my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR

I was simply inferring that the OP stated that he can assemble a computer without going to school. That does not show how smart you are. It comes no where near defining your intelligence. It is simply memory that allows one to put pieces back where they come. Now if you were to build a computer with out instruction, then that is something else.

Both actions require some sort of mental skill set, and such skills are indicative of intelligence. If you want to say this is a level of intelligence which is arbitrary that is one thing, but I don't see how you couldn't call it a form of intelligence.

What are you talking about. If school is self-improvement, then who are you to impress? No one outside yourself. The key word is *self*-improvement.

Did I state that it was my intention to impress anyone? No. Was what you described in the section of your post which I was quoting equivalent to self improvement? Yes. moreover I am amazed you would argue such a thing as this. The purpose of something may be self improvement. That doesn't mean self improvement can't have a purpose outside itself.

You learn how to critically think beyond what you normally would.

I almost certainly did not gain this ability from K-12 education. If made any such gains in conjunction with K-12 education I would argue it is to a negligible extent that could have been attained by alternate means.

K represents interaction with people and familiarizing with objects and play things.

None of those things are exclusive to K-12 education.

You learn essential ABCs and common commands.

Some people know their abc's prior to their introduction in early grade school. At any rate, you would have to show me that K-12 education is exclusively capable or at least best positioned to teach these things.

1-5 grade slowly progress the aptitude of a students ability to calculate math, reading and literature. 6-8 elaborate even more so on what you have grasped while in 1-5 grade and teach the mechanics behind what you have learned. For instance, I learned back then that 2-2= 0 when now I see that it is 2+(-2)= 0. And in high school, grades 9-12, one learns the basic principals and mechanics of a field of specialized study like Bio Chem or Trig., which includes all the resources that you learned back then INCLUDING critical thinking to push your mind even further to grasp concepts that are hard to comprehend.

See previous.

I did not say knowledge is obtained through practice. Like I said, efficiancy is gained through practice. While reading and studying provide the fundemental concepts, it does not mean you becomes efficient at what you read on.

How does K-12 education necessarily increase the efficiency of applied knowledge?

Essentially, yes. School is a palce of learning. Just because a school is in a "bad part of town" it does not mean you are learning bad inforamtion. If anything, you are learning the same material at a slower rate.

I'm not particularly sure you even understand the criticism. In some schools textbooks are not available because they cannot afford them. In some schools gang members beat you to your knees if you come across the wrong way. Both of these things demonstrate rather large inequities in resources and treatment, respectively. Even so your statement that some people will learn material at a slower rate due to social conditions is still an acceptance of the fact of inequity, just an incomplete acceptance.

Although the school system is more bureaucratic than what it seems, talking to a counselor and switching out the class *can* be done. Even if one has to make up an excuse to do so like an error with your schedule or misplacement.

Ah, but what if the counselor is biased against you as well? Or what if a particular school doesn't have a counselor, or if circumstances of your life prevent you from jumping through all the necessary bureaucratic hoops? What if dropping an excess of classes causes you to graduate 2 years late which has the same dissuading effect on top universities as if you had a low GPA? And so on and so forth...

I am not saying they are there at the same rate as every other place or situation, but yes resources are available. Friends call friends and ask for help. Hotlines and websites are available 24/7. Counselor request forms and teacher confrences, along with many other multitudes of resoruces available to the student. Can't afford a computer to go online? Go to the library at the school where it is free. Can't call a friend? Talk to them in school when you see them. Need further assistance? Speak to a teacher privately for tutoring and after-school lessons.

I was talking mostly about resources on the school side of the equation, which are beyond individual control. For instance what if your school doesn't have a library, or doesn't have computers. Hell, what if there are regulations on how long you can use the computers that are there, or how many books you can check out?

I just read this like 30 mintues ago from my academy handbook lol. Teachers in high school are required to take an abilities test on learning and teaching. I can not recall the test or acronym for it, but it is along the lines of a [DQMOT] "Secondary Quality of Education Assestment". They are certified to teach the course they have a specialized degree in, as oppose to elematary teachers who only need a degree in being an overall teacher.

Teachers of any sort typically need either a bachelors in education or to have completed a seperate program to become a licensed teacher. Training in teaching ability is what I would consider questionable, although I am damn certain that there are not a lot of K-12 educators who truly know the material they are teaching. This is generally less true in area's like social studies and more true in area's like science, but I hold to the statement.

Example: Jimmy was intersted in science. He later grew fascinated with creatures and the ocean. As he progressed in high school, he took Bio. Chem. and Zoology. After hard work and patience he later earned a degree in Marine Biology from a secondary institution.

I am inferring that -most- people go to a secondary school for a specific study.

Then you are no longer talking about the demographic of individuals with a high school level of education and what you are talking about is completely irrelevent to the contention.

$20,000 in the form of knowledge and education.

...those are abstract concepts. Where exactly should I go to buy them?

What you should be saying is "$20,000 that goes to educators salaries, school building upkeep, school equipment, textbooks, etc." Those are the real, tangible things the money is being spent on.

The time invested at school will pay off. The schools give you the education. It pays off [hopefully] when you learn and achieve your career.

You sold me at hopefully!

The first sentense is to infer that the government keeps everything on tract as best alofted.

I think your vocabulary is broken. I'm not even sure I can call this statement wrong because it's more or less gibberish.

Order *is* desirable, hence why -we- decided to enforce a democratic form of rule.

Kid, maybe one or two posts ago it was established that the role democracy plays in this country is minimal. You would do well not to randomly conflate 20 or 30 different things every time you try and articulate a concept, because it gives people the distinct impression you don't actually understand the concepts you are talking about.

We have all heard it. The Constitution of the United States of America; It outlines our government and in the preamble, it clearly states why.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This doesn't demonstrate a single of the things I asked you to demonstrate.

Wow, if you want to get technical, then let's.

Oh. My. God.

I think I know what your problem is now. You're intellectually lazy, disinterested, and on the whole worthless.

So, let us take your statement to the extreme. You are saying that the tax payers meet up every Tuesday and throw a chunck of cash in hopes that everything will work correctly and the government just runs by and decides what to do with it at their leisure and expence?

Heh, you "inferred" all that from the simple statement that the government gets its money from taxes? Keep digging that hole buddy.

This isn't an extreme form of my statement. This is a different statement.

We pay a federal government tax. Let us not forget the term government and what is represents, to regulate. It is a regulation tax that allows them to excersie the authority of our nation which includes the school system. Yes, we pay the teachers bills and run the system, but it is the government who is (loosely using the word) orgainzing where the money goes and why.

This response doesn't even have meaning.

Me: The government gets its money from the taxpayer
You: If you want to get technical, fine. But keep in mind not only do they get the money from the taxpayer, they also spend the money on things. Not only that, but the government interferes in the economic sphere.
Me: ...

Don't you think that if the government wanted to keep out money they would stop education?

You're still conflating intended outcome with actual outcome. Stop it.

It is alot easier for them to send someone a check of $200 every month, rather than to invest and regulate millions and millions of tax payers money.

The government is incapable of investment, it is only capable of expenditure. And no, printing off $200 a month for an entire country would create hyperinflation and make the dollar worthless. How the hell is economics your major? Where do you even go to school?

I believe they can.

Do you also believe they have the right to? This would imply they have the right to take money from their citizens, since the government does not produce anything on its own.

All they are doing is giving you basic tools to learn and progress.

Non-uniformly, at taxpayer expense, when other methods of learning and progressing would almost certainly do just as well if not better, and when the establishment of this system creates a stacked opportunity structure which makes the entire rest of a person's life dependent on how well they did at attaining arbitrary status symbols within an equally arbitrary and illegitimate system.

It costs them time and money along with the tax payers,

False, it only costs the taxpayers money. The government by definition cannot produce, it can only consume.

How so? As I said before, they are allowing the tools to be used. In fact, they are somewhat making it mandatory to use them, as in truancy is a punishable crime now[blah blah blah yada yada yada]

Maybe if you would actually try reading instead of just talking you would finally, truly learn something. The tools come from somewhere, that somewhere being the taxpayer. If the government did not create these particular tools in this particular way, other tools would come into existence. Almost certainly better tools. Hence we compare your tools and the new tools, and since the new tools are better we take those.

Part of the reason the new tools are better is they cost less, in terms of money and in terms of fewer ruined human lives.

I am simply implying that I do have some knowledge in what I am talking about and the courses simply support it.

Well that can't be right, you've clearly demonstrated a rather profound lack of knowledge. So in turn we see that your courses are worthless.

Read carefully next time. The principals have not changed. The ideas have changed with some regards to the principals.

Oh, ok. So "The unexamined life is not worth living" is an identical principle to "These glorious new Philosophers will be Philosophers of the moment, trusting their instincts." Yeah, thanks for clearing that up.

Philosophies have changed.

Philosophies include principles.

All I am saying is that I understand the mechanics behind laws, the government, and logical thinking that has been spread down since early Rome to modern Western Civilizations.

You really don't seem to.

I see where I made a mistake in my post saying that they have not changed, but I was speaking in terms of principals. It essentially makes up a history and government class. Several theories are based on the same principals such as gravity e.g. Newton to Einstein. But, as far as the idea that is implied, the outcome of new ideas are endless.

Y'know, I sort of stopped being able to even figure out what you're talking about. Maybe when your statements stop reading like a bunch of buzzwords randomly juxtaposed amidst one another I'll be able to respond better. If that ever happens, that is.