Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

[Shashakiro]

Not really joining in here, but as a side point about Chinese, and possibly other Asian students: The motivation is largely rooted in cultural values (largely Confucian), and really isn't much at all in the quality of the system or teachers. It's impossible to make American students as generally motivated as Chinese students for this reason, unless the cultural values themselves change--and that itself would take decades, if not centuries.

My mom actually studies this for a living and has figured this out through a pretty enormous amount of research, so I know a bit about it, and felt like I ought to point this out.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I don't see anything wrong with destroying 'wealth'. I'm not talking about destroying the playing field, I'm talking about levelling the playing field by only 1 factor, not all of them.

Spoken like a person with no understanding of economics. Wealth by necessity is all factors; or at least all factors which can be created or exchanged between human beings.

Because knowledge and education to me are extremely high value, and should be high value in and of themselves. But I suppose you're right, and that's no different than what I think pretty much everything should be.

So reflecting their high value to you I imagine you would be willing to pay a great deal for knowledge and education. Hey, look at that, incentive!

For something to have value "in and of itself", there would have to be a basis for objective value. There isn't.

There's a difference between poor regulation and no regulation. What we have is a flaw in the system, and you're using that to say we should get rid of the entire system. It makes more sense to try and fix this flaw. You're still basing the rest of your argument, as follows, on ideology.

And I'm basing my ideology on fact. If you fixed the one flaw, there would still be countless others. In fact it is impossible to fix all flaws due to the nature of the system, which I why I advocate the adoption of a different system.

People who don't vote have no right to complain about what their government does, unless they're in outright revolt of the entire system or something, in which case, they should also offer an alternative of some type.

So a person who can't get to the voting booth because they don't have a car deserves to suffer the will of a slight majority of their fellow citizens? Hey wait, what about people who are prevented from voting by the government; surely it would be incoherent to say they have no right to complain?

The alternative to trickle-down rights is natural rights. Natural rights make much more sense as a concept. Similarly the natural alternative to mob rule is individual sovereignty.

I'm glad you acknowledge that the government has regulation on these other things, because I think you've made a poor comparison. Education isn't that different. There's a lot of control the government has on things like transportation and food. The biggest thing I can think of for cars is that they have to be able to drive on roads (roads are government regulated), and must be safe while doing so. Food, likewise, must be safe.

The government has no right to a monopoly on these things, and these things could be handled by the market.

Further up the chain though, are the prices of products that prepared food is made of, and if government offers subsidies on certain foods, and if foreign governments do so. There are countless ways in which both food and transportation are government regulated.
The main difference between these 2 things and education, is that you generally buy food and transportation for yourself, and you don't have to buy yourself education. You CAN buy yourself education though, and that'll open up the options. You CAN also get your food from the soup kitchen, and you can also rely solely on public transportation, and that doesn't leave you a lot of choice.
It's a weakness of centrally controlled things, that they can't offer everything. They do, however, offer everyone, not just the wealthy, AN education.

Are you even listening to yourself? If EVERYONE wants an education there is high demand, which naturally would provide high incentive to provide education. Are there any massive food shortages in this country? Of course not, because EVERYONE WANTS FOOD. And in terms of food, you can survive on almost any wage, but different varieties of course have different costs because they represent different demand curves.

Again, I really think we're refuting ideologies. As soon as you regulate something, you restrict it. However, if it's not regulated, then things tend to get extremely unfair, and end up becoming regulated by someone in some other way anways.

So something bad is good because if you were to get rid of it that would also result in it? WHAT!?

The problem right now, apparently, with schools in the US is that it's largely dependent on where you live, and not just an issue of wealth. That and bad teachers don't seem to get fired quickly enough.

That's one of the problems people are most in agreement on and most vocal about. However you will find all variety of complaints about the school system, many contradicting each other. Why? Because a good deal of the issue boils down to simple preference, and as a centralized monopoly the system can't handle preference. Someone always loses.

No, but I have feelings, and I hate seeing people believing nonsense, especially when that nonsense says to use science as its evidence. Just because science may be right, doesn't mean that people will believe that it's right. Science itself refutes nothing, people refute.

Right, but trying to prevent things like bad opinions and bad science entails trying to prevent bad thought. In addition to being impossible it's also somewhat in poor taste, at least when your solution is to forcibly and completely bottleneck the flow of information by something such as a monopoly on education.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Spoken like a person with no understanding of economics. Wealth by necessity is all factors; or at least all factors which can be created or exchanged between human beings.

So reflecting their high value to you I imagine you would be willing to pay a great deal for knowledge and education. Hey, look at that, incentive!

I've hardly studied economics, yes, but if you'll note, I did put wealth in ''. I used a poor word, and I'm having a hard time coming up with what I envision as being level. I'll get back to you on that, probably in another thread.
Regardless, economics boasts the study of all wealth, yet it purely relies on measurement of money. Just as examples, it doesn't measure the wealth of things like self-respect and love. It doesn't look at the entire picture, and knowing that, you shouldn't assume that it applies to everything so perfectly.

I'm trying to decide exactly how much I'm willing to pay for my education at this point in my life, and I agree with you, it's an awful lot. It's the biggest dilemma in my life right now, with one of the main problems being that I won't have any money or items of my own for quite a long time, and will end up owing the banks quite a bit of money. And through the entire process, which could easily be over a decade long, I'm essentially going to be an economic drain. At the end of the tunnel, all I want from it is self-enrichment, respect for my knowledge, use of that knowledge, and someone to debate things with.

I'm not sure if we're debating this or not, but my point is that I'm an economic sink, and I've got to work against the grain. How would having a free market help me?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

For something to have value "in and of itself", there would have to be a basis for objective value. There isn't.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying, but if I am getting it, then I can only disagree with you, and point you to my previous examples of love and self-respect.
Actually, I suppose you can get objective measurement from pretty much anything, but its pretty hard to get correct objective representation of the subjective.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

And I'm basing my ideology on fact. If you fixed the one flaw, there would still be countless others. In fact it is impossible to fix all flaws due to the nature of the system, which I why I advocate the adoption of a different system.

Which has its own flaws.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

So a person who can't get to the voting booth because they don't have a car deserves to suffer the will of a slight majority of their fellow citizens? Hey wait, what about people who are prevented from voting by the government; surely it would be incoherent to say they have no right to complain?

What percent of the apparent 50% of non-voters do you think these people make up? Yeesh, yes, it's incoherent to say that these people can't complain. (Where I've lived actually, polling stations are all within at most 20 min walk away, and you can vote early if you won't be around, or for other miscellaneous reasons.)

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

So something bad is good because if you were to get rid of it that would also result in it? WHAT!?

You've basically got it. Government control is the lesser of 2 evils.

Your other points are all the same one, that the free-market is self-regulatory. I know that. It works great on paper. The free-market, however, doesn't control for rights, and given enough time, develops their own monopolies. Education is the perfect example to not have it run solely by the free market. It's generally highly valued, and has a relatively low amount of people who can teach, because education takes time. This'll make the price of education pretty high, therefore the rich will be able to afford education, while the poor won't. Heck, lets make my point stronger and pretend that everyone's on equal income to start off. Some people choose to get an education. These people generally end up getting more money because they now possess a less common skill set. You've now got a small divide between rich and poor. Next generation comes along. Most richer parents send their kids to school, while less poor parents send their kids to school. Same thing happens. Same thing happens for 100 generations. You get the picture.
Even moreso with education though, the educated are smart and learn how to get the best for themselves and their family, beyond merely possessing a more valuable skill set. There's only so much to go around, and obviously the rich are going to supply their family and friends first. They now also can buy themselves the time to figure out how to keep themselves ahead. Also, children are the ones who learn the easiest, but children don't have the final say themselves in what they'd rather do, for good reason. Unfortunately, once you're old enough to know that you might've wanted an education, you've probably passed those almost magical years when you absorb info like a sponge, and you've not got to spend your efforts getting money for yourself and your own family. It essentially leaves the uneducated, poor people being slaves to the wealthy.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Someone always loses.

They sure do, even in your 'free' market.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Right, but trying to prevent things like bad opinions and bad science entails trying to prevent bad thought. In addition to being impossible it's also somewhat in poor taste, at least when your solution is to forcibly and completely bottleneck the flow of information by something such as a monopoly on education.

How many examples need to be pointed out to you so that you'll see that the government doesn't hold a monopoly on education?
Here's another one: I'll tutor your kid for 20$/hour.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Regardless, economics boasts the study of all wealth, yet it purely relies on measurement of money. Just as examples, it doesn't measure the wealth of things like self-respect and love.

False.

I'm trying to decide exactly how much I'm willing to pay for my education at this point in my life, and I agree with you, it's an awful lot. It's the biggest dilemma in my life right now, with one of the main problems being that I won't have any money or items of my own for quite a long time, and will end up owing the banks quite a bit of money. And through the entire process, which could easily be over a decade long, I'm essentially going to be an economic drain. At the end of the tunnel, all I want from it is self-enrichment, respect for my knowledge, use of that knowledge, and someone to debate things with.

In other words, you plan on gaining from the exchange. Education is worth more to you than all those other things. Hey look, another principle of laissez-faire! People won't engage in voluntary transactions unless they gain from them!

I'm not sure if we're debating this or not, but my point is that I'm an economic sink, and I've got to work against the grain. How would having a free market help me?

A free market would help you by giving you more choice in all purchases, which simultaneously means you have to spend less money on any one choice in any one good or service. It would help you by not taxing away 40% of your income. It would help you by generating enough wealth that bankers and other individuals can be more liberal with their money in terms of loans. Those are ways in which it would help you.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying, but if I am getting it, then I can only disagree with you, and point you to my previous examples of love and self-respect.
Actually, I suppose you can get objective value from pretty much anything, but its pretty hard to get correct objective representation of the subjective.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, this comes across as complete gibberish.

Which has its own flaws.

I very much doubt that you know something that actual economists don't, but please, enlighten me.

What percent of the apparent 50% of non-voters do you think these people make up? Yeesh, yes, it's incoherent to say that these people can't complain. (Where I've lived actually, polling stations are all within at most 20 min walk away, and you can vote early if you won't be around, or for other miscellaneous reasons.)

It doesn't matter. If system A results in suffering for person B, and system B does not, all other things being equal system B is superior. It doesn't matter if it's 1,000 people or 1, less suffering is better.

Which brings me to my next point; by way of economic interference, the government can have dramatic impact on citizens. Taking away a person's house or car, for example, is an act of economic interference. If you make the claim "the government can interfere economically however it wants and people who don' do thing X don't deserve to complain" you are effectively allowing the government to prevent people from doing thing X. Congratulations, catch 22.

You've basically got it. Government control is the lesser of 2 evils.

...jesus. Are you really that thick? How can something be the lesser of 2 evils if both evils are THE SAME THING!

Your other points are all the same one, that the free-market is self-regulatory. I know that. It works great on paper. The free-market, however, doesn't control for rights, and given enough time, develops their own monopolies. Education is the perfect example to not have it run solely by the free market. It's generally highly valued, and has a relatively low amount of people who can teach, because education takes time. This'll make the price of education pretty high, therefore the rich will be able to afford education, while the poor won't. Heck, lets make my point stronger and pretend that everyone's on equal income to start off. Some people choose to get an education. These people generally end up getting more money because they now possess a less common skill set. You've now got a small divide between rich and poor. Next generation comes along. Most richer parents send their kids to school, while less poor parents send their kids to school. Same thing happens. Same thing happens for 100 generations. You get the picture.
Even moreso with education though, the educated are smart and learn how to get the best for themselves and their family, beyond merely possessing a more valuable skill set. There's only so much to go around, and obviously the rich are going to supply their family and friends first. They now also can buy themselves the time to figure out how to keep themselves ahead. Also, children are the ones who learn the easiest, but children don't have the final say themselves in what they'd rather do, for good reason. Unfortunately, once you're old enough to know that you might've wanted an education, you've probably passed those almost magical years when you absorb info like a sponge, and you've not got to spend your efforts getting money for yourself and your own family. It essentially leaves the uneducated, poor people being slaves to the wealthy.

Wealth is not a perpetual motion machine.

They sure do, even in your 'free' market.

No, no they don't. I'm going to have to ask you to actually read some economics before you make any more absurd claims like this. You're just digging yourself a hole at this point.

How many examples need to be pointed out to you so that you'll see that the government doesn't hold a monopoly on education?
Here's another one: I'll tutor your kid for 20$/hour.

Hey, you were the one claiming that wealth inequality could equate in effects to market control. I can't afford 20$/hour. Neither can most people. Even the people that can will usually choose a "free" service over a costly one. That's not even factoring in the people who by way of taxation and other forms of intervention have been rendered incapable of making that kind of money, which is a lot more than you might think.

So which is it, does wealth inequality reflect poorly on the selling habits of producers of goods and services or doesn't it?

[Cavernio]

Please elighten me how anything besides theory in economics measures the values of things without using money. If it only uses money, then it's getting a very poor measurement of things like self-respect and love.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

In other words, you plan on gaining from the exchange. Education is worth more to you than all those other things. Hey look, another principle of laissez-faire! People won't engage in voluntary transactions unless they gain from them!?

I've never said that people don't need motivation.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

A free market would help you by giving you more choice in all purchases, which simultaneously means you have to spend less money on any one choice in any one good or service. It would help you by not taxing away 40% of your income. It would help you by generating enough wealth that bankers and other individuals can be more liberal with their money in terms of loans. Those are ways in which it would help you.

Firstly, I've got plenty of choice in what I can study and what I can't. In fact, I think I'd have a harder time finding places and things to study if it were a free market because I'd be in all likelihood be doing base research, research that has little immediate useful potential, perhaps no useful potential in gaining that knowledge even in the next century. Few companies or people will fund that. Some will, but its awfully hard when there's no return on it besides making smarter people and gaining knowledge. You're not going to be able to put food on your table afterwards. Whereas now, people often get grants from the government. If I were to study in Canada, I'd hopefully get NSERC. Furthermore, although this isn't always the case, and really shouldn't ever be the case, but unfortunately it happens, where your funding comes from will often color results. Only a few years back there was a prof at UoToronto who was doing research for some pharmaceutical company, and found negative side-effects of some drug, and pretty much said so. The company put up so much of a fuss about the 'poor research' that the university fired the prof. They've been re-instated now, with public apology, but I'm sure there's more examples of that floating around, where the researcher chose not risk their job. We could only expect such incidents to increase with more and more funding coming from companies interested in making money ASAP.
Secondly, I'm not sure how it is in the US, but nowhere near 40% of my income has been taxed away. For one thing, I've never made enough money to ever get to that high of a tax bracket, and probably won't for a looong time if I take off and study some more until I'm out of school. (However, I may have been closer to having to pay that much money if minimum wage were at the same level as it were in the 60s, but that's another issue.) Even then, whatever I pay in tuition basically counts as negative income, and gets carried over from year to year, and I use it against my current income until I don't pay any taxes on it anymore.
Thirdly, the loans which I'd get are actually government controlled, being a student, and I get a better rate than would otherwise ever be offered, at least compared to other current interest rates (perhaps they'd be lower in a free market, I'm aware.) On top of that, I don't pay any interest on those loans until 6 months after I've completed my education, and EVEN then, if I'm making a pittance, I can apply for interest relief.
That's one of the many perks my tax dollars buy me. Everyone else pays for my education

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

It doesn't matter. If system A results in suffering for person B, and system B does not, all other things being equal system B is superior. It doesn't matter if it's 1,000 people or 1, less suffering is better.

But all other things aren't equal in system B.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Which brings me to my next point; by way of economic interference, the government can have dramatic impact on citizens. Taking away a person's house or car, for example, is an act of economic interference. If you make the claim "the government can interfere economically however it wants and people who don' do thing X don't deserve to complain" you are effectively allowing the government to prevent people from doing thing X. Congratulations, catch 22.

No one's stopping homeless people from voting. Canada bends over backwards trying to get everyone to vote. The US probably does the same.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

...jesus. Are you really that thick? How can something be the lesser of 2 evils if both evils are THE SAME THING!

They're only the same in that someone has power over someone else, cutting away your freedom. The nature of that power is quite different. Even if the government were a dictatorship, that's still different from corporate monopoly, although I'm not sure which one of those is worse.

I made no such claim that wealth grew infinitely.
I was claiming that a free market on education would result in a very unequal distribution of wealth which would essentially become something where people are born into their position, and its difficult to overcome it. I really don't see how I'm digging myself a hole. You've yet to point out the flaw in the scenario above.

How about you tell me something to read so that I can get the perspective you've got. I'll go and read it, and then we'll see where I stand. (I DO only have first year calculus behind my belt though, I apologize in advance for that, I'm sure it'll limit your selection.)

To challenge you, how about you give me 1 example of where your imaginary free market exists and utopia is made, or at least everything's fair.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Hey, you were the one claiming that wealth inequality could equate in effects to market control. I can't afford 20$/hour. Neither can most people. Even the people that can will usually choose a "free" service over a costly one. That's not even factoring in the people who by way of taxation and other forms of intervention have been rendered incapable of making that kind of money, which is a lot more than you might think.

So which is it, does wealth inequality reflect poorly on the selling habits of producers of goods and services or doesn't it?

You've no understanding of middle-ground, do you? It depends on how far apart the inequality is. The further apart it is, the harder it is for the people on the low end to make it to the high end, and the more power the high-end holds. I'd be hard-pressed to draw a line at exactly what point I think it becomes unfair, but it's pretty near the middle. IN any case, I used the example of someone paying a tutor to be taught as a way that the government doesn't have a monopoly. Choice is possible. Now you claim that the government takes away sooo much money from people, that they can't possibly afford the market outside it. That's BS. Hey, how about you get 5 kids together, I'll tutor them all, and I'll still only ask for 20$/hour. That's less than most daycares charge, and that service is obviously included in my tutilage. Oh, but wait, that means your kid might have to settle and learn some of the things Suzy's mom wants her to learn. People have to compromise in order to help each other out??? But that takes away my freedom, my rights! Oh noes, we're all doomed to servitude!

Do you think that if government didn't control education everyone would be able to afford it?

[devonin]

To challenge you, how about you give me 1 example of where your imaginary free market exists and utopia is made

You should read "Utopia"

[xxburriedaly06xx]

yea its all rubish...

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Please elighten me how anything besides theory in economics measures the values of things without using money. If it only uses money, then it's getting a very poor measurement of things like self-respect and love.

It doesn't only use money. Many economic studies try to measure personal satisfaction in countries relative to presence or absence of command elements.

I've never said that people don't need motivation.

...and I wasn't saying they did. In fact, you might even say that I was saying something completely different.

Firstly, I've got plenty of choice in what I can study and what I can't. In fact, I think I'd have a harder time finding places and things to study if it were a free market because I'd be in all likelihood be doing base research, research that has little immediate useful potential, perhaps no useful potential in gaining that knowledge even in the next century. Few companies or people will fund that. Some will, but its awfully hard when there's no return on it besides making smarter people and gaining knowledge.

You misunderstand the mechanics of funding. An unrestricted market will develop all valuable methods of funding. Similarly value doesn't have to be attained in any one form, and an unrestricted market will allow for and support virtually all varieties of value, with only one exception.

Only a few years back there was a prof at UoToronto who was doing research for some pharmaceutical company, and found negative side-effects of some drug, and pretty much said so. The company put up so much of a fuss about the 'poor research' that the university fired the prof. They've been re-instated now, with public apology, but I'm sure there's more examples of that floating around, where the researcher chose not risk their job. We could only expect such incidents to increase with more and more funding coming from companies interested in making money ASAP.

There might be. A perfect world is impossible, some problems will arise even in a free-market, but in the market they are self-correcting. Did the professor continue to work for the Pharmaceutical company? What happened to the companies reputation as a result of this? Your assumption that companies want to make money only "ASAP" is fallacious; actions will be based on time preference, which varies. Development and creation of any variety suggests a fairly high time preference. If you don't like how Pharmaceutical companies do business, don't do business with them.

Secondly, I'm not sure how it is in the US, but nowhere near 40% of my income has been taxed away. For one thing, I've never made enough money to ever get to that high of a tax bracket, and probably won't for a looong time if I take off and study some more until I'm out of school. (However, I may have been closer to having to pay that much money if minimum wage were at the same level as it were in the 60s, but that's another issue.) Even then, whatever I pay in tuition basically counts as negative income, and gets carried over from year to year, and I use it against my current income until I don't pay any taxes on it anymore.

There are more forms of tax than income tax, and in the US at least taxation comes at both a federal and local level.

That's one of the many perks my tax dollars buy me. Everyone else pays for my education

Yes, but the point is that everyone else might not want to pay for your education. They might want to pay for a better apartment or a working car instead.

But all other things aren't equal in system B.

Most of the things which aren't equal in system B are also improvements.

No one's stopping homeless people from voting. Canada bends over backwards trying to get everyone to vote. The US probably does the same.

The US does no such thing. Residency is a requirement to vote.

They're only the same in that someone has power over someone else, cutting away your freedom. The nature of that power is quite different. Even if the government were a dictatorship, that's still different from corporate monopoly, although I'm not sure which one of those is worse.

I am. Freedom to steal isn't a legitimate freedom. If a monopoly occurs in a free-market, it is as a result of voluntary transaction and so is sanctioned perfectly by the only means capable of providing legitimate sanction.

I made no such claim that wealth grew infinitely.
I was claiming that a free market on education would result in a very unequal distribution of wealth which would essentially become something where people are born into their position, and its difficult to overcome it. I really don't see how I'm digging myself a hole. You've yet to point out the flaw in the scenario above.

Labor strikes are a good example. Labor is a necessity for all manner of highly valued goods and services, laborers have as much weight in the system as skilled workers. That is, if you get rid of nonsense like eminent domain, which effectively gives those with copious amounts of money hegemony over those with substantially less.

How about you tell me something to read so that I can get the perspective you've got. I'll go and read it, and then we'll see where I stand. (I DO only have first year calculus behind my belt though, I apologize in advance for that, I'm sure it'll limit your selection.)

Start with the book "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. If you want to read something much heavier, try "Power and Market" by Murray Rothbard.

To challenge you, how about you give me 1 example of where your imaginary free market exists and utopia is made, or at least everything's fair.

Give me an example of where one imaginary communal society on the scope of present nations exists and utopia is made.

Contextualizing economics in terms of a singular binary, namely "either all command economy or all free-market economy", is not only empirically unfalsifiable but also a Strawman of sorts, intentional or otherwise. All economic exchanges occur in discrete units, therefore if you are expressing binary conditions you need to express them only in terms of the discrete units. Admittedly economists might confuse laymen by slapping certain labels on economies with more or less of certain characteristics; Soviet Union as "socialist", Hong Kong as "Laissez-faire" for example.

You've no understanding of middle-ground, do you? It depends on how far apart the inequality is. The further apart it is, the harder it is for the people on the low end to make it to the high end, and the more power the high-end holds. I'd be hard-pressed to draw a line at exactly what point I think it becomes unfair, but it's pretty near the middle. IN any case, I used the example of someone paying a tutor to be taught as a way that the government doesn't have a monopoly. Choice is possible. Now you claim that the government takes away sooo much money from people, that they can't possibly afford the market outside it. That's BS. Hey, how about you get 5 kids together, I'll tutor them all, and I'll still only ask for 20$/hour. That's less than most daycares charge, and that service is obviously included in my tutilage. Oh, but wait, that means your kid might have to settle and learn some of the things Suzy's mom wants her to learn. People have to compromise in order to help each other out??? But that takes away my freedom, my rights! Oh noes, we're all doomed to servitude!

You're incredibly arrogant for a person so ignorant. You draw the line "somewhere in the middle" why? Because you feel like it? Is that the foundational method for your worldview, because it seems like it might be. I've explained things to you ten times over. If you actually want to read and understand them then please do so.

Do you think that if government didn't control education everyone would be able to afford it?

I already said yes and gave reasoning. I even gave an empirical example. If you're not going to pay attention then don't bother engaging in conversation.

[KH Luxord]

This is BS man...I mean...come on!!! First of all, if there were no public schools, much of the U.S. population would have no education, meaning that the people in the government would be pretty much ignorant, because most people in the government must have gone to public schools, right? And most people can't even afford private schools. The population would just have as low as an education as, say, some people in the Middle East, also, sadly, in the poverty stricken places in Africa. So, public schools play a big role in the population of the world that can't afford education from a private school.

Private schools are not backed/supported by any part of the government. So, people would be going through a collegiate process before the are even in college! They have to buy their own books. They have to pay a tuition. If it is a boarding school, room and board. The school's source of money is the students (the parents actually, but you get the point). Which means, that the parents are paying about $1500+ per month, plus the books that they have to buy for their children. So, the families there are just spending the money that should be used for college, on their elementary, jr. high, and high school education! Aren't parents supposed to be saving up money for their child's college education? Unless the child's parents are filthy, stinkin' rich, there is a huge problem!

Now, I go to a public school. It is in Cypress, CA. The school is Oxford Academy. Don't be fooled, it may be called Oxford Academy (some people mistake it as Oxford University, and I mean, I'm 13, and most people that are 13 - 17 are not in college unless they are born a child prodigy), but it is not a private school. Oxford Academy is in a school district of 10 High Schools, and 8 Jr. High Schools. Oxford Academy is a school supported by the government, and is a school for people in the 7th - 12th grade levels. There are only about 1000 people at Oxford Academy, maybe less. Why? Well, because we have to test to get in. And those who get in, show that they are of a more intelligent group. For those that got in, during their years at Oxford Academy, they get a better education then most of the other normal schools that are in the same area. And, we get a good education, without paying for a single thing except for lunch (for those who don't have the income problem, where the student gets lunch discounted or free), or the bus (for those that take it), or the special school functions (i. e. dances, talent show, Oxford Idol). Oxford Academy is like a private school in only one way. We have a strict dress code. We have to wear a uniform (which is only a shirt, so it is no big deal), with the Oxford Academy emblem on it. But that is all.

Public schools can give just as good an education as a private school, only if the students there wish to receive it. People that go to private schools don't get discounts on anything. They have to pay full price, even though they are wishing for the children to receive the supposedly higher education they offer their, but do not have the money for it. I receive a good education, and I don't even go to a private school. To tell the truth, some of the people at private schools don't get the "higher" education that the staff members say they offer. It just isn't fair to those parents. While the people at public schools get just as good an education as people at private schools, parents are still blowing off the money that should be used for their child's college education on their pre-college education.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by KH Luxord

This is BS man...I mean...come on!!! First of all, if there were no public schools, much of the U.S. population would have no education, meaning that the people in the government would be pretty much ignorant, because most people in the government must have gone to public schools, right?

What is your evidence for this claim? Moreover what makes you think we need a government? Hell, what makes you think the individuals in government today actually benefited from education? It seems pretty clear that most did not.

And most people can't even afford private schools.

Already been addressed. Also if the poorest people in India can afford private education, it seems somewhat absurd to say there is no hope for market provided private education.

The population would just have as low as an education as, say, some people in the Middle East, also, sadly, in the poverty stricken places in Africa.

Both the Middle East and Africa have on average very high levels of economic intervention. Many of them beat out the US in international scores anyways.

Other stuff

The income of a school doesn't stem by necessity from any one place, as you and many others seem to assume.

Why? Well, because we have to test to get in. And those who get in, show that they are of a more intelligent group. For those that got in, during their years at Oxford Academy, they get a better education then most of the other normal schools that are in the same area. And, we get a good education, without paying for a single thing except for lunch

You pay for it some fashion or another, and so do others. Standardized testing also has imperfections; more importantly the problem of choice still remains.

Public schools can give just as good an education as a private school

Sure, they can. There's an important question as to whether or not they will on average do so.

To tell the truth, some of the people at private schools don't get the "higher" education that the staff members say they offer. It just isn't fair to those parents. While the people at public schools get just as good an education as people at private schools, parents are still blowing off the money that should be used for their child's college education on their pre-college education.

Who are you to decide how other people should spend their money? If someone values something, why shouldn't they be allowed to purchase it?

[BuRdInE]

Originally Posted by KH Luxord

Public schools can give just as good an education as a private school, only if the students there wish to receive it.

I strongly agree with this statement.^^
A student's education solely depends on that student. As far as not being able to go to a school that you wish to go to or at least a school where you have an opportunity at education; because your learning is inhibited at the school; I find that unlikely.

As far as having bad teachers, that fail horribly at their job. Occasionally I see a few, but they are usually not major problems. Firing them could be a solution, but the list of teachers available in my area is short so that might not be feasible. Keep in mind I live in a rural area, which you were referring to earlier "Cavernio"

I have an opportunity at my education though. It is solely my choice though.
I don't blame the parents for kids not liking school. I don't blame the teachers 100% either. I blame the peers of the students. In my experiences I have found out that Association is everything. Who you associate with may determine decisions you make in the future. If you associate with someone who doesn't like school, chances are he/she doesn't like school because of influence from the peers they associate with. And Vice Versa.

I don't blame the parents because
A - I truly don't know parents who tell their kids that their education isn't much and shouldn't be acquired. All of the parents I know encourage their kids to excel in their education to the fullest. Keep in mind I live in a Rural area, that is loaded with rich people and poor people equally. (Myself Being Rather Poor)
B - Making the decision to attain an education is solely dependent upon that student. Whether the parent's statements go in one ear and out another is dependent upon them.

I have never seen anyone who didn't have an opportunity for their education. Which is why I rule out the fact of inadequate funding because all I see is people that manage it. We don't reject students, but we are poorly funded.
Yet we still manage to keep school up and running everyday. Education is based solely on the decisions the student makes, and the people that the student associates with. You can capitalize on the opportunity, or you can expect it to be given to you and never get anywhere.

Myself being poor, I know how difficult it is to raise my head high, and strive for my education. Its hard, but its very very manageable. That decision is dictated by me, just like it is dictated by everyone else. I try my very best to pull everyone toward a better education. That decision is dictated by them. I am only one influence out of many other types of influence.

I have yet to find the solution to influencing others to better their education (which is why I'm here)
My Answer to the topic question "Public Schools - Bad for American Students?" is; Absolutely NOT.

Association with students who wish not to learn, and wish for others not to either: < This is what I find terribly wrong.
Also Cavernio, I believe that you stated that:

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I was claiming that a free market on education would result in a very unequal distribution of wealth which would essentially become something where people are born into their position

That is possible, and has happened in my case. My mother got her GED from high school. And went back a year later to get her Diploma "which she did"
but she never excelled in college. My father did go to college though, for almost ten years. But he never made any use of his education. Which is why I consider both of my parents in some ways idiots. My father works as a Policeman, and my mother is an Office Secretary. Both which I don't wish to be my future and Is the decision I choose to dictate just like any other poor person like myself.

But just because situations like this happen does not mean that each of those students that have poor parents, will not excel in their education; which is basically what your implying. That is in fact FALSE.

As far as your views on Capitalism and Communism, No Offense to you Cavernio. I think you've been misled.
So here is an example for you, and why I think you should reconsider your "Communist At Heart" statement.

Lets say your in a group of 10 Scientists that work on Airplanes for Boeing. Lets say you're the Smartest person in the group and the other 9 are idiots.
Lets also say you've created the fastest, and safest General Aviation Plane ever built.
How would you feel if you did all kinds of hard work, and made all sorts of innovations in technology to be paid the same amount as 9 other idiots.
Tell me that, how would you feel?
Because if your a communist, you'd say "I wouldn't care much at all"
But when the question really gets in your heart you'd say "I think I should be paid more, because I did the work, and I made the technology"

The same also applies to schooling. If you wish to have an opportunity at education and you have made smart decisions about who you associate with.
You'll do just fine. If you fall into the Tiger Pit of "School's for losers, lets play basketball" Thats your decision. I don't blame the Government, I don't blame the parents, I don't blame the teachers 100%. I blame the only person that can dictate that decision. YOU.

If you want education, go for it. If you want to sit around and play hopscotch, go for it. Just don't hold me back while I strive to reach my education.
Associate with smart, and hard working people.
Capitalize on the opportunities set before you.

Association, and Capitalism is the key.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by BuRdInE

I have an opportunity at my education though. It is solely my choice though.

At what age? There're certainly studies indicating that in order to be very intelligent (not necessarily the same as educated), you've got to get the right stimulation from infanthood.

Originally Posted by BuRdInE

My father works as a Policeman, and my mother is an Office Secretary.

No offense, but your family's not what I'd consider poor, unless wages for both those jobs are basically minimum wage. Or unless you've got 6 siblings or something. Furthermore, the example I used was for no free education, which you have up until grade 12.

Originally Posted by BuRdInE

Lets say your in a group of 10 Scientists that work on Airplanes for Boeing. Lets say you're the Smartest person in the group and the other 9 are idiots.
Lets also say you've created the fastest, and safest General Aviation Plane ever built.
How would you feel if you did all kinds of hard work, and made all sorts of innovations in technology to be paid the same amount as 9 other idiots.
Tell me that, how would you feel?
Because if your a communist, you'd say "I wouldn't care much at all"
But when the question really gets in your heart you'd say "I think I should be paid more, because I did the work, and I made the technology"

Hopefully the situation wouldn't arise that 90% of an important project like that wouldn't be idiots. But even then, I'd still have my pride.

Actually, I'm in somewhat of a situation like that right now. I'm a research assistant for a prof, and I know that I'm left pretty much all the grunt work, but I've definitey had important input into some experiments, and have even written sections of papers for publication. I'm getting ****ty pay in comparison to my prof.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by "BuRdInE

As far as your views on Capitalism and Communism, No Offense to you Cavernio. I think you've been misled.
So here is an example for you, and why I think you should reconsider your "Communist At Heart" statement.

Lets say your in a group of 10 Scientists that work on Airplanes for Boeing. Lets say you're the Smartest person in the group and the other 9 are idiots.
Lets also say you've created the fastest, and safest General Aviation Plane ever built.
How would you feel if you did all kinds of hard work, and made all sorts of innovations in technology to be paid the same amount as 9 other idiots.
Tell me that, how would you feel?
Because if your a communist, you'd say "I wouldn't care much at all"
But when the question really gets in your heart you'd say "I think I should be paid more, because I did the work, and I made the technology"

Spoken like someone who has only the most basic concept of how communism works. Anyone who thinks "Communism means we all get exactly the same thing whether we contribute or not" is simply mistaken. I suggest you give the communist manifesto and das kapital a basic once over before you start opining on the concept of marxist communism.

In your example, the 9 scientists who are idiots would not be contributing into the system at the same rate as the 1 competant scientist, so in a fundamental way they aren't part o fthe communist system in the first place: "From each according to their abilities"

If these people are incompetant scientists, that they are currently being employed as scientists is a failure of the system, as they should have been doing a job to which they were suited. Further, if they are idiots and not contributing to any of the work, they have a greater amount of leisure time in which to persue things like raising their families, or vacationing, such that they also require less from the government in order to live: "To each according to their needs"

[Cavernio]

Nicely said Devonin.
My prof. employer suffers from much more stress due to his job than I do.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by BuRdInE

I blame the peers of the students. In my experiences I have found out that Association is everything. Who you associate with may determine decisions you make in the future. If you associate with someone who doesn't like school, chances are he/she doesn't like school because of influence from the peers they associate with. And Vice Versa.

That's a good point. However there are still two issues: how association occurs, and how attitudes are acquired to begin with. Attitudes can't come entirely from association because that would be an example of something resembling a causa sui.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Please elighten me how anything besides theory in economics measures the values of things without using money. If it only uses money, then it's getting a very poor measurement of things like self-respect and love.

Scientific theory (economics is a social science) has much more weight than some theory a random dude on the street makes up. While there are contradictions between different economics theories, e.g. Keynesian economics vs. the free market, there are many principles of economics not widely disputed amongst those who know it. Stop viewing "theory" as something derogatory, as shown by those italics.

And Kilroy said it, but economics does study more than money. Hell, in fact, economics is much more a study of influence than the money. It is, after all, a social science.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Do you think that if government didn't control education everyone would be able to afford it?

While I don't think I'd ever get around to convincing you that it's possible, I can definitely say it's not as absurd as you make it out to be. Remember that Americans do pay for public education with their taxes. That money doesn't come out of thin air.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

You misunderstand the mechanics of funding. An unrestricted market will develop all valuable methods of funding. Similarly value doesn't have to be attained in any one form, and an unrestricted market will allow for and support virtually all varieties of value, with only one exception.

Sigh. In an unrestricted market that I don't see as able to exist, at least not for very long. I'm not refuting all your claims of free markets, I'm saying that they all eventually crumble. Although I will ask you what the one exception is.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Your assumption that companies want to make money only "ASAP" is fallacious; actions will be based on time preference, which varies.

The topic of 'when' a benefit is seen or an outcome occurs is one I'd like to touch on more. People are generally no good at delaying gratification. It's been studied by psychologists. People procrastinate. Research is one of those things which usually has little immediate payoff, yet without it, technology wouldn't be where it is today, and technology generally increases quality of living, if only because we have more options because of it. (You're big on having choice.) But things which give no immediate reward, but which everyone generally agrees with are important, such as base research, won't get 'purchased' by any one person. However, people will pool money and resources in order to fund things like that. Central allocation of resources is fundamental for large research projects. Corporate monopoly or government looks after such things.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

There are more forms of tax than income tax, and in the US at least taxation comes at both a federal and local level.

Income tax is both federal and provincially waved for my education. I still pay sales tax.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Yes, but the point is that everyone else might not want to pay for your education. They might want to pay for a better apartment or a working car instead.

I'm glad you acknowledge this part of your argument finally.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The US does no such thing. Residency is a requirement to vote.

Oh.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Freedom to steal isn't a legitimate freedom. If a monopoly occurs in a free-market, it is as a result of voluntary transaction and so is sanctioned perfectly by the only means capable of providing legitimate sanction.

But if a community gets together and decides to make a government of sorts for themselves, it's illegitimate? Would that not be the same free market you're talking about, deciding for itself to centralize?
Once you've got a monopoly, its hard to get rid of, and over time its less and less likely to be what people want or even the same people who gave that corporation power in the first place. The same could be said for governments though too.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Labor strikes are a good example. Labor is a necessity for all manner of highly valued goods and services, laborers have as much weight in the system as skilled workers. That is, if you get rid of nonsense like eminent domain, which effectively gives those with copious amounts of money hegemony over those with substantially less.

At a huge cost to the people who cause the strike, for an un-immediate payoff. Interestingly, this requires organization of the laborers to work en masse, or else its not going to have enough of an impact. (I wonder if societys don't all possess some cyclical movement of central organization to independence and back again.)
In comparison, changing an elected government is as easy as voting for another party, although the results probably won't be so drastic. Of course, the option of revolt still exists with elected officials.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Give me an example of where one imaginary communal society on the scope of present nations exists and utopia is made.

It doesn't exist. I generally like Canada though, and that's pretty middleground. :-p

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

All economic exchanges occur in discrete units, therefore if you are expressing binary conditions you need to express them only in terms of the discrete units.

Umm, I disagree? Groups of discrete units make up different patterns which are functionally different than the individual parts. Eg: Computation Also, why are we discussing binary terms?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

You're incredibly arrogant for a person so ignorant. You draw the line "somewhere in the middle" why? Because you feel like it? Is that the foundational method for your worldview, because it seems like it might be. I've explained things to you ten times over. If you actually want to read and understand them then please do so.

Everyone makes choices because 'they feel like it.' I've chosen 'somewhere' in the middle because I'm acknowledging that I don't possess nearly enough knowledge to be more unambiguous, particularly on an ambiguously defined and discussed continuum.
You say that I'm not listening to you, yet I could say that same to you, apparently, as I've stated my reasons why I've chosen a middle. Disagreement doesn't mean I'm not paying attention.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I already said yes and gave reasoning. I even gave an empirical example.

The only example you gave me was comparison of education to food. Except you've neglected that people don't delay gratification for themselves very well, even if they agree that it's more important, and that's what education requires people to do. You have every right to then say that if people were to choose to not educate themselves, then that's their choice. However, I say that there's something to be said about people not doing what's best for themselves, and that a little incentive to do those things that're good for you, particularly if you ultimately agree with it, is perfectly acceptable.

Your most recent post, not even directed towards me, the article on Indian schools was by far the strongest example that supports your theory.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Scientific theory (economics is a social science) has much more weight than some theory a random dude on the street makes up. While there are contradictions between different economics theories, e.g. Keynesian economics vs. the free market, there are many principles of economics not widely disputed amongst those who know it. Stop viewing "theory" as something derogatory, as shown by those italics.

Kilroy seems to think his/her theories are proven. I've argued very little about principles of supply and demand. Where my previous post does, I draw upon widely undisputed psychological principles to back it up. Furthermore, you can't merely say 'False, because I know more than you', and expect that to hold up in debate.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

While I don't think I'd ever get around to convincing you that it's possible, I can definitely say it's not as absurd as you make it out to be. Remember that Americans do pay for public education with their taxes. That money doesn't come out of thin air.

It's cheaper to centrally run something than to have a bunch of individual organizations do it for themselves.

[seltivo]

wow, I don't remember the last time someone survived this long in an argument with Kilroy_x...

Anyway, I have no real knowledge of the American school system, but where I live (a rural area of Canada) there are two schools, both of which are very poor and have a lot of terrible teachers. I go to the better of the two, but most of the time (especially in math) I already know more than 50% of what they "teach" and I learn the rest in a few weeks by reading my textbook while the teacher repeats the same explanations over and over to the same students.

Some of my teachers are great, but most are not suited for the job (I have accidentally proved this several times by correcting there mistakes, resulting in them hating me for the rest of the year.)

I don't believe that money should really be that much of a problem. My school has received quite a bit of money from the government (they're still quite poor despite all this) and yet the quality of the teaching has not improved. It doesn’t matter if the students are getting their information from a chalk board or a projector, if they’re taught the wrong way, they wont learn.

There are several new and (supposedly) better teaching methods introduced each year. Every few years, an individual teacher will find a “better” way of teaching and ask the school to buy the necessary equipment to use it. The companies that design these methods make a lot of money. Very often (more than 90% of the time) this new teaching program will only work for one or two students (usually the ones who see past the futility of the program and can figure out what it’s trying to teach them instead of listening to the teacher.) Once the students get to high school (or even university) they have no idea what anyone is talking about. There is a kid in my grade ten English class that thought that”hospital” was a verb, almost half the class was failing math and only about 5 people (myself included) understood and did well in our physics course. The teachers had to spend most of the year teaching what the children should have already known.

This may be a big problem, but compared to the lack of motivation from the students, it’s nothing. I found an article about a teacher who taught a group of students about six years worth of math in (much) less than a year (Article:http://www.mountainlaurelsudbury.org/Rithmetic.asp)
The article points out that, if the students are motivated, learning is easy (and fun.) I think the reason children aren’t motivated is because they were taught not to be. Almost everything (media, other children, parents(sometimes), etc.) teaches children that school is not fun. One reason that children who are home schooled do so much better is because they stay away from many negative influences that they would encounter in school. A friend of mine recently started being home schooled. In a few months, her grammar, spelling, math improved dramatically. I look at some of the stuff she does at home and realize that, despite her being several years younger that me, she does some of the stuff kids in my class can’t. I think the reason she’s improved so much is because she is motivated. There are no children whining about homework around her, her parents encourage her and (I think this is the most important of all) she has no television.

The reason children aren’t learning is because the world is discouraging them. It’s like they say, it takes a village to raise a child. If part of the “village” discourages them, they wont learn.

P.S.: sry for the very long post

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by seltivo

wow, I don't remember the last time someone survived this long in an argument with Kilroy_x...

I think you misunderstand the purpose of a debate.