those enrolled in college were males, and 30 percent were females; by 2010 projections estimate 40 percent will be males, and 60 percent will be females.
Women have earned more bachelor’s degrees than men every year since 1982 and more master’s degrees since 1986.
It is plainly evident from these statistics that young women are exceeding young men in pursuing educational programs. And so I say to you young men, rise up and discipline yourself to take advantage of educational opportunities. Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own? We speak of being “equally yoked.” That applies, I think, to the matter of education.
In addition, your education will strengthen your service in the Church. A study was made some years ago that indicated the higher the education, the greater the faith and participation in religious activity.
What exactly is Mr. Hinckley trying to say?
I’d like to hope that he is not arguing that women shouldn’t be getting more education that men. I’d also like to think that he isn’t saying that women are getting too much education either.
But when he says,”Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own?” I can’t help but wonder how close is this to saying,”You don’t want a girl to beat you, do you?”
My follow-up question would be,”What exactly is wrong with marrying a woman who has more education than I?” Why, it almost sounds as if the President is discouraging men from marrying a woman who may be smarter than you. I guess he would prefer most men to be bachelors … I guess than won’t really work out either. Dumb guys, I guess you’re in a lose-lose situation.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe what Mr. Hinckley really meant to say is,”C’mon boys! Let’s all strive to be better, by golly!” but that’s certainly not how it reads.
I’d also like to take issue with the last line I quoted.
Research is all over the map in regard to a correlation between religiosity and level of education. I’m not sure which study to which Mr. Hinckley refers, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on the whole people with degrees are more religious argument quite yet.
Curiously (or maybe not so much) the LDS are the statistical anomaly where there is a high level of education coupled with a high level of church participation (note I did not specifically mention spirituality).
There’s plenty of reading and research on the topic, though.
I can’t seem to find any free, live links but I did find:
Wikipedia has a page on it which straddles the topic.
Richard Dawkins talks about it in his new book and in a Salon article where he determines quite the opposite as Mr. Hinckley.
Rick said: “My follow-up question would be,â€What exactly is wrong with marrying a woman who has more education than I?†Why, it almost sounds as if the President is discouraging men from marrying a woman who may be smarter than you.”
When I decided I wanted to be married, I went looking for not on the prettiest woman but also the smartest one I could find. I did not want a “DUMB” woman to be the mother of my children.
My wife is not only beautiful but she has a JD degree (attorney). I guess I did not follow the prophets counsel on this topic.
How come he has not remarried yet? I bet he would counsel you to get married if your spouse died.
So even when President Hinckley explicitly tells these young men that they should seek to “EQUALLY yoked” to women, and even though he repeatedly advises young women to seek education, you’re still going to spin it as an example of male chauvinism? I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed.
I don’t believe President Hinckley is being at all chauvinistic. He is basically encouraging young men to live up to their sisters.
George, perhaps he does not want to remarry. He is in his 90’s as well, his health isn’t the best and perhaps he is waiting to join his wife again. My grandfather died several years ago, my grandma did not remarry. She passed away this August and now they are rejoined again.
I have to say that having a degree doesn’t necessarily constitue education. It just shows a person went to school for 4 or 6 or 8 years. Education comes from true learning. One of the most educated men I knew never went to university. He was certainly more intelligent and educated than many who DID attend university.
ltbugaf, you points are well taken chaubut I’d still like to know how you can justify the comment: â€Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own?â€
Is this not a chauvinistic remark?
The entire speech was taking a very middle of the road stance until it hit that (in my view revealing) statement.
The term ‘equally yoked’ has generally meant marrying within one’s faith – not marrying within one’s intellectual/educational level.
If he indeed means to spur the men to an equal footing with the women (from an educational stance), why include the taunting?
When I heard this in conference (that is not read it but heard it, since tone of voice really does matter), I wondered how long it would take for the male chauvinism to be sought out here. I’ll agree that it can appear bad, but frankly I took it to be an urging to do better, to get more education and to find someone who is your equal in various areas (educationally, intellecutally, spiritually).
I don’t see President Hinckley’s remark as that chauvinistic. I have nothing to back that up, except to say that I am an unmarried man in a largely female profession who has thus developed a highly atuned sexism meter. But, then again, I wouldn’t mind marrying a girl who’s way smarter than I.
Mary said: “George, perhaps he does not want to remarry. He is in his 90’s” – Is there an age where a man no longer has a responsibility to marry an available woman? If so, is it 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30 or even 20?
I said “I bet he would counsel you to get married if your spouse died.” At what age would his counsel no longer apply? Should he not follow church traditions?
For the most part, we leave the teaching of our children to women and I believe it is important for women to get the best education possible.
There are a few religions where the education of women is considered a bad thing. Some muslim women face death if they are caught teaching other females to read. Polygamist also refrain teaching their females. LDS prefer their females to get married at 18 and have babies. Men are to continue getting their education.
Maybe women should be educated before they start having babies.
“Is there an age where a man no longer has a responsibility to marry an available woman?”
For a widowed man with grown children? I don’t think there is one; I don’t think such a man has any responsibility to marry a woman.
George said: “Is there an age where a man no longer has a responsibility to marry an available woman?”
And I say what Kim says. Why should he?
George also said:”LDS prefer their females to get married at 18 and have babies”
Speak for yourself. I was 24 when I got married and I certainly would prefer my 18 year old daughters to NOT get married at such a young age. I would like them to be older and more settled and aware of what they want. And don’t judge the rest of the church by Utah or Southern Alberta. We aren’t all focused on getting girls married as teenagers.
George ALSO said: “For the most part, we leave the teaching of our children to women and I believe it is important for women to get the best education possible.”
I personally think it is important for everyone to get proper education (and this doesn’t necessarily happen in university). And in our family, we are both important in our children’s education. Who is this we you are referring to? Hopefully not to Latter day Saints. Again, not everyone is in Utah. We don’t all think the same in such matters.
George ALSO said: “Maybe women should be educated before they start having babies.”
I would have to say that both men and women should be educated before they start having children, at least educated enough to know how to raise a family. Why just women? Men too. Children aren’t just the woman’s domain.
Kim Siever said: “Is there an age where a man no longer has a responsibility to marry an available woman?â€
For a widowed man with grown children? I don’t think there is one; I don’t think such a man has any responsibility to marry a woman.”
Is it your contention that marriage is for raising children and if there are no children being produced there is no reason for marriage?
Mary said: “I certainly would prefer my 18 year old daughters to NOT get married at such a young age. I would like them to be older and more settled and aware of what they want. And don’t judge the rest of the church by Utah or Southern Alberta. We aren’t all focused on getting girls married as teenagers.”
LDS Tradition is to not put off marriage for education and not to put off having children for education.
Why are you not following the Lord’s annointed leaders in this subject? Are they (church leaders) wrong to promote girls getting married before they finish their education?
George said : “LDS Tradition is to not put off marriage for education and not to put off having children for education.”
Tradition, not doctrine. Don’t confuse the two.
George said “Why are you not following the Lord’s annointed leaders in this subject? Are they (church leaders) wrong to promote girls getting married before they finish their education?”
My oldest daughter is not yet 8. And I married my husband when the Spirit told me to. I certainly followed the counsel of the Lord. Unless you have proof where they say all girls should be married at 18? And who said anything about waiting to get married before education is finished or before it is finished? I honestly have not heard anyone say anything substantive one way or another in this regard.
I don’t get the lack of understanding of the prophet’s message. He was very clear: That men and women should be equally yoked. He talked of women acquiring educaction “far superior” to that of men.
The question isn’t whether women are overachieving. The question asked is why aren’t men getting off their butts and graduating from college.
It’s that simple.
rick, you said, “The term ‘equally yoked’ has generally meant marrying within one’s faith – not marrying within one’s intellectual/educational level.”
Look again at President Hinckley’s words. He’s specifically applying the concept of “equal yoking” outside its usual context, to education. Surely he couldn’t have been clearer about that when he said, “We speak of being “equally yoked.†That applies, I think, to the matter of education.”
As to whether his question was chauvinistic, no, it’s not. It’s a statement to a young man that when a woman’s education is FAR SUPERIOR to his own, he may find it difficult to be well-matched with her. Since his audience was entirely male, he had no reason to say the same thing, at that time, to the young women.
“Is it your contention that marriage is for raising children”
I believe that is one reason for marriage.
“if there are no children being produced there is no reason for marriage?”
No.
“The question isn’t whether women are overachieving.”
Why not? The stats President Hinckley gave were not specific enough to say whether the cause was that women were overachieving, or men were being lazier, or for some other reason. It could very well be that women are overachieving.
Kim, I don’t think that makes sense. President Hinckley wasn’t telling women to stop studying so much, and he wasn’t telling men to make women stop achieving. He was telling men to achieve more.
>The question isn’t whether women are overachieving.
Clearly the prophet addressed a problem with those who were the source of that problem: men. If the prophet was attempting to address the problem with women, he certainly picked the wrong forum.
I didn’t see many women there.
“President Hinckley wasn’t telling women to stop studying so much, and he wasn’t telling men to make women stop achieving. He was telling men to achieve more.”
Yes. I know.
I’m just saying that the stats he cited are not necessarily supportive of the idea that women drop out of high school less and receive more post-secondary education because men are lazy (or more specifically aren’t getting off their butts).
“Clearly the prophet addressed a problem with those who were the source of that problem: men.”
I don’t think it is that clear. At least not with the information we were given. Perhaps the study (or studies) he apparently cited have more details that do show that men are the source of the problem. Simply citing percentages, however, does not indicate what the source of the trend is.
The source of the problem may very well be that men are lazy, but that’s simply an assumption we are making based on what little information we have. That same information could be supportive of numerous other causes.
Mary Siever said: George said : “LDS Tradition is to not put off marriage for education and not to put off having children for education.â€
Tradition, not doctrine. Don’t confuse the two.”
I called it a Tradition.
Are you speaking about how church leaders speak from the pulpit and talk about how wonderful it is to get married young and the mixed messages this sends? It culd be confused with being Church Doctrine. But as you said only in Utah and Alberta Canada.
I have never heard any church leader speak from the pulpit about how wonderful it is to get married young and the blessings it brings, only about the blessings marriage itself brings. Can you cite any sources for this?
For the record, I am not completely against getting married young, I just don’t believe it is pushed by the church (perhaps by the membership) nor is it always a wise thing to do, just for the sake of getting married.
More education equals larger paycheck. Larger paycheck equals more tithing.
It seems to me the more active wards are filled with white collar workers (professionals) while the less active wards have blue collar workers. Except for the Spanish speaking wards and they mow the grass.
I remember as a teenager, church leaders would preach how honorable it was to have a blue collar skill and to work with your hands. Times have changed in that regard.
“More education equals larger paycheck. Larger paycheck equals more tithing.”
It also means more leadership experience.
>More education equals larger paycheck.
Bill Gates can testify to that.
And I don’t see how you avoid that the Prophet was addressing solely the failings of the men (as opposed to demeaning women). He out and out says:
* There is not a man or boy in this vast congregation tonight who cannot improve his life
* And that needs to happen.
So then the Prophet addresses the flaws that he sees with the men/boys:
* unclean thoughts
* dressing in a slouchy manner
* profanity
* not enough education
He compares the men to the women in pointing out a TREND. Where in the past there were more men than women graduating from college and so forth, the situation has reversed and it is continuing. The TREND is for the men to get less and less education, while the women keep getting more and more. He merely points out that the TREND is wrong and that the men should be EQUAL to the women.
He never suggests that women should not be educated. No. He suggests that the men do as well as the women.
How someone can read this into a negative context that he is demaning women somehow surely escapes me. He addressed the women earlier. If he wanted to make sure that women were kept in their place, and education limited, he would have said to then.
But he didn’t.
Kim – Are you suggesting that education and leadership skills are one and the same?
Kim Siever said: “Is it your contention that marriage is for raising childrenâ€
I believe that is one reason for marriage.
“if there are no children being produced there is no reason for marriage?â€
No.
Just to be clear – No children no reason to be married. Is this what you meant?
Rick mentioned at the outset that “[c]uriously (or maybe not so much) the LDS are the statistical anomaly where there is a high level of education coupled with a high level of church participation.” He wondered what study the Prophet was referring to.
This study exists, and seems to backup what the Prophet mentioned, with Mormons showing a greater tendency to participate in religion as their education increases. It also states that there is NOT such an association with non-Mormons (may or may not increase religious participation).
Study
President Hinckley is basically giving the men that hear his voice and read his words a slap in the face for not keeping up with the women in their lives. He has spoken on this topic on several occasions (the talk called “being worthy of the woman you will marry” [that’s not the exact title] comes to mind). I think he is frustrated that men today are spending less time educating themselves and then feeling rather intimidated by the very bright and intelligent women around them. He has a good point.
“Are you suggesting that education and leadership skills are one and the same?”
Not any more than you are saying education and income level are one and the same.
“No children no reason to be married. Is this what you meant?”
No. Having children is one reason for getting married. There are others.
Throughout this entire discussion nobody has pointed out that with men, there is a greater chance of them taking up a tradeskill. Women do so less.
All of Mr. Hinckley’s statistics were in regard to University or secondary education.
It seems pretty unfair to paint the whole of male society who decide not to enroll in University as lazy bums and slackers.
In regard to the ‘equally yoked’ comment: the original term was meant to be applied for two entities serving the same master and doing the same work; ostensibly working towards their own salvation.
In context, the comment does not clearly distinguish whether the women are pulling too hard, or the men are not pulling hard enough. Ah, the joy of the ambiguous.
Rick wrote: Maybe I am wrong. Maybe what Mr. Hinckley really meant to say is,â€C’mon boys! Let’s all strive to be better, by golly!†but that’s certainly not how it reads.
That’s how it reads to me. I think you grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
>It seems pretty unfair to paint the whole of male society who decide not to enroll in University as lazy bums and slackers.
Well, since the scriptures urge us to seek as much education as possible, it seems odd for a faithful generation of men to be walking away from college.
So in your opinion, tortdog, a degree is better than being a tradesman?
A Bachelors of Arts is more important than a plumber?
I see no evidence of any number of men walking away from college at all.
The same statistics could be affected simply by more women going to school.
In my opinion, an education is more important than learning a trade. First, because advances in technology and productivity have put a lot of tradesmen out of business, e.g., abacaus accountants, blacksmiths, television repairmen.
Second, while learning a trade is useful, it doesn’t teach you much about how the laws of nature (whether physical, psychological, sociological or otherwise) work. So even though I might never design a bridge or teach calculus, my education in statics/calculus has improved my ability to reason and think.
>I see no evidence of any number of men walking away from college at all.
You must not read much. Google and quickly find out about the trend of men and their failure to attend college, let along graduate from high school. President Hinckley nailed it.
“In my opinion, an education is more important than learning a trade. “
This sounds rather elitist. Although I am coming from a family of academics (for the most part) I still see the need for trades. Technology hasn’t put all trades out of business nor will it. And you seem to think that because someone has an education in a trade, they don’t become educated in other arenas. This isn’t entirely true and speaks more of your (and others’) prejudices than of reality.
Remember this too, tortdog, Jesus Christ was a carpenter. Are you, or anyone else, better than Him because you got a degree in university rather than learned a skilled trade?
tortdog, in Canada, we differentiate between college and university. Rick may have been making that distinction in his comment.
“technology and productivity have put a lot of tradesmen out of business”
At the same time, they have created new jobs. One certainly wouldn’t have heard of a business analyst or a project manager 100 years ago.
Let me add a few more things; If it wasn’t for restaurant workers, or people building roads, or plumbers, or computer repair people, or garbage men or women, or construction workers or painters, or home builders or home care workers or maintenance workers or locksmiths, or truck drivers (who do you think brings all those convenience items you purchase in a store?), or cashiers or store owners or factory workers etc etc etc not a one of us would have a very comfortable life. Are you up to roughing it without any of the modern conveniences? Are you willing to build the streets you need to drive on? Or better yet, put the car together, or the bus, to take you to your “educated” job? Or DRIVE that bus? Can you make the material to create the clothing you wear? Can you build the airplanes to fly you from one side of the world to the other? If it wasn’t for these “trades” you wouldn’t be able to watch conference on satellite. Who would build it for you? Who would cart your garbage away and take care of it for you? Who would BUILD your house for you? There isn’t a machine that will do that for you as of yet, and I doubt their will be in the near or even far future. Do you have the ability to do this? Or are you able to wash your clothes by hand? I have done this and trust me, it isn’t easy. A washing machine is pretty wonderful, needed and saves a lot of effort and time. But I sure couldn’t build one, could you? Instead of knocking down trades as being less important, perhaps become more “educated” on their worth and need in our society. Especially in our society since most of us are unable to fend for ourselves without their help in some regard. Frankly, I don’t see what use a group of lawyers could do for me if the power goes out in the city. They sure couldn’t get it running again.
Mary. Just because one believes that a college (university) education is more important than learning a trade (in an either/or situation) does not make one an elitist. Of course people in various trades are required. But while you argue that merely the trade is enough, I’d argue that you would be better off to graduate from college (at the minimum an associate’s degree) AND learn the trade.
Why? I explained already. With a general education (and, no, high school isn’t enough) you are better trained to be able to tackle a variety of professions. If you learn one trade, you have learned how to do that one thing. Plumbers might not make great carpenters. Further, how often do students going to college learn a trade to put themselves through school?
You can do both. And do remember that often trades are not suited for people in their later years or who have disabilities, while professions are.
>Technology hasn’t put all trades out of business nor will it.
Absolutes are always hard to find. But Elder Packer suggested that we try to be the rule, as opposed to the exception. Don’t the scriptures call on us to seek as much knowledge as possible? Sorry, but in my mind that is most easily done at a university (though of course there are other ways).
>And you seem to think that because someone has an education in a trade, they don’t become educated in other arenas.
I never said that. See what I wrote just previously.
>This isn’t entirely true and speaks more of your (and others’) prejudices than of reality.
There you go assuming again. It’s been a while, but you jumped right back into it.
>Remember this too, tortdog, Jesus Christ was a carpenter. Are you, or anyone else, better than Him because you got a degree in university rather than learned a skilled trade?
I was unaware that they had universities in ancient Israel, let alone public schools. You are talking about an era when trades were how civilization worked (and it was a poor way to provide for all people). Are you seriously suggesting that if Christ had lived in a community equivalent to today’s that he would eschew a higher education?
Do you really believe that?
Let me suggest this. We have a prophet today who instructs us and gives us guidance. Do you recall President Hinckley exhorting the young men to join a trade school?
Why do you think that the prophet advised young men to go to college?
Would it be helpful for me to point you to the numerous studies that show a higher education provides more opportunities for people and their families, as well as linked to lower crime, etc.?
“I was unaware that they had universities in ancient Israel, let alone public schools.”
As a matter of fact, they studied the classics, they had academic studies in Ancient Israel, yes. Perhaps you have read some of the philosophers from ancient times? Or maybe not, since a classical education is not a part of modern education for the most part.
I am also not saying a higher education is not worthwhile, it most certainly is. As I said, I come from a family of many academics.
I still don’t believe a university education is MORE important than a vocational education. They both have extreme, and yes, even equal, value.
I also (personally) don’t believe that many public schools or universities offer a superior education, as they should. And most learning doesn’t happen inside a school building anyway. It is ongoing, especially if you read. Currently I am reading Pilgrim’s Progress to advance my education since I strongly believe it is a life long effort.
“You can do both. And do remember that often trades are not suited for people in their later years or who have disabilities, while professions are.”
I don’t agree with this entirely. You seem to be referring to physical ability, and not mental capacity. A professional career doesn’t guarantee mental ability in later years.
I believe strongly in higher education, but I also don’t feel people who have such are superior to those who don’t. You say that you didn’t say this and yet you said this “my education in statics/calculus has improved my ability to reason and think.”
Still, this type of thinking is elitist. As well, it reminds me of another blog where they too believe they are better than the average person.
“But while you argue that merely the trade is enough, I’d argue that you would be better off to graduate from college (at the minimum an associate’s degree) AND learn the trade.”
I didn’t say that “merely a trade is enough” nor do I believe this. Now you are putting words into my mouth. I think most skills are important, and learning a profession, but better yet, how to be a leader, is important. Unfortunately there are no schools which teach this. Oh, no, there is one. George Wythe College. http://www.gwc.edu/ And there may be a few more.
But I still do not believe a univeristy education is more important than a trade education. They are both of great value, and not one is better than the other.
Way to go Mary.
>As a matter of fact, they studied the classics, they had academic studies in Ancient Israel, yes.
So you are arguing that they had universities/colleges in ancient Israel? I want to be clear about that.
>I still don’t believe a university education is MORE important than a vocational education. They both have extreme, and yes, even equal, value.
So do you dismiss the studies that conclude more education is beneficial, e.g., univesities as opposed to vocational schools?
>I also (personally) don’t believe that many public schools or universities offer a superior education, as they should.
That’s a separate question. But they certainly offer better education than nothing.
>And most learning doesn’t happen inside a school building anyway. It is ongoing, especially if you read. Currently I am reading Pilgrim’s Progress to advance my education since I strongly believe it is a life long effort.
Great! But I’d be willing to bet that studying 18 credits per semester would force you to learn more faster, right?
>I don’t agree with this entirely. You seem to be referring to physical ability, and not mental capacity. A professional career doesn’t guarantee mental ability in later years.
There are exceptions, true. But there are many people who are 65 and still working in various professions. How many 65-year old roofers do you see?
>but I also don’t feel people who have such are superior to those who don’t.
Neither do I. So we agree. What’s your point?
>You say that you didn’t say this and yet you said this “my education in statics/calculus has improved my ability to reason and think.â€
True. Why does a greater aptitude to reason/think make me superior to any other person?
>Still, this type of thinking is elitist. As well, it reminds me of another blog where they too believe they are better than the average person.
No it doesn’t. It means you don’t put your head in the sand. It means you recognize reality. Anyone can improve their education (and should). That doesn’t make all people equal.
Ever hear, “And God equally created all men unequal”?
>but better yet, how to be a leader, is important. Unfortunately there are no schools which teach this.
They teach leadership in universities too, as well as specialized schools that you mentioned.
>But I still do not believe a univeristy education is more important than a trade education.
Show me ONE study that concludes people receiving a vocational education are better off (or as well off) as those who receive college degrees.
Did you find the prophet’s advice to go to trade school yet?
“Great! But I’d be willing to bet that studying 18 credits per semester would force you to learn more faster, right?”
Bet it all you want, I don’t believe so. At least not in my case since I don’t need to be forced to learn. I actually enjoy it.
“True. Why does a greater aptitude to reason/think make me superior to any other person?”
You are the one who said it gives you a greater ability to think, which suggests that a person who didn’t take those classes are unable to do so.
“They teach leadership in universities too, as well as specialized schools that you mentioned.”
In what capacity? I haven’t seen this among many (or most) of the graduates coming out of the schools these days, in North America.
“Did you find the prophet’s advice to go to trade school yet?”
No, since you aren’t even willing to listen to what I am saying, and I certainly don’t have time to do so. You continue to twist my words around, there is no point in my wasting my time looking for it. You also seem to think an education is strictly an academic one, if that’s the case, no prophet has ever differentiated between them.
I really don’t think President Hinckley’s comments exclude education in trades. He’s consistently exhorted us to get as much education as possible, but hasn’t said that education can’t be outside of pure academia. I think training as a master craftsman is another type of education, and one of which President Hinckley approves. There’s no need to create a false dilemma between being educated and learning a trade. I’m a law student but wish I were also a welder, plumber or mechanic.
President Hinckley—and the God who guides him—want us to be able to support ourselves and contribute as much as we can to the causes of Zion. Obtaining the most education we can is one of the ways to do that.
“Years” ago when men were being schooled in universities in percentages greater then women, there weren’t a lot of jobs out there for women.. other then the basic nursing and teaching. Any business jobs had very low glass ceilings. Women were basically dependant on men to look after them financially.
Slowly over time that has changed. Women have realized that there is more to life out there then being mom. A LOT of women aren’t cut out to be mothers and are free to go out, get whatever degrees they want and work at whatever job they want. Women have a sense of freedom knowing that they don’t have to depend on someone else for their future.
When my youngest started school I went back to school. All of a sudden I realized if something happened to my husband I had 5 small children to look after and that was going to happen sitting on Social Services.
I continue going to school at different times, taking night classes, regular classes, correspondence classes.. anything to keep my brain going.
Someone posted that President Hinckley was NOT talking to the women telling them so get out of the schools and go back home so the men could play catch up. He was speaking to the men asking them where they were. Not once did he say University was better then trades or vice versa. You do get better pay with education regardless if it was at a trades college or a university.
I don’t think anyone would disagree someone with a Masters Degree in Business and who is actually working in the business field would make more money then someone working at McDonald’s counter.
But trades right now are getting paid a minimum of 30 bucks an hour as apprentices. Journeymen double that in some areas. These are all tradesmen or I guess I should say tradespeople and to the person who said you don’t see 65 year old roofers I beg to differ there are 2 of them actually on my husband’s job site right now.
If I had my way none of my children would have married till they were 30ish and only after they got educated past high school diplomas. The time to go to school is NOT after you are married and have children. Not that you can’t… it’s just extremely more difficult and comes only with great sacrifice.
And besides it is all a moot point anyway… women have known we are superior to men since the time of Eve :-)
All I can say is that if I had to do high school again, I would have traded my biology class for a mechanics class and my physics class for a woodworking class.
tortdog, just a couple of points.
There were college type settings in Christ’s day, they had been around since before the Pythagoreans (who incidentally structured their school very similairly to BYU, but that’s a topic for another post). So Jesus could have been an intellectual, but was not (at least as defined by what would have been called an intellectual in his day).
Secondly, I have not seen many older tradesmen working for two reasons 1) they own and operate their businesses in an administrative capacity (without any formal university education I might add) and 2) they are so well off, they have no need to work late into their lives. I’d refer you to any tradesman who’s worked in Fort McMurray Alberta for classic examples of both these scenarios.
“You must not read much.”
…and you must have a very high opinion of yourself, Mr. Judgmental. I’d probably have a better comeback, but I have yet to attain the level of education you have. More’s the pity.
Mary.
First, you aren’t really answering the questions I am asking. You have not answered whether you believe that Jesus Christ would seek a college education if he lived in our day, and you provide yourself as an example to counter general positions that I make and question you on.
I give reasons to seek a college education based on results in the general population. Making rules by exception is not the best thing.
So when I state that studying 18 credits per semester will generally result in a person reading/learning more than a person who is not so enrolled, is it your position that on average the unenrolled will read/learn just as much (or more) than the enrolled?
>You are the one who said it gives you a greater ability to think, which suggests that a person who didn’t take those classes are unable to do so.
I do not believe that a greater aptitude/ability to think/reason makes a person superior to one who does not. You say that I do believe this. You err.
Marion G. Romney once said,
>And God equally created all men unequal.
Can you see why that might be true? Just because one person has a greater aptitude for logical reasoning does not make him superior to any other man. However, all men have the duty to seek as much education as possible.
Correct?
>I haven’t seen this among many (or most) of the graduates coming out of the schools these days, in North America.
I truly wonder if you have ever made a study of “many” or “most” of the universities in North America. That would be quite a study. Nonetheless, here are a few from a quick Google search:
University of Phoenix – quite a few campuses across the United States
Michigan State University – having a down year in football
University of San Francisco
Cal Poly
Cal Berkeley
Yale (Business and MD)
BYU
It’s really quite common.
>No, since you aren’t even willing to listen to what I am saying
I certainly am willing. I am taking the time to read your points and respond to them point by point. I research material to support my answers.
> You continue to twist my words around, there is no point in my wasting my time looking for it. You also seem to think an education is strictly an academic one, if that’s the case, no prophet has ever differentiated between them.
I am not attempting to twist your words. You have stated that I believe I am superior to others who lack the same education that I have. That is NOT my belief. You misjudge me (certainly not the first time that you have done this to me), and yet you claim that I am twisting your words. I don’t get that.
Itu:
>I really don’t think President Hinckley’s comments exclude education in trades.
I would not exclude them. But I certainly do not believe that President Hinckley was referring to men not attending/graduating from trade schools in the referenced address in priesthood. Do you?
>There’s no need to create a false dilemma between being educated and learning a trade. I’m a law student but wish I were also a welder, plumber or mechanic.
Great point. But it’s not a false dilemna. Just this morning on NPR there was a report about the difference in average salaries for those who drop out of HS, HS diplomas, some college education, college graduate and advanced degrees. While some tradesmen do very well in their crafts and can amply support their families (even exceeding college graduates – consier Bill Gate), it’s certainly not the norm.
Denying that is helpful why?
Rick:
>There were college type settings in Christ’s day, they had been around since before the Pythagoreans (who incidentally structured their school very similairly to BYU, but that’s a topic for another post). So Jesus could have been an intellectual, but was not (at least as defined by what would have been called an intellectual in his day).
I’m interested in this. Any suggestions on where I could read (online would be particularly helpful, but I have access to a traditional library as well).
>Secondly, I have not seen many older tradesmen working for two reasons 1) they own and operate their businesses in an administrative capacity (without any formal university education I might add) and 2) they are so well off, they have no need to work late into their lives.
Do you think those are the only two reasons?
You said this:
>I see no evidence of any number of men walking away from college at all.
I countered by suggesting that you must not read much. I don’t suggest that you are not able to read, but that you are choosing not to.
Why?
Because this trend of men dropping out of (or avoiding altogether) college has been reported since the late 90s. That President Hinckley mentioned it and advised priesthood holders to stop this trend is not surprsing.
But then you come here and suggest that you have seen “no evidence” to support it.
I fail to see how you can state that and read the news about what’s going on around you (unless you live in a very secluded area where this trend is NOT the norm and where the news reports from the outside do not reach you).
Explain that to me. It’s not a personal slam. It’s unbelief on how you could not be aware of something I believe to be a widely acknowledged fact.
Well I should clarify that Jesus did have some intellectual training, he knew the scriptures well and was able to expound and teach from them. But his “trade” was a carpenter.
Let’s see, another person who didn’t attend university but still got a very good education. Joseph Smith.
This is the SECOND response. I posted the first but it never “took.” I’ve seen others complain that the posts were being moderated, but I believe it must be a problem with this blog and its inability to take long posts (or posts with multiple links to other web sites).
Not sure…so here’s the condensed version:
Mary:
>Bet it all you want, I don’t believe so. At least not in my case since I don’t need to be forced to learn. I actually enjoy it.
So you don’t believe that being enrolled in 18 credits would make you read/study more than not being enrolled at all. I think that you truly are the exception, based on my knowledge of how most people around me work.
Do you seriously dispute that generally people enrolled full time in college read/study more than those who are not attending (and never attended) college?
>You are the one who said it gives you a greater ability to think, which suggests that a person who didn’t take those classes are unable to do so.
Believing that one has great aptitude at a given skill does not make one necessarily superior in my view. YOU made the logical jump. Not I.
>In what capacity? I haven’t seen [leadership courses] among many (or most) of the graduates coming out of the schools these days, in North America.
I Googled and easily found that Michigan State, University of Phoenix, Yale, CalPoly and Cal Berkely (oh…and BYU) all offer courses in leadership.
First, I seriously doubt your statement that you have looked at the curriculum taught by many (or most) North American universities, let alone to determine whether they included leadership as a course. But even if you have done this, then why did you miss the obvious?
>No, since you aren’t even willing to listen to what I am saying, and I certainly don’t have time to do so.
Well, as to the former I certainly am listening to you. I’m responding point by point. As to the latter, that’s your decision. But if you don’t have the time to back up your opinons, then why make them if they might latter be questioned?
>You continue to twist my words around, there is no point in my wasting my time looking for it.
I am making no such attempt. My responses are to opinions that I believe you have expressed. If there is miscommunication, then typically the involved parties clarify to avoid the misunderstanding. I’m willing to do that.
>You also seem to think an education is strictly an academic one, if that’s the case, no prophet has ever differentiated between them.
No. I don’t think so. However, can you give me any advice by the President Hinckley to seek out vocational schools for education? I don’t think so. Do you doubt that he was talking about COLLEGE education when he expressed his concern about the statistics and men? The statistics were dealing with colleges, not vocational schools.
Ltbugaf. I will have to respond to you later. I’m running late for a meeting but wanted to address your points. I agree with a lot of what you say, while disagreeing in part.
rick said:
>There were college type settings in Christ’s day, they had been around since before the Pythagoreans (who incidentally structured their school very similairly to BYU, but that’s a topic for another post). So Jesus could have been an intellectual, but was not (at least as defined by what would have been called an intellectual in his day).
I’d like to read more of these. What sources would you suggest?
Regarding the last two comments, I will address them later. I think you misunderstand my point regarding “reading much” and I disagree with your view that there are only two reasons for the lack of many older tradesmen.
“I Googled and easily found that Michigan State, University of Phoenix, Yale, CalPoly and Cal Berkely (oh…and BYU) all offer courses in leadership.”
I am not talking about “leadership” courses. I am talking about leadership TRAINING. Learning how to be truly a leader by STUDYING from the lives of great leaders, studying the classics.