Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by MarisaKirisame

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]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MarisaKirisame

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]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

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.

[Dragula219]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Whoever said students would get varying amounts of money tied to them based on their economic standing?

You completely missed his point. I'm sure everyone would get the same amount with vouchers, but it wouldn't make any difference because not every school would have an admission that is the same amount as the voucher or less. The "good" schools would cost more than the voucher, leading to the same situation we already have: Rich people - good education; Poor people - bad education.

Originally Posted by Relambrien

That's the -point-. The bad schools either improve or disappear while the good schools persist. As for spacing, then just limit the number of students who can go to each school based on space and use a lottery to determine which get in. The bad schools will still have less students, as if a school is the fourth best, the three above it will fill first.

Except that wouldn't happen. They wouldn't die, because they're getting the same small amount of money as public schools do now. They would survive as the "bad" schools for poor people. The voucher idea sounds really good in theory, but if you look closer it's the exact same thing we have now.

The only way to solve this problem is to have better teachers in public schools. The students aren't interested in learning because teacher aren't making learning interesting. Giving more incentive to teachers is a good way of solving it. You mentioned that the amount spent on students is around $10,000 dollars a piece, my question is: Where the hell is all that money going? Cause it sure as hell isn't going to the teachers. About the unions, we simply have to be stricter on what teachers are hired and fired. I don't believe the unions are strong enough to keep a teachers job when upper management can prove that they can't teach well.

Maybe another solution is teach the teachers better, but that's a whole other issue.

[Kilroy_x]

The voucher idea is not the exact same thing we have now. If you look closely you'll realize that the incentive to improve is built right into the system. There might be relatively worse schools, sure, and in that sense there isn't anything we can do to change that, but the schools would be better in terms of absolute value than they are now.

[Dragula219]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The voucher idea is not the exact same thing we have now. If you look closely you'll realize that the incentive to improve is built right into the system. There might be relatively worse schools, sure, and in that sense there isn't anything we can do to change that, but the schools would be better in terms of absolute value than they are now.

Where is this magical incentive coming from? Are you referring to the fact that they could have more money by attracting more students? It doesn't work that way. More Students = More Teachers = More Money Needed. Not to mention More Teachers = (Inevitably) More Bad Teachers and More Students = Less Individualized Learning. Correct me if you are saying the incentive comes from somewhere else. I still don't understand how that is any better than what we have now. It's basically saying "You have the right to choose whatever ****ty school you want your kids to go to, if you don't have any more money to spend than the voucher."

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Dragula219

Where is this magical incentive coming from? Are you referring to the fact that they could have more money by attracting more students? It doesn't work that way. More Students = More Teachers = More Money Needed. Not to mention More Teachers = (Inevitably) More Bad Teachers and More Students = Less Individualized Learning. Correct me if you are saying the incentive comes from somewhere else. I still don't understand how that is any better than what we have now. It's basically saying "You have the right to choose whatever ****ty school you want your kids to go to, if you don't have any more money to spend than the voucher."

I'd like to respond to this, but I think I may be misunderstanding you a bit. I'll wait for Kilroy's response; that way I should be able to figure out what you're saying.

Of course, if you could say this in different words, I could probably respond without waiting, if that's what you'd like.

[MarisaKirisame]

Well, Kilroy, it looks like you've proven me wrong. Good job on that, and thanks for doing so.

But yeah, I probably should not have argued something I had almost no experience with, haha.

[Skare Krow]

In my opinion I think we need to change the way America thinks and a lot of the world as well. We learn so much stuff that we don't need to know to survive. People graduate college and can't do their own laundry. People can't cook or some people don't even know how to take care of their children which I think is terrible. What they teach in Kindergarten, Elementary, and Middle School is fine but it's different for Highschool and College. In Highschool they should teach teenagers basic things they need to know on how to live and take care for a family. Than College should be only about what their profession that they want to pursue and nothing else. This would lead to less time in school and more time to live your life. You live once and only once and not for a log time either. All humans want to do is have fun, raise a family, and help out future generations. We do not need anymore knowledge. The world is being destroyed because of our knowledge. Pollution, war, and disease is all caused by our "futuristic" technology. What we do need to keep researching is cures for cancer and alternate fuels.

[MarisaKirisame]

It's not terribly often that a college kid knows what to do with the rest of their lives.

Also, it's up to the parents to teach their kids how to live on their own.

Pollution, war, and disease is all caused by our "futuristic" technology.

We'd still pollute stuff without all of the technology we have today. In fact, technology is now starting to focus on being cleaner. I understand that cars, factories, etc. have probably polluted the crap out of everything, but people are trying to stop it from getting worse.

Our technology didn't cause war. We'd have war even if we were whacking each other with sticks and branches. There's probably LESS war because of the technology.

Also, diseases have almost NOTHING to do with technology :/ Where'd that come from?

Really, though, going back to the college thing, my neighbor graduated from college with, well, something completely unrelated to what she does now. She is now a teacher. Even though she had no experience, she applied, they accepted her, and she is now very happy with her job. No one really knows what they want in their life when they're 20, or 25, or 35.

When I say "no one", I mean it's pretty rare for someone to actually decide they want something early on and life and for them to still want it later in life.

[RJC50000]

Originally Posted by MarisaKirisame

Also, it's up to the parents to teach their kids how to live on their own.

The responsibility may fall upon the parents to teach there children how to live on their own but how many parents actually do this?

I think schools should incorperate a life management class into their curriculum.

[Skare Krow]

My main point is that we live once and only once. All we need to do is survive and what we do while we survive is up to us. Why can't we learn what we need to know to survive, study on a profession that you would like to be, get that job, and take care of your family and have a fun.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Dragula219

Where is this magical incentive coming from? Are you referring to the fact that they could have more money by attracting more students? It doesn't work that way. More Students = More Teachers = More Money Needed. Not to mention More Teachers = (Inevitably) More Bad Teachers and More Students = Less Individualized Learning.

Incorrect. The ratio of money in relationship to other factors would determine whether or not this was the case, and unless those running the program were incredibly stupid such a suboptimal arrangement would not occur. Bad teachers detract from a schools value and therefore from its earning potential. Individualized learning is a seperate issue and in addition to its merits being contestable, it wouldn't necessarily be harmed by a voucher program.

I still don't understand how that is any better than what we have now. It's basically saying "You have the right to choose whatever ****ty school you want your kids to go to, if you don't have any more money to spend than the voucher."

I don't think you understand the mechanics of the proposal well enough to make such a bold statement.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by MarisaKirisame

Well, Kilroy, it looks like you've proven me wrong. Good job on that, and thanks for doing so.

Hey, no problem. It's good to see someone willing to concede so graciously.

But yeah, I probably should not have argued something I had almost no experience with, haha.

Well, life is a learning experience right? There's no need to take my second-hand account for things though; if future job experience leads you to form a difference in opinion, then I suppose I'll have to find new arguments to support my position.

[devonin]

Hey, no problem. It's good to see someone willing to concede so graciously.

There needs to be more of this in CT.

[Skare Krow]

Nice scarecrow devonin.

[GuidoHunter]

Methinks it's a straw man.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Shamo0]

School should be a place where you can have fun. I don't really care if rank poorly to other countries. I really don't. If I want to have fun during school than I will.

If kids want to be smart they will be. If they want to slack off they will. I don't really blame public schools, because if I did I'd have to blame the media. Everything just all comes down to lack of motivation and interaction from parents. In the future if I have kids, I won't care if they are straight a's or straight f's. They can choose what they want to be but I'll point them in the right direction. I honestly don't care.


I feel bad for kids who feel pressured by there parents to be the best. I feel bad for kids when they don't know right from wrong. It all comes down to parenting. Families are spreading apart now faster and faster. It's not a bad thing or a good thing it's just different and since it's different, different results will result :P