Mangetical Anji, what I found that has been a godsend to me where it comes to managing my money is a computer program called Quicken. I highly recommend it- you can always keep track of every penny, investment, loan, etc. that you have. And it is very simple. MrB. knows how much money he has in his coin jug right now, but he is kind of a nerd about stuff like that!

Hexele, are you a fellow Tennessean? MrB also did the work semester, school semester deal at NASA. We are close to both Redstone and an Air Force testing base so we are chock full of engineers around here. Please let LilB get his Daddy's smarts.

Sidebar: we have found out that LilB's head is not in the right place and probably will not be in the right place (misbehaving already). That is the holdup and why I am 40 weeks 4 days. So I am looking at a Csection next week. Please send happy baby vibes!

I did not take a pesonal finance class in high school, although I desperately needed to. I had no idea how 401Ks and credit cards work. I found that out from the school of hard knocks.

The last company I worked for was a joint venture dot com between the big 3 and a couple of European automakers, and for a while at its inception, it was the 'hottest' place to be in the Detroit consulting market. You would be surprised how many of these 24-28 year old Ernst &Young consultants were making 60-90K while contributing nothing of value besides documenting everything under the sun, and putting everything possible into a snazzy powerpoint. Pop up on power point screen: "Directions to tbe Bathroom" accompanied by pee pee dancing bean person. It was absurd. There I was making 1/3 of their salaries and doing real work. Almost all of them got laid off when dot com busted, and Covisint on their resumes did nothing more than get them into a decent grad school. I guess that's where young people get these ideas, during the job boom that ended with Clinton, companies were paying absurd salaries to very young people. One of by best freinds graduating college in 96 and started at 45000/yr programming, course if she graduated now, she'd never get that job, its been off-shored to India.

I just finished college last April after 11 years of part time study and I can say it was an absolute waste of time. I was recently job hunting and I got interviews all based on job experience I had before I got my degree. And I'm in CRAPLOADS of debt for a University of Michgian degree. Nobody told me that an English degree from U of M is no more impressive than one from a smaller, cheaper college. Everyone I knew was just applauding the fact that after a 1.7 high school GPA and 3.9 community college gpa, I had just gotten in. These were my parents and aunts, people I trusted, telling me to go for it. I had no idea my money would be better spent at a cheaper institution.

Dr. Al, I now buy into your Dr Phil-o-shit hates women theory. He was awful, particularly to that first woman, who I felt had a good head on her shoulders and had just, by virtue of being young and naieve, gotten herself into some serious trouble, without a huge sense of entitlement. After raking her over the coals and steam rolling over her, he offered her no advice or real help. Where are your big prizes now, DP? How about a financial expert to help her? And I think he's wrong- sometimes money problems are just money problems, not psychological ones. Ass!

One thing that nobody on the show mentioned, that I know is part of mine and my friend's concerns about this issue: you spend 4 years in college, accumulate the nessecary debt and start out in an entry level position. That's all fine and good, but then after 2 or 3 years you're getting ready to move to a more responsible position and maybe buying a house, probably married. So now maybe you're making 40-50K and your house cost 130K in a nice suburban neighorhood, its small, but good enough for now. Ok, so now your biological clock is ticking in your mid 20s, and you either have to give up the career you are still in debt for to stay home with the kids, or you beggar yourself with daycare costs. I absolutely believe women need to go to college and gain work experience before entering parenthood, but its created a real time crunch. If you don't get some great valuable experience before you have kids forget a) being able to pay for daycare or b) you don't have great experience to help you re-enter the market later if you take some time off to raise kids. I'm pretty sure that deep down those girls complaining about not advancing fast enough are a little worried about running out of time to establish themselves before being able to raise a family. I know I don't want to find myself having my first baby at 33 or 34 and finding I have to rush more than I want to have more than one child before 40.

Totally. My cousin just graduated from college with a sociology degree. What is she doing now? She's working as a secretary at a construction company. Most degrees aren't worth the paper it's printed on these days.

And it should be mandatory for all college freshmen to attend a practical applications class like Hexele mentioned.

Well, I don't know where you all live but here in NYC at the medium to global-sized companies I've worked in, no one gets in the door without a college degree. HR won't even consider seeing people without one.

So while a degree might not worth much in some parts of the country, it still is in my field (marketing/PR) and in related fields where I have friends working.

The real problem, IMO, is that the cost of college tuition so outstrips starting salaries in the majority of jobs...hardly any way for someone to get out from under that massive burden with today's starting salaries and the cost of living (even frugal living). Something has to be done about the cost of college - I don't know why it's skyrocketed as it has over the past 20 years but it has and the costs today boggle my mind.

That said, I think courses should be taught in high school on finance - how to manage money, how to spend/invest it, what real-life costs of everything is, the dangers of credit cards (Evil! Evil!), etc. - so that by the time kids are out of high school, they'll have a far better sense of what it takes to operate financially in the real world and be somewhat prepared. Lord knows, I wish I'd had that kind of training - it's taken many years in the real world for me to learn this and at least I didn't have college loans to repay.

ETA: Oprah did a show a few years ago with some financial expert/writer who had written a book/guide on teaching your kids about money. It was the best show I've ever seen on this subject. The expert worked with a couple of families to implement the program and while the kids hated it at first (it mean no more unlimited McDonald's meals, no more new clothes anytime, etc.), it really taught them very quickly the meaning of money. The program had the parents (with teenagers) give them X amount of money for all their social stuff/clothes, etc. Once that money ran out, the kids had to wait until next month, so they started learning the value of budgeting and how much things cost. One kid got very savvy and started doing a part-time job to save more money for something (can't remember what) bigger and became very good at budgeting his money allowance...which, by the way, wasn't just an 'allowance' for throw-away stuff. It included money for any needs kids have like clothes, school outings, etc.

Anyway, the parents were taught to share with the kids how much they spent on food, gas, utilties, housing, etc., etc. so that the kids didn't have ambigious ideas of what things cost or where the money came from.

And this worked - in a modified way - even with the 2nd family who had grade school kids. It was amazing how quickly these kids learned and caught on to the realities of money.

Now, this program should be required reading and implementing in every household, IMO!

Well, I think the major point is this: Phil sweeps into our collective consciousness. He drags along his botoxic wife AND two little Lord McGraws. What will this eventually mean? Well Robin is giving advice about women stuff 101 because she diets and exercises and managed her menopause, so she's qualified. Lil Lord Jay can effectively ape his father's delivery style and has attended college (though not ever supported himself, broke free from the McGraw collective or, I'll bet, been laid) so he has a mouthful to say himself. Are you all listening with rapt attention? Here speaketh the Heir to the Throne.
This leaves the youngest of the pack, also with a "J" name. Jerome? Jerboam? Jedediah? Who's the underaged one poised to save us all once he gets his AA degree in business systems? Anyway, no matter. The whole McGraw clan--even the embarrassingly hefty ones that Phil ignored until their size became a selling point for his weight loss flea market--are clogging up our airwaves with their homespun, Texas common sense and thigh-slappingly funny witticisms. (Insert cat, possum or rocking chair witticism here.)
Lookee, folks. I think the crick's arisin and we got us a full blown McGraw emergency. As you were.

Oh my goodness, word, word, word to the hundredth degree word! I think that first girl learned her lesson and if you paid off her dept she would not get in that mess again. Actually I feel the same way about the weight loss book. My mom asked me what I thought of it and I told her that if she felt her weight problems were really the result of some bug psychological issue it would help her, but if on the other hand her weight issues were the result of zero physical activity and poor impusle control around office sweets, it wouldn't tell her much.

Here too, few jobs will even interview you without a degree. I loved university. I did a post-grad certificate program at a community college afterward and hated it. I knew after about halfway through that I did (the whole 24-year-olds don't REALLY know what theyw ant to do for the rest of their lives issue we talked about before), but I stuck it out in the mistaken belief that my parents would be disappointed in me if I quit. I 'went corporate' as soon as I could (I had one hogh-profile internship that I am still milking because it was with a big name) and have been working 'entry-level; contract jobs ever since. It sucks. I feel like I do know what I want to do now, but I'd need to go back to school to do that. Living with my parents is no longer an option (my stepdad is a problem) so I'd need to save some serious money before I could even think about that. My mother claims she'll help when the time is right, my dad is completely useless, and I am stuck in minimum wage retail because I got laid off and am too young to have proper contacts in my field who I can network with.

masked spangler, one way I've found to get the contacts I need -- even when I was starting out and knew no one -- was do to research on companies in my field and then cold call people to ask them for 15 minutes of their time for an informational interview only. Most people are very glad to give you info, esp. if you make it clear you're not looking for a job interview -- and then that kind of 'interview' can often lead to a job. Plus, often times if the person you're meeting with is impressed with you, you'll be kept in mind for a future job and/or sometimes that person might know of someone who needs an employee (I've both seen that happen a lot and have been on the lucky end of that equation several times).

I did that when I was starting out and that's how I landed my first entry-level job in marketing/PR. And I still do it to this day -- some 20 years later -- when I need to develop more contacts (as one does with the economy as it is now).

And as long as the job-seekers were polite and respectful and told me they just wanted to get info about the field and how to best get into it, I was happy to give them 15 minutes or so. And yes, I even later hired someone who had approached me this way. I've also referred job-seekers to other people this way (companies I knew were looking to hire).

So while it's easy to feel very stymied in your search, I'd suggest this way of networking to expand your contacts and opportunities. Also, if there are any professional associations in your area in your field -- attend their meetings and network that way.

And the last way I'd suggest is to find a volunteer organization where you can use the skills you want a career in....so if you're looking, for example, to get into PR, find a group where you can working in PR for the volunteer efforts. Believe me, that kind of experience does count and will help you when you're interviewing. Plus, it shows how serious you are about your field, that you would be 'doing it' unpaid. And you'll develop really good skills in such a volunteer position. (And, from my perspective as one who has hired folks, it also shows a well-balanced life if you have outside interests such as volunteer work).

You're not too young to have 'proper contacts in your field' although it might seem that way. It's really a matter of aggressive marketing and networking, talking to everyone since you never know 'who knows who'.

One last thing - you mentioned that you now know what you want to do but need to go back to school for that. Is there any way you could start getting experience in that field via volunteer work or a part-time job? (even weekend jobs). That might be one way to start networking and getting more real-world experience...just a thought!

But I don't know, Bibi, if that doesn't speak to a key part of the problem... More and more, it seems to me, that college is now as routine as high school used to be.

A friend who worked as a Wall Street recruiter in the glory 90s talked about how kids from "good schools" could major in puddle jumping for all they cared (meanwhile, he was recruiting these grads to jobs while working for one of the biggest wall street firms through a temp agency). The WallSt company just wanted fresh meat with rudimentary communications/computer skills for these junior analyst positions. To get a final interview, grads needed to interview well & look good; in return, they got the promise of good salaries immediately upon graduation but the jobs were nowhere jobs and were almost expected to be a 2-3 year stopping point btwn undergrad and law/MBA programs. I can attest from my more recent students' experience that these kind of interim but real-enough jobs are fewer and fewer, with fewer folks getting callback interviews, let alone final interviews.

And none of these jobs give much points for "finding your passion" and none would be considered "totally awesome"... Dr.Shill's superiority dances on this topic are just dumb.

stinkylulu, I agree. And that said, advanced degrees aren't worth a lot unless they're required in certain fields (in other words, getting a master's in my field won't help you at all - just puts you more in debt since everyone going into marketing communications/PR starts at a certain entry level/salary range, regardless of having a B.S./B.A. or an advanced degree).

I've seen many folks - when the market is bad - go to grad school (instead of taking any kind of job) and then are horrified when they get the advanced degree and find out it doesn't make a difference in their field. And yes, they're more in debt than ever, adding to the burden.

Even fields where MBA's are highly desirable often prefer folks to get a few years' work experience first, then go back for the advanced degree (although many - like big Wall Street firms - will take folks who went straight from undergrad to MBA school routinely and pay them well).

Often many companies will pay for that degree if you agree to work for them for X years after getting it. I have a friend doing a 'professional MBA program' at Wharton right now and her employer, Chase Manhattan Bank, is paying for the whole thing. It's a weekend program over 2 years and while her life is very hectic now, it's worth it for her career and from an economic standpoint too (because they're paying for it and her salary prospects will rise a lot once she has the degree).

As for the glory days of the 90's, I don't think we'll see that era again for a long, long time, even when the economy is good again. That's because those type of 'booms' only come along a few times in a century when a global innovation and world-changing revolution occurs....like when the country went from an agrarian workplace to the industrial age and the way we live and do business changed super dramatically.

Likewise, the tech industry changed the way we live and do business on a massive scale. So if folks think that kind of 'boom' will return any time soon, I think they're highly mistaken. The changeover to a tech/global world has happened and like any major change in work/life, the foundation has been laid. Yes, more innovations and changes will happen, but not on the massive scale than any huge transformation requires. Thus, future growth from that industry will be on a smaller scale since the foundation and turnover to this way of life has already happened. So major adjustments on all fronts now have to be made, just as when the industrial revolution occurred and people went from their previous lives to ones where machinery began doing the work.

This is why America needs a strong post-secondary vocational system. Give me a compentent woodworker or upholsterer over the 10,000th Gender Studies degree handed out. I also think this mindset has severly harmed some professions, like journalism.



Runaway adminatrative salaries is a big reason. The new president of our college system here is making $500,000 a year while his wife gets another $50,000.00 a year to be his fuck buddy and the 10th rate basketball coach gets a package worth 1.3 million a year while a $30.00 a semester altheletic fee has just been imposed on every student to pay for their budget shortage.

State colleges have gotten too full of themselves in their belief that they have to be "world class" and "global" while forgetting their mission of education citizens of the state.

Colleges also do a piss poor job of coordinating a course of study and preparing students for actual jobs. In the criminal justice department of our college you could take a dozen variations of O.J. Simpson (the hot case then) while there is no forensic science offerings which is an area where a person might actually find a job. Too many in the acadamy sneer at anything that may reek of praxis over theory.

I am a Boomer who went to college really late. Despite some stellar accomplishments as an undergraduate I graduated and have not been able to find a job that will allow me to repay my student loans. I still work at a library for less than $8.00 an hour and no insurance. Because interest accrues even during economic deferrments I owe $40,000, about what I owe on my house and this after working four jobs for a total of 60+ hours a week, taking a full class load and raising a family. My only hope is the sob from the collection agency who called after I had sent a letter telling them not to contact me at work will call again to yell at me and I can sue them for an amount roughly equal to my outstanding balance. Knowing what I know now I would have NEVER gone to college.

I also wish that they had brought up that it is practically impossible to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy.

I hate it when there's been a big underage drinking bust/altheletic riot/frat death and they interview a bunch of morons who say "That's what college is for." No, nimrods, college is for education not a four year expenses paid party. It pisses me off that these so many little bastards have such a sense of entitlement over something others would gnaw their right arm off to have. And you should see all the $2,000.00 a month apartments going up downtown for these little fucktards and their SUVs to stay at while in school.

Well said (and thanks for the explanation) lmwilker, esp. about the runaway salaries for sports coaches, presidents, etc. at colleges. And how state colleges have forgotten their mission - to educate citizens, not to be the end-all and be-all of colleges. Having a nationally ranked football team does not, from what I know, bring money in except for football programs. It does nothing to support and fund the educational courses, the professors, etc. Also, it's one thing if a president making $500,000 is such an amazing fund raiser than he brings in tons and tons of money every year to the school for academic purposes - and I do mean tons. Yes, that's worth his or her salary. But for most presidents, they don't do that from what I know.

I also think professors would be better off if they had to work in the real world some...when I was in college, all my journalism profs had to have at least 10 years' real world, full-time journalism work experience before my school would hire them (and usually a few years' teaching experience on top of that, so we got the best of both worlds) and the majority of them went to work every summer for such organizations as AP and other large newspapers. That way we learned what it would really, really take to make it in the field. And that's why my school's journalism program was ranked one of the top 10 in the country and you'd routinely see graduates get really good jobs in the field.

I also think students need to be taught the realities of various fields of study and what they can realistically expect in a job if they major in such and such. Like someone posted upthread, they got a sociology degree and there's not a heck of a lot of practical applications for that, at least not with a B.S.

And word to vocational programs in high school. Not everyone is cut out for college nor does everyone want to go and it's not the best fit for some folks. I went to high school with a few kids who took the vo-tech route and today several of them own very profitable businesses -- contracting (residential), plumbing, etc. They worked several years for folks in the field, saving money, then opened their own biz. And some of them, I dare say, are doing far better financially and career-wise than those of us with college degrees.

My dad suggested (again) last month I go back to school to get my masters in journalism. Again, I explained to him that a masters degree would do nothing for my career. It probably wouldn't even get me a teaching job at a college, as my old journalism professor told me that even state schools are looking for Ph.D's now. And, since I don't want to teach, why waste the time and money? The only thing a master's degree might do is help me get into management, and I do not want to go that route.

My alma mater, Purdue University, which used to be one of the premiere universities in the world, is going through this very nonsense right now. We have decent coaches who earn their salaries--Joe Tiller has single-handedly revitalized Boilermaker football, and for basketball we have the legendary Gene Keady--but the new President of the university is about as useful as the proverbial tits on that proverbial bull. All flash, no class, and believes that an institution of learning should be run like a corporation. A month ago, mr. maggie and I returned to Purdue for a visit, and we couldn't believe how campus had changed. Most notably, everything is corporate now, the buildings have corporate sponsors, Motorola this, AT&T that, even the Student Union is all Starbucks and California Pizza Kitchen (whatever happened to the Oasis, where a hungry hippie English major could get a plate of pasta and sauce for $1.25, and the kindhearted owner would feed you anyway if you didn't have the cash that week?).

This man is also gathering his cronies from the other school he basically ruined, the University of Iowa (which was also a world-class institution in its day), and running off longtime Purdue faculty and administrators. He makes no effort whatsoever to get to know the students, and he only attends university functions if there is an award to be given to him or money to be made somehow. Student life, for the sake of student life, apparently does not exist to this man.

Purdue tuition has skyrocketed, yet the board of trustees just gave this joker a YOOGE re-signing bonus when he renegotiated his contract. Did I forget to mention that the university picked up the tab for the complete renovation and redecoration of the president's residence?

I heard during my visit home that now he is attempting to eliminate the arts, music, and liberal arts from the university entirely. His logic? Those things don't prepare you for jobs. And we all know that that is the sole goal of a university education, right? Stupid me for thinking that one went to university to become educated, to become a more well-rounded person. It's that corporate mindset, that if Kenneth Lay wouldn't have bothered with it, it ain't worth bothering with.

As a proud English major mit ein Minor auf Deutsch, I mightily resent the implication that a liberal arts education cannot prepare you for life. If anything, it has made me adaptable to many jobs, be they professional, clerical, or whathaveyou.

It's a vicious circle: this "leader" has managed to alienate so many of Purdue's alumni, even some of our most famous faces, like Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan (both extremely generous contributors to Purdue in the past, both very nice men). That translates to less alumni giving, and therefore costs skyrocket again. I myself will not give Purdue University one thin dime as long as Martin Jischke is president. He is exactly what is wrong with academia in the United States today, and I will not sanction his misdeeds with my checkbook.

One last thing: Several places at Purdue are named after Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee, two astronauts who were killed in a flash fire in 1967, and both Purdue alums. One of the very first things this idiot tried to do is have those names removed, calling it "depressing." Way to have a sense of history and tradition, you asshole.

Ms.Chicklet, you are so right - getting a master's in journalism will be meaningless, even for a management position as you'd still (for a mgmt. position) have to start at the bottom. An MBA might work for a mgmt. position, but not always.

And most journalists I've known never bothered to get an advanced degree in the field because you don't need it. The only journalism majors who do get advanced degrees are those who want to become college professors where it's required, although as I said, my college required real-life work experience in the field and as a result, most of the profs only had BA degrees...but were far better teachers from having worked a minimum of 10 years (as required by the school) in the field. That's rare, though.


maggiegault, wow, how horrific and depressing what that new prez has done to Purdue. Amazing that he gets so handsomely rewarded but not surprising given today's climate in academia. And mega-word to how sad it is the original litle food places and such have disappeared from campus in favor of Starbucks and other such places. And word to the value of a liberal arts degree. Might be harder to get a good job, but look at many top broadcasters in the field today - they are all liberal arts grads, not broadcast TV majors.

My college's president is retiring in July after embarrassing the school three times in two years. First, it was getting arrested after impersonating a police officer to pull over speeders in a neighboring town. Then, it was doing an end-run around the beloved longtime athletic director and not only firing the football coach, but hinting there were NCAA violations (later disproved) that led to the firing. The ex-coach filed a grievance and got a settlement worth a few hundred thousand dollars. Things got so bad in that situation one of our most famous and loyal alums, a prominent NFL team executive, went public with his unhappiness in a newspaper interview. The last straw came when the president was accused of plagiarism in an opinion piece he wrote for a newspaper. It's a pity, because he did do a lot for the school in helping it grow - especially in new buildings/renovations on the campus.

word to lmwilker's entire post!

lots of great posts...

No more Jay, please. So self-satisfied and smug-ick.

I agree with a poster upthread about credit card companies being banned from college campuses, much like Coke machines from elementary schools. Most of these kids are so financially ignorant, as I was. However, I knew I couldn't play good offense with my money (didn't know about investing, had a "scarcity"attitude), so I played excellent defense and didn't rack up any cc debt. Plus, not to sound too self-righteous, but I still made it a prority to give money away every month- to church, PETA ( I was a big vegetarian at the time-no more), etc. And you know what? I always, always had enough.

I wish my parents had given me a heads up on grocery shopping and other basic financial guidance. However, my father only had to explain the concept of interest once, and it got through my thick skull so effectively I always paid my cc balance in full.

ot..

me, me borokat! I'm from Nashville, but living out west nowadays. I also have a sociology/other major degree. It was almost Criminal Justice, but the school I transferred to sophomore year had a great Slavic languages dept- so I chose Russian lang and Lit as my second major. And doggone it,if I didn't use the darn degree, working as a translator/stewardess on New York-Moscow flights for 7 years. But now I want to do something more lucrative!
Also, as a fellow waddling mommy to be, I hope you are comfy and won't need a C section! I just found out I have gestational diabetes-ugh. So now I've gone from eating Oreos and fruit all day to measuring the sugar into my tea by the quarter teaspoon. /ot

While working on my Masters degree these days, HANDS DOWN the best professors are those that are actually working out amongst 'em in the field.
Two in particular have had such a major impact on me because they were "real".
They talked TO me about the field and my perspective going in.
On the other hand, the "old school" professors who have been teaching much longer are a bit too much "by the book" and about exams. That's all great and informative, but there's something about the respect transferred from someone who has been where I am and who is where I hope to be. And btw, they are also straight-up with us about going into this field thinking you're going to make a stack of cash. In fact, if that's the reason you're going in.... you're going in for the wrong reason.

btw... I think this is the most I've learned from a DrP episode ALL season! And most of the posts aren't even about the 2-bit "bring 'em onstage, get 'em offstage" DrP system. Personally, I want to say "THANKS" to everyone for your input on this topic. I can tell by the responses how invaluable this discussion has been. Maybe some of those show guests need to check this forum for more legit answers.

That reminds me of orientation day 3 years ago at law school. This guy was giving a speech, and he said, "The only good reason to become a lawyer is that you have always wanted to be one."

And I thought, "Yeah right, buddy, when I was a little girl, I always thought Hey, if that princess or ballerina thing doesn't work out, I think I'll be a lawyer!"

Graduation is next Sunday, and I wish someone had warned me about the sticker shock.

Stupid Dr.Philtdown-Man, I'm so sick of his "I was poor" schtick. Bring the CEOs of credit card companies that prey on college students, let's yell at them on TV.

A lot of great discussion. A lot of issues with post-secondary education that Dr. Phil could address if he understood the true topic at hand.

It seems to me that DP was grasping at straws with this one anyway. From the start, it seemed like a topic that wasn't really emotional, even though he tried to spin it in that direction. Give a credit card to a 20 year old and he or she will go out and buy a lot of useless crap - that's just how it is (YMMV).

There's no emotional issue - they want "free stuff". Five years later, they are still paying for years of charging clothes, liquor, and cheeseburgers. At 27% APR (that is insane).

The first girl had a student loan with a 14% interest rate. What was that about? I can only assume that because her parents were big-time CPAs, she couldn't get the federally subsidized loans, so she had to go private. That's a shame. Yet, how does this woman so badly in debt have a condo?

Maybe if he focused his attentions on these youngsters being overwhelmed with the amount of debt they have and the lack of knowledge of how to get out from under, he would have been better off. No need to go on and on about what landed them in this mess - they realize that now. I agree that if DP had whipped out a checkbook, the problem would be resolved.

Without the checkbook, or a financial planner, this was not a Dr. Phil show - these kids needed Suzy Orman.

I also don't think Jay was all that helpful. If the idea is to have someone who can relate to the younger set, Jay isn't coming across as that person (23? Yeah, right). He looks like the narc coming into the high school to bust kids for buying weed. A shave wouldn't hurt him either - maybe a little cross-promotion with the Fab 5.

I would bet that young Jay thinks he's going to make big dollars as soon as he gets out of the law school he's supposedly attending. I'm sure he doesn't see himself using milk crates for end tables and eating ramen noodles.

Ms Chicklet Boy, you don't know how close you are on that one. My son left school to become an actor. I'm still waiting... When he turned 27 this year he had one of those 'quarter life' crises and realized that, like your friend, if he didn't do something, he'd be 30 and not have accomplished anything (and 40 comes a lot closer to 30 than 30 does to 20!).

Our problem is that we moved to Seattle just as Boeing was begining its 30,000+ layoffs. Add the dotcom bust, and there are tons of un- and underemployed people in this area. The competition is incredible. The only good thing is that, as people are leaving town, there is a glut on the rental housing market and my rent has decreased 3 times in 3 years.

Hexele

No. They are too busy giving classes in self-esteem and the TV guide as literature. BTW-Dave Ramsay rules!

PissyMissy I'm a UM grad myself (twice). I love UM and have been an alumni recruiter for years. However, I think you're right - an English degree from UM isn't exactly going to open doors for you (unless you go to grad school - where you can prepare for the life of a roaming adjunct, teaching English lit at 4 different colleges).

Have you thought about getting a masters in library & information science? This is actually a growing field (librarians are retiring in droves), academic librarians are generally treated as faculty w/o the publish or perish pressures, and it's not a terrible job if you'd like a family one day. It is a field where the grad degree is essential to be 'certified' for the job, so it's not wasted money like getting a masters in journalism.

As a parent, I would rather my son go to UM (and he did), but if I had it to over again, I might pick a less expensive school for the first 2 years and let him transfer. I am a big fan of the community college system, but am not sure they really prepare you for transferring to a competitive university. You might be better off going to an inexpensive college, then transferring.

This is all very sad and frustrating. The more posts I read, the more obvious it is that Dr. Phil missed a wonderful teaching opportunity w/this show.

So agree. I bet all those gals left the show wishing they'd never gone on national TV since they got no help and instead were made to feel bad and ashamed.

I really, really wish DP had brought in a financial expert (like Suze Orman) to work with them. For example, Suze could have been there to work with Gal #1 ($80,000 debt) and what she could actually do to get out of that. Perhaps it would have meant taking bankruptcy since half her debt was from credit cards (the rest, IIRC, was her student loans which are not forgiveable with bankruptcy). Hate to say it, but based on her income and such, that might really be the only option.

I would have loved to have seen someone like Suze really take on some actions they all could take. Yes, some of them might have a case of "spenditis" and entitlement/not willing to live frugally now that they're on their own and that does have to be addressed psychologically....BUT DP really failed them all by not doing the practical/financial work too.

The last ten or fifteen posts are off-topic; please stick to the subject of the show and take other thoughts to email. Thank you.

Considering what an EMOTIONAL THERMO-NUCLEAR REACTION this show caused on our boards here one has to wonder what's been happening on PP's site boards? I may check it out. Surely, even amongst his legions of adoring and clueless cultists, some of them must understand enough about economics, education, and the job market to be as pissed as we were! And you know PP, aside from teaching people to work hard and be frugal and budget (and not splurge addictively, compulsively, or destructively) sometimes money problems really are about money. You can't solve emotional problems with money (except via a therapist) that's true, but you can't attribute all fiscal difficulties to emotional or management issues. Sometimes there's just not enough. What about when the Texas economy went Belly-Up because of it's (previously) near complete reliance on Oil Production? Or what about the Great Depression? Did the all the people involved in either simply have emotional problems? Stop being a (yet another) rich person who blames the poor for being poor and start learning about macro and micro-economic theory.

I'm still angry about how PP he treated all of those poor kids (especially the 1st girl). The economics of the family weren't clear and there seemed to be a lot of blame, anger, judgement, denial, and magical thinking on the part of the parents. I just don't get how these middle and upper class parents can possibly think that their kids will be able to easily function and adapt when they make a lifestyle and economic shift which is equivalent to moving from Hawaii to Siberia. This is one of the many reasons I respect certain aspects of earned wealth and constructive affluence, at least those with resources understand the importance of Trust Funds for getting their young started in a society like this. That's largely why everyone wants to be rich and why people with Trust Funds are so deeply envied and bitterly resented even when they were just fortunate to have what everyone should have (extreme wealth aside) as a baseline. We should all be able to develop ourselves to our potential and have the time, living arrangements, and security to make it possible.

I also wasn't clear how realistic the parents were about how much she would need to live comfortably (both on paper and in practice) or how much they were prepared and could afford to subsidize. Also not examined were how much she was (or should be) responsible for and how much she could reasonably be expected to be responsible for given the circumstances and conditions she was living under. I'm not willing to completely write her off until I know all of the socio-economics and family psychology.

My personal feeling is that parents (at age appropriate levels and intervals) need to help their kids be as healthy, functional, and independent as possible but that they also need to pick up whatever economic slack there may be to the best of their ability and resources in order to facilitate this end goal. To act as a sort of booster rocket until their children's own engines can take over their ascent (eventually, it will happen).

If you can afford to (under the conditions we are living), then, in principle, I personally feel that you should be paying for your children's education and/or living expenses. Society should really be collectively subsidizing and sharing this burden (and should also be licensing people to be parents and socio-economically regulating the birth-rate) but if that's how it is then that's how it is until we can change it. At the same time, such a commitment of resources and support should also engender in kids a sense of responsibility that they need to be in constructive internships, figure out where they should be getting started, and to get through school at a good pace. For instance, I did my undergraduate degree in three years by going through in the intersessions and summers and saved my hell-raising for high-school, weekends, and summers. College for me was almost like a vo-tech experience.

We put waaay too much pressure on kids to know exactly what they want to be, which is stupid, because that changes throughout one's life and even when you know what you want to be (at one life stage) life has an interesting way of never working out the way you plan anyway. We should be focused more on skill-building, field and vocational development and awareness, and starting them on the right ladders. That is all that is reasonable.

And word to all those posters talking about how our imbalancing, outsourcing, and denigrating the importance and value of people who work in the trades (aside from a few well-paid trade professions) and what it is going to do to our economy which is shifting more and more towards a HUGE Lowly-Paid "Service Model" (AKA Economic Slavery & Exploitation).

Robert Reich once predicted that we had a schism between the educated and working classes that was eventually going to tear this country apart. He may yet be proven right.

I agree and wished Dr. Philsbury Doughboy had at least discussed this as an option. I know he has in the past (onthe show with the dude-on-the corner, I think) and from what I remember, he didn't think it was neccessarily a bad thing.

Instead he just shamed her, which is not constructive at all. Debt brings a great deal of shame, anyway, and she just didn't need that heaped on her.

Just because she is young does not mean that bankruptcy isn't a real option, and the credit companies would deserve it anyway, considering their predatory lending. I do not recall exactly how much she owed in student loans, but I don't recall it being that much, comparitavely, although I do not get how her student loans could have 27% interest rate. In NY anything over 16% is illegal, with a few exceptions, and I think its pretty similar state to state, unless she defaulted or something. And if that was a federal loan I am truly confused as they are about the best deal out there.

I know many younger people who have declared bankruptcy and have benefitted greatly from it, it doesn't mean you are a bad person, just that you got in over your head, it happens. It would have forced her to pay cash, anyway, for at least 7 years and concentrate on paying down her student loans.

KimberleeJean, as I recall, the super-high interest rates (27% and 29%) were on her credit cards, not student loans. But those are still unbelievably high rates, even for CC's, from my experience. And given those rates - it would take her decades to pay them off.

That's why I think she really should consider bankruptcy. Yes, I'm all for taking responsibility for your debt, as her dad said, but sometimes situations are so out of control that bankruptcy is the best option. I think she's learned her lesson about overspending and I agree, Dr. Phil did such a disservice to her by not talking through various options. That's why I wish he had had a financial expert (like Suze Orman) on the show to work through such options.

Also, I think it would have benefitted these young folks if DP had had on the show a few young folks who had been in deep debt and who had found ways to get out of it....that would have given them practical ideas and shown them - in a real-world way - that it is possible.

I went to the PP's site and read the commentary on the show. Most of the people are yelling at those poor kids (including Girl #1) who actually signed-on and defended herself to all the moral indignation of Dr. Phil's non-huddled and non-informed masses. Fortunately, she had some defenders and supporters (Clearly people of TWOP brains and caliber!) come to her defense but people were saying some REALLY awful shit to her. Interestingly, she reveals that her Mother got a Free-Ride through college because she was an orphan and that her Dad got a job right out of West Point and she attributes this as being the reason they didn't know how to properly understand or help facilitate her transition. My own analysis would have been far less charitable but I suppose she's one of those types that Dr. Phil so often sings praises to, you know, the kind who respect parents and ALL authority figures even when they engage in psychosis and in outrageous acts of neglect, abuse, or exploitation. Whomever (long ago) came up the notion that parents and authority figures should automatically be respected (even they don't warrant it) or that might makes right should be tracked down and shot at once.

Anyway, I posted a reply in her defense and laid waste to the episode and PP.

Very interestingly, on that site, all Posts are first reviewed by a Moderator before being allowed on to their web-page. We'll see if they allow my subversive content into PP's Ivory Tower. I'm not holding my breath. Big Brother, anyone? If they don't post it, I'll have to fire off an angry e-mail instead.

What do you all want to bet we get a follow-up show out of this?

I'd love to see a follow-up show but PP usually only does those when he's actually given them some tools to work with! Since he nothing of that on this show, how the heck would he expect or hope they had worked through some of their debt? He's willing to trot out financial helpers or therapists for other guests, so why not hook these kids up with financial gurus and such? Guess he thought they "didn't deserve help".

But being Dr. Shill, he'll probably bring 'em all back for another round of shaming.

I find it interesting that the same folks who think only a woman has the right to control her own body and support abortion rights are the same people who think the government should be able to control how many children one has to keep from over populating the world. I say this as someone who votes pro-choice. I also think that NOBODY owes you an education, not even your parents. If they can help, that's great. I have friends still bitter becuase their parents couldn't/wouldn't pay for school or weddings that my friends felt entitled to. My parents did the best they could, and they were kind enough to allow me to live at home while I was in school, and that's all the help I could feel entitled to. Also, the guy that came up with respecting your parents no matter was, I think, God. On Mt. Siani. Whatever your religious beliefs, respecting family is not inherantly stupid.

Anywho, back to topic... I would really like to see Dr Phil censured by whoever licences therapists for allowing Jay and Robot to dispense advice- particularily Robot sitting in on groups in the divorce camp episodes. Anyone interested in starting a letter writing campaign?

And we all know where follow-up shows lead.... especially if there's a TON of response.... it all leads to a new DrP book!!
That's pretty much what stemmed the whole WLC thing after those two very overweight gals were on the first season.... and from there we sat thru the WLC. (Hey Thanks!!)

I guess one reason why the Friday show has lead to such discussion is because it was on a Friday... not to mention the frustrating week of "what the heck was that all about??" shows. I suppose it's also a topic more of us can relate to, as opposed to a screwy spouse (in more ways than one according to this week's guests!).

I can't imagine anything seriously being done about DrP's so-called "practice". He waives the disclaimer banner and as long as it's entertaining and making $$, they'll call it whatever they have to to keep it on.
I believe even Springer started out more like all the other dime-a-dozen talk shows during that explosion in the '90's. Come to think of it, I think Geraldo did too. eeewwww... Go figure....

So did anyone catch the previews for Mondays show? Robin is going to give us all a peek inside the McGraw kitchen!!! (Why do I envision Karen Walker chasing off her staff when she walks in the room??) Also, some lady that eats a 5 lb. bag of sugar every week. DO WHAT?! Let me guess.... DrP will tell her "don't do that"??

The best part will be close-up shots of Robin's horrified face. "Sugar? Oh no! My pharmacist told me that sugar is the most toxic material on Earth next to radium and he read this book by Gloria Swanson and ever since then he's led the fight to have sugar outlawed. I'm all for that because sugar not only kills you slowly it first makes you fat and my husband says that fat people are oogie!"

Based on what we all know about the Dr. Phil show, I am 99.99% sure that:

1. This show was set up by the producers to show only what they want to show - young adults who appear to be whiny and spoiled and unrealistic. This way Dr. Phil has someone pretty unsympathetic to criticize and make fun of. We know the producers do this. It's OK, it's their job to do that, it makes for better TV. But we don't have to fall for it! They could just as easily have found 3 recent college grads who have some school debt but are working hard at crappy jobs, projecting a positive outlook towards the future, and trying to move up in the real world. But that wouldn't have made a very good show, now would it?

2. At least one of these guests subjected herself to public humiliation in the hopes that Dr. Phil would pay off her debts. If you watch his show at all, you know the chances are pretty good he might do something like that. So why not go for it? For the small price of a short public berating you get a trip to LA and the possibility that you may walk away debt free. It's better than the lottery.

Especially since it seems like he's giving away free stuff (and really good things) almost every show these days.

At the very least, DP should have provided them with followup financial counseling to help them work something out....but I bet it's like someone else said, next thing we know, we'll see a book by DP about this very topic. Or worse (could it be worse?) we'll see a book on this topic by JAY -- after all, DP said this show was HIS idea.

As much as I don't like DP, at least he did earn his own way in the world in the sense of going back to school to get his grad degrees, building a business, etc., etc. Jay is still sucking off the family nipple, as far as I can tell so if he writes a book on this, it will be completely gag-worthy.

I am one of the firmest believers in licensure for parents, believe me. A short stint at the prosecutor's office showed me that we have a real hard-on in this world for the myth that all parents are wonderful, generous, kindhearted human beings with their kids' best interests at heart.

Shows like Dr. Shill perpetuate this myth, by the way. If he does one of his Parenting 101 programs, it's about a little boy who pees wherever and whenever, not about any issue of depth. If he does attempt to tackle a "serious" issue, it is dealt with in only the most superficial sense.

As a childfree adult, however, I must respectfully disagree with the notion that "society" should be subsidizing the next generation. That is the job of their parents. In crass terms, you breed them, you feed them. History will thank us for our welfare mentality and the number of social and economic problems this "on the dole" mindset brings about. To my mind, and to the mind of many of my childfree brethren (and we are fastest growing demographic among "civilized" nations on the planet), if parents were held totally and completely responsible for the costs of raising their offspring, a natural deterrent to overpopulation would therefore arise. It's very easy to have child after child after child and then raise MY taxes to pay for it. I've been unemployed now for going on three years...our household could use that money. How are mr. maggie and I thanked for this? By having the government hand "families" a tax credit in addition to all of the other perks and breaks they already receive in our tax codes. It is especially galling when upper middle class types are handed these breaks on a platter and it helps these people pay for the Escalade, the X Box, the Tommy Hilfiger clothing. I already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to provide subsidies for their lifestyle choices. I cannot and will not support the notion that it is my job as a member of "society" to pay more. Where is "society's" concern that I can't find work?

And dammit, let me go on Dr. Shill and sing it! Can you imagine, with that audience of his? It would be the two obese women all over again!

maggiegault, mega, mega-word to everything you said!!!!

Re: the moderator
I have some firsthand knowledge about the moderating of the message boards at the Dr Phil show site. How it used to work is the moderator would let the post go through and later on he/she would read them and delete some of them.

I posted some messages suggesting that the second Dr Phil family was lowering the calibre of the show to the level of the Maury show (the "I've got a secret" shows that he has). Several of the message board readers followed up with similar criticisms. This sparked a flurry of posts. Well after that the entire message board was shut down for several hours. They deleted ALL of these posts and then instigated a new policy in which all messages posted to the "talk about recent shows" board must FIRST be approved by the moderator before they are posted. If you post after 11:00 pm your message will not be posted until the next morning when the moderator returns.
Needless to say the Dr Phil board has disabled my account. (They never tell you this-they just tell you that the "message board is busy at this time"). There is a quick solution though-open another account using a different used ID.

MyraA: This is more evidence of our increasing suspicion that Dr. Phillibuster can't handle criticism of any kind. His "Debate" shows are a staged joke.

There's nothing worse that a person who can dish it out but can't take it. As a public persona who makes his money by being famous, he should be more open to people whose opinion differs from his own. Apparently, it's alright for him to scream at his guests for how stupid they are, but he'll avoid even the hint that people who disagree with him are anything other than blithering idiots.

I think part of the problem is that Dr. Phil's whole therapeutic philosophy is based on the idea of examining the past in order to correct the future. I think this theory is useful in some contexts (e.g. in coupels counselling it can be very helpful) but I think that is is hardly universally applicable. I think that the first girl on Friday's show knew exactly what the flaw in the past that she had made was: she was young and immature and didn't know better. Dr. Phil could spsne days analysing all of her past behaviour and that's what it would come down to: I didn't know better and now I am in this mess and how do I get out of it? Which, in such a case, is really what he should be focusing on---how she can get herself out of this mess and onto some kind of productive life. Btw I do see a therapist (no, I am not crazy!) and her philosophy is ALWAYS to deal with the now. If something happened in the past that is bothering you in the now, that's fair game. But everything we talk about is always initiated by me and geared toward resolving situations that are occuring in the present. So my point is that we need to recognize that Dr. Phil has a therapeutic bias here that is not shared by all therapists. And that all of his shows are going to be cvoloured by this bias, for better or worse.

Small OT aside: I think this is one of the few TWoP threads I post on where we have a lot of the same people posting every day, and it's kind fo cool how we have all gotten to know each other :-) You all are such distinct personalities. I'm not the only one who is dying to find out whether Baby Borokat is a boy or a girl, am I?

Word to that. I think the worst part of Phil's Big Top is that many people in therapy are so vulnerable that an unethical therapist or just one who's approach doesn't mesh well with his/her client can do so much harm. Anyone who has undergone any type of psychotherapy is urged to shop around as we do for dentists and MD's. Phil is all about ratings and in that way is as qualified to "see patients" in his arena as Maury, Geraldo or Sally. It angers me that practicing medicine without a license can get you hard time but charlatans in the psychology field (like the woman on The Swan whose PhD was from a diploma mill, or Dr. Laura who doesn't even have fake therapy credentials) are not seen as a great threat because they're not performing surgery or dispensing drugs.

The truth is that many people with depression, phobias and ocd are in absolute agony on the inside and their exploitation doesn't benefit anyone or anything but Phil's bank account. I'm not sure why the close-up study of an angry divorce is supposed to be for anyone's edification, but I do know this: Most of his guests have children, and while Phil spouts his "protect,defend and serve" spiel about kids, all of their parents' secrets are being laid bare for those kids, their friends, their teachers and their friends' parents. What an awful burden for a kid to cope with.

That, too, is a succinct way of describing another thing inherently wrong with the Shill show, in my book. Having been in therapy off and on throughout my life, and certainly now that I see a therapist monthly as a means of managing my bipolar disorder, I can say with some authority that there is nothing more counterproductive than a therapist who is not a right fit for the patient. I have been in that situation and much more harm than good came of it.

When I had a full-on, complete and total nervous breakdown four years ago (my father had died very suddenly, and I felt like I had died, too), just sheer luck brought me together with my therapist, Dan. We are a very good fit, but I could see how Dan would be the WORST therapist for many people. He can be a bit of a drill sergeant, and he doesn't stand for any nonsense, and he doesn't really allow for any wallowing. He believes, and I agree with him, that we can only blame the past for so much: eventually, you need to recognize that nothing can be done with past, and we can only deal with the present and hope for the future. This is a great therapeutic philosophy for me, as I tend to be very backward-looking, very wistful for the "good old days." This thinking nearly landed me in the booby hatch.

Many patients who are in my situation would not benefit from Dan's strong-arm tactics. They need more cuddling and a softer approach (that's not to say that Dan isn't nurturing; he has held my hand many a time when I have cried). They don't want to have someone taking a hard stance with them. They need listening and caring and to go at their own pace.

In other words, Shill's schtick is not for everyone. A patient like me would do okay with a Shill-type therapist, because I kind of already have one. What is great about Dan and what used to be great about Shill is that both point out the fallacious thinking and outright garbage so many of us feed ourselves...and get us to confront it, and even laugh at it! It's a great feeling to realize that your worries are pretty silly when you stare them down.

He can call it "entertainment" all he wants, but I do believe that the day is coming where Shill's "entertainment" is going to do someone long-lasting, terrible damage. Some people are so damaged, they cannot handle any kind of hardline stance. Some people are very good at masking serious, serious problems...the type of problems that cannot be solved with folksy sayings and mugging to the camera.

I'm sorry, overweight does not necessarily mean a shitty childhood. I'm overweight. I gained when I quit smoking, I gained when I started lithium therapy, and I gained because I'm lazy and I like to eat. My childhood, shitty or otherwise, has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And shut up, Robin, about sugar. It tastes good, I like it, you only go around once in life. Shut up.

LOL, Gemmadoll.

Did anyone watch Phil on Larry King last week? They showed a preview for this very episode... it was indeed quite horrifying. Robin in the "McGraw kitchen," wearing an "I (heart) Dr. Phil" apron, making some kind of treat for "Phillip" -- Mr. loudfan thought they might be something on Triscuits, but would Robin allow trans fats into Phil's body? According to many nutritionists, trans fats are worse for you than the demon sugar!!!

Interestingly, DP did not take any questions during the hour-long segment -- Larry had to do all of the interviewing, which he did mainly from index cards. LK is a dreadful interviewer -- he makes a big point of saying that he never prepares for interviews. Needless to say, the whole thing was pretty softball, mostly questions about the new cookbook and a generous selection of clips. Maybe DP was afraid that some of those people who he's censored on his message boards would call in with some legitimate complaints!!

WORD .... and then WORD again!
That's what makes me uneasy about this "therapy between commercials". Alot of these folks are only looking at being on tv. I love the way the latest catch-phrase is "that's why I'm here" after he starts with the business.
I know they won't talk to anyone who is in counseling with for-real issues but I would truly hope that this whole procedure is gone over in a professional manner (although I truly don't believe it is). These people get so starry-eyed about being on tv that it's becoming just another freakshow of the day.
Personally, as someone involved with counseling I find this a mockery. Like I've said before, it creeps me out when people applaud "therapy" issues.

Why do I get the impression it's more like "WB Superstar USA"? .... these people go before the producers and tell their story.... the producers act like they are exactly who needs to talk to DrP and could truly be helped.... then start to salivate at how they are going to kick Maury's butt during sweeps week!!
No wonder Suze Ormann won best talk show at the Emmys.....

And the understatement of the year goes to loudfan for:

Just to clarify on my earlier point, I don't believe the government should have the right to prevent people from having children but I do think it should have the right to deny them certain benefits if they follow the "Welfare Queen" model of reproduction because it destabilizes society except for it's ability to provide more disadvantaged students and workers who can be harnessed into the slave-labor jobs which allow our "productive" economy to "flourish."

Additionally, while I do think individuals and parents do need to be held to a higher level of accountability, I also feel that when we place all the burdens on rearing the next generation on parents (especially in an economically unstable society like ours) we are running a HUGE risk. Even those choosing to be childless are going to one day need the skills, fruits, and youth of up and coming generations. It disturbs me how many people want to go childless these days though on an individual basis I don't really care. Obviously, it's a personal choice, and I wouldn't force it one anyone, but considering how far the birth-rates have plummeted in the industrialized west it is an area to pay attention to. Worst of all, it is often the least contributing demographics that are demonstrating the highest birth-rates.

I'd much prefer to pay higher taxes which subsidize and pay for aggressive birth control, education, career development, unemployment benefits, and re-training than I would prefer to deal with what happens to a society which has no such safety nets or preventative mechanisms. With no responsibly managed safety nets and preventative systems in place addiction, crime, poverty, and family breakdown are then just a few miles down the road.

At the same time, we have to re-design and re-structure the system so that young clueless women are not enabled to just pump out one puppy after another rather than get their shit together and that women who have put in their time with work and education -- whom have paid their dues -- are given paid maternity leave and childcare. Anyone who wants to understand how screwed women and children (all of us actually) are by the current system need to read Ann Crittenden's book Price of Motherhood.

And word to all of you who smell a possib;e new book by Phil or Jay or Jay & Phil on this topic. I wish somebody had the balls to say:

"Well, tell us Dr. Phil, in your house where money is no object, please show us the models and budgets you and Robin work with in connection to yourselves and your boys."

Good idea in theory, Dr. Al, but in reality - well, not so sure. We have a lot of programs in place now (not perfect, of course) and they seem to turn into more and more bureacracy and into 'entitlement' programs which really don't work. Look at welfare - started off as a safety net and became a way of life for tons of people, passed down generationally. I've seen generation after generation of women do this and having welfare there was what they saw as "their paycheck that the gov't owed them." Not exactly the intent, IMO, of that program and certainly not motivating to get them off (now things are changing with the limit of time you can be on welfare).

That's what I would fear about new programs - they'd just raise our taxes and the programs wouldn't be effective as one would want. Education is subsidized (at highest rates ever) but just throwing more money at that is not the answer. Otherwise, why do I know of inner-city private schools (supported by donations, no tuition charged to the kids) who have kids excelling off the charts and going to top colleges? It ain't the money - it's the parent/child/teacher involvement (at both schools of which I know, parents must participant - no ifs, ands or buts) and truly committed, very good teachers who don't allow any fooling around or other bad behavior. Plus, we all know schools where more and more money has been thrown in and it's like throwing good money after bad.

As for teaching 'aggressive birth control', I know plenty of parents who don't want the schools teaching their kids that - they view that as their duties. I know many parents don't do this, but you have to respect parents' wishes for what their kid will be taught and exposed to in schools that their taxes are paying for.

All very good points, Bibi. More money always helps but more effective resource, organizational, and program management always helps more.

Still, when you look at the warped teacher to student ratios and see how the quality of a school system is directly tied to the town's property taxes you begin to see the basic problem. Children from more affluent families and towns generally have access to far better education than those who reside in poorer communities. That would make sense if we were talking about Public vs. Private schools but we're talking about different level of quality within the public school infrastructure itself (supposedly the societal base-line for the education of tommorow's kids). If only we could have a really good nationalized system of education in terms of both curriculum and funding and removed the property taxes as being what determines the quality. Obviously, some will always be more "equal" than others but this is ridiculous. Nobody cares about those poorer kids, until they become drop-outs, criminals, and menaces to society.

Of course, with fairly available access to birth control and abortion I also blame many women for selfishly and irresponsibly bringing children into the world when they don't have a proper set-up in place to take care of them.

Another issue we face is that the boomers had so many children in the 80's that we're still feeling the swell. When I was in school there were actually far fewer children. We also need to start planning for how many and how fewer children we need to have. There's got to be a way to calculate the approximate number of people we'll need in the present and future and then shape a national reproductive model and policy to help make it happen. It's just another part of economics.

I just came back from the mooovies where one of the previews was for that new Hilary Duff cinderella movie with Jennifer Coolidge as the evil stepmother who does the Botox joke: "It's the botox. I can't show any feeling for an hour and a half..."

Goldarnit but you people have made it so i can't hear about Botox without thinking of Mrs.Shill -- which in this case reminded me of the horrifying prospect of tomorrow's show. Food at Phil's... My only hope is that they show some footage of PhilSpawn#2... (the one who on the Mean Girls show said that he & his buddies beat up people when they didn't like what they said/did... Sounds like the McGraws missed part of Parenting101 on the second go...)

But back to Mrs.Shill -- aka Robotoxin -- I confess to being a little scared of her eyes. I swear she's like a kitty looking at a catnip dipped feather... The crucial difference, of course, is that I like kitties.

Phil has spent so much time telling Stacy that she should get a job, that she's manipulative, that she has a great sense of entitlement, etc etc. (most of which I agree with)

Then what does he do? Pays for the whole family to go to a theme park (including flying in the 2 boys and probably gave them food money too, because I can't imagine feeding that many people theme-park-priced food for less than $100/meal) and then, as a reward for accomplishing not-a-whole-heck-of-a-lot as FUF2, he sends them to Jamaica to run away from their still numerous problems before baby 6 arrives. Exactly who set Dr Phil up as a great life-stragegist?

Did he even address Brianne's statements that she totally does not want Baby 6 to exist? I know he questioned her on whether or not she has accepted that affair-baby is definitely not coming home. And where did this family that is 120,000 in debt find the funds to furnish Baby 6's room? That stuff looked brand-spanking-new, and since Chandler is only 4, didnt they have any of his stuff left over?

What Dr Phil should have done is take the $ they spent on Jamaica and given Stacy a tubal ligation.

etAsk does anybody else find it extremely odd that MrsShill has nothing better to do with her day except sit around a studio, watching her husband work, so that she can walk out with him, holding hands in that very odd manner?

Response: Bell of the Ball
I have wondered if Robin sits around all day doing not much. Here is what I think her day consists of:
1. Go to the D Phil show.
2. Get nails done.
3. Get facial.
4. Get hair done.
5. Shop for expensive clothes.
6. Shop for makeup and skin products.
7. Visit doctor to discuss health, vitamins and nutrition.
8. Visit naturapath.
9. Research menapause.
10. Meet with interior designer to discuss refurbishing rooms.
11. Meet with personal trainer for workout tips.
12. Meet ladies for lunch at an expensive restaurant.

With the size of D Phil's bank account no wonder she loves the guy!!

MyraA
,

Don't forget:
13. Massage implants (or get Phil to) so they don't encapsulate because that would be ugly and ouchie.

14. Before instructing the slaves what to cook for dinner and how to clean the house go to Beverly Hills for Glacial Spring Water Colonic Hydrotherapy.

I don't think Robin being affluent is the problem, it's that that literally seems to be her only role in life. She lacks a career. She lacks a brain. She lacks a personality. Her role is to spend, look beautiful, and to follow Phil around with her hand on his shoulder. In their defense, I willl say though that the whole Robin and Phil walk out together thing started by accident. She was there to watch a show, he started to exit, and then realized it was silly not to have her exit with him. Despite his sexist ways and her moronic ways, it did have an innocent enough start. It's just depressing that with all her resources Robin focuses on such shallow shit. Why couldn't she be more like Melinda Gates? Oh that's right, that would require an equal partnership and a career of one's own and we know what the chances of that are. I'll bet Jay and Jordan won't grow up to be as much of a dick as their Father.

This? Hilarious.

And WORD SQUARED to everyone who mused about what Robin's day holds. Phil is always telling folks "you gotta get in the game instead of lettin' the rest of us carry your ass!" I'm sorry, is shopping at Rodeo part of the game and if so,were is the teams sign-up sheet so I can play a round?