"social studies are a waste of college funds"...seriously, I am doing Social Studies, and I can gaurantee it was not a waste of time or funds. In fact there was a call for more people to do what I am doing because in Australia there is a severe shortage (professionals that can speak Mandarin)...and also, it is not always about getting a decent job, I for one didn't do my degree for a kickass job, but a kickass lifestyle...I like travelling, and knowing a second language is very handy.

So before you diss the "arts" make sure you watch your words carefully, because my study history is a perfect example where my studies will be making a contribution and is creating the lifestyle that I want

"intermediate Mandarin course that you could've done while having a real job at the same time."...yeah you try that and get back to me ...it is alot harder than simply doing a course...to be honest, being at uni full time for 2 years wasn't enough...I am now starting a new degree in China so I can learn faster (this will really piss you off, but since we are having a spirited debate, everything is paid for and I dont have to pay it back, or even do anything for it...all of my accom, tuition, books, healthcare, and they even give me living expense money...all because the Chinese government wants to promote foreigners learning Chinese). Learning Chinese is alot harder than you could imagine. Seriously, I swear that sometimes even Chinese people don't understand it, because things can be spelt the same, sound the same, but mean completely different things...also I looked at one of the Mandarin courses at a college and the level was too basic. It was pronunciation of some basic Mandarin and no writing characters which is very important (and also very hard)...

"Sorry if my point on this subject is very extreme (which it is), but here I am, a med student, getting the same amount of student aid (if not less) than the guy/girl who spends his day making ugly ass paintings"...in Australia, the government pays for all of the student fees, but when that person starts working (doing whatever job) they pay all of that money back...so really no student is ever worse off than any other...if you do something that pays big bucks, your loans get paid off faster, and if you do something with no prospects, then you will spend 10 years paying off your debt...

As for the original point of this thread, students not getting jobs, it is noones fault but the student. They should know full well what they are getting into BEFORE they undertake that field of study. It is a lack of foresight by students. I know that my chosen career will not last (well it will if I stay in China permanently )...there is still also an aspect of "I like this field" to everyone's choice to study that field, otherwise why don't you as a "med student" decide to study medicine and not engineering?

"Even though my tuition fees are 3 times theirs and my study is atleast 10x harder/more intense/going to have an actual return on investment..."

If the tuition costs bother you, you should look at what is needed for the course...studying a language just needs a lecturer and a room. Doing medical studies requires equipment, same with Engineering. "Arts" students in Australia have to pay less because less is required for them to study (except maybe media studies...painting and such all require the students to pay for the equipment and such)...

Are you really trying to claim that studying foreign languages is not economically important?

Do you think international trade happens through a series of points and grunts?

It is economically favourable to a country such as Australia to educate people to speak Chinese because this will give Australia an advantage in trade with China (the world's next superpower) compared with countries which don't train as many people in the Chinese language(s).

Remember, the market isn't stagnant if you're talking about languages in emerging markets, because new industries will create the new demand.  Plus, old employees in the industry retire, giving openings for new workers (not really an expansion, but still a new job demand).

That being said, I doubt Chinese is a very good language for someone pursuing that career.  Specifically, the problem is that since most international business does occur in English, the market is ripe for a high supply of Chinese people learning English, rather than the other way around, necessarily.  But I could definitely be wrong here....

"However, are you still receiving full aid from the Australian government? Are Australian taxpayers still paying for your study even though the Chinese taxpayers are contributing to it as well?"

Nope, they only fund me whilst I am in Australia. And any money they give me, I have to pay back eventually, so it doesn't matter about returns because the tax payer is not footing the bill on a permanent basis. It is a loan. The only support I get is living costs from the government, which is the same as everyone else at uni (and not far off the amount that people get from just being unemployed). I understand your position, but you shouldn't get upset at the student, but more the support your government offers (and I still agree that it should be standard across whatever subject you undertake). I like the idea of loaning a student the money, as it stops these sorts of arguments, as well as still making those students who decide to bum around and drop out/fail their units still accountable for their own tuition fees.

"If you're going to learn a foreign language as a career, learn more than 1."

Am taking the oppurtunity to learn Korean and Japanese whilst living in student accom. I know I won't be fluent, but knowing some will help

"the market is ripe for a high supply of Chinese people learning English, rather than the other way around, necessarily."

I find very few people here can speak English, and when they can, it is very broken. Sure, I am not dealing with business men/women, but still English is not of a high priority or exposure here. All Chinese people do learn some English in primary school, but very limited. Also, even if Chinese people can speak English, there is more to business dealings than just knowing the language. I will give a perfect example, Chinese business is often run on a series of networks that is called "Guanxi wang". A supplier/buyer relationship is built on a relationship of gift-giving and reciprocation, and a greater emphasis on developing a relationship than just doing business in a formal environment within the rules/laws specified in business dealings. This is certainly a problem when foriegn firms start doing business in China, as they will work off formal rules/laws, whereas the Chinese company will focus more on building a relationship.

Also, even if the Chinese company has English speakers, why would it be disadvantageous of the Western business to have Chinese speakers? In fact it would build smoother relations between the 2, and would even be showing "limao" (maintaining social heirachy/harmony).

Also wish to point out that their was a call for more people in Australia to learn Chinese just earlier this year because there is a severe shortage. I also wish to point out that the Chinese class at uni was very small, to the point that they were protecting the numbers in the class from dropping too low and cancelling the units (ie. by preventing exchange to China...I was lucky enough to work around it ). But sure, there are enough native speakers of Chinese in Australia, some of these are my friends, but often (and this is a sad fact) companies will cull the resume list by looking for foreign names in an effort to cull people who can't speak English. I have a friend who graduated uni and can't find a job because companies won't give her a chance because of her language skills (although her English is good, she has a Chinese name and so her resume is automatically cut from the list).

xeno, not in this country where everyone is obliged to have healthcare insurance and referals are tried to be kept at a minimum (which at times may even lead to negative consequences when a referal would've been necessary... but that's aside the point). I'm sure there'll still be a few of those bad, lazy doctors out there who just do it for the money, but I can say that in my entire cluster, if not my entire year, I have yet to met someone who is in it just for the money. People who are just out for the money will generally study physiotherapy here.

In the Netherlands the people who gather info for the anamnesis have a "specialization" with "generalization" as his subject, called a "huisarts" (housedoctor). About 40% of med students who finish their master choose to do this specialization. However, if that's the way the doctor is treating you, without making any effort to attain a good anamnesis or investigate the body thorougly to scout out other symptoms, then I would definitely file a complaint. Even in the field of housedoctors these people should be an exceptian, and if they aren't there is something seriously wrong with your complaint system, because I know that here in the Netherlands there is legislature that provides patients with the right to complain, which can lead to the sacking of a doctor.

If the bad seeds in medicine form an exception, when those in art & social studies comprise almost the entire studies... what would be the result on the return on investment?

Wornstrum, I can see how in the current economical situation, with a strong, growing China and a (relatively) weakening West, how there would be a call to Western students to learn Chinese. Regarding Zarf: It is an enormous advantage if you are able to speak Chinese, to be able to get close to them. The hierarchy in Chinese economics is a system based on trust and respect, more than the Western system, so getting the Chinese to trust you is key. What easier way to get them to trust you than to show you are willing to put effort into your relationship with them by learning their language? In some cases, NOT learning their language may even be seen as an insult.

> Cardboard Robot wrote:

> xeno, not in this country where everyone is obliged to have healthcare insurance and referals are tried to be kept at a minimum (which at times may even lead to negative consequences when a referal would've been necessary... but that's aside the point). I'm sure there'll still be a few of those bad, lazy doctors out there who just do it for the money, but I can say that in my entire cluster, if not my entire year, I have yet to met someone who is in it just for the money. People who are just out for the money will generally study physiotherapy here.

Healthcare, and thus doctors' OUTRAGEOUSLY INSULTING salaries are subsidized with tax-dollars, and the average doctor makes NO more of a difference for the better to society than your average teacher, or, for that matter, probably less so.   The absurd salaries they feel entitled to for having paid so much in dues, yet, ultimately, because they have such little ultimate effect for the better of society and yet get paid so much more for their PITIFUL contribution, they are FAR more of a drain on society than virtually anyone else.  Don't you DARE think you actually deserve the outlandish salary you will get.  Be humble and appreciative, and know that your good life comes at the expense of those whose economic opportunities have been DIMINISHED by the outlandish dictates of the school of medicine, who live in Ivory towers, blatantly ignorant to the negative effects their policies and lobbying has on the lives of the rest of us "common folk".  The last thing I can stand is a med student who diminishes or otherwise bashes the contributions social sciences have on society.  Don't be daft.  You enjoy the freedoms and liberties you do because of the heroic sacrifices of liberal arts graduates in their respective positions and without them, you would probably never have had the opportunities you did in your life.  We are talking journalists, artists, philosophers, writers, film-makers, teachers, who in spite of the absolute HORROR which is the academic establishment in generally, still find a way, in spite of the moral degradation of society we are experience, to instill at least some of the virtues, morals, and values in the next generation, without which our society falls into an abyss.  Think of that the next time you are lancing a boil on homeless-man's ass, and come to the realization that your ultimate contribution to society as a doctor is worth about the same your patient's, about as much as the boil itself, at that.

>>In the Netherlands the people who gather info for the anamnesis have a "specialization" with "generalization" as his subject, called a "huisarts" (housedoctor). About 40% of med students who finish their master choose to do this specialization. However, if that's the way the doctor is treating you, without making any effort to attain a good anamnesis or investigate the body thorougly to scout out other symptoms, then I would definitely file a complaint. Even in the field of housedoctors these people should be an exceptian, and if they aren't there is something seriously wrong with your complaint system, because I know that here in the Netherlands there is legislature that provides patients with the right to complain, which can lead to the sacking of a doctor.  If the bad seeds in medicine form an exception, when those in art & social studies comprise almost the entire studies... what would be the result on the return on investment?

Your incessant return to the issue of return on investment in economic terms is greatly disturbing, for as a med student, you must be fairly smart, and thus I am astounded that you cannot see how it is that graduates of social science disciplines and who actually get a chance to work in their fields, are the ones whose contributions to society matter most, contributions with incalculable economic value to society at large, rarely, unlike the medical establishment, for themselves.  What would you have if cultural anthropologists, for example, weren't willing to live lives of virtual poverty in order to study the last remaining tribes of whatever various last bastions of sustainable human society there are to be found in the world today; anthropologists who, for the sake of the so called values of human dignity and justice for which our civilization is supposedly moving forward, sacrifice dearly to research for a magazine article about a people who live sustainably, which virtually no one in our sociopath-dis-utopia even believes is possible anymore, let alone cares about.  The lessons to be gleaned from such a tribe about how to solve the most pressing problems of our civilization might very well be lost without the social-science graduate, who due to his study of how modernity causes the loss of knowledge, languages, and culture from which we could possibly learn how to save our future generations is lost will be be a topic learned by future generations, whose awareness of today's generation's crimes against humanity they will be far more aware than us.  Your grandchildren will learn, and, hopefully, will take measures to protect indigenous cultures still remaining in their time, and some of the art, stories, languages, life-styles, knowledge that would otherwise have been rendered extinct might be saved.  For us, it is too late.  I suppose, then, you want to measure the investment of the social-science degree of anthropologist in question in economic terms, then, since it won't effect our lifetimes, and, ultimately, you are as much a sociopath as most of us: products of our environment.  Money NOW is all you (and most of us) seems to care about.  Fine.  Well, here is a monetary gain then to our generation and your medical establishment, then. Let's say a tribe studied by an anthropologist uses a species of flower for medicinal purposes and this flower is deemed to have properties your pharmaceutical companies can ear millions with.  Happy? 

>>Wornstrum, I can see how in the current economical situation, with a strong, growing China and a (relatively) weakening West, how there would be a call to Western students to learn Chinese. Regarding Zarf: It is an enormous advantage if you are able to speak Chinese, to be able to get close to them. The hierarchy in Chinese economics is a system based on trust and respect, more than the Western system, so getting the Chinese to trust you is key. What easier way to get them to trust you than to show you are willing to put effort into your relationship with them by learning their language? In some cases, NOT learning their language may even be seen as an insult.

Both the Chinese and the Westerners are about as equally prone to insulting one another.  The problem is due to the religious / cultural / sociological / psychological differences inherent between people who are brought up in one of the two different civilizations: the West has had the experience of the Enlightenment and the majority of people who grow up in Western societies have passed down to them values resulting from liberalism and the democratic process.  The Chinese didn't experience this, and instead function within their society according to Confucius thought.  For this reason there will always be diametrically opposed viewpoints on many issues which, sadly, are irreconcilable in this generation or any other.  Westerners learning Chinese or Chinese learning English will create more awareness of the differences between each others' civilization.  Ultimately, the return on the investment, or rather the 'contribution' to society, in learning Chinese or English will be negligible, although the individual sociopath who wants to exploit people of one or the other civilization will more easily be able to do so.

I see Aussies are a cosmopolitan bunch. At least us Americans have some value in Western civilization left.

Yes. Cosmopolitanism is the greatest evil that challenges the world today. It ranks with up National Socialism and Stalinism.

Part of Western civilization is about having well established Liberal institutions that guarantee outcomes including:
1. The rule of law
2. Equal opportunity/meritocracy
3. Transparency in government
4. Personal freedoms and civil rights

Cosmopolitanism means the death of those values, which is part of the reason why I say it is evil. While Western governments may nominally be democratic, they are really plutocracies that can effectively purchase politicians and manufacture consent due to the domination of media networks by mega corporations.

No one has the right to tell anyone to adopt values, because no such right is ever stated or implied in a legal code. Rights come from laws and the powers that enforce them, and I value the civil rights I have according to the laws of my country.

A lot of what you are saying implies that some rights come from some abstract source that makes no sense to me, so I can't comment on them too much.

However, I maintain that Cosmopolitanism is evil because:
1. People with contradictory values outnumber those sharing Western values.
2. Non-Westerners will demand justice for the historical misdeeds of Western imperialism.
3. Resources are scarce, and a world government will redistribute them more equitably.

In other words, I stand to lose with Cosmopolitanism. Only a fool surrenders their gun when facing an angry mob.

Additionally, everyone stands to lose eventually. Since resources are scarce, global investment (like in China) is causing rising consumption and thus rising prices for resources. We can either exploit the world's resources and continue to enjoy our standard of living, or downsize in favor of some abstract concept called "morality."

Cosmopolitanism would make sense with unlimited resources, but is in fact a false hope that will collapse in to a state of ruthless competition as the gap between consumption and sustainability grows wider and doom comes closer.

Nationalism and anti-globalization is thus a matter of self-preservation.