Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

[Cavernio]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

To get back to the OP, firstly, I did not watch the video, but read your commentary. I'd like to comment on your idea of kids having vouchers. It's not gonna work. People go to the schools near them because they're near. We've not quite developed teleports yet. Your voucher idea won't change that situation at all. Furthermore, this voucher thing's saying that it costs as much to teach 1 kid as 100. I'm pretty sure the relationship between cost of public schooling/child only nears linearity once you've gotten a large enough number of students.

There's been discussion of who's to blame? going around. Everyone is. Some teachers don't care about their jobs, some students don't care about learning, and some parents aren't picking up where the education system leaves off. But what do we do to fix all these issues?
Relambrien, I don't agree with you AT ALL about working through the capitalism to get better teachers. The problem is on the level of values, and if that's what we actually want. Most of us have had teachers which they really like, along with ones they hate. Most of the teachers kids end up liking are the ones which love their job. They like kids, and they like learning, and passing knowledge and wisdom on to other people. People who're money grubbers aren't exactly the ones I'd like to attract to teaching. People who search after money CAN be people who value respect and knowledge, but they don't go hand in hand. I really don't know who you'd 'weed out' so to speak from the teaching pool by increasing money to them, unless you think we're not attracting people who would like to teach because it's a paltry salary, which it's not.
Anyone who's done grad work will tell you that the things people do for funding, and for praise, to have power is especially predominant among the highly-successful, and the way they go about getting it is often un-ethical and un-scientific. It's sad.

What the 'problem' basically is, is our values in the first place. How exactly do you propose you get motivated teachers to motive kids? How're you gonna get kids to enter school with an open mind, even after negative experiences? How exactly DO you teach critical thinking anyways? Why is not having a good education a 'problem' anyways? How're you going to give people well-rounded educations when there's only 24 hours in a day, and when most jobs out there are for highly-specialized people? How does that value fit into a capitalist society? How do you get around the 'problem' that people in rural areas don't have the choice that people in urban centers do? Why is it better to have highly motivated kids like there are, apparently, in China?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Relambrien, I don't agree with you AT ALL about working through the capitalism to get better teachers. The problem is on the level of values, and if that's what we actually want.

I'd just like to point out, in addition to there being a pretty serious grammatical error here there is also a dramatic misunderstanding. The free market satisfies values as close to perfectly as any system could.

Every issue here boils down to:

*Subjective Preference
*Population Variance

Both can be handled by a free market, both cannot be handled with any degree of competence by central administration.

[TK_yesillkillubitchboez]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

With no child left behind it slows down my academic progress. There are just too many distractions.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Well, the only way not to leave any child behind is not to take any child anywhere in the first place

[Cavernio]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Well, you're going into another issue than what I intended Kilroy, so I shouldn't be saying this at all, but the problem with free markets is that they never seem to exist. You can either have a centrally appointed administration, or you can have monopolies take over that position. Anyways...

My real concern is this: If we want teachers who value education and learning, why is increasing competition by giving people money going to give us better teachers? As soon as you throw in external motivators, like money, you immediately weaken any internal motivators a person has, like wanting people to be knowledgeable.
It seems to make more sense to me that we actually decrease salaries for teachers, so that the only ones which will stay will be those who want to teach.

[Relambrien]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

My real concern is this: If we want teachers who value education and learning, why is increasing competition by giving people money going to give us better teachers? As soon as you throw in external motivators, like money, you immediately weaken any internal motivators a person has, like wanting people to be knowledgeable.

That's the thing; we don't -necessarily- want teachers who value education and learning. Those values can and do exist separately from being able to teach well. You can be absolutely amazing at something without liking it, and you can be absolutely horrid at something you love.

Instead of teachers who value education and learning, I'd prefer teachers who are great at what they do. I've had several such teachers. For instance, my ninth grade Economics teacher hates children and hates teaching, but he's ridiculously good at getting students to learn and like the subject. Why does he teach, you ask? He only does so because of the schedule, and the proximity to his house. He is well-versed in his subject, even though he doesn't particularly like it, and he teaches incredibly well, even though he hates teaching.

And I don't see how adding in extra money somehow causes people to become less motivated. Let's use an example. Say I'm tutoring a fellow student at my school, and he pays me...oh $20 a session (just for the sake of the example). Then, due to my tutoring, he aces his class, and decides to pay me $25 a session in recognition of my tutoring skills. Why on Earth would I be less motivated to tutor him? Even if I hated it, I'd work just as hard if not harder, in order to be "worthy" of the raise.

And like you said, those who love to teach will do so regardless of salary, so giving them a bonus for doing well is a nice plus to them that doesn't make them do any worse.

It seems to make more sense to me that we actually decrease salaries for teachers, so that the only ones which will stay will be those who want to teach.

And among those who -want- to teach, how many actually -can- teach? My school's Calculus teacher loves his job and loves teaching, but he's absolutely horrific when it comes to getting students to learn. He would stay even if he made minimum wage, but that doesn't make him a better teacher.

Now just to clarify, not for a second do I think higher salaries will motivate teachers to become better. That's just naive. No, I believe that under a voucher system, the schools with the best teachers will receive the most students, and therefore those teachers will make the most money.

Of course there are other solutions than a voucher system, but a monopoly on -anything- usually ends up bad for the consumer. And the government has a monopoly on public schooling, just as each public school has a monopoly on all the students in its area (since they are assigned to the school). Get rid of the monopoly and introduce competition, and the competing schools will strive to be better than each other, constantly improving, which can only help the students.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

the problem with free markets is that they never seem to exist. You can either have a centrally appointed administration, or you can have monopolies take over that position.

That's nonsense. Monopolies are almost impossible to attain in a completely free market. If the free market tends towards statism it's because there are statist elements in society independent of the market.

As soon as you throw in external motivators, like money, you immediately weaken any internal motivators a person has, like wanting people to be knowledgeable.

That's also nonsense. If that were the case we shouldn't pay teachers at all.

It seems to make more sense to me that we actually decrease salaries for teachers, so that the only ones which will stay will be those who want to teach.

Let's decrease their salaries to nothing then, it would have the greatest effect towards that end.

[MarisaKirisame]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Hard work and laziness have just about nothing to do with anything. They certainly aren't dominant factors. In fact if you actually stop to think about it for a second, differences in income are correlated mainly to differences in types of labor, not to amount of labor energy invested. Different skill sets are what are in demand, not pure energy, and you certainly don't attain different skill sets simply by way of pure energy.

BTW, how many jobs have you had in your life?

Never had a "normal" job in my life. Nothing that I think would be considered a job, at least. I'm simply trying to say that in general, the more difficult the job is, the more money you're usually going to make.

We could get into awkward jobs, and we could get into management, but I'm just saying for the jobs the majority of the people will end up having. I'd say not even 1 out of 20 will end up managing other people and making decent money, but that's just a complete guess, and I'd really have no idea about something like that.

But really, you're not going to get $20 an hour for holding up a sign in the street. At least, most people won't. Same way you probably aren't going to make only $6 an hour if you work in an office dealing with documents and numbers all day. Salaries are generally pretty fair in comparison to the effort put in.

But even in management of other people, some people may not find it terribly difficult, but I'd say most people won't be able to make huge decisions for an entire company which could determine if the company even survives. It'd be awfully stressful, even for the good chunk of money earned.

I'm not saying there aren't tons of exceptions to this, I'm just saying that, for the most part, the amount of money earned is probably going to reflect how difficult the job is. I'm not saying it has to do with how much energy you put into it, however.

Oh, and I know what you mean when you say,

Many if not most extremely high paying jobs are in sectors with high economic interference. A college degree is in some senses literally a passport to the dominant class.

But the thing is, people weren't just born one day with a college degree. They had to work through it in the years of their life when they were probably the least willing to work, during their young and teenage years.

I mean, someone can work awfully hard and still drop out, just as someone and go through college without even thinking for a second and still manage to graduate. This is just speaking for the completely average person.

I mean yeah, intelligence plays a pretty big factor. If someone's IQ is 80, they'll probably have to work quite hard compared to a person whose IQ is, say, 150.

Is it fair? No. Is it fair enough? In my opinion, yes. As fair as I think it can be.

And really, I'm an extremely lazy person. I'm not just saying this just because I'm some hard worker or something.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

But the thing is, people weren't just born one day with a college degree. They had to work through it in the years of their life when they were probably the least willing to work, during their young and teenage years.

And where did the money for high tuition come from?

Is it fair? No. Is it fair enough? In my opinion, yes. As fair as I think it can be.

Virtually every economist disagrees with you, although admittedly not for the same reasons.

Anyways you're still missing the point. Is punching numbers into spreadsheets all day harder than running orders and busing tables? That's really just a matter of opinion. What can be said definitively is that both require different skill sets. Therefore, possession of different skill sets is what will dictate your economic status, not particularly the amount of energy you put into anything.

Well, that and a piece of paper.

[MarisaKirisame]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Personally, I think it'd be more of a hassle to punch numbers into spreadsheets than be able to interact with people and not have to think terribly much, just using your memory and some common sense.

I'm not saying punching numbers into spreadsheets isn't mindless. In fact, it doesn't require much thought at all, I'm just saying it seems like it'd be a lot more of a pain in the butt to me.

Anyways you're still missing the point. Is punching numbers into spreadsheets all day harder than running orders and busing tables? That's really just a matter of opinion.

I'm just giving my opinion. Sorry if I made it sound like I was saying "if it is more of a hassle, then it IS better pay." I mean to say "in my opinion, most jobs have pretty fair salaries in comparison to how much work/thought is put into them."

And where did the money for high tuition come from?

Well there are tons of ways to get money for even very expensive colleges, we could go on all day naming ways. But yeah, people with less money are therefore slightly less likely to get a good education, but if they try hard enough when they have the right chances, it's highly unlikely they'll be poor for more than one lifetime.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Personally, I think it'd be more of a hassle to punch numbers into spreadsheets than be able to interact with people and not have to think terribly much, just using your memory and some common sense.

I don't.

I'm not saying punching numbers into spreadsheets isn't mindless. In fact, it doesn't require much thought at all, I'm just saying it seems like it'd be a lot more of a pain in the butt to me.

This is why I asked you how much job experience you had.

I'm just giving my opinion. Sorry if I made it sound like I was saying "if it is more of a hassle, then it IS better pay." I mean to say "in my opinion, most jobs have pretty fair salaries in comparison to how much work/thought is put into them."

I'm saying your opinion has questionable basis. Most jobs have salaries relative to the demand for the product produced by them. Athletes get paid millions for producing highly valued entertainment, workers are McDonald's get paid an hourly wage for lowly valued foodstuffs.

There are two components to demand, individual quantity and group quantity. IE, even though a lot of people value McDonald's, they value it at maybe $5 a meal, whereas a lot of people also value sports but they value it at the cost of $30-50 a ticket. Of course there are other demand curves to take account of, but this is just a simplification.

Well there are tons of ways to get money for even very expensive colleges, we could go on all day naming ways. But yeah, people with less money are therefore slightly less likely to get a good education, but if they try hard enough when they have the right chances, it's highly unlikely they'll be poor for more than one lifetime.

What exactly are the "right chances"? What exactly do you propose they put their efforts towards? You see, there's this problem I see, that has much more universality than it reasonably should, that when someone asks for advice they get just the words "try harder" as a response.

As a person who has learned things, although unfortunately not enough things, I would just like to make known how senseless a response this is.

[MarisaKirisame]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

This is why I asked you how much job experience you had.

I've worked with people before, and I know it can be a pain to have to deal with people you don't even know, but in general, it was pretty enjoyable.

I don't.

Okay.

I'm saying your opinion has questionable basis. Most jobs have salaries relative to the demand for the product produced by them. Athletes get paid millions for producing highly valued entertainment, workers are McDonald's get paid an hourly wage for lowly valued foodstuffs.

I somewhat understand where you're going with this, but not really enough to be able to go with it yet. Athletes have a really, really tough job. They have to constantly work out and practice what they do for hours upon hours a day. Many end up doing this for more time every single day than people with a full-time job work in a day. I realize they don't do the equivalent of what is, in my opinion, millions of dollars worth of work, but they certainly work awfully hard. And as I said, there are exceptions to everything, especially in the extremely high paying jobs like these.

Besides, just about any old person can work at a fast food place. You don't even need ANY education, you just need to be a certain age to work at a local Burger King I live near. In fact, all you need is to speak very basic English and to have a building in which you live with a telephone.

There are two components to demand, individual quantity and group quantity. IE, even though a lot of people value McDonald's, they value it at maybe $5 a meal, whereas a lot of people also value sports but they value it at the cost of $30-50 a ticket. Of course there are other demand curves to take account of, but this is just a simplification.

Oh, of course, but while people working at Burger King will make over $5 an hour, people who sell sports tickets will not make $30-50 an hour assuming they actually work at the place where the tickets are being sold.

What exactly are the "right chances"? What exactly do you propose they put their efforts towards? You see, there's this problem I see, that has much more universality than it reasonably should, that when someone asks for advice they get just the words "try harder" as a response.

I'm talking about just, well, taking the opportunity to get things. Whether it be extra credit in school, studying for tests, going for opportunities to get money for college, looking for good job openings, etc. Most people I talk to don't do these kinds of things, and to be honest, I don't either. I'll jump at a chance if I see it coming, but I don't do a terribly good job of looking out for the chances.

As a person who has learned things, although unfortunately not enough things, I would just like to make known how senseless a response this is.

My response? Why do you consider it senseless?

[Cavernio]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Kilroy:
"That's nonsense. Monopolies are almost impossible to attain in a completely free market. If the free market tends towards statism it's because there are statist elements in society independent of the market."

Then I will say that it's impossible for a society to exist without statist elements. Some sociologist or anthropologist would probably agree with me.

"That's also nonsense. If that were the case we shouldn't pay teachers at all."

No actually, that's one of the few interesting things I learned in my intro psyc class. Furthermore, I said weaken, not dissipate completely.

"Let's decrease their salaries to nothing then, it would have the greatest effect towards that end."

If you take everything someone says to an extreme, obviously it's going to be bull****. Please don't strawman my arguments.

Relambrien: Your economics teacher is one sad, sad person then, to be stuck doing something he hates. There are so many jobs out there that have to be done which virtually no one likes doing, but teaching's not one of them. He should quit his job and do something he likes, regardless of how amazing his teaching is.

I didn't say that external motivators don't motivate. I said that they weaken internal motivators.

About your calculus teacher, you've got a point there.

I for one am glad that government controls teaching. I can just see some of the 'free market' schools which would crop up, with slogans like "Learn creationism from the best!" And the sad part is, is that I could see such a school have a lot of students enrolled. The government sets standards about what has to be learned in certain grades, at least School Boards do that where I live. Yes, this cuts off freedom from what you can learn in the schoolsystem, but also prevents hogwash being taught. Yes yes, I know, nothing's ever stopped completely, and someone's going to come out of the woodwork with the story "but I had someone try and teach me creationism". The point is that this is not smiled upon by higher-ups (I hope).

I will mention my concern about proximity to schools again. With a voucher system, people largely won't be able to choose where they get taught unless you live in an urban center. Also, I'm pretty sure that where I live, (in Canada, not US though) you can go to any school you'd like pretty much, as long as you don't expect to get bused.
The schools which will receive the most money will be the ones in urban centers, and you'd be ****ed if you lived on a farm.

Marisa:
We don't live in a world where pay is equal to the amount of work you do.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

I've worked with people before, and I know it can be a pain to have to deal with people you don't even know, but in general, it was pretty enjoyable.

At this point I'm just wondering if you even have enough experience to contrast, say, 8 hours in a desk and 8 hours on your feet.

I somewhat understand where you're going with this, but not really enough to be able to go with it yet. Athletes have a really, really tough job. They have to constantly work out and practice what they do for hours upon hours a day. Many end up doing this for more time every single day than people with a full-time job work in a day. I realize they don't do the equivalent of what is, in my opinion, millions of dollars worth of work, but they certainly work awfully hard. And as I said, there are exceptions to everything, especially in the extremely high paying jobs like these.

I'm not sure about this. Training varies from sport to sport. Even if you spend 6-10 hours a day training, there's no reason necessarily for you to have exerted more energy than someone with a different job. Plus energy exertion isn't the only thing accounting for difficulty, otherwise why aren't all physical jobs the high paying jobs?

Regardless of whatever argument of correlation you want to offer, job's ARE payed for according to how much money their final product grosses. Athletes get payed a lot because of the high number of fans and because advertisers/television stations/magazines/whatever buy products associated with athletic events. Stop bothering to think of handfuls of examples because they add NO weight to your position.

Besides, just about any old person can work at a fast food place. You don't even need ANY education, you just need to be a certain age to work at a local Burger King I live near. In fact, all you need is to speak very basic English and to have a building in which you live with a telephone.

Right, working at Burger King requires only a skill
set which is almost universal. That's a reflection of the role supply of labor plays in determining the price of labor.

Oh, of course, but while people working at Burger King will make over $5 an hour, people who sell sports tickets will not make $30-50 an hour assuming they actually work at the place where the tickets are being sold.

Faulty comparison. People at Burger King generally sell a large multiple of $5 an hour. People who sell sports tickets generally work for a company which handles other instances of employment, and not all the money from sales can go towards employee salaries in any case.

I'm talking about just, well, taking the opportunity to get things. Whether it be extra credit in school, studying for tests, going for opportunities to get money for college, looking for good job openings, etc.

You think lack of things like extra credit can account for the full spectrum of economic differences?

I don't think you realize that:

A: Money is harder to come by than you think
B: Even the potential to study is going to be limited based on outside conditions
C: Good job opening are almost universally ones for jobs which require specific skill sets.

Tell a person who works 12+ hours a day that they're too lazy to seek opportunity. I dare you.

My response? Why do you consider it senseless?

Because it is. Just think about it for half a second.

Player A: "Man, I need to improve my chess skills, my rank is totally abysmal"
Player B: "Oh, well you just need to try harder"

Teacher: "Timmy is not doing well in learning algebra"
Parent: "Oh no, well what do you think would help him learn?"
Teacher: "He just needs to try harder"

...

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Then I will say that it's impossible for a society to exist without statist elements. Some sociologist or anthropologist would probably agree with me.

Yes, most probably would.

No actually, that's one of the few interesting things I learned in my intro psyc class. Furthermore, I said weaken, not dissipate completely.

Doesn't matter, if removing discrete units of income ensures only people with above a certain marginal level of dedication remain, then removing all income logically would have the best outcome in this sense.

"If you take everything someone says to an extreme, obviously it's going to be bull****. Please don't strawman my arguments."

It's not a strawman at all. You said that decreasing teachers pay ensures that only the most dedicated teachers remain. Logically then the maximum decrease would leave only the most dedicated teachers.


Additionally, you need to learn the difference between a strawman and a reductio ad absurdum.

I for one am glad that government controls teaching. I can just see some of the 'free market' schools which would crop up, with slogans like "Learn creationism from the best!" And the sad part is, is that I could see such a school have a lot of students enrolled. The government sets standards about what has to be learned in certain grades, at least School Boards do that where I live. Yes, this cuts off freedom from what you can learn in the schoolsystem, but also prevents hogwash being taught.

It also means that the government has a monopoly on the single most valuable resource in existence. The resource that determines your future more than almost any other single factor.

I don't care whether or not some school teaches creationism. Let the students try to capitalize on their knowledge. There are plenty of subjects which interest people even though they have no pragmatic value. At any rate, people should be able to do what they want with their time, money, and brains.

I will mention my concern about proximity to schools again. With a voucher system, people largely won't be able to choose where they get taught unless you live in an urban center. Also, I'm pretty sure that where I live, (in Canada, not US though) you can go to any school you'd like pretty much, as long as you don't expect to get bused.
The schools which will receive the most money will be the ones in urban centers, and you'd be ****ed if you lived on a farm.

Small town education also generally suffers from fewer problems than big city education, and requires less of a budget in any event. A voucher program might offer limited choice to people with limited means, but it would still offer them improved choice and better value. All Schools would increase in absolute educational value even if some schools would end up being superior to others.