Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

[BuRdInE]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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:

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]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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.

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.

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]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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.

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]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Oh.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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.

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]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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.

[seltivo]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

no, it's just usually after being disproved several time, people just give up. It's nice to see someone persistent.

I am surprised, however, that you would make assumptions about me based on one of the only irrelevant things I said in my post.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

I imagine that if someone is "disproved" and keeps going then they're just in denial. I haven't seen a formal logical proof from either of them that their side is correct, so no one has been "disproven" yet.

As for your second point, your use of "survived" in the context of a debate tells me enough about you to make the assumption that you think that the purpose of a debate is simply to have a contest to see who's "right".

[Kamon08]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Yea I say so because I dont like school

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

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.

It doesn't matter. If a free-market is good and a non-free market is what we have now, there's no reason not to strive for a free-market if all that might happen is coming back to where we are now. And again, discrete units.

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.

"Corporate monopoly" when a product of non-coercive action is perfectly acceptable. The long term benefits of research will be viewed by farsighted people, government or otherwise. Why not allow the market to determine resource allocation voluntarily by giving natural incentive for this foresightedness?

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

Interesting. I really don't know much about Canada.

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

What do you mean? That has been an overt part of my argument for a while now.

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?

No, because in this case individuals are voluntarily entering into an arrangement. At present with government, all individuals born into a geographic area are subjected involuntarily to whatever political mechanics are at work. While the case might be made that if governments have a legitimate claim to land, they can decide what individuals do on their property, you would have to show that government legitimately acquired the land.

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.

The point, however, is that in an unrestricted market there is nothing to prevent competitors form entering. In fact there's nothing to prevent people from simply refusing to recognize whatever currency a company has monopolized as legitimate and starting their own market.

At a huge cost to the people who cause the strike, for an un-immediate payoff.

In other words, an investment by far sighted individuals in accordance with time preference.

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.)

Societies do tend to have such a cyclical movement, however you are still misunderstanding an important dichotomy in terms of central organization. You are also mistaken in your understanding of cooperation as equivalent a measure of centralization in a pejorative sense. There is both bad and good centralization; the difference is in terms of voluntary transaction vs. involuntary.

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.

In any system outcomes will express themselves only in terms of possibility based on the rules of the system. Discarding the rules of the system is one possible movement. However, in a system with maximum possible non-coercive options discarding the rules is less likely, and part of that is because such a system satisfies subjective demands maximally.

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?

We are discussing binary terms because I am using a perspective derived in part from the Praexological method. Admittedly synergies might play a role in economics. However arguments for the existence of synergies have to be shown, and all that I have so far seen I have also seen rebuttals for.

Everyone makes choices because 'they feel like it.'

Good point. However people might feel different ways for different reasons, and different reasons can have greater or lesser legitimacy.

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.

If you think it is ambiguously defined and discussed, perhaps you should actually learn the language being used. Then you wouldn't have the problem of lack of knowledge. Seeking a middle-ground is almost instinctive in some people, but there's no inherent reason why an extreme might not be correct. Through my studies I have come to conclusions that some might consider extreme on the basis of such an instinct.

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.

Your reasons contradict the entire chain of reasoning I have given you, without actually directly addressing it. I would be hard-pressed to come to an alternate conclusion about the attention you have given this discussion.

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.

In other words you are suggesting both that coercion can have synergistic effects, and that an ideal good should be placed above liberty. Even if the first is true, I disagree with the second simply because there is no objective basis for good; therefore if you want to achieve "the good" you should allow individuals to pursue their own "good" to the maximum coherent possibility.

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

It's not "my" theory, but thanks.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

Kilroy seems to think his/her theories are proven.

Well, they are technically proven in the Austrian school by necessity, and they are largely confirmed by historical/empiricist accounts such as Friedman's. There's a very large chunk of economists who consider at least the basics of what I'm saying to be correct. I haven't seen your reference what schools support your viewpoint. Perhaps you should and I should inform you of responses made to them? Or you could read the books I recommended.

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.

Conclusions, not principles. There are actually very few uncontested psychological principles, although some are at least certainly more useful than others.

Furthermore, you can't merely say 'False, because I know more than you', and expect that to hold up in debate.

That wasn't the statement made. I am saying that my knowledge gives me the ability to claim I have considered possibilities you have not and understood things you do not have familiarity with. I am also claiming that my perspectives find support in many economists, almost undoubtedly a fair majority.

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

Contradiction in terms. In fact if you follow this to its conclusion (assuming of course that simple "cheapness" is always desirable), you would have no choice but to justify a worldwide monopoly on all businesses and industries.