If only all republicans were like this ... [Archive]

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
And if we don't have charity?

Hint: charities would NEVER be able to fill the gap if we even got rid of the meagre protections (disability, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) in place today.

What then? The market lets them die?

Charities have done it before and charities can still do it.
Medicare and Medicaid *ARE* charities. Only I don't have the choice of whether they get my money or another charity I prefer does (a charity where a significant portion of what I pay GOES TO the people for example).

And at risk of sounding overly cruel; yes - we can let them die. I don't have a moral problem with letting dead weights of society stop dragging it down.
I've seen a homeless man begging for change be offered a job - including an offer from the person to help house and transport said person till he got on his feet - refused outright. Is it true that people are often in situations they can't control? Yes. We have charity for that.
But every time I see a friend who has a dieing mother and is denied coverage because she is not of the right "qualifications" (read not a minority, not with 100 children she knows she can't support) I see stupid government beauracracy. She can not work, she is bed ridden and has been. Her family income is well below the federal poverty line. She does not get disability.
When I see her denied, and the homeless man that refuses a good job getting accepted, I can't accept that the government can do any better job of this than private charity.
When I see someone whom is on disability whining that she doesn't get a free trip to Europe "because she's never been there" I see someone far too used to the government's teat.

This might sound holier than thou, in some ways it admitably is. But I have yet to see someone who does not fit these molds. If they deserve it and get it they get addicted to it and have no motivation to break out, or they don't deserve it and exploit it, actually having negative motivation to break out, and then those whom are left do not need it or are denied. It sickens me.

And here's why I think the command system collapsed:
"Dig that ditch." "Here's your money to live" - the two are unrelated. So the motivation to dig the ditch quickly is gone.
"Dig that ditch or get shot" "Here's your money to live" will get the ditch dug; but will lead to a lot of unhappiness which will generally mean a.) they immigrate elsewhere or b.) they stew there until rebellion breaks out.
The market system "Dig that ditch, here's your money" - you know you can eat as soon as you're done so you dig it so you can eat. You don't have to dig it though, you can easily go lay bricks (assuming someone needs bricks laid).
Am I wrong?

zimv20

Feb 14, 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Stolid

And at risk of sounding overly cruel; yes - we can let them die.

i commend you for living a life where you've taken nothing from society. you took off on your own at what age, four? in fact, since you're so incredibly independent, i'm a little surprised you're interacting w/ society at all. such a shame that we, the lowly society participants sucking helplessly at the government's teat, will never learn anything from you. i mean, how can we expect you to give back to a society you've so obviously never needed?

i wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 03:30 PM

There is a difference between sufficency within the system and self sufficency. If I provide a service deemed valuable enough to the public that they utilize it, then I may utilize services provided by others. That's the basis of the market system.
"Taking nothing" from society is not the same as taking without giving.
As for 'taking off on my own' -- I had my first "business" when I was 4 or 5, yeah probably. Selling lemonade which later became shovelling driveways and mowing lawns and computer repair. Was I completely independent? No. But the odds of me becoming productive after being supported outweighed that of raising me.
I hate to make it sound callous but economics does not have much room for emotional attachment - so in a purely economic sense parents are often venture capitalist with their children. They pay for the children to be raised in hopes the child will 'turn a profit' and support them later in life. It works pretty often too.

And to those who say "the middle is always best"
I counter with "No food or too much food"
While too much is just that; and can cause harm (normally in terms of farmer income), I'm sure most people would not pick the middle, they'd want somewhere /close/ to too much. That's my stance on command vs market -- "laissez faire normalement" as it were.

Sayhey

Feb 14, 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
Am I wrong?

In answer to your question, yes you are wrong. You are wrong with your anecdotes about welfare (kindly give us one verified report of the government sending welfare recipients on paid vacation to Europe or anywhere being a minority qualifies you for welfare benefits) and you are wrong about the benefits of letting people who can't fend for themselves die. You are still stuck on an either or choice, which is also wrong, between laissez faire and command and control. Again I would suggest taking that Econ 202 course and looking at real life alternatives.

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 03:39 PM

Damn... I guess all these Econ 100, 200, and 300 classes I've gotten As are nothing, as are the 400s I'm in right now.

As for verified report: as best I can
I won't give names but I can tell you I know someone who is unemployeed and on disability whom is as we speak getting prepared to go to England.
I'll do the same for minority benifits; short of finding some online .pdf though; I don't see a reasonable way to 'prove' it unless you want to fly down here and have me show you.

It's not an either or choice; read my last post. I'm "laissez faire normalement" -- there are clear cases that you need government involvement. Social Security and Medicare are NOT two of them.

EDIT Addendum:
I'll make my view explicity clear so this doesn't become any more name-calling than it already is, This is becoming personal attacks as opposed to making any points:
The government has a 4 fold purpose
1.) Protect its people from those whom are not (the army, navy, CIA)
2.) Protect its people from each other (police, child labor laws, and monitoring of monopolies)
3.) Protect its people from the enivronment (FEMA, Fire Depts)
4.) Protect the environment from its people (EPA)
With the overriding statement of "Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."

zimv20

Feb 14, 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
the odds of me becoming productive after being supported outweighed that of raising me.

it's a rare man who can claim that he gives more to society than he takes. it's even rarer for that man to be right.

i can't decide if your naiveté ("i got all A's!") is charming or hubristic.

in a purely economic sense parents are often venture capitalist with their children. They pay for the children to be raised in hopes the child will 'turn a profit' and support them later in life.

i've yet to meet any parent who had a child for this reason. if you want to talk about moderation, i'd recommend balancing your education w/ your life experience.

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 03:52 PM

I stated already that I'm dismissing the emotional factors (and I might add biological factors)
I didn't state "I got all As" I said I'd gotten As in econ classes at all those levels. Read more carefully please.
Addendum again:
"A rare man who gives more than he takes"
What's your qualifier here? If most take more than we have a fundamental problem of where is all that supply coming from?
You can't say resources from the Earth because those don't just 'appear' in a factor, a man /gives/ that value to society by mining it or however it is harvested. If that man was not there; either the resources would not be supplied or another person would supply them. Can you please explain?

Sayhey

Feb 14, 2004, 03:53 PM

Ok, then we will have to check into what university is teaching such economic doctrines. The sad state of higher education these days.

The point concerning your stories is that the government does not pay for vacations to Europe for welfare recipients who would like them. You may well know someone who is going on such a trip but the government is not picking up the tab. Secondly, being a minority does not qualify you for welfare benefits - being poor does. If you see minorities who have such benefits then they got them because of their economic status not what ethnic group they belong to. But surely they teach you all this in those higher level Econ courses?

To your last point, medicare and social security are vital parts of the economic system that we have constructed since the New Deal days. They have allowed for us as a society to do away with many of the severe economic and social consequences of unregulated markets. If we destroy or do away with these programs we will have taken a giant step backwards towards ignorance and injustice.

edit: didn't see your edit until after my post. What about all the infrastructure necessary for a modern society to work. I guess you didn't go to public schools because they certainly wouldn't fit into your scheme of the "role" of government. There are scores of other necessary roles that government needs to play in a modern society.

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 04:00 PM

Yes the government IS picking up the tab. Might not do that for each and every one but I never said that; the fact that it does it at all is silly.
Did I claim that you could be a rich minority getting welfare? no. But being poor and not in a minority does lower your chances as opposed to an equally poor person that is. That's wrong.
And lastly: Explain why nations with social security being decided by the recipient are overwhelmingly preferred (hate to quote it as I know your opinion but:
Countries like Chile, Mexico, Britain, and Australia have successfully made the transition from their failed Social Security systems to healthy systems based on individual retirement accounts. In Chile, over 90% of workers have opted out of the government-run system -- LP)
and explain why Social Security is ILLEGAL for me to set up (meaning if I were to make my own 'retirement savings' type company and ran it just like the US runs Social Security, it would be illegal)

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
edit: didn't see your edit until after my post. What about all the infrastructure necessary for a modern society to work. I guess you didn't go to public schools because they certainly wouldn't fit into your scheme of the "role" of government. There are scores of other necessary roles that government needs to play in a modern society.
I did go to public school, and it was a complete waste of my time. I got tested every other day, I test well so I did well. I learned far more from going home and having my grandfather teach me, and I several times begged them to homeschool me because public education was so boring. They aren't willing to advance kids above their grade or hold them back due to 'social development' so the whole class gets taught on the back end of that bell curve. A private school would never keep students that way.
And so, yes, public schools do NOT fit into my view of government role. Instead schools should fit under category 2 -- they should be monitored in semi-monopoly states and price watched (similar to the way that power and cable TV are provided in most of the US)

Sayhey

Feb 14, 2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
Yes the government IS picking up the tab. Might not do that for each and every one but I never said that; the fact that it does it at all is silly.
Did I claim that you could be a rich minority getting welfare? no. But being poor and not in a minority does lower your chances as opposed to an equally poor person that is. That's wrong.
And lastly: Explain why nations with social security being decided by the recipient are overwhelmingly preferred (hate to quote it as I know your opinion but:
Countries like Chile, Mexico, Britain, and Australia have successfully made the transition from their failed Social Security systems to healthy systems based on individual retirement accounts. In Chile, over 90% of workers have opted out of the government-run system -- LP)
and explain why Social Security is ILLEGAL for me to set up (meaning if I were to make my own 'retirement savings' type company and ran it just like the US runs Social Security, it would be illegal)

Let me make it very clear. There are no vacation benefits as part of welfare anywhere in the country. Your friend may have figured a way to get the government to pay for a trip, but it isn't as a welfare benefit.

But every time I see a friend who has a dieing mother and is denied coverage because she is not of the right "qualifications" (read not a minority, not with 100 children she knows she can't support)

that is what you said. It is not only ignorant about how welfare works but is offensive in the extreme. One's ethnicity does not even come into play in determining eligibility for benefits.

If countries like Chile (Milton Friedman's playground) have gone over to such privatized systems then I would say it is their mistake.

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 04:20 PM

No, she applied specifically for a trip to go to Europe. No weasling about it.
And yes it is offensive. She's bedridden with Hepatitis C (by my understanding she contracted it from a blood transfusion years ago) and thus is not able to work. Her family income is well below the poverty line, and additionally has no notable savings. She is denied wellfare which she has applied for. Wellfare forms, I might add, that include asking for race. Meanwhile, her family is forced to pay taxes to pay for everyone who IS on wellfare, funding they could contribute to her medical care and living without needing to pay any government beauracrats (or rather, not as many as would've been needed if she got the funding through wellfare)

If you care to explain how else this can occur, I'll listen, but I think its insulting and stupid.

zimv20

Feb 14, 2004, 04:36 PM

what a BITCH! she's dying, therefore useless to society, and she thinks she's entitled to see London before she pushes up the daisies?

that's OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

</sarcasm>

market economics suggest you're short a heart

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
what a BITCH! she's dying, therefore useless to society, and she thinks she's entitled to see London before she pushes up the daisies?

that's OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

</sarcasm>

market economics suggest you're short a heart
Indeed it does. That's why I was making my point above. If government takes up the beacon of charity it needs to be a charity.
Instead I am /forced/ to pay for whomever the mood strikes; I can't choose on either a personal or even goal based charity.
If the government wanted to make a "required charity" tax then I could live with it without much complaint (the government could try and screw things with defining what a charity was), but instead I just have to blindly pay for people I don't know and watch someone who needs the money die. It's an emotional reason to support, not an economic one. I have no emotional attachment to some woman I've never met; I have no idea if she really needs or deserves the money.

Neserk

Feb 14, 2004, 04:52 PM

I will have to go and search for the page again so you can see it for yourself but here is the gist of it:

Most people are on welfare for less than 5 years.
Most people on welfare have only 1 child.
Most people on welfare are white, not African American.
Most people on welfare are in their twenties not teenagers.

I'm not asking you to take my word for it. But I don't have time to find the original site right now. I'll go back and look for it later this weekend.

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 04:58 PM

Most of the populace is white; can you give me a density figure instead?
And if there is only 1 child and less than 5 years than clearly the cost is limited; so charity could easily accomplish this WITHOUT government intervention (I think almost anyone will agree that the government should try to limit itself to doing things that have too much cost for volunteers or the private sector to accomplish; i.e. NASA)

And before anyone says NASA isn't in my 4-piece purposing, I'm aware of that. I'm not entirely sure I support NASA's existance; but the purpose of this statement is not for my own views but to confirm this is the view of the majority.

Edit: slight clean up. Still not happy with the way this flows though.

Sayhey

Feb 14, 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
No, she applied specifically for a trip to go to Europe. No weasling about it.
And yes it is offensive. She's bedridden with Hepatitis C (by my understanding she contracted it from a blood transfusion years ago) and thus is not able to work. Her family income is well below the poverty line, and additionally has no notable savings. She is denied wellfare which she has applied for. Wellfare forms, I might add, that include asking for race. Meanwhile, her family is forced to pay taxes to pay for everyone who IS on wellfare, funding they could contribute to her medical care and living without needing to pay any government beauracrats (or rather, not as many as would've been needed if she got the funding through wellfare)

If you care to explain how else this can occur, I'll listen, but I think its insulting and stupid.

Sorry to hear about your friend with Hep C. It is an epidemic that needs government supported funding and public infrastructure to combat the disease. I don't know why your friend is denied benefits, but it isn't because of her race. The offensive part of your earlier post is your assumption that welfare recipients are minorities who have many (100?) children. Neserk is right in her assertions about who is on welfare and you shouldn’t accept racist stereotypes as facts. Almost all government forms ask questions of race, but that doesn't mean it enters into the criteria for welfare benefits. If this situation upsets you so, perhaps you should do a little research and find out the real reasons for your friends denial. There are ways to fight a denial of benefits. Regardless it is an argument for universal coverage not for the elimination of the existing programs.

edit: I forgot - I stand by what I said, I don't know how this person (your friend with no welfare benefits or someone else?) is going to Europe but it isn't as a part of welfare benefits. There are other programs that help people to go and study abroad and I'm sure there are many programs I'm not aware of, but welfare programs to send beneficiaries to Europe on some kind of vacation isn't one of them.

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 05:18 PM

Canadians with the financial ability (rare due to Canada's punitive taxes) often come to the US because the US has better health care.
Socialized medicine tends to advance slower, and it also tends to be regulated (I have enough distaste in me for the FDA as is) so that patients can't pick the type of care they want, at least not as easily.
I /do/ have problems with some aspects of the US medical system (namely insurance price cutting. I can give details on what this is if requested), but I do not believe socializing it is the solution.

Krizoitz

Feb 14, 2004, 05:41 PM

Free markets don't work.
They just don't. Competition doesn't exist in free markets? Why because all it takes is one person to become more powerful and you can't compete with them. Why? Because they have all the money and all the power. You try and come up with a better solution and before you can write it down they come and either take it from you, drive you out of buisness by undercutting you, or intimidate you into never producing it.
The government HAS to get involed because buisnesses aren't about making the best product, they are about making the most money.

Hard work doesn't equal success
Yes you have to work hard to be succesful, but that doesn't mean working hard will make you succesful. If you are born to a rich family and work hard, you will get richer. If you are born to a poor family and work hard, you might get richer, but you have to have some really really lucky breaks. You just don't get the opportunities, simply because of where you were born. And that is why we have social welfare programs, free education, regulated economies, etc. If we didn't the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer, no matter how hard they worked.

I earned all my money, why do I have to pay taxes, especailly to support poor people
If you are a religious person, generally the rich supporting the poor is part of your doctrine, but even if your not it makes more sense of you to do so.

First you didn't earn your money on your own, no matter what you say you benefitted from the society. You benefit from a standard and stable form of currency. You benefit from a lawful society. You benefit from an infrastructure such as roads and phones, etc. You benefit from consumers.

Second, it is beneficial to you economically and personally to have a society with a higher standard of living. Think about it. The more money the lowest rung makes the more money they have to spend and the stronger the economy is. Not to mention that these people you are helping to support are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. who you and your children are going to rely on in the future. Think about it. The better the public education system is, the better students will come out of it. The better doctors there will be, the faster they will find cures to diseases and the healthier you will be. If nothing else egalitarianism is actually MORE beneficial to you in the long run.

pseudobrit

Feb 14, 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
Charities have done it before and charities can still do it.
Medicare and Medicaid *ARE* charities. Only I don't have the choice

Then it's not a charity.

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Free markets don't work.
They just don't. Competition doesn't exist in free markets? Why because all it takes is one person to become more powerful and you can't compete with them. Why? Because they have all the money and all the power. You try and come up with a better solution and before you can write it down they come and either take it from you, drive you out of buisness by undercutting you, or intimidate you into never producing it.
The government HAS to get involed because buisnesses aren't about making the best product, they are about making the most money.
Sometimes true. There are cases the government has to interfere but such cases should generally be minimized. The rail barons needed to be broken up, AT&T is iffy to me, I won't comment on MS here; too close to the asphalt as it were.
Just let me remind everyone that people thought IBM had a monopoly on hardware and software, then Intel and Microsoft came along. Now "Wintel" is the evil empire and IBM is the underdog. People hate the big guy.

Hard work doesn't equal success
Yes you have to work hard to be succesful, but that doesn't mean working hard will make you succesful. If you are born to a rich family and work hard, you will get richer. If you are born to a poor family and work hard, you might get richer, but you have to have some really really lucky breaks. You just don't get the opportunities, simply because of where you were born. And that is why we have social welfare programs, free education, regulated economies, etc. If we didn't the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer, no matter how hard they worked.
I still don't buy this. Many of the richest people (those that got rich on their own) try to support their children as little as possible post-rearing (yes they go to the nicest private schools, that's rearing).
Also, remember that Economics is the study of the greatest benifit to society as a whole, the question is not of who gets better and who gets worse, its a question of /sum total/. Cruel, admitably.
I earned all my money, why do I have to pay taxes, especailly to support poor people
If you are a religious person, generally the rich supporting the poor is part of your doctrine, but even if your not it makes more sense of you to do so.

First you didn't earn your money on your own, no matter what you say you benefitted from the society. You benefit from a standard and stable form of currency. You benefit from a lawful society. You benefit from an infrastructure such as roads and phones, etc. You benefit from consumers.

Second, it is beneficial to you economically and personally to have a society with a higher standard of living. Think about it. The more money the lowest rung makes the more money they have to spend and the stronger the economy is. Not to mention that these people you are helping to support are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. who you and your children are going to rely on in the future. Think about it. The better the public education system is, the better students will come out of it. The better doctors there will be, the faster they will find cures to diseases and the healthier you will be. If nothing else egalitarianism is actually MORE beneficial to you in the long run. [/B]
My religion is a bit odd in that regard; so I won't comment
The currency is useful; it encourages specialization. "Lawful society" is a nice catch all, so I can't say much
the infrastructure I also enjoy; and will pay the taxes for.
The money is there; its not about who has it - its about how it flows. The poor having money does not nessicarily improve the economy as much as the middle and upper classes having it. The fact remains that the government does not have much reason to be efficient though, and so funding that goes through it generally is not utilized to its fullest. I am not someone who thinks that all government workers are lazy; but the paper work is over complex and takes time and money to process. I have a family member who is a civil servant and I have been told on many occasions about the wastful nature and haughtyness of the accountants there.

And I've yet to see a public school benifit from 'throwing money at the problem'. It's about school policies more than funding. Public schools tend to /encourage/ the poor->poorer type of economics because neighborhoods are generally classed by incomes; and the richer neighborhoods have students who have parents more likely to stress the education, read themselves, etc.
As I stated; when I went to public school I had to wait while the teacher dragged along the back end of the class, instead of seperating us by speed of learning (that would lower the confidence of students that were behind!), I've met people who attended public schools from poorer neighborhoods and seen the exact same thing only worse - because the back end cares even less about learning so the sum of material taught is even lower.

I think I've explained my points; and am planning to withdraw here. Politics are something people will rarely negotiate on; and I don't see the conversation doing much at this point beyond circling over and over.
It was interesting though
Stolid

pseudobrit

Feb 14, 2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
Canadians with the financial ability (rare due to Canada's punitive taxes) often come to the US because the US has better health care.

I know a lot of hockey players go to Canada to see specialists. Jaromir Jagr just had a specialist flown in from the Czech Republic to look at a groin injury.

Just goes to prove that Americans with the financial ability often go outside of the US because there is better healthcare out there, right?

pseudobrit

Feb 14, 2004, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
I think I've explained my points; and am planning to withdraw here. Politics are something people will rarely negotiate on; and I don't see the conversation doing much at this point beyond circling over and over.
It was interesting though
Stolid

You've explained your points to no one but yourself as you've failed to make any impression on anyone else.

I know plenty of political conversations that involve compromise. I've completely changed my opinion quite a number of times here over the course of a debate.

But you're arguing with stereotypes, half-truths and lies that you have failed to back up with substantiated data. Surely you learned something in your four years of college about taking an argumentative stance and how you need to buttress your opinon with facts?

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 06:55 PM

And the others?
The only figures I've seen are the welfare less than 5 years one.
stereotypes exist for a reason; they don't develop without a reason.
I have given facts - I have the person whom is heading to Europe on Uncle Sam's bank sitting in the same room as me right now, actually. You can say I'm lieing all you like; but she's right here in front of me and I don't know what proof I can give you beyond that.
I'd offer my response to the healthcare issue but will bite my lip here; I've withdrawn and will honor that.

Sayhey

Feb 14, 2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
And the others?
The only figures I've seen are the welfare less than 5 years one.
stereotypes exist for a reason; they don't develop without a reason.
I have given facts - I have the person whom is heading to Europe on Uncle Sam's bank sitting in the same room as me right now, actually. You can say I'm lieing all you like; but she's right here in front of me and I don't know what proof I can give you beyond that.
I'd offer my response to the healthcare issue but will bite my lip here; I've withdrawn and will honor that.

Simple ask her what program is providing a free vacation to Europe. There is no such program in the welfare benefits system.

Stolid

Feb 14, 2004, 08:32 PM

FAFSA and possibly SSI (pending)

Desertrat

Feb 14, 2004, 10:25 PM

Aw, Krisoitz, c'mon!

"Free markets don't work.
They just don't. Competition doesn't exist in free markets? Why because all it takes is one person to become more powerful and you can't compete with them. Why? Because they have all the money and all the power. You try and come up with a better solution and before you can write it down they come and either take it from you, drive you out of buisness by undercutting you, or intimidate you into never producing it."

Competition does indeed exist, and at all levels of size of the businesses. Toyota competes with Ford, et al. My wife's manufacturing business for the crafts and hobby industry has competiton from several other box-makers. Sax Fifth Avenue competes with Neiman Markup. Cabela's competes with Bass Pro Shop. And on and on.

Government's involvement should primarily lie with maintaining a level playing field, which is why I support such as EPA. Were it left to the states, a paper company in a weak-pollution-protection state could gain an unfair advantage over a paper company in a strong-law state. (Obviously the environment would also lose in the weak-law state, and thus the general citizenry as well.)

"The government HAS to get involed because buisnesses aren't about making the best product, they are about making the most money."

Er, uh, no. Sounds like you've never owned any business, or been involved in product quality control...

"Hard work doesn't equal success
Yes you have to work hard to be succesful, but that doesn't mean working hard will make you succesful. If you are born to a rich family and work hard, you will get richer. If you are born to a poor family and work hard, you might get richer, but you have to have some really really lucky breaks. You just don't get the opportunities, simply because of where you were born."

So Bill Gates got there on account of his rich parents? Duh? If you're born to a poor family, you may not yourself get really rich, but you have the chance to get your kids a running start. Great wealth is most generally an accumlation through generations. That accumulation leads to such things as the Ford Foundation and universities and medical schools and museums.

"And that is why we have social welfare programs, free education, regulated economies, etc. If we didn't the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer, no matter how hard they worked."

No. We have social welfare programs that originally were intended to be safety nets for those suffering from what's been generically lumped together as "bad luck". Poor through external causes. Got nothing to do with rich getting richer. The idea that the poor get poorer no matter how hard they work is just wrong. If one job doesn't provide "enough" money, get a second job. (It worked for me, and for all others I've known with enough gumption to stay away from the TV set.)

"First you didn't earn your money on your own, no matter what you say you benefitted from the society."

BS. Society never paid me a dime. My employer or my customers paid me. We all contribute via taxes into those programs which redound to individual benefit. We create societies to band together for mutual benefit, but the creation of one's wealth is an individual effort.

"You benefit from a standard and stable form of currency."

Sound and stable currency? That started down the tubes with the fractional reserve idea. It accelerated downward with FDR's devaluation of the dollar by 2/3, and really went all to hell when Nixon took us fully off the gold standard. Have you looked at the relative strength and stability of the dollar, lately? I remember when the Yen was 360 to the USD...It wasn't all that long ago when gold was under $100 and ounce. Recently at $270, it's now over $400--all due to the weakness of the dollar, not the production cost of gold.

"You benefit from a lawful society. You benefit from an infrastructure such as roads and phones, etc. You benefit from consumers."

Sure, but it takes very little government to provide that. "Lawful" derives in large part from culture and a sense of individual responsibility. Roads come from gasoline taxes, or used to. Phones are strictly private sector; no government needed except for rights-of-way for pole lines. And government damned sure doesn't provide consumers. :D

"The better the public education system is, the better students will come out of it."

True. However, the rate of decline of the quality of public education seriously began in 1962 with the feds getting into the business. The costs have gone up while the quality has gone down.

And so it goes...

:), 'Rat

Sayhey

Feb 15, 2004, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Stolid
FAFSA and possibly SSI (pending)

FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) is a part of the student aid program. It is not welfare. SSI does not pay to send people to Europe. She may qualify for SSI if she is either of age to qualify or has a disability that gives her money because she is unable to work or is receiving survivors benefits. None of these are part of a program to send folks on paid vacation. Get your facts straight next time.

Stolid

Feb 15, 2004, 12:49 AM

FAFSA grants are wellfare; pure and simple
They are money given to someone for services they haven't earned that are not 'basic life skills' (no one has to go to college. Further more; no one has the right to go to college to trapse around in Europe)
Semantics may differ but giving someone money for something they haven't earned and don't require seems even more objectable than the 'standard' welfare that someone hasn't earned and shouldn't require.

zimv20

Feb 15, 2004, 01:09 AM

Sayhey

Feb 15, 2004, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Stolid
FAFSA grants are wellfare; pure and simple
They are money given to someone for services they haven't earned that are not 'basic life skills' (no one has to go to college. Further more; no one has the right to go to college to trapse around in Europe)
Semantics may differ but giving someone money for something they haven't earned and don't require seems even more objectable than the 'standard' welfare that someone hasn't earned and shouldn't require.

Stolid, you can go back and try to redefine what welfare is but it doesn't wash. AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and GA (General Assistance) are examples of programs that are part of what everyone else knows as the Welfare system. FAFSA (this is just the application, by the way, not the program) is a part of a completely different part of the government. In a very broad context we can make any program that gives money to individuals or corporations into welfare, but they have nothing to do with your original assertion of welfare paying for people to go on a vacation to Europe.

If she is going with money she got from student loans or grants then she will have to figure out how to pay for the school she enrolled in or pay for her living expenses for the year out of some other pocket. If she just uses the money and doesn't attend she will have to pay it back and may be liable for fraud. If it is part of study abroad program then it is hardly a vacation.

pseudobrit

Feb 15, 2004, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by Stolid
FAFSA grants are wellfare; pure and simple

Damn, I'm a welfare recipient?

They are money given to someone for services they haven't earned

I guess I don't have to pay back those FAFSA-brokered loans (with interest) afterall! Thanks for straightening me out on that one! And to think, here I was, a sucker paying off those loans. Turns out it was free money afterall!

The more you post, the more I get the impression you don't know what you're ranting about.

But you sure are mad about it.

Krizoitz

Feb 15, 2004, 02:25 AM

Stolid

Feb 15, 2004, 09:58 AM

I said "FAFSA Grants" - not "FAFSA loans"
Welfare is defined as "aid in the form of money or neccisities for those in need"
Just because the federal government doesn't call education grants welfare doesn't mean its not.
She's perfectly welcome to go see what the world is like - but not on my or anyone elses dime.
If anyone has the intelligence to go to college the college will find a way to keep them there. Scholarships and office-jobs for undergrads with the addition of teaching posistions for Grads.
But I'm sick of seeing the government encourage the average person to go into debt and get welfare in the form of student grants and loans and think; and seeing an even higher cost tuition being applied for to go to Europe is insulting.
I'm sick of seeing students take the bare minimum number of credits; and stay in the dorms. Not because of money; because "more than the minimum is hard" - so they spend that much more on rooming and are that much more in debt (and have taken that much more from the public's pocket) when they graduate. I'm sick of seeing students come to college "because you have to" - I've seen students with aspirations as low as what amounts to "being a secretary" -- I'm sure I'll get lots of "well, those posistions are harder than you'd think" but they are not college grade education requirements. I've seen students in college for their 3rd year who have not yet declared; and are taking "whatever interests them" - if you want to take an interesting class or two you have every encouragement; but these are whole schedules of 'interesting classes' from oncampus students.
I have not once met anyone who acted this way that was paying their own way. They took a "regular" load (according to the university, not the average) and sometimes a heavy one; they either went in with a major or had it in a semester; and otherwise made sure they stayed on track for graduation.
Have I met students on aid that do this? Yes. But its rare.
Students are not aware of how much debt they are creating for themselves with student loans (I recall a report that said they are 40 years old when they pay them off.), and of sucking tax payer money for what grants they do get for as many years as they can while they flounder.
So yes, you could say I'm angry.
When I see a
History->English->Philosophy->"Thinking about Library Sciences now" major talk about going on the international program to Europe and needing more financial aid, I see the sad state of a nation that has pressed 'you must have a college education' into the minds of every one. What you "must" have should be taught by the completion of high school. If it's not now we need to redo the high school cirriculum; and make college a place for real studies.
I shouldn't have to take a "writing and math placement" when I go into college to ensure I am literate and can do basic algebra. The fact that I do is insulting; the way I got praised for getting the highest placement on "not one but both" makes me roll my eyes. This is a university; not a community college. But no, we have students come in and take "General Studies" math -- where we start students off with the number line and addition. Students I've tutored in that very class have said "Well, all I need is a D-; then I can keep my student aid and take it again"
It's insulting to the tax payer who is forced to give them their grants; it's insulting to what a university is supposed to represent; and it turns universities into high schools - in student makeup, in class structure, in requirements.
But no; being able to say that some XYZ percentage of the populace graduated from college is more important than making sure that college actually accomplishes something. So pump welfare into it, grant them loans while they have no idea what it will take to pay them back, just get students through.
Ridiculous.

Rower_CPU

Feb 15, 2004, 12:17 PM

I've never heard of a "FAFSA grant". Could you point me to a source that discusses them? The FAFSA site (http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/) mentions them nowhere.

When I filled out my FAFSA paperwork a couple of years it only determined my eligibility. It did not result in direct aid. All financial aid comes through the school, whether it's a federal loan or state grant or whatever.

Stolid

Feb 15, 2004, 12:26 PM

FAFSA grant as in "A grant gained through submiting FAFSA" -- if you can think of a better phrasology for it let me know

Rower_CPU

Feb 15, 2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
FAFSA grant as in "A grant gained through submiting FAFSA" -- if you can think of a better phrasology for it let me know

A grant for which the eligibility was established by filling out a FAFSA application.

That's a far cry from the situation you laid out earlier.

Neserk

Feb 15, 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
I did go to public school, and it was a complete waste of my time. I got tested every other day, I test well so I did well. I learned far more from going home and having my grandfather teach me, and I several times begged them to homeschool me because public education was so boring. They aren't willing to advance kids above their grade or hold them back due to 'social development' so the whole class gets taught on the back end of that bell curve. A private school would never keep students that way.
And so, yes, public schools do NOT fit into my view of government role. Instead schools should fit under category 2 -- they should be monitored in semi-monopoly states and price watched (similar to the way that power and cable TV are provided in most of the US)

Let me give you a little insight.

School is about social development as well formal education. Children who are held back are more likely to drop out before they graduate from high school than children who are promoted. That is why I will not hold a child back. Children who are not doing well in school and have strong family support usually have some kind of processing disorder (eg Dyslexia) that is keeping them from learning. They need special classes or attention, not retention.

Children who are promoted beyond their age group do not fit in socially. Imagine yourself being 12 and hanging out with a bunch of 14 year olds who have sexually matured and you have not. It goes beyond that but that is one example.

Private education is a joke. The only reason children do well in it is because they have the extra support at home. They will not do well (with very few exceptions) if they do not have support at home. Assuming there is no processing problem, children who do poorly in school do so because they have little or no support at home. Children with low standarized testing scores who move from school to another take their low scores with them.

The problem is, more often than not, the family, not the school or the teachers.

If you were so bored in school then why not make up things to do yourself? Usually highly intelligent children will create their own lessons and projects. They are usually a great joy to teach because they are often self-motivated to learn and will learn despite the environment.

Neserk

Feb 15, 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
FAFSA grant as in "A grant gained through submiting FAFSA" -- if you can think of a better phrasology for it let me know

Do you have anymore information? I should qualify for one but apparently did not so I'd like to know exactly what the qualifications are.

BTW, usually data such as race, gender, etc. are collected volunatarily and for statistical purposes, only. Says so right on the form!

Desertrat

Feb 15, 2004, 02:56 PM

:) "Children who are promoted beyond their age group do not fit in socially. Imagine yourself being 12 and hanging out with a bunch of 14 year olds who have sexually matured and you have not."

Amen to the social! However, I think it's less the sexual maturity than the general physical maturity--as in the sports arena. And, if good grades come easy--which led to the skipping grades in the first place--you're a walking target for the schoolyard bullies.

You learn a lot about dirty tricks and treachery. :D

'Rat

pseudobrit

Feb 15, 2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
A grant for which the eligibility was established by filling out a FAFSA application.

That's a far cry from the situation you laid out earlier.

I had to go through PHEAA (Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency) and was ineligible for state grants because I was considered a dependent at 23.

That's STATE GRANTS. There are no federal grants.

Chalk up another instance of BS nailed down. The more this happens, the more he proves he just an angry guy with no knowledge of what he's pissed off about.

Just look at this nonsense:

Welfare is defined as "aid in the form of money or neccisities for those in need"

And the Federal government provides loans, not free money.

Just because the federal government doesn't call education grants welfare doesn't mean its not.

Again, the federal government does not provide grants. If you want to call loans welfare, then everyone with a credit card or a mortgage is a welfare recipient.

She's perfectly welcome to go see what the world is like - but not on my or anyone elses dime.

You've still failed to explain how this woman is obtaining funding for this trip. We've established it can't be through FAFSA loans and can't be from SSI.

If anyone has the intelligence to go to college the college will find a way to keep them there. Scholarships and office-jobs for undergrads with the addition of teaching posistions for Grads.

THe idea of going to college is to expand your intelligence.
It's kind of hard to do that for the population at large when you limit college to those who can afford it outright or the wunderkinder of the nation.

And here we go with your evidence:
But I'm sick of seeing... and think; and seeing an even higher cost...
I'm sick of seeing students... I'm sick of seeing students... I've seen students with aspirations as low as... I've seen students in college for their 3rd year... I have not once met anyone who acted this way... Have I met students on aid that do this? Yes. But its rare... I recall a report that said... When I see a History->English->Philosophy->"Thinking about Library Sciences now" major... Students I've tutored... Ridiculous.

Ridiculous indeed. You've made an argument based entirely on your own narrow worldview and independent appraisal of the facts.

Facts which, by the way, you've had to backpedal on several times when challenged to verify them.

Stolid

Feb 15, 2004, 06:40 PM

She is obtaining funding through FAFSA loans. I don't see how "We've established it can't be"
I asked her; she told me.
The idea of college is to educate specialist who have the appropriate skills and drive to go. It used to be a high school diploma meant something; not anymore. Now a bachelors is the "standard of entry" for most. This isn't a matter of "expanding knowledge" -- Calculus was taught at high school 30 years ago and its taught there today. Is there new knowledge -- of course; but much of it is simply correctional (i.e. ether theory disproved) or is specialized and so tight in scope that it isn't covered in high school as is.
One would expect at a facility that is not state-mandated and supposed to be for education that those there would be the 'wunderkinder' intelligentsia of the nation. They aren't anymore because of social pressure that college is somehow required. It's silly and stupid to have someone who has no intention of utilizing college grade knowledge in their life to pursue a higher education degree. If they want it for personal pleasure the library is still there; if they intend to use it in their life then they should know why they are there.
I don't see much if any backpedaling in my logic. Explaining my definitions perhaps (anyone who considers a government grant to not be welfare still confuses me); in some cases I'm not in posistion to comment (I've asked students where they get the money to attend college and often hear "federal grants" -- if they don't exist then maybe the students don't know where the money is coming from. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.) -- but state grants and federal grants doesn't much make a difference anyway - its still welfare, just at a different tier of the government. Just differs based on how much that state offers.

As for social development - pshaw. I hear that and just shake my head. Teasing of the intelligent exist regardless of age difference; and if you are slow for any reason you should not hold everyone else back (As for if you should be held back or put in a different class is individual) -- talk about it all you like but social development at school just teaches one about the teacher->student relationship (which is generally speaking similar to the parent->child relationship) -- kids will play together with other kids near them regardless of if they go to school together or not. I would know; I lived on the edge of two school districts and a goodly portion of my friends did not attend the school I did (and another good portion of them were more than a year older than me, as well as more than a year younger).
I did find projects - I futzed around on my mother's 80-86 computer (with *two* 5 1/4 floppies), I built things with legos, linkin logs, and other toys of that nature, I painted and drew. Doesn't mean I didn't go to school and go board out of my mind.

Examples of how public education is defficient:
In second grade I treated a math problem algebrically and got a negative answer. My mother got a call and was yelled at -- I wasn't supposed to know about negative numbers (so much for parental involvement)
In third grade I got in trouble for "reading too much" because I would bring books to school to read at recess - I didn't find monkey-bars or swings to be fun; and aren't a fan of any team sports so if I didn't have a book I would've just sat there against the school wall.
In fourth grade I failed my math test on fractions. Why? I reduced them like my grandfather had taught me when he taught me about how fractions worked. When he and my mother went in to ask the teacher to raise the grade to what it should be they got yelled at by both principal and teacher for, once again, teaching me things outside what the teacher had outlined.
There's 3 samples from 3 consecutive years of how a public education works against students who want to learn on their own.
And this was supposedly one of, if not the, top school system in the state (the main reason my mother busted her butt to make sure our house was in that area).

If I'm not allowed to draw from my personal experiences forgive me; perhaps I'm spoiled from having a family that pushes education and self-reliance so hard. I find personal experiences to be the best form of evidence; figures are just figures - they can be manipulated. But you know whats happening in front of you when you see it. So yes. I'm angry that collge isn't "wunderkinder"; I feel betrayed because throughout my public education my family constantly reassured me that all the kids who were going nowhere with their brains would disappear when I got there.

I'm permanently withdrawing here though; I'm sick of being told I can't back my answers up while hearing no back up from the opposistion. I understand personal experience can be hard to throw into an offical report of some kind but that's the nature of them. I haven't banned or berated anyone here for giving any of their own experiences.

Krizoitz

Feb 15, 2004, 07:00 PM

College is about more than just giving someone the technical skills to do a job. That is what trade schools are for. College is about giving people a well rounded education, thats what diversity requirements are for.

To the poster who said that the FAFSA doesn't give grants, it does, the Pell Grant is a grant to the student based on financial need. You have to be darn poor to get it though thats for sure. The problem that you have Stolid is that you see this as a money game. You give money you get money is the only way you seem to see money going. As I have pointed out before loans and grants by the government (state or federal) are intended to be an investment in the student. A well educated student with the opportunity to go to college is an investment. Why?

1) Higher education = lower likelihood of commiting crime. Obviously it doesn't eliminate it, but it does lower it. That saves money right there

2) Higher education = improved job market, this is also good for the country, it increases spending and improves the economy

So maybe the money isn't a direct flow, but it is there.

As for you're experience with the public education system, yes it can suck for some people, thats because its people running it not robots, so you have good teachers and bad teachers, good administrators and bad administrators and everything in between. This isn't going to change in the private system. As one person pointed out one of the reasons private schools tend to be more succesful is that they can be more selective in who they admit AND you tend to have more involved parents. Public schools are for everyone, regardless of ecomonic background, so they aren't perfect, and you don't get one on one attention, but its doing the best it can with very limited resources.

So if you don't want to support public education and society in general I suggest you stop benefiting from it. Stop going to the doctor, stop using roads, stop buying from anybody who got anywhere except all on there own.

pdrayton

Feb 15, 2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
As I said in my earlier post; the Market system is *NOT* feel good. If you're poor; you have to dig yourself out of it.

I fail to see why someone is entitled to healthcare or anything else if they are of an age where they have the capability to earn it and do not do so. If they do not have the capability for some reason then we have charity.
Seems to me that your comments are an attempt to justify your total lack of concern for anyone but yourself.

So often we hear about the "good old days" when people didn't have hand-outs, yet we fail to recognize the safety nets in existence then (family, community engagement and the other institutions woven tightly into the fabric of community life).

Fortunately for the rest of us, most people with viewpoints similar to yours feel so unconnected to the rest of the population that they don't even bother to vote.

As Martha would say, "That's a good thing!".

Neserk

Feb 15, 2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
She is obtaining funding through FAFSA loans. I don't see how "We've established it can't be"
I asked her; she told me.

So now its loans?

You can't get a Stafford loan specifically for a trip. What the money can be used for is very specific: Tuition, books, transportation (but you can't buy a car with it) and room and board. If she is using it for anything different she can get in HUGE trouble. Same goes for Pell Grants.

The idea of college is to educate specialist who have the appropriate skills and drive to go. It used to be a high school diploma meant something; not anymore. Now a bachelors is the "standard of entry" for most. This isn't a matter of "expanding knowledge" -- Calculus was taught at high school 30 years ago and its taught there today. Is there new knowledge -- of course; but much of it is simply correctional (i.e. ether theory disproved) or is specialized and so tight in scope that it isn't covered in high school as is.

Well, I've been teaching algebra to 4th graders. Or attempting to since their brains are not yet developed enough to actually understand it. Although some can memorize the steps.

And as someone else has pointed out College is not solely for the purpose of getting a job. There a great deal that goes on there that is way beyond what is taken into the work place and applied.

I don't see much if any backpedaling in my logic. Explaining my definitions perhaps (anyone who considers a government grant to not be welfare still confuses me); in some cases I'm not in posistion to comment (I've asked students where they get the money to attend college and often hear "federal grants" -- if they don't exist then maybe the students don't know where the money is coming from. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.) -- but state grants and federal grants doesn't much make a difference anyway - its still welfare, just at a different tier of the government. Just differs based on how much that state offers.

Are we talking about Grants or Loans? You can't seem to make up your mind which it is. A Loan has to be paid back. I'm not sure how you would consider that welfare. And Grants are given to all sorts of people through all sorts of means. Ever hear of a grant writer?

As for social development - pshaw. I hear that and just shake my head. Teasing of the intelligent exist regardless of age difference; and if you are slow for any reason you should not hold everyone else back (As for if you should be held back or put in a different class is individual) -- talk about it all you like but social development at school just teaches one about the teacher->student relationship (which is generally speaking similar to the parent->child relationship) -- kids will play together with other kids near them regardless of if they go to school together or not. I would know; I lived on the edge of two school districts and a goodly portion of my friends did not attend the school I did (and another good portion of them were more than a year older than me, as well as more than a year younger).

It isn't about teasing of the intelligent. Most kids you talk to who were promoted based on ability will tell you they hated it with a passion and hurts their social development. That is why it is very, very uncommon today. It is not in the best interest of the child.

And the rest of the class is not held back because of a slower child. I'm not sure where you got that notion. Teachers teach to the middle, not the bottom.

I did find projects - I futzed around on my mother's 80-86 computer (with *two* 5 1/4 floppies), I built things with legos, linkin logs, and other toys of that nature, I painted and drew. Doesn't mean I didn't go to school and go board out of my mind.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention when you were studing homophones. It is "bored" not "board." I love it when people whine about their education and can't spell.

I was refering to projects at school. Not out of school. As I said before, very intelligent children will create their own projects.

Examples of how public education is defficient:
In second grade I treated a math problem algebrically and got a negative answer. My mother got a call and was yelled at -- I wasn't supposed to know about negative numbers (so much for parental involvement)
In third grade I got in trouble for "reading too much" because I would bring books to school to read at recess - I didn't find monkey-bars or swings to be fun; and aren't a fan of any team sports so if I didn't have a book I would've just sat there against the school wall.
In fourth grade I failed my math test on fractions. Why? I reduced them like my grandfather had taught me when he taught me about how fractions worked. When he and my mother went in to ask the teacher to raise the grade to what it should be they got yelled at by both principal and teacher for, once again, teaching me things outside what the teacher had outlined.
There's 3 samples from 3 consecutive years of how a public education works against students who want to learn on their own.

Where the hell did you go to school and when? If I had a child do any of that I'd be jumping for joy! When my 1st grader had conquered second grade math I invited her to start on multiplication tables. Now her second grade teacher gives her her own math to do. Sounds like you had a bad experience but that does not make all public education bad.

If I'm not allowed to draw from my personal experiences forgive me; perhaps I'm spoiled from having a family that pushes education and self-reliance so hard. I find personal experiences to be the best form of evidence; figures are just figures - they can be manipulated. But you know whats happening in front of you when you see it. So yes. I'm angry that collge isn't "wunderkinder"; I feel betrayed because throughout my public education my family constantly reassured me that all the kids who were going nowhere with their brains would disappear when I got there.

You can certainly draw from your own experience but as intelligent as you seem to be you are also very narrow minded. Your experience does not define the experience every child in the United States. I would imagine you would be able to look past that and examine other people's experience. Apparently not.

It appears that your withdrawing is from embarassment at realizing your intial statement was wrong.

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Stolid
She is obtaining funding through FAFSA loans. I don't see how "We've established it can't be"
I asked her; she told me.
The idea of college is to educate specialist who have the appropriate skills and drive to go. It used to be a high school diploma meant something; not anymore. Now a bachelors is the "standard of entry" for most.

when i was entering high school in the 70s, just over ten percent of the people in the workforce had a college degree...but that number was almost two and a half times that by the time i entered graduate school so america got "educated"

...but to say that a bachelor's is entry level for most the same way a high school diploma was does not accurately portray the jobs today in america...remember that 75 percent of america does not have a 4 year degree and most of them do fine...i am a democrat, but the ultra left wing in my party like to make people believe that a bachelor's degree is some sort of minimum requirement for living in america...but it's just a way for their agenda for increased spending in education and it is the ultra left dems who make my party look bad by spreading misinformation about education, or other things, to promote their agenda

only in the last few years, in my chosen industry of high tech, did college grads surpass high school grads in terms of salary/wage/pay (visual basic magazine annual salary survey)...many who pursue(d) a phd like me go into education and it's not for the money that drive the vast majority of us

...but many people without a bachelor's degree are good programmers and go into industry right after high school and if they live where i am (northern cal and silicon valley), there are endless financial possibilities...but within the valley and most anywhere else, certified technicians and engineers *the majority without a degree, usually outpace most bachelor's degree holders in terms of pay

i don't want to get on a tangent here, but in the field of computer science, especially software development, part of the reason that computer science grads have a hard time keeping pace with merely certified technicians is because the big liberal education lobby is interesting in teaching for teaching's sake and having huge public university systems which are expensive and overbloated, but these systems, especially in the high tech majors, care little about preparing a person for the high tech field i am in

i see that you are a programmer in training...it's good to get your degree and i see you are also good in math and that's helpful, too...but if you want to succeed in this high tech world, especially in my neck of the woods where the best pay is, get certified and don't listen to the lies of the ultra left wing education lobby

ps...but i am not one of those ultra conservatives either who want to gut public education or some out to lunch libertarian who wants to cut public education because the founding fathers could not see 200 years into the future concerning our educational needs ;)

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
College is about more than just giving someone the technical skills to do a job. That is what trade schools are for. College is about giving people a well rounded education, thats what diversity requirements are for.

before i decided to teach and tutor people, i really believed that education was primarily for training a person for the work force, but my first mentor (teacher with a master's degree) said it was about a well rounded education...for enrichment...and that most successful people did it without college

being 40, and having worked since i was 15, the most successful people i have met were self starters and self employed and they usually did not have college degrees...and at the same time i have met many, perhaps too many people with four or more years of college who are poor

it's easy and safe to think that if you have a college degree, then you are financially set...he he...it is that myth that will knock your teeth out the day you hit the workforce and continually do so until you realize that you should have enjoyed school more and paid attention, because its the journey (in college education) which is the reward and getting a degree mixed up with making acutal money or being an effective worker in the workforce is one of the big lies in society today

Desertrat

Feb 16, 2004, 09:23 AM

jef, how many articles do you reckon have been written about how the very nature of "work" is changing? :)

From the late 1940s into the 1960s, almost any science degree was a ticket to a decent job. To make a decent salary in the Liberal Arts fields required a Master's or a Doctorate.

That has pretty much changed, and particularly with the advent of both the loss of industrial jobs and the growth of the "World of IT".

'Rat

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Neserk

You can certainly draw from your own experience but as intelligent as you seem to be you are also very narrow minded. Your experience does not define the experience every child in the United States. I would imagine you would be able to look past that and examine other people's experience. Apparently not.

to say that stolid is narrow minded in the context of how old he/she is and the fact that they are a student is unfair

how much life experience or workforce experience does stolid have? stolid's experience with public education was unpleasant and most likely not typical, but based on what happened so far in his/her life, can you blame the person?

give stolid some slack and realize that there is no reason to call someone narrow minded if their experience they draw fro is not as long as yours...i too don't agree with a lot of what stolid says but at that age, i saw things in black and white a lot more and i think it's natural for most to do so

this forum should not be about direct insults and it should be tolerant of different viewpoints with all types of experience levels in life...every viewpoint in valid when seen from different angles

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
jef, how many articles do you reckon have been written about how the very nature of "work" is changing? :)

From the late 1940s into the 1960s, almost any science degree was a ticket to a decent job. To make a decent salary in the Liberal Arts fields required a Master's or a Doctorate.

That has pretty much changed, and particularly with the advent of both the loss of industrial jobs and the growth of the "World of IT".

'Rat

the ultra liberals want to make the education spending machine grow so they can push their agenda...they make my democrats look bad just like the nra and christian right make the gop look bad in the eyes of many...a good republican is a fiscal conservative, not a gun fanatic or legislator of morality...a good liberal is a promoter of solid social programs, not a mouthpiece for rich education lobbyists who would gladly raise our taxes for their own selfish purposes

i think college education is a good thing but the real ticket to success, degree or not, is hard work and consistency and that takes character over the long run

those who want to replace hard work with the fact that they have a "degree" are only headed for failure

Neserk

Feb 16, 2004, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
to say that stolid is narrow minded in the context of how old he/she is and the fact that they are a student is unfair

I said he was narrowminded based on the fact that he assumed his experience was the sum total of everyones experience.

how much life experience or workforce experience does stolid have? stolid's experience with public education was unpleasant and most likely not typical, but based on what happened so far in his/her life, can you blame the person?

Yes I can blame the person. He claims to be an intelligent person. Intelligent people are better able to see beyond their own experience. And when they can't they are willing to listen to others who tell them that their experience is atypical.

give stolid some slack and realize that there is no reason to call someone narrow minded if their experience they draw fro is not as long as yours...i too don't agree with a lot of what stolid says but at that age, i saw things in black and white a lot more and i think it's natural for most to do so

You need to re-read what I wrote. I said he was narrowminded because he assumed his experience was the only experience out there. I'm going for a literal meaning of the word. I hold intelligent people to a higher standard. Narrowminded is not a judgement but rather an observation of his inablity or unwillingness to see beyond himself.

Neserk

Feb 16, 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and that most successful people did it without college

That seems highly unlikely. People with an College Education are given much more opportunity to interact with others both inside and outside the classroom.

People without a college education tend to stay exactly where they are. So they only have the exposure that they had throughout their life.

The people I've known who did not go to college are often racist, work at jobs they hate (usually low paying), and live for the weekend.

People with a college education more often than not are educated out of the prejudices of their upbringing, work at jobs they love and look forward to going back to work.

College is about having a choice of where on works and doing work that is meaningful (which of course depends on the person).

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
I said he was narrowminded based on the fact that he assumed his experience was the sum total of everyones experience.

Yes I can blame the person. He claims to be an intelligent person. Intelligent people are better able to see beyond their own experience. And when they can't they are willing to listen to others who tell them that their experience is atypical.

You need to re-read what I wrote. I said he was narrowminded because he assumed his experience was the only experience out there. I'm going for a literal meaning of the word. I hold intelligent people to a higher standard. Narrowminded is not a judgement but rather an observation of his inablity or unwillingness to see beyond himself.

do you really think he is saying that he thinks his experience is the only experience out there? ;)

i know he is young, probably a teenager if he just started college, but he is not an infant...and i don't think he thinks things revolve around his experience and he should be able to realize that there are other experiences and opinions

maybe his view of the world is narrow, but naive would be more accurate, don't you think?

you also seem to imply that he may not be intelligent, but perhaps it is more accurate to say he is intelligent and not wise...if one is naive and not full of wisdom, then that is par for the course for a kid his age...it's insulting and unfair to consider him narrow minded and stupid

i don't agree with his (knee jerk) reactions, but time and experience will most likely give him a fuller and more balanced picture and these forums are for discussion, not personal insults

Neserk

Feb 16, 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
[B]do you really think he is saying that he thinks his experience is the only experience out there? ;)

I read his posts. He states that public education is bad. And then backs it up with his own experience. So yes, I would say he thinks his experience is all there is.

i know he is young, probably a teenager if he just started college, but he is not an infant...and i don't think he thinks things revolve around his experience and he should be able to realize that there are other experiences and opinions

His posts suggest otherwise.

maybe his view of the world is narrow, but naive would be more accurate, don't you think?

No, naive would suggest innocence.

you also seem to imply that he may not be intelligent, but perhaps it is more accurate to say he is intelligent and not wise...if one is naive and not full of wisdom, then that is par for the course for a kid his age...it's insulting and unfair to consider him narrow minded and stupid

No, he is obviously intelligent by the way he writes. You should really read the whole discussion. Actions speak louder than words. His posts clearly demonstrate that he is narrowminded on the subject of public education. He is unable or unwilling to see beyond his own experience.

these forums are for discussion, not personal insults

:rolleyes: Callilng him narrowminded was not an insult, it was a description of his behavior. And I never said nor implied he was stupid. I said quite the opposite, actually.

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
That seems highly unlikely. People with an College Education are given much more opportunity to interact with others both inside and outside the classroom.

People without a college education tend to stay exactly where they are. So they only have the exposure that they had throughout their life.

The people I've known who did not go to college are often racist, work at jobs they hate (usually low paying), and live for the weekend.

People with a college education more often than not are educated out of the prejudices of their upbringing, work at jobs they love and look forward to going back to work.

College is about having a choice of where on works and doing work that is meaningful (which of course depends on the person).

now, neserk, who did you call stupid and narrowminded?

the dumbest things that stolid said on this thread are smarter than the claims you are making...i have two college degrees and i guess because of that, i am not racist...when i get a phd, i guess that will automatically make me a civil rights leader?;)

i guess paul allen, steve jobs, bill gates, and larry ellison must have low paying jobs becuase they didn't finish college....and oh, steve wozniak made the balance of his millions before he finished his bachelor's degree to become a school teacher?????

the richest group of people in america are restaurant owners...i wonder what degree they had to have to enter the business????

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 12:25 PM

one day if we ever have a macrumors get together, like some did in new orleans, we can have it in my backyard of silicon valley

we can cruise the neighborhood and i will show you around and perhaps if we are lucky, we can meet a high tech ceo since they reside here and intermingle with us regular folk much the way stars live and are seen in hollywood in southern california

there are so many non college people out there, at least in my field of high tech, who are doing well...i have a friend who started sun microsystems with a few of his buddies...most of them were dropouts

and a couple cities over from there, one can find shawn fanning, 19 year old gazillionaire who, yes you guessed it, dropped out of school

mactastic

Feb 16, 2004, 12:26 PM

I took a sizable amount of loans to get through college. Some grants as well, but those were minimal compared to the amount of loans I had to take. That was my only path for higher education. Without loans I would have gotten a 2 year associates degree at a community college, or gone into a trade of some kind and had to rely on a kind boss or a union shop to train me in something useful. Neither are bad, but not where my heart was. Now, 9 years of college and $30,000 in debt, instead I have a degree that will be worth much, much more than $30,000 to me over the course of my life. I'm banking on having made an investment with that money that will better my life and allow me to pursue a career that I truly enjoy. It may take me until I'm 40 to pay off my loans, but so be it. I got a fantastic education, one that is desired by scads of employers nation- and world-wide. And I got it from a *gasp* public (you don't say?) university. Where yes there were lots of dumb kids running around trying to figure out what to do with their lives. However my experience was that the ones doing it on loans and grants were MUCH more earnest and hardworking because they understood the cost to them of screwing around in classes and having to stay an extra year. The ones I saw screwing around, taking surf days, or snow trips, or partying 'too hard' to come to class were the ones doing it on their parents dime. The ones driving the super-jacked-up or super-slammed-low truck/car that cost more than the total of my loans with the license plate frame that said "Daddy bought it, but I got it." or "Spoiled Rotten" or some other nonsense. Those were the ones 'wasting space' in my classes, only wanting to get a grade high enough to avoid being put on academic probation. The students sucking off the federal teat were the ones working the hardest in my experience.

And if your kids ever get in trouble for learning too much, go down to their school and do some yelling of your own. Pull them out and put them in another school if that keeps happening. That should not be allowed, and you can do something about it. Now I can't tell you that what you say didn't happen to you, but I will say that it is extremely rare that a school acts that stupidly, and it is not a whdespread trait in the system. There are plenty of problems with the education system, but getting mad at kids for being ahead of the curve is not a widespread one. And it can be avoided. No school wants to be called out publicly for punishing students who learn too fast.

Neserk

Feb 16, 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
now, neserk, who did you call stupid and narrowminded?

I did not call anyone stupid.

the dumbest things that stolid said on this thread are smarter than the claims you are making..

:rolleyes: Now who is actually making personal attacks verses claiming other are?

.i have two college degrees and i guess because of that, i am not racist...when i get a phd, i guess that will automatically make me a civil rights leader?;)

So are you saying that you are racist?

I've encountered a great number of people with PhD's and have yet to meet one who was racist. Even the most conservative ones. If it happens it is very rare.

i guess paul allen, steve jobs, bill gates, and larry ellison must have low paying jobs becuase they didn't finish college....and oh, steve wozniak made the balance of his millions before he finished his bachelor's degree to become a school teacher?????

And how old are they? My father is 59 w/o a degree and he makes a comfortable living. But that doesn't happen with few exceptions. We live in a new time. And for those who do make it well, it takes them much longer. My father would have no doubt been making a great deal more money and been much happier had he gotten his BA back in the 60's.

the richest group of people in america are restaurant owners...i wonder what degree they had to have to enter the business????

Usually a degree in Restaurant Management or Business. Again, you have to look at generations. The need for a BA comes with my generations (born in the late 60's early 70's). And you see people of my generation jumping right over top those of their parents generations because they do have degrees.

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
I did not call anyone stupid.

:rolleyes: Now who is actually making personal attacks verses claiming other are?

So are you saying that you are racist?

I've encountered a great number of people with PhD's and have yet to meet one who was racist. Even the most conservative ones. If it happens it is very rare.

And how old are they? My father is 59 w/o a degree and he makes a comfortable living. But that doesn't happen with few exceptions. We live in a new time. And for those who do make it well, it takes them much longer. My father would have no doubt been making a great deal more money and been much happier had he gotten his BA back in the 60's.

Usually a degree in Restaurant Management or Business. Again, you have to look at generations. The need for a BA comes with my generations (born in the late 60's early 70's). And you see people of my generation jumping right over top those of their parents generations because they do have degrees.

i have the distinct feeling that you are not saying anything from your opinion but are simply reciting some left wing agenda of how education will save the masses...so give give give to the education lobby because they really neeeed your tax monies

and before you call me a racist or a republican, realize that i am a moderate democrat and i am fully committed to getting W out of office this november...i am more likely to vote for a dean, edwards, or kerry, but not some whacko on the far left who would say things like "down with all corporations" or "the answer to our problems is giving everybody a college education"

as it stands, i am all for our country offering completely free public college education, but i don't think most of the people need a college degree to succeed

and your dad did well and that is great...but what evidence do you have that he would have done better if he got a BA degree?

and how is our generation (people like you and me born in the 60s) far different than our parent's generation? do we really all need degrees?

i live in the land of restaurants...monterey peninsula, california...and i am yet to meet one restaurant owner who has a restaurant management degree or business degree

heck, i got my bachelor's at a business oriented school, maybe i should start a restaurant? ;)

ps...i love debating with you, neserk, and i am not calling you stupid so i apologize if it sounds that way

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 12:52 PM

neserk, i don't know much about you from your empty profile..and for obvious reasons i don't use my real name here or give out my email

do you have a degree? and if so, how has it made your job life any different? have you ever held a job that required a degree as a mininum qualification? and if you did, did you make more money? and a lot more money?

like another poster said before, it's about a well rounded education

if you really want to make money, go for a skill and most likely you will find that in trade school

besides my college degrees, and the phd i am going for, i went to IT trade school and it offered me much more money than i could have received from my college degrees

if you are curious and have the time, do a search on IT certifications...and compare that with people with IT related degrees...it's an eye opener to say the least

next time your have your house or apartment break, see what a plumber, glass person, or electrician costs:p

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by miloblithe
Also, command economies can achieve fantastic levels of growth as long as they stick with their chief motivating factor: dig that ditch or you will be shot. I'm not advocating a system based on coercion. I'm just saying that the Soviet Union didn't collapse for the reasons that the libertarians like to fantasize that it did.

What do you think happens to people that do not pay their taxes? What if someone doesn't want to pay their taxes, refuses to appear before a judge, and runs from the police? Did you know that IRS agents are allowed to carry guns? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16861) Pay your taxes or you will be shot. I guess thats not the same as digging a ditch.

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
what a BITCH! she's dying, therefore useless to society, and she thinks she's entitled to see London before she pushes up the daisies?

that's OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

</sarcasm>

market economics suggest you're short a heart

Pretty quick with the personal attacks there, eh?

Stolid, you have to forgive these people. They think with their heart instead of their brain, thats why emotionalism is dripping from all of their arguments.

mactastic

Feb 16, 2004, 01:24 PM

Got any proof that anyone has actually been hunted down and, without provoking a situation, been shot simply for not paying taxes? I'd like to see some proof of that before you get away with claiming the US government is a bad as Soviet Russia.

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 01:40 PM

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Stolid
I have given facts - I have the person whom is heading to Europe on Uncle Sam's bank sitting in the same room as me right now, actually. You can say I'm lieing all you like; but she's right here in front of me and I don't know what proof I can give you beyond that.

No. That person is not sitting in the same room as your are right now. She is not in front of you, cuz if she were, that would mean the government programs are not working the way they are supposed to, and you know that government is infallible. Just like when government was infallible when it did those eugenics experiments, and injected retarded people with radioactive materials.

Also, gun crime doesn't happen in the UK and Australia cuz the government banned the guns.

<end_sarcasm_tag>

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
[B]Stolid, you can go back and try to redefine what welfare is but it doesn't wash.

wel-fare (n) - 3. a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=welfare)

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
School is about social development as well formal education. Children who are held back are more likely to drop out before they graduate from high school than children who are promoted. That is why I will not hold a child back. Children who are not doing well in school and have strong family support usually have some kind of processing disorder (eg Dyslexia) that is keeping them from learning. They need special classes or attention, not retention.

Hmm... take your policy outside of school (which it will be by the students when they get out of school), and you have people getting promoted even though they have not mastered the skillset to do the work. Doesn't make for a very competent society, does it.

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
What do you think happens to people that do not pay their taxes? What if someone doesn't want to pay their taxes, refuses to appear before a judge, and runs from the police? Did you know that IRS agents are allowed to carry guns? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16861) Pay your taxes or you will be shot. I guess thats not the same as digging a ditch.

i don't know what their protocols are, but irs agents do go thru firearms training and i remember seeing it in their brochure and it did strike me the wrong way

i still would not compare the united states to some third world dictatorship where someone is pointing guns to someone digging a ditch, if even a place like that exists

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
The ones I saw screwing around, taking surf days, or snow trips, or partying 'too hard' to come to class were the ones doing it on their parents dime. The ones driving the super-jacked-up or super-slammed-low truck/car that cost more than the total of my loans with the license plate frame that said "Daddy bought it, but I got it." or "Spoiled Rotten" or some other nonsense. Those were the ones 'wasting space' in my classes, only wanting to get a grade high enough to avoid being put on academic probation. The students sucking off the federal teat were the ones working the hardest in my experience.

Envy is such an ugly thing. ;)

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Hmm... take your policy outside of school (which it will be by the students when they get out of school), and you have people getting promoted even though they have not mastered the skillset to do the work. Doesn't make for a very competent society, does it.

before i joined the defense department, i was a liberal democrat, but after my experience there, i became more moderate and became a middle of the road democrat

the DoD is an extremely liberal organization, unlike the actual uniformed services, and they have this way of paying too much attention to those who lag behind

people who work hard are punished and those who slack are promoted...it's some sort of ultra liberal social experiment and it's a strange backwards reality...trouble employees are never fired...no one is...and they will create a separate department for them and promote them in the process

college graduates are treated like dirt and a few token degree holders hold the top two or three positions, but there is this clique like gang of non college graduates who hold back the college people and actually sabotage their work...all this is done to keep the defense department inefficient and expensive to operate so they will get the same allotment of sugar from uncle sam next year...it's the closest thing to communism that exists in america today

i don't blame the conservatives and libertarians for getting mad, but many of the conservatives' remedies do not make any more sense, and in W's world, they make less sense

i remember when reagan did this with his spending on the uniformed services...i had a friend who was an f-16 mechanic and his coworker (an enlisted man) made a major goof on a jet, and the white house made him pay for it...they made the man a colonel, on paper, and then took the money out of his check...it was reagan's sugar pot and the military benefited while america went into a defecit twice that of jimmy carter's...now that is just the opposite, but the same as what happens in the liberal, civilian defense department and other civil servants

either way, i hate the waste of taxpayer money...while the f-16 mechanic paid for the goof, he still got to have more pay he could use for his personal use...it almost rivals those "expensive" military toilet seats :)

Sayhey

Feb 16, 2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
wel-fare (n) - 3. a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=welfare)

You can take my quote out of context all you want, but it still doesn't make Stolid's original claims any more valid. Welfare payments are not based on race nor are there programs to send Welfare recipients on European vacations.

We have had many discussions already about the need for government to play a role in the economy and in social policy, if you want another discussion on the same topic that is fine by me.

mactastic

Feb 16, 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Envy is such an ugly thing. ;)

Huh? You suggesting something here? Why don't you come out and say it instead of making snide comments.

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 02:55 PM

i have the belief that we can increase some social programs and decrease others and at the same time decrease military spending but still have a viable defense

the democrats have their agendas but have definite blind spots and so do the republicans...why do the democrats need such a large government? why do the republicans need such a large military?

we can have both decent social programs and a decent military and last time i chekced we are the richest country in the world

i am all for having our military back off from nation building and have our troops come home to their families...and with what we save we can pay off the defecit and offer free medical care and free college and make our tax dollars work for americans, not building up what could turn into another dictatoship in iraq (hoping they stay in our pocket)

how often have tin horn 'ships work for us in the past...noriega, marcos, saddam, the taliban???

it used to be the fringes of the left and right in america that were called the isolationists or america first types...but W has shown us how a president can squander a very rich nation's wealth and put us in a recession spending money abroad

for a year W could have said the economy was bad due to some leftover mistake from the previous administration, but three years later we are in a recession and W has his private war in iraq with no real proof of mass WMDs and no real proof that we killed bin laden

now i am covering this whole section of the forums here but it's no fun being a moderate since i get attacked from both sides...i mean, what he heck is wrong with common sense??:p

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Huh? You suggesting something here? Why don't you come out and say it instead of making snide comments.

when i was at cal poly, we used to envy the rich cuesta college kids...talk about surfing and partying:D

but they crashed cal poly parties and they were the life of the party...man, i miss those days ;)

Sayhey

Feb 16, 2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
now i am covering this whole section of the forums here but it's no fun being a moderate since i get attacked from both sides...i mean, what he heck is wrong with common sense??:p

Jeff, who's attacking you? You raise a lot of good points and while I don't agree with all of them you support your argument well. My main disagreement would be concerning the "ultra-liberals" who want to expand the education budget beyond reason. I think after decades of underfunding we do need more monies for education. While that may make me an "ultra-liberal" I don't feel the need to attack you.

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Huh? You suggesting something here? Why don't you come out and say it instead of making snide comments.

From your post, it seems that you are envious of the rich students, their ability to have their toys, their ability to party without consequence (or minimal consequence to their allowance).

zimv20

Feb 16, 2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Pretty quick with the personal attacks there, eh?

i think you know how often i refrain. we're talking about a guy who advocates letting people die who can't afford to feed themselves. is that not heartless?

Stolid, you have to forgive these people. They think with their heart instead of their brain, thats why emotionalism is dripping from all of their arguments.

no need to apologize on my behalf. i think with my brain, thank you. afaik, even you don't advocate letting people starve. from which organ does that sentiment come?

mactastic

Feb 16, 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
From your post, it seems that you are envious of the rich students, their ability to have their toys, their ability to party without consequence (or minimal consequence to their allowance).

Lol, now I know you like to take some part of a persons post and run with it, but I assure you I am not envious of the rich kids at my school. I was only using them as an example to counter the examples people were throwing around in this thread.

trebblekicked

Feb 16, 2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
afaik, even you don't advocate letting people starve. from which organ does that sentiment come?

spleen, i think.

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
i think you know how often i refrain. we're talking about a guy who advocates letting people die who can't afford to feed themselves. is that not heartless?

no need to apologize on my behalf. i think with my brain, thank you. afaik, even you don't advocate letting people starve. from which organ does that sentiment come?

Isn't it also heartless to steal from others in order to feed yourself? Isn't it also heartless to have government steal from others at the point of a gun/threat of jailtime in order to keep those welfare checks coming in every month?

Dunno if I am oversimplying this, but in taking away the disincentive to be unindustrious, society is implying that a person's worth is inherent just by the mere fact of existing. (But this falls flat on the face of needing the industrious to provide for the unindustrious.)

zimv20

Feb 16, 2004, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Isn't it also heartless to steal from others in order to feed yourself? Isn't it also heartless to have government steal from others at the point of a gun/threat of jailtime in order to keep those welfare checks coming in every month?

it's not the same thing, and i'm certain you know that.

stolid's view is on the far end of that bellcurve. i'm still assuming you don't agree with him.

pseudobrit

Feb 16, 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Isn't it also heartless to steal from others in order to feed yourself?

No, actually, it's human.

The Catholic Church allows for theft of food by the hungry.

I think when you accuse us of arguing from the heart, you have to think where you're arguing from -- the brain or the wallet? Greed is a powerful emotion.

pseudobrit

Feb 16, 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Did you know that IRS agents are allowed to carry guns? Pay your taxes or you will be shot.

You forgot to add the /histrionics tag to that last sentence.

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
The Catholic Church allows for theft of food by the hungry.

I think when you accuse us of arguing from the heart, you have to think where you're arguing from -- the brain or the wallet? Greed is a powerful emotion.

7th Commandment: You shall not steal (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/seventh.html)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving to charity to fed the hungry.

Is it greed to want to keep what is mine to begin with? Or is it greed to want what someone else has?

pseudobrit

Feb 16, 2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Is it greed to want to keep what is mine to begin with? Or is it greed to want what someone else has?

It's in our nature to survive. If you're feasting while I'm starving, it's not greedy for me to want what you have. That's surviving.

Frohickey

Feb 16, 2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
It's in our nature to survive. If you're feasting while I'm starving, it's not greedy for me to want what you have. That's surviving.

Ahh... the definition of greedy is dependent on the state of the person.

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Jeff, who's attacking you? You raise a lot of good points and while I don't agree with all of them you support your argument well. My main disagreement would be concerning the "ultra-liberals" who want to expand the education budget beyond reason. I think after decades of underfunding we do need more monies for education. While that may make me an "ultra-liberal" I don't feel the need to attack you.

i get attacked by the ultra left and ultra right wingers here and that's most of you guys

but if it makes more sense, i will call you the left and the right and consider me the center, or just left of center to be more accurate...but in this forum, i am right of center ;)

sayhay, what state did you get educated in? and what do you mean by "decades" of underfunding? isn't that a little extreme?

i already said i believe that the feds should have a totally free college system through the 4th year of college and i understand that it can't extend beyond that and med, law, and grad school should cost something...acutally, i am all for boosting the price of graduate school if it takes the load off of the undergrads so they can go to school for free if they wish

i don't want to get into the specifics of my school district, or the, cough cough, neighboring school district, but some of the administrators get paid way too much and the teachers get paid too little...and in my districts, there are tons of administrators...and books, well they are way overpriced, too

school can be cheap and possibly free on the college level if things were reorgranized a little...sometimes i think the education lobby wants to grease the wheels of the rich administrators and they are no different than the gun lobby or the christian right lobbies of the gop money machine...it's just that they are in the democratic money machine

i am all for money running our country, but it's the corruption and bloated salaries and kickbacks of some that are way out of line...a junior college near me has a well known racist (minority himself) president who makes more than the president of the united states...he is well connected with the liberal education lobby

Sayhey

Feb 16, 2004, 11:04 PM

Jeff,

I don't know about "most" of the guys on this forum, but I'm not attacking you. I may disagree at times, but that won't mean an attack.

As to the place I went to school it was and is the great state of California. No, the decades comment is not extreme. Reagan led the cutbacks in education budgets when he became governor in 1966. When Jerry Brown became governor the legs were cut out from education funding from Prop 13. With Deukmejian and Wilson as Governors the trend continued. Decades is indeed an accurate description of the time of the systematic underfunding of California schools. We used to be the envy of the nation, now we are among the worst.

As a way of disclosure let me say, I speak from the personal experience of not only going through the California School system, but also as the father of two children currently in San Francisco public schools. I also spent almost 12 years working with a union that was part of the blue collar section of school workers so the battles for funding are not unfamiliar to me. I worked on many attempts to get more money for schools both on the State and Local levels.

About the rest of your post, I like your proposals, but it will take a lot of money to bring it about. Not likely in this climate that has seen cut backs of education funding under the last years of Davis and now Arnie's proposed budget. If it gets on the ballot, however, you can count on my vote.

One last thing, the administrators are in a different union from the teachers and in my experience they don't always work well together. You will find a lot of teachers who agree that administration salaries and overall cost are too high. That doesn't mean that if you took all the cost of administration it would be enough to make up for the deficiencies in Ed funding.

jefhatfield

Feb 16, 2004, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Jeff,

I don't know about "most" of the guys on this forum, but I'm not attacking you. I may disagree at times, but that won't mean an attack.

As to the place I went to school it was and is the great state of California. No, the decades comment is not extreme. Reagan led the cutbacks in education budgets when he became governor in 1966. When Jerry Brown became governor the legs were cut out from education funding from Prop 13. With Deukmejian and Wilson as Governors the trend continued. Decades is indeed an accurate description of the time of the systematic underfunding of California schools. We used to be the envy of the nation, now we are among the worst.

As a way of disclosure let me say, I speak from the personal experience of not only going through the California School system, but also as the father of two children currently in San Francisco public schools. I also spent almost 12 years working with a union that was part of the blue collar section of school workers so the battles for funding are not unfamiliar to me. I worked on many attempts to get more money for schools both on the State and Local levels.

About the rest of your post, I like your proposals, but it will take a lot of money to bring it about. Not likely in this climate that has seen cut backs of education funding under the last years of Davis and now Arnie's proposed budget. If it gets on the ballot, however, you can count on my vote.

One last thing, the administrators are in a different union from the teachers and in my experience they don't always work well together. You will find a lot of teachers who agree that administration salaries and overall cost are too high. That doesn't mean that if you took all the cost of administration it would be enough to make up for the deficiencies in Ed funding.

then that is pretty amazing that we are down that far

i have seen desparate attempts by some liberals to say that funding education more is important because education will mean you make anywhere from 40-300 percent more money in your lifetime for having a high school diploma up through a bachelor's degree

when i was a marketing person, i used to do research on all types of data and depending on who the source was, the figures were different

the education lobby loved to take the most extreme studies and spout them out like gospel truth

when i used to argue against my conservative friends, i used to use these numbers and i was shot down since my numbers did not hold up in the media and trusted sources

if one wants to push education, they should not lie and use scare tactics aiming at one's pocketbook and fear...we live in america, land of opportunity and opportunity does not care what education you have as much as it respects hard work and consistency...and a little bit of luck

many who become educated in college automatically think opportunity will be handed to them on a silver platter and then are mad when they will likely have a string of bosses and higher paid co-workers who don't give a rip

the movie "reality bites" is both funny and entertaining, but more than anything, it's accurate whether we are in a recession or not

wwworry

Feb 17, 2004, 06:44 AM

I have not been following this thread and have not read through it all but I do know some of the factors in education spending.

One thing to keep in mind is that we now have a legal obligation to fund special education where as we did not before 1970 (unclear on this date). Special education students are much more resource intensive. Maybe the funding per student is consistent but some of those students are funded a lot more than others.

Also, before 1970 (this is a general date) women had fewer opportunites in the work force outside of teaching. So before 1970 you had half the population locked into the teaching profession (gross exageration) and willing to work for lower salaries. Now, with many higher paying options before them it is natural that women might gravitate to higher paying jobs. In short, there is much greater competition for teachers now than there ever was. So to keep a high quality workforce we are sort of forced into paying higher salaries. For the most part we do not pay professional salaries to teachers yet we demand professional teachers.

So to say "we keep throwing money at the system" kind of ignores the above factors and also averages the well funded districts with the underfunded ones.

I agree there are probably too many high paid administrators and too many people not working in the classroom. One day I would like to see an experiment where we take a large city school district and really throw money at it. Lets try an extended experiment with smaller class sizes, enriching after-school programs and highly qualified teachers and see what happens. I don't think this has been done. We quibble over small things.

If we are willing to throw billions at a missile defence system that we do not have the technology currently to make work and billions so send someone to get a rock from Mars and billions to subsidize ethanol (that takes more energy than it produces), couldn't we try, just once, to really fund a school district? I think it would pay for itself.

If I ever win a mega lottery this is my plan.

Sayhey

Feb 17, 2004, 06:46 AM

Jeff,

here is a series of charts that show the woeful state of California education.

link (http://www.miedresearchoffice.org/nationalfacts.htm)

Unfortunately they don't go as far back as the first Brown administration (Pat that is - not Jerry.) Notice California's ranking of 39th (a move up) and 45th after inflation is taken into account. The latter is not counting four New England states that have a high level of spending per student.

Frohickey

Feb 17, 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am all for money running our country, but it's the corruption and bloated salaries and kickbacks of some that are way out of line...a junior college near me has a well known racist (minority himself) president who makes more than the president of the united states...he is well connected with the liberal education lobby

Minorities can be racist too. What was it that Spike Lee said when he sees a black and white couple...

As to salaries, the President of the United States makes $400,000 a year while in office, and a pension once they are out ($161,200, same as a cabinet member). It used to be that Presidents out of office would have an uncertain financial future, case in point is U.S. Grant.

Here is a writeup about Presidential compensation (http://encarta.msn.com/text_761571294___62/President_of_the_United_States.html).

Frohickey

Feb 17, 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
Now, with many higher paying options before them it is natural that women might gravitate to higher paying jobs. In short, there is much greater competition for teachers now than there ever was. So to keep a high quality workforce we are sort of forced into paying higher salaries. For the most part we do not pay professional salaries to teachers yet we demand professional teachers.

If we are willing to throw billions at a missile defence system that we do not have the technology currently to make work and billions so send someone to get a rock from Mars and billions to subsidize ethanol (that takes more energy than it produces), couldn't we try, just once, to really fund a school district? I think it would pay for itself.

If the amount of education funding is relatively fixed, what is the effect of mandating smaller class sizes? Isn't it an increase in the number of teachers, and a lowering of the average wages paid to teachers? How is that supposed to encourage more talented and professional people if the wages are low?

I agree with you on the subsidizing of ethanol (and hydrogen), laws of physics are not subject to an elected legislature. Missile defense and manned space flight both have defense applications, which is an appropriate governmental duty.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 17, 2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
If the amount of education funding is relatively fixed, what is the effect of mandating smaller class sizes? Isn't it an increase in the number of teachers, and a lowering of the average wages paid to teachers? How is that supposed to encourage more talented and professional people if the wages are low?

This might border on a little iconoclastic for a teacher to say, but one of the positive effects of low-wages for teachers is the inevitability that essentially any person who chooses to teach is doing so for the love of children, the desire to do good for the world, and not really much else (what other incentive is there?). If I were an elementary/high school teacher, I'd rather get paid a crappy salary and have among my colleagues only the most dedicated of individuals than to have teachers getting paid 100s of thousands of dollars a year attracting people who are "in it for the money". (In fact, where I do teach, at a University, this is sometimes the case - people in it for the money and for the notoriety - and that's a problem).

Teaching isn't a lucrative career, and it probably shouldn't be - its rewards far outweigh any dollar amount, and I think most teachers recognize this.

Davis

Neserk

Feb 17, 2004, 10:09 PM

The effect of low salaries for teachers is usually lower standards for hiring teachers.

But reduced class size does not mean lower salaries!

A teacher in a smaller classroom can more effectively teach all the students in that smaller classroom rather than being forced to teach to the middle only. S/he can also accomplish more teaching and the students can accomplish more learning.

Where we need to put money is into educating parents on what to do with their kids from the time they are born until they start kindergarten and then what to do with them after they are in school. *If* we can tackle the problem there a teacher can have a slightly larger classroom and still be able to teach all the students.

Teaching starts at home.

Neserk

Feb 17, 2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i have the distinct feeling that you are not saying anything from your opinion but are simply reciting some left wing agenda of how education will save the masses...so give give give to the education lobby because they really neeeed your tax monies

You shouldn't depend on your feelings so much then. They are off.

and before you call me a racist or a republican, realize that i am a moderate democrat and i am fully committed to getting W out of office this november...i am more likely to vote for a dean, edwards, or kerry, but not some whacko on the far left who would say things like "down with all corporations" or "the answer to our problems is giving everybody a college education"

'k :???: Not sure where that came from...

as it stands, i am all for our country offering completely free public college education, but i don't think most of the people need a college degree to succeed

You would be incorrect. Unless people are willing to hire high school graduate at a living wage.

and your dad did well and that is great...but what evidence do you have that he would have done better if he got a BA degree?

Because people younger than him were promoted over him or with him because they had a formal education. While experience is a great teacher, it takes a long time and often has large gaps. A 4 year degree would have given him the intenisve study he needed to skip over some of the stuff he did when he was younger and put him into what he is doing now or a completely different field much faster. Plus he wouldn't be counting down the days to retirement.

and how is our generation (people like you and me born in the 60s) far different than our parent's generation? do we really all need degrees?

If I didn't have my BA I would be on welfare. So, yes. I also would on the other side of the issue on Gay Marriages and a lot of other things. I shudder to think how my belief system would be had I not gotten a formal education.

heck, i got my bachelor's at a business oriented school, maybe i should start a restaurant? ;)

maybe ;)

ps...i love debating with you, neserk, and i am not calling you stupid so i apologize if it sounds that way

no problem. You can call me stupid if you want to. I know better :D

Glad to know where you are coming from. Look forward to future debates!

Neserk

Feb 17, 2004, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
one day if we ever have a macrumors get together, like some did in new orleans, we can have it in my backyard of silicon valley

we can cruise the neighborhood and i will show you around and perhaps if we are lucky, we can meet a high tech ceo since they reside here and intermingle with us regular folk much the way stars live and are seen in hollywood in southern california

there are so many non college people out there, at least in my field of high tech, who are doing well...i have a friend who started sun microsystems with a few of his buddies...most of them were dropouts

and a couple cities over from there, one can find shawn fanning, 19 year old gazillionaire who, yes you guessed it, dropped out of school

You are working with a different population. A lot of those people could not function in a regular classroom setting. There is some theories that those high tech people have a form of Autism that makes them highly mechanical. I don't know much about it so I can't really explain it. They are outside the box of the norm of what comes through the classroom. They aren't dropping out because they have been failed by their parents (and yes, their teachers) but because they are beyond a traditional classroom. Hopefully we willl catch up with them and be able to adapt the classroom to their needs in the future.

Neserk

Feb 17, 2004, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

do you have a degree? and if so, how has it made your job life any different? have you ever held a job that required a degree as a mininum qualification? and if you did, did you make more money? and a lot more money?

This is probably going to be long. So read it when you have the energy.

I have BA in Psychology. For reasons that would be TMI I opted not continue that direction and got a MA in Theology. I moved to CA to pursue a PhD to teach but after a year in the program realized that I had to things going against me (1) I am not good at learning languages, and (2) I don't handle politics very well. So before I put myself in debt I dropped out.

Then I took the CBEST and started substitute teaching. I was accepted into a district intern program but one of the requirements was getting a permanent position which alluded me for reasons I could not figure out. I finally realized that because I had a MA my salary would be about $9,000 more a year than a teacher with just a BA (no credential). Which was why I wasn't getting hired. This has been confirmed unoffically several times. So I switched to a University Program. I started in January and will finish in December. I will have preliminary credential and CLAD when I am done. 4 more classes and I'll have an MEd (I think that is what it is, not an MA).

If I didn't have a BA I wouldn't be able to substitute teach. My next best option would be making about $8 an hour (vs. about $17 an hour) which would make it impossible for me to support myself. Ironically, if I didn't have a MA I would be making about $34,000 a year.

When all is said and done I will be starting at about $45,000 a year with a dual Masters Degree. There is no job *I* could do that would make nearly that much money w/o my degrees. And of the billion different jobs I've done over the last (counts on fingers) 19 years teaching is the only job I've actually enjoyed for more than 5 minutes. I'm hard to please :D

wwworry

Feb 17, 2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
If the amount of education funding is relatively fixed, what is the effect of mandating smaller class sizes? Isn't it an increase in the number of teachers, and a lowering of the average wages paid to teachers? How is that supposed to encourage more talented and professional people if the wages are low?

I agree with you on the subsidizing of ethanol (and hydrogen), laws of physics are not subject to an elected legislature. Missile defense and manned space flight both have defense applications, which is an appropriate governmental duty.

Missile defence is a huge corporate give-away. It just does not work and plans to roll out a non-working missile defence system are just stupid. Also manned space flight is over rated as far as the benefits to civilians. Most of that research was going on anyway and if left to it's own devices might have possibly come to market sooner than later.

I say end oil subsidies. and pay teachers more, the market has changed. There are plenty of people who would love to teach but can not afford it. (this is directed to DavisBAnimal) Did you know that the average teacher in an underfunded school district pays $4000/yr. out of their own pocket for school supplies? I do not think that just because they care we should be screwing them.

Neserk

Feb 17, 2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Teaching isn't a lucrative career, and it probably shouldn't be - its rewards far outweigh any dollar amount, and I think most teachers recognize this.

Davis

I have mixed feelings about this. From my experience I'll be rich when I get a permanent teaching position.

That aside: I don't want it to be too lucrative because it will attract the wrong kind of people. Just my personal opinion, nothing to back it up.

I don't want it too be too cheap or easy because it attracts those less than intelligent. After taking some classes with and working with teachers I understand why they say "those who can't, teach" because there are some teachers who can't use high level thinking, let alone teach students to.

OTOH I doubt teaching attracts any greater number of less than intelligent people than any other field.

Neserk

Feb 17, 2004, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by wwworry

I say end oil subsidies. and pay teachers more, the market has changed. There are plenty of people who would love to teach but can not afford it. (this is directed to DavisBAnimal) Did you know that the average teacher in an underfunded school district pays $4000/yr. out of their own pocket for school supplies? I do not think that just because they care we should be screwing them. [/B]

I don't buy the "can't afford it" part. They may have to change their lifestyle, but they can afford it.

I was a long term sub last year for the entire school year in the same classroom. I got tired of hearing teachers whine about their pay when I was living on substitue teacher pay w/o benefits. They should try that out for a while.

OTOH for the amount of education you now have to have (4 year degree plus 33 credits in a credentialing program) we should be getting paid more. For the importance of the work we are doing we should be getting paid more. (Well, most of us). For the amount of stress we go through, we should be getting paid more.

Or maybe everyone else should just be getting paid less?

I think we need to take it from the baseball, basketball, and footplayers. They are the ones who are grossly overpaid and produce almost nothing of value. *sigh*

DavisBAnimal

Feb 17, 2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
There are plenty of people who would love to teach but can not afford it. (this is directed to DavisBAnimal) Did you know that the average teacher in an underfunded school district pays $4000/yr. out of their own pocket for school supplies? I do not think that just because they care we should be screwing them.

No teacher should have to pay $4000 for school supplies, I would never sugest that - indeed supply funding is a different matter than salaries. Teacher's shouldn't be getting screwed in that way.

But you're right, truly low teaching wages will discourage people away from teaching, but that's my entire point. I do know there is a teaching shortage in some parts of the country, and that is a shame and something needs to be done to fix that problem. However, I simply think a balance is all that is needed - teachers should be paid enough such that there is no shortage, and that they have enough money to lead a humble life and not worry about going bankrupt every broken leg (the great strides teacher's unions have done to secure benefits has helped this). They shouldn't get paid more.

I see a lot of people argue that a teacher's work is more valuable than say, an investment banker making six-figures and so therefore teacher's should be the ones making six figures. Well that's stupid - yes, teachers do arguably more for this country than investment bankers, and they get rewarded better too. Money isn't everything. No teacher should be making 6 figures - have you seen some of the slime balls that have become investment bankers just for the sake of the cash? I don't want people like that in the classroom with my kids.

In most areas I feel as if the wages to teaching supply ratio is adequate, and I feel as if it would be against the best interest of the children to let teaching salaries get too high. People should teach for the love, and the pleasant salaries and generous benefit packages, while not placing teacher's in the higher rungs of our economic system, nevertheless allow teachers to lead rewarding, happy lives. I don't know many teachers who are outright unhappy with their professional livelihoods, and I know no teacher who is rich, and that's a good thing.

Money shouldn't factor so strongly in to this equation (which is not to say more funding isn't needed in education - indeed, as you point out with the school supply problem, there is a lot to be done to enhance resources in education).

Davis

Krizoitz

Feb 18, 2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
No teacher should have to pay $4000 for school supplies, I would never sugest that - indeed supply funding is a different matter than salaries. Teacher's shouldn't be getting screwed in that way.

But you're right, truly low teaching wages will discourage people away from teaching, but that's my entire point. I do know there is a teaching shortage in some parts of the country, and that is a shame and something needs to be done to fix that problem. However, I simply think a balance is all that is needed - teachers should be paid enough such that there is no shortage, and that they have enough money to lead a humble life and not worry about going bankrupt every broken leg (the great strides teacher's unions have done to secure benefits has helped this). They shouldn't get paid more.

I see a lot of people argue that a teacher's work is more valuable than say, an investment banker making six-figures and so therefore teacher's should be the ones making six figures. Well that's stupid - yes, teachers do arguably more for this country than investment bankers, and they get rewarded better too. Money isn't everything. No teacher should be making 6 figures - have you seen some of the slime balls that have become investment bankers just for the sake of the cash? I don't want people like that in the classroom with my kids.

In most areas I feel as if the wages to teaching supply ratio is adequate, and I feel as if it would be against the best interest of the children to let teaching salaries get too high. People should teach for the love, and the pleasant salaries and generous benefit packages, while not placing teacher's in the higher rungs of our economic system, nevertheless allow teachers to lead rewarding, happy lives. I don't know many teachers who are outright unhappy with their professional livelihoods, and I know no teacher who is rich, and that's a good thing.

Money shouldn't factor so strongly in to this equation (which is not to say more funding isn't needed in education - indeed, as you point out with the school supply problem, there is a lot to be done to enhance resources in education).

Davis

I have to disagree, as someone who comes from a family of educators and is pusuing education himself, that meager existence you are talking about isn't fair. These people sacrifice alot to help society and while I am not saying we should make them all millionaires I think higher salaries would definitely help. It would help keep these people in the field of education, rather than going into other fields. We are losing some of our best teachers because they can't afford to be teachers, they have familes to support and bills to pay and so they go and join industry. Our teachers deserve better.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 18, 2004, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I have to disagree, as someone who comes from a family of educators and is pusuing education himself, that meager existence you are talking about isn't fair. These people sacrifice alot to help society and while I am not saying we should make them all millionaires I think higher salaries would definitely help. It would help keep these people in the field of education, rather than going into other fields. We are losing some of our best teachers because they can't afford to be teachers, they have familes to support and bills to pay and so they go and join industry. Our teachers deserve better.

Coming too from a family of educators and currently being one myself, I'm just going to have to disagree. The best teacher is one willing to teach no matter what the salary, because of their love of children. These people are willing to give up a high profile, well paid lifestyle because they see the rewards in a humble, teacher's existance, and those rewards are great.

Now I am far from saying that teacher's are overpaid, or that their pay should be frozen, or that they are selish or anything like that. Everyone would like to be paid more, and teachers are certainly the most valuable asset a society has; I just think in this case it would be bad for the people who really matter - the kids - because a rise in teacher's salaries would only at a certain point start encouraging crappy teachers.

According to the salary tracker at http://www.fastcompany.com/services/salary.html , the median salary of an Elementary School teacher is a little over $44,000, with a benefits package that brings that total up to just shy of $62,000. High School teachers are a few grand above that. Those are not impoverished salaries - you can definitely get by well enough, and lead a pleasant, be it, humble life. I think they're about right for right now, and I think they are allowing teachers to lead pleasant enough lives such that those truly excited by the non-monitary rewards of teaching won't get turned away.

Just for comparison, the average Top Real Estate Executive makes about $160,000 a year - a sum I am sure many would argue a teacher deserves more. But how many of you would want to trust your child's education in the hands of your Real Estate agent? I'm not sure what kind of lesson plans the Real Estate King from "American Beauty" would be pumping out, but I am sure it would be nothing of the calibur of Michelle Pfeiffer in "Dangerous Minds".

Teachers are wonderful people, and part of what is truly great about society. Let's not ruin that by tainting the position with wages that are too high and remove the emphasis of the job away from the children and over to the cash, all in the name of "fairness".

Davis

wwworry

Feb 18, 2004, 07:04 AM

some people who make a lot of money are slimey
so
if teachers made more money there would be more slimey teachers

???

really I just think there should be more of them

DavisBAnimal

Feb 18, 2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
some people who make a lot of money are slimey
so
if teachers made more money there would be more slimey teachers

???

really I just think there should be more of them

Simpy put - yeah. Obviously there are still slimey teachers, and not slimy Real Estate Agents, but I mean slimey here in the sense that they're in their profession not for the love of the work but for the love of the money.

I would much rather have a teacher say "Yeah, it's a ton of work and can get really stressful, but nothing compares to the feelig of helping a child learn something new" than "yeah, it's a ton of work and can get really stressful, but it pays real nice".

But you're right, so long as there is a teacher shortage (as is not so much the case in more rural areas, but is a significant problem in cities) then teaching salaries should be increased in order to balance out with the demand. (However, it shouldn't be just a money thing - programs should also but in place to encourage college undergrads to pursue teaching - programs which emphasize the non-monitary rewards).

Davis

mactastic

Feb 18, 2004, 07:57 AM

There's a part you are forgetting though. With higher pay should come accountability. The deal I see that would be adequate for everyone is for teachers to give up tenure and work in a pay-for-performance environment like the rest of the non-governmental workers of the world do. Then if you have slimeballs, you fire them. If you have excellent teachers you reward them by allowing them to make a fairly lucrative living. Keeping salaries low just to weed out the slimeballs doesn't work. My wife being a HS teacher, and both of us having been through/almost finished with college, I've met a lot of teachers right now who do it for the easy schedule, or the job security for life. Raising salaries will convince many, particularly those in the math and hard sciences, that teaching would be as good of a choice for them as going into industry.

The system is loaded with deadwood right now, teachers 'coasting' towards retirement and others the students simply hate for good reason, teachers that turn kids off from education. I don't see it getting any worse if we raise teachers pay, and with the talent it may attract I think the quality of teacher in the classroom would go up. The low pay is consistently cited as the reason many people who would make excellent teachers decide against it. Long term job security and summers off are cited far too often as the reason many people enter the profession. That is just as wrong as entering it for the money, but if we could get rid of promotion based on seniority and tenure then you could fire those who are only in it for the money.

Additionally, you don't start these people at $75,000. Keep the entry wages where they are, but allow more of a raise if you do well, and a higher ceiling farther on down your career. Have you seen what administrators make???? What good is it to have dedicated teachers, if the administration is in it for the money?

mactastic

Feb 18, 2004, 08:17 AM

Oh yeah, and another thing!

If low paying jobs attracted the most dedicated workers, wouldn't fast-food employees be among the most dedicated?

That was a joke! Well, half joking anyway.

You also need to consider that a teacher will only stay in a community long-term if they can afford to buy a house and raise their family there. Within the first 5 years a teacher should be able to afford to buy a house. Now I don't know about where you live, but here the affordability index is around $85,000 meaning if your family income isn't that high, you can't even afford to buy the median priced home. That would suggest that teachers in the nations high-priced housing markets need to be paid more than do others elsewhere. Unless of course you believe that certain areas don't need teachers. $2,000 a month doesn't cut it around here. Additionally, I know my (ex) university has had many, many highly qualified applicants for positions come out here, love the campus and the town, but flee as soon as the find out they won't be able to buy a house here. That has cost this area some prime teachers.

Sayhey

Feb 18, 2004, 08:58 AM

Davis,

I'm with mac and the others on this. Being a great teacher means you can reach children. It doesn't mean you are Mother Teresa. It doesn't mean you have to be willing to put up with low wages and a total lack of support. A big part of Education reform has to be wage increases for teachers. Far too many great teachers leave the profession simply because they can't afford it any more. The need to keep people out of the profession who can't do the job, but are in it for the money, needs to be done through other means than keeping the salaries low - how about real reviews of people's ability before the get tenure. If you had a surplus of people who are trying to get teaching jobs that would be much more likely.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 18, 2004, 09:25 AM

Alright alright! You guys got me on this one, I'll concede some defeat (god I hate trying out provocative arguments - you always get shut down!).

Mac, I think what you have suggested is a very well thought out plan for education reform. I think the elimination of tenure would do a lot to weed out teachers in it for the money, or teachers who have simply lost the love of the job and are coasting to retirement. Do I see this happening? Not really - I think teacher's unions are too strong and not willing enough to let go of tenure because of the lack of job security in an unsure economy. Do I think it would help the state of education? Definitely.

I'll stand by that teacher's simply shouldn't be rich for the reasons I have stated, but I'll admit I like what you guys say about increasing salaries (especially the idea about keeping the entry level salaries as is, and icreasing them as the teacher proves to be effective and worthwhile). Although increasing salaries is hard for any community to do, and proposed contracts are CONSTANTLY getting shut down, I think one way to accomplish this funding increase would be to, as you imply, cut down administrative costs. The true bloat in education is administration - a lot of these positions are entirely redundant, and I really don't think they should be making much more than the teachers. If you ask me, the teacher's union and administrative unions should be made in to one, where their contracts are negotiated side by side, and their is more egalitarian fund sharing.

Do I think money should be the only or biggest of the initiatives taken to increase the number of teachers? No. I think college councellors and advisors should really start hyping up the teaching profession, and I think the NEA should start allocating even more resources to educating prospective teachers on the rewards (non-monitary) of teaching.

Phew - well thanks for putting me in my place! I'm sure you will all be doing it again and again ;)

Davis

PS When I first made this argument, I mean it more of a "silver lining" type appeal - cause I do think this is a benefit of low teacher's salaries, but I am definitely willing to admit it is one of the few, if only benefits. I just kind of got wrapped up in supporting it once it was challenged (as happens often).

Frohickey

Feb 18, 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
Or maybe everyone else should just be getting paid less?

I think we need to take it from the baseball, basketball, and footplayers. They are the ones who are grossly overpaid and produce almost nothing of value. *sigh*

Didn't your parents ever tell you that its bad to take things that doesn't belong to you? :p

DavisBAnimal

Feb 18, 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Didn't your parents ever tell you that its bad to take things that doesn't belong to you? :p

Yeah, I actually have a problem with the argument put out there (often by liberal/at times Marxist critics of the capiltalist system) who argue that baseball players, etc., shouldn't be making that much money. Sports unions are some of the most powerful and most productive LABOR unions around. The sports industry is probably the ONLY industry there is in which the people who actually do the work (the athletes) make the most money.

The sports system has it right! It's not all about the capital (it's not about inheriting a franchise from your daddy, or getting money from your daddy so you can buy yourself the Texas Rangers). To make the most money in sports it's all about the hard work and dedication that goes into becoming an outstanding athelete. The sports industry rewards hard work and effort and is entirely blind to a person's upringing. The sports sytem should provide a model for industry everywhere, not to mention American Culture - strides in racial progress often manifest themselves in sports, first, and then spread throughout the countr - the sports industry often time leads the way - ie. Jackie Robinson and American Segregation.

This is not to say individual atheletes and their entitled attitudes aren't a problem. Indeed, sexual entitlement (etc.) is a huge problem and the industry. I'm just pointing out that the system itself provides a refreshing evidence of a capitalist system at work for it's workers and the profit sharing among all those involved - bourgeois and proletariat.

Davis

Frohickey

Feb 18, 2004, 04:39 PM

Actually, the sports industry is even better than you described.

Compensation is based on job performance. Continued employment is based on job performance. That is something that is lacking in the teaching industry, at least in the public sector where there is tenure.

I remember a Physics teacher who was employed in the EE department. He is tenured, it an awful teacher that the only sections he taught was intro-to-EE courses for non-EE students. The EE students knew better and avoid him like the plague. The department chair knew it as well, and he couldn't get rid of him.

Krizoitz

Feb 18, 2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Yeah, I actually have a problem with the argument put out there (often by liberal/at times Marxist critics of the capiltalist system) who argue that baseball players, etc., shouldn't be making that much money. Sports unions are some of the most powerful and most productive LABOR unions around. The sports industry is probably the ONLY industry there is in which the people who actually do the work (the athletes) make the most money.

The sports system has it right! It's not all about the capital (it's not about inheriting a franchise from your daddy, or getting money from your daddy so you can buy yourself the Texas Rangers). To make the most money in sports it's all about the hard work and dedication that goes into becoming an outstanding athelete. The sports industry rewards hard work and effort and is entirely blind to a person's upringing. The sports sytem should provide a model for industry everywhere, not to mention American Culture - strides in racial progress often manifest themselves in sports, first, and then spread throughout the countr - the sports industry often time leads the way - ie. Jackie Robinson and American Segregation.

This is not to say individual atheletes and their entitled attitudes aren't a problem. Indeed, sexual entitlement (etc.) is a huge problem and the industry. I'm just pointing out that the system itself provides a refreshing evidence of a capitalist system at work for it's workers and the profit sharing among all those involved - bourgeois and proletariat.

Davis

Yes, but pro-sports are the worst monopoly (outside of Ticketmaster maybe) in America (and Canada). You don't have to compete with ANYONE for your viewership unless you happen to be in an area like New York with two teams. People are left with two options, pay exorbinant ticket prices to see a game, or don't see it at all. Yes you could argue that the minor leagues are a cheaper option, but those are in limited areas too. Imagine if you had two competeing baseball leagues. Ticket prices would definitely go lower as one league tried to draw you away from the other. Instead they can charge whatever they want. Baseball is the worst, without salary caps and revenue sharing the rich teams get richer and the poor teams get poorer. Atleast in football its balanced...

Krizoitz

Feb 18, 2004, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Actually, the sports industry is even better than you described.

Compensation is based on job performance. Continued employment is based on job performance. That is something that is lacking in the teaching industry, at least in the public sector where there is tenure.

I think we are talking about two different industries here, higher education has tenure, generally primary and secondary ed (up through high school) doesn't. While job security is pretty good unless you do something awful, you can be fired for poor teaching results as well unlike in the college environment, so job performance at the high school level is important. Plus at research universities you have research proffesors who earn their tenure that way and only teach beccause they have to, screw their classes over because they don't care, and have no accountability.

Krizoitz

Feb 18, 2004, 05:03 PM

How off on a tangent this thread has gone :-)

Frohickey

Feb 18, 2004, 06:10 PM

It goes off tangent because some people believe that government should be involved in all aspects of people's lives.

"A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802

Krizoitz

Feb 18, 2004, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
It goes off tangent because some people believe that government should be involved in all aspects of people's lives.

Well isn't that an unfounded and rather bitter statement.

pseudobrit

Feb 18, 2004, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
It goes off tangent because some people believe that government should be involved in all aspects of people's lives.

Nice.

You take the flow of a conversation and peg it as being the fault of a stereotypical slot in which you'll fit everyone who doesn't agree with your extremist views.

Way to foster debate.

Frohickey

Feb 18, 2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Nice.

You take the flow of a conversation and peg it as being the fault of a stereotypical slot in which you'll fit everyone who doesn't agree with your extremist views.

Way to foster debate.

I'm just explaining how we came about the tangent. Now, you might characterize it as extremist, but there are lots of others who do not. I think I am in good company here, at least within the company of men who started this great country of ours. But enough of the finger pointing, and back to the debate.

Should government be involved in all aspects of people's lives? I think not. I don't want the government in my religion, my marriage, my bedroom, and a whole slew of stuff.

For government, I want them in building roads, courts, defense, and a few other stuff, all of which are explicitly stated.

Krizoitz

Feb 18, 2004, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
I'm just explaining how we came about the tangent. Now, you might characterize it as extremist, but there are lots of others who do not. I think I am in good company here, at least within the company of men who started this great country of ours. But enough of the finger pointing, and back to the debate.

Should government be involved in all aspects of people's lives? I think not. I don't want the government in my religion, my marriage, my bedroom, and a whole slew of stuff.

For government, I want them in building roads, courts, defense, and a few other stuff, all of which are explicitly stated.

ummm, we were talking about education funding. If you want to debate govt in marriage there are some gay marriage threads going on

Frohickey

Feb 18, 2004, 09:22 PM

Education is included in that 'whole slew of other things'. Wouldn't it be more efficient if education funding for a state, lets say, California, comes from Californians, and stay within California? And that education funding never left the state to begin with? So, property taxes, which are used to fund education is collected by the counties, with the property tax rate set by Sacramento. Everytime money changes hands, there is always a little bit skimmed off the top.

How is that for bringing the thread back closer to the title, which is a Republican Congressman who used to be in the Libertarian party, and still has libertarian leanings. Maybe we can bring the thread all the way back to whether libertarian ideas is what is needed to bring the USA back to its republican beginnings.

pseudobrit

Feb 18, 2004, 11:33 PM

jefhatfield

Feb 18, 2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Education is included in that 'whole slew of other things'. Wouldn't it be more efficient if education funding for a state, lets say, California, comes from Californians, and stay within California? And that education funding never left the state to begin with? So, property taxes, which are used to fund education is collected by the counties, with the property tax rate set by Sacramento. Everytime money changes hands, there is always a little bit skimmed off the top.

How is that for bringing the thread back closer to the title, which is a Republican Congressman who used to be in the Libertarian party, and still has libertarian leanings. Maybe we can bring the thread all the way back to whether libertarian ideas is what is needed to bring the USA back to its republican beginnings.

the libertarians want a true conservative party where the idea of "conserving" actually makes sense...today's so called conservative like reagan and bush outspent some of their democratic counterparts

the gop, in search of votes, has invaded our churches, our bedroom, our choice of drugs, where they send our troops, and our marriages and they are a completely different entity than the days of goldwater and nixon...both goldwater and nixon saw the danger of the "moral" christian right and their takeover of much of the republican party

in a perfect world, the libertarian party would be my choice but they don't take into account today's reality, human nature, and the strong, corrupt two party system

some of the most intelligent but naive people i have met are libertarians and none have really agreed with me on the nature of man (basically sinful and more drawn to evil...and that they need god)...if we relied more on our neighbors, the goodwill of business and private organizations, america would be a better place due to their basic nature for goodwill for their community, right?

it's just not human nature

but as humans, we don't have to be perfect to make a libertarian utopia exist and we can eventually get "somewhat better" and "kinder" and make a libertarian system work

just because we have a strong central government and statist apporach in america does not mean we are nazis or even approaching it

...but the time is not now for the libertarians, and for now, take it or leave it, we have the democrats and republicans in power and i can't think of a large country with a better system than america today

i could also say a lot of great things about the green party, in a perfect world, but then again, like the example of the libertarians, the overall execution of such a different system cannot work in a world where human nature is not up to the cause

after working for three years in a hospital, i have seen the need for a cheap and available form of medical marijuana and only the green party and the libertarians have been extremely supporting of the idea and compassionate for the poor patients who suffer without it

on that alone, i have almost registered as a green or libertarian, but in the big picture, there is just too much unreal with them (as stated above) for me to commit to those parties and their sometimes better ideals for the populace

jefhatfield

Feb 18, 2004, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit

C'mon, now, the nation was split even then between Republicans and Federalists. You should know better. Don't oversimplify the issue by trying to convince us that the nation was of one mind at some point and some kind of utopia.

there were definitely vast differences from a variety of groups political and non-political....don't forget the jeffersonian democrats...we are more narrow today as to who is in power compared to those days of the founding fathers

even the english language was almost not used as our official language

as for slavery and/or the right of non-whites to vote, there were terrible debates and proponents of abolition even went through changes in opinion in their personal political careers

when george washington became our first president, many of his followers wanted to call him our first king

Frohickey

Feb 19, 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit That may be, but by and large, the education system is funded exactly as you want it to be -- at the local level. Around here, local property taxes pay for almost all school cost. Sure there are grants coming down from the state and federal levels, but for daily operation, municipal property taxes pay for education.

Get rid of the Department of Education, and defund the National Endowment for the Arts, split that budget along congressional representation, and sent it back to the states. Then, cut taxes by the same amount. Bingo, no more money changing hands to go from the states to the feds and back to the states.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 19, 2004, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Get rid of the Department of Education, and defund the National Endowment for the Arts, split that budget along congressional representation, and sent it back to the states. Then, cut taxes by the same amount. Bingo, no more money changing hands to go from the states to the feds and back to the states.

I'm in some ways for doing that, but I think if you get rid of the national funding of Education, give the cash back to local districts, then return to a full-local-level funding system, you're going to HAVE to get rid of those ridiculous national-curriculum standards, nation-wide testing, etc. We would have to trust the localities who are pay for their schools to run these schools the way they see fit.

This is the way it should be, anyway, so while I'm reluctant to call for the end of federal funding (I don't know if you can trust some municipalities to adequately fund their schools), the prospect of the end of ridiculous nation-wide education standards does intrigue me.

Davis

DavisBAnimal

Feb 19, 2004, 05:05 PM

Keep in mind that some of the reason there is nation-wide school funding in the first place is because of the natural inadequacies of the poperty-tax system. With property taxes paying for local schools, your basically into a situation where Rich Kid get Rich Good School, Poor Kid get Poor Crap School. Is this fair?

Sure, I know plenty of people who think "Yes, that's fair - I don't want to be paying for some other kid's education". But I have a problem with that. I think we're one country and should have some responsibilities for the creation of an even playing field for all the kids, not just our own. It's one thing to be against tax programs for adults, but these kids aren't at fault for being born into a crappy school district, and shouldn't be punished for life for their misfortune.

Davis

mactastic

Feb 19, 2004, 05:29 PM

Property taxes are artificially low in California since Prop 13. If we are going to advocate using property taxes for a major portion of our education funding shouldn't we be advocating for Prop 13s repeal/reform?

Or we could just say that only those who can afford it should be educated? No FAFSA though, we all *know* that's welfare.

We must not believe the many, who say that only free persons ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers, who say that only the educated are free.

Epictetus - former Roman slave
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. -- George Washington, address to Congress, January 8, 1790

Frohickey

Feb 19, 2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal Keep in mind that some of the reason there is nation-wide school funding in the first place is because of the natural inadequacies of the poperty-tax system. With property taxes paying for local schools, your basically into a situation where Rich Kid get Rich Good School, Poor Kid get Poor Crap School. Is this fair?

Maybe the property tax is the wrong way to fund education. Maybe the correct way to fund education is via an excise tax on pen, pencils, glue sticks, scissors, backpacks, paper, computers, printers, toner cartridges, etc. I could see businesses contributing to education when they purchase office supplies. And businesses are also the ones that benefit from a well-educated workforce.

pseudobrit

Feb 19, 2004, 05:48 PM

I'd go one step further and say that everyone in society benefits from an educated populace.

So why not just take it from state income taxes? 'Tis the fairest way all around.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 19, 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I'd go one step further and say that everyone in society benefits from an educated populace.

So why not just take it from state income taxes? 'Tis the fairest way all around.

Sure is. Except in a state with no income tax. :(

Oh, sweet sweet New Hampshire.

Davis

jefhatfield

Feb 19, 2004, 06:08 PM

i think besides cutting administrator jobs and salaries, and getting income from other sources like frohickey has mentioned, we can simplify what we teach in schools

i don't think we need much more than the three R's...reading, writing, and math (arithmetic)..the 4th R, as some have suggested, is computers and that would have been fine and dandy back in the 80s and perhaps the early 90s...i think the learning curve is catching up on that 4th R, so the focus should still be on the basics

while i think it is nice to teach some eastern religion and philosophy, i don't think it is necessary to teach a whole lot and concepts like new math and other ineffective or unproven ideas could be used as electives in high school but the focus should be math up through algebra, reading, writing, physical sciences, social sciences, and physical education...besides other eastern philosophies and other elective courses, making a child ready for college should be important

teaching evolution and creationism are high ideals for different interest groups, but those should be left to the science oriented and religious oriented schools...even though football is nice, not every school can afford it and if funds are low, learning and not extra curricular sports should come first

gender studies and women's studies are very important but i still think they should be electives in high school....as for college, i think they should absolutely be a requirement

i mentioned football because it's expensive, but other sports, if not too expensive, should at least be considered in a school budget but if worst came to worst, dump some teams instead of letting a valueable teacher go

in my state of arnold-fornia, we are facing some really tough times and a lot of cutbacks need to happen...though arnold is socially liberal and tolerant, he is fiscally conservative with the most conservative of them (dole, gingrich, etc) and this is perhaps who we need to bail us out so cuts in schools will definitely come and while many won't like it, it may give us all a new perspective on what was important and what was worth letting go

as i have mentioned before, america being the richest country in the world, in history, should be able to allow the opportunity to educate a person all the way through four years of college, for free, if a person is so inclined

college is not for most of us and the trades, many non college required professional jobs, retail jobs, restaurant jobs, real estate agents, travel agents, factory workers, mechanics, many computer techinicians and programmers, chefs, teacher's aides, medical staff not requiring four years of college, and many others do fine without a four year education...but it would just be nice for a person to be able to go all the way through four years of school without worry, or for a non college graduate who is already in a job to make a career change to a job which would require a degree

of course, the degreed job would not always mean more money, but it would be nice just to give the person those types of options in today's volatile economy

now should it be federally funded, state funded, county funded, or a combination of any two or all three? and in what ratios, for what regions? this i don't know but it could be worked out (slowly and painfully) until the end result is having a person have the option for an free four year college education as a viable option

as far as it goes now, only the four military service academies and a few federally funded schools like cooper union in new york, are free and that is not enough for this large, and wealthy country

DavisBAnimal

Feb 19, 2004, 06:40 PM

Jef, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I'd just add that I still think it's ridiculous to have a school without strong music or arts programs, and I think it's sad a lot of schools are cutting these programs first, in the interest of saving money. Art and Music fuel the creative urges within students and is sometimes the only classes bringing kids in the building. They should remain a strong focus of our education system.

Davis

Frohickey

Feb 19, 2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i don't think we need much more than the three R's...reading, writing, and math (arithmetic)..

as i have mentioned before, america being the richest country in the world, in history, should be able to allow the opportunity to educate a person all the way through four years of college, for free, if a person is so inclined

I agree with the basics. Reading, writing, arithmetic. Music and art should be pursued as an after-school volunteer, privately funded activity. Same with the various competitive sports activities.

As to having higher education be free for the person, when you make something free, the value of it is diminished. How would you prevent inappropriate use of this free education by 'career students'?

DavisBAnimal

Feb 19, 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
As to having higher education be free for the person, when you make something free, the value of it is diminished. How would you prevent inappropriate use of this free education by 'career students'?

I think you prove a point you're not trying to make right there: We place so much value on higher education in our job market, yet not everyone can afford it. That's what the issue is, here - you can't have a system where people who want to go to college can't go to college because they don't have the money for it and then suffer for that lack of their parent's ability to get enough money together.

I don't think we have to worry about 18 year old kids going to school to be "career students", I don't think anyoe is suggesting unlimited amounts of free college for everyone. I'm pretty sure Edwards's plan is limited to 4 years (I don't even know if it goes that far).

And we need art for younger kids. I don't have the studies, I don't have the stats, but it's common sense and it's actual empircal data that shows kids with strong exposure to music and the arts at a young age become better learners as they grow up - there is siginificant proof of a link between music and math learning abilities, for instance. Music and Art lead to well rounded young kids, and our culture should be every bit as important to us as our economy. We need Art and Music in our schools.

Davis

mactastic

Feb 19, 2004, 07:51 PM

Yeah, we wouldn't want to encourage people like Linus Torvalds with free schooling.;)

IJ Reilly

Feb 19, 2004, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, we wouldn't want to encourage people like Linus Torvalds with free schooling.;)
Not so much that, so much as we wouldn't want to reward him for his parent's lack of affluence.

jefhatfield

Feb 19, 2004, 10:17 PM

davis and frohickey,

being a fellow fiscal conservative, i don't suggest people going to school for free to get two, three, or more bachelor's degrees and live off the state...one BA/BS degree is fine and if they want more, then let them pay some form of tuition

and for advanced degrees, master's (of which only 6 percent hold) and doctorate degrees (of which only 3 percent hold) should not have to be provided free of of charge by the state...there has to be a limit somewhere

i am just talking about one free public bachelor's degree...sure, there will be people changing their major more than once but that is part of the process in wanting to find a field and that is ok...what i would object to is a person completing one degree for free, then going after another for free, and then another, etc at the expense of the taxpayer while one person racks up a whole wall of bachelor's degrees

it won't lessen the value of a degree since only a quarter of the workforce possess a bachelor's or higher, and even if it were free, a person still has to bust their butt for four or more years to get that bachelor's degree and one also has to be a self starter to stick to a plan and achieve it...i couldn't ever imagine more than a third of the population being able to get a bachelor's or higher or even wanting to take four or more years out of their life from working, making money, having time, and having fun

you can have fun when you are in college, but if you expect to finish all of a bachelor's degree, you have to study and it is guaranteed that if you are a student, you will miss out on a lot of the activities that working folk age 18-22 get to have if they didn't go to school

going to college is not about a whole bunch of cute coeds and beer bongs...there are tests, essays, homework, and other commitments which make a normal everyday life not possible to the level and freedom of a working person...and students work on their homework and don't get paid while they see their working counterparts get paychecks

many who are of college age would rather buy "stuff" when out of the house for the first time, not hit the books and in most cases, be too poor or too busy to enjoy it...you are only that age once and that is why many people embark on college later in life and by then, they may already have a solid career path and may want to take a few classes for the fun of it without the expectation of a degree

i don't think people will try and abuse a free college degree if it is limited to one degree and only to the level of a bachelor's degree...they only let you get one high school diploma so you don't see professional high school students getting two or more diplomas and spending their lives until 40 going to homecomings and proms:p

Neserk

Feb 20, 2004, 01:10 AM

I want to know how all these people are going to college for free! I want in on it. I would love to be a career student. I love going to classes! Certainly beats the real world :D

Neserk

Feb 20, 2004, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Frohickey
[B]I agree with the basics. Reading, writing, arithmetic. Music and art should be pursued as an after-school volunteer, privately funded activity. Same with the various competitive sports activities.

Except that according to the most recent commercials sponsored by American Express and some Artists when Music and the Arts are in school, students learn better in other areas. The compartmentalizing of subject matter in education is one of its downsides. In the real world they all work together!

Neserk

Feb 20, 2004, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
[B]There's a part you are forgetting though. With higher pay should come accountability.

Okay, so how do you hold a teacher accountable? Aside from the teacher who doesn't feel like teaching and shows her students a video, how do you determine who is a good teacher and who is a bad teacher? Certainly not the way they think they are doing it now!

Tenure protects a teacher against politics. I don't think it is all bad. I would have to say it is more good than bad. I may change my mind in 10 years. So check back with me on that!

Neserk

Feb 20, 2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
If I ever win a mega lottery this is my plan.

My plan is to open a private school for underprivledged kids. Particularly the one that have problems in regular classrooms.

Neserk

Feb 20, 2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
No teacher should have to pay $4000 for school supplies, Davis

Is this stat like the Welfare Queen? One person did so supposedly all teachers do? I can't even imagine what I would spend $4000 on for school supplies! Did they buy a computer and a notebook? textbooks? what? Crayons are cheap! And so is paper!

Krizoitz

Feb 20, 2004, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i mentioned football because it's expensive, but other sports, if not too expensive, should at least be considered in a school budget but if worst came to worst, dump some teams instead of letting a valueable teacher go

First in many schools football actually MAKES money and is used to subsidize sports.

Second sports can be a great motivator for bordline or troubled students to get involved in school or keep their grades up, or stay out of trouble. Now obviously this is not always the case, but sports can be used in a very positive way to improve education. Just like art and music. Not everyone can learn the same way, and sports gives people an opportunity they might not get elsewhere.

Obviously if a school is so strapped that they can't afford teachers music art and athletics then that school needs help. Which is why society should support schools, instead of complaining about having to pay for other peoples children, its the best investment in the world.

Krizoitz

Feb 20, 2004, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Neserk
Okay, so how do you hold a teacher accountable? Aside from the teacher who doesn't feel like teaching and shows her students a video, how do you determine who is a good teacher and who is a bad teacher? Certainly not the way they think they are doing it now!

Tenure protects a teacher against politics. I don't think it is all bad. I would have to say it is more good than bad. I may change my mind in 10 years. So check back with me on that!

What school districts offer tenure to grade school and high school teachers? At least here in washington only college proffesors get tenure.

jefhatfield

Feb 20, 2004, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
First in many schools football actually MAKES money and is used to subsidize sports.

Second sports can be a great motivator for bordline or troubled students to get involved in school or keep their grades up, or stay out of trouble. Now obviously this is not always the case, but sports can be used in a very positive way to improve education. Just like art and music. Not everyone can learn the same way, and sports gives people an opportunity they might not get elsewhere.

Obviously if a school is so strapped that they can't afford teachers music art and athletics then that school needs help. Which is why society should support schools, instead of complaining about having to pay for other peoples children, its the best investment in the world.

certain cuts have to be made to balance federal, state, and county budgets

i do not want the K-12 portion of our public schools to get gutted in order to offer a free bachelor's degree because in the end, over 90 percent of the populace in the usa have a high school education or better as opposed to a fourth of the population that have a four year degree or higher...so the obvious priority here is the K-12 education

but we need to make sure the kids in K-12 have the basics of reading, writing, and math before we can worry about the arts, music, and sports...sure, it's true that those three contribute to an overall education but the basics is what need to be stressed so that the kids can survive in the real world when they finish

also remember that 75 percent of the people who become trained in high school will not go on to finish a bachelor's degree or higher so that means the vast majority of kids will call high school their last major educational experience

our society could always do better with adults who can read, write, and have basic math skills

jefhatfield

Feb 20, 2004, 07:55 AM

let's say that the concept of a free four year public college degree is not fiscally possible for any state/most states

if that is the overall consensus after attempts at broadening free public education, then an honest attempt at making junior college completely free should be investigated

right now, in my county, high school is free

but the junior college is $18 dollars a unit, to be raised to $26 dollars a unit this fall and a full time load is twelve units a semester and many students take fifteen units...on top of that, there is a student health fee, a building fee, and an administrative fee

parking is $35 dollars for a semester

then there are textbooks...trust me, those are very expensive and can cost up to $300 dollars a semester...tack on supplies for labs and art classes and basic supplies and tack on another $50 dollars

in the end, even though the local junior colleges in the area are more affordable than a public four year college or graduate school, it's still far from free

at the very least, every state should offer a junior college education free of charge and it would be good for every citizen to have the option of having a two year college degree which would broaden a students learning well beyond the basic skills taught to one in a K-12 education

though a 2 year and 4 year degrees don't make a drastic difference in one's overall standard of living in most cases, it does enrich a person's mind and life

...but there are some 2 year programs which can help a person's income stream in a major way...a two year real estate degree, computer/network technician's degree, or nursing degree are excellent training grounds which have been proven to increase a person's income

if arts and music and some of the humanities have to be sacrificed so kids can get the three R's in high school back to previous levels, the "free" junior college can be made to take the slack for those kids who really want to pursue that side of themselves and they will be better prepared to do that anyway if they have a solid backing of reading, writing, and arithmetic

perhaps one day, students will have a K-14 education which culminates in 90 percent of the american populace having college degrees on the AA/AS level and since people generally live longer, perhaps a student can go to school from age five to age twenty and leave the house after that, instead of age eighteen

of course, making the jump from having the majority of the populace being high school educated to junior college educated would probably take a great effort which could take several generations but it would be worth it and america could be an almost totally college educated society (all comfortably done with our tax money by making some changes but not raising taxes)

jefhatfield

Feb 20, 2004, 08:10 AM

Yes

even though a president would at least need the AA/AS and most likely a bachelor's and most likely a law degree, the street sweeper would not need that junior college degree

...and neither would most of the working world who are out there

...but we could live in a much more advanced and enriched society and have our country reach unprecedented levels of knowledge and enrichment if we go from 90 percent high schools grads to 90 percent college grads...mostly by way of a completely free education through age 20 for everyone, including books

at the same time, i wouldn't really expect that most of the people would want to go through upper division classes and finish a bachelor's degree or more...i can see that would be asking too much for our country's populace to be 90 percent educated with four years of college under their belt

...but fast forward 100 or 200 years...maybe traditional education for 90 percent of the populace can be a K-16 setup where just about everybody has a BA/BS degree...it could only help society

for some, at least for me, education is a lifelong process and i don't mind paying for it...but at least have junior college be free of any expenses for everybody out there

Neserk

Feb 20, 2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
What school districts offer tenure to grade school and high school teachers? At least here in washington only college proffesors get tenure.

You receive tenure on the first day of your third year of teaching after you have your teaching credential.

jefhatfield

Feb 20, 2004, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
You receive tenure on the first day of your third year of teaching after you have your teaching credential.

sometimes these things can vary

i have a friend who just made professor, and the proper pay, after 17 years at his job...at the school he is at, it takes no more than 4 years if everything works out correctly

since he is a teacher but does not have a outgoing personality, that hurt him

also since his school is mostly a graduate school for the military, so he tried to teach to civilian standards for a graduate school but the soldiers there are often not qualified to be in a civilian graduate school, but only get into a military gradaute school becasue they have a good record as a soldier so many of his students don't do well in his class

only when he dumbed down the class over and over to the level of where it is now have the students started to get good enough grades...when that happened and he also got over his shyness, he finally got the nod to make full professor...if he did not make it before his 20th year, he would have retired an assistant professor and not have received full pay and the best pension at retirement

as it stands now, he will teach beyond the retirement age just to have something to do

school systems and districts make their teachers have to jump through hoops sometimes before they give a full title and tenure to a teacher and if the teacher does not want to play that political game, they can be held back

Krizoitz

Feb 20, 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
You receive tenure on the first day of your third year of teaching after you have your teaching credential.

Davis, any comments on that? At least around here I have never heard of tenure for non-college educators.

mactastic

Feb 20, 2004, 04:46 PM

My understanding is that that is how it works, at least here in California. Although there is some distinction between tenure-track position and non-tenure-track positions, my understanding is that if you are hired in a tenure-track position, and you make it to the first day of your third year you get tenure. Silly, but that's how it works.

Frohickey

Feb 24, 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am just talking about one free public bachelor's degree...sure, there will be people changing their major more than once but that is part of the process in wanting to find a field and that is ok...what i would object to is a person completing one degree for free, then going after another for free, and then another, etc at the expense of the taxpayer while one person racks up a whole wall of bachelor's degrees

The way you have described it can be abused. How about the 'career student' who doesn't take the classes required for graduation with a specific bachelors degree? What if the person takes any and all sorts of classes just to extend their stay in college? When something provided free of charge, there is no incentive to conserve.

A few solutions could be a set price for educational assistance regardless of income, but this would be decried by the leftist wealth-redistribution folks as a giveaway to the rich.

Another could be a set price for education assistance by only for poor folks, but how about the poor folks that do not want to go to college, but would rather use that educational assistance money to start their own auto-body shop.

The fairest solution is to not use taxes for this purpose.

Frohickey

Feb 24, 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
Except that according to the most recent commercials sponsored by American Express and some Artists when Music and the Arts are in school, students learn better in other areas. The compartmentalizing of subject matter in education is one of its downsides. In the real world they all work together!

Governmental funding and educational testing IS compartmentalizing. When has a government program not been a carbon copy rubber stamp designed to churn out identical pieces of stuff?

Reading, writing, arithmetic. Arts, music, sports should be after-school activities. It can be subsidized by private charities, endowments, violin manufacturers, art supply stores, and golf club makers.

Some people function just fine without music and the arts. The ones that want to can avail themselves to their choice of music or the arts. Some students might want to act, some might want to sing, some might want to bang on the drum all day. Some students might want to paint, some might want to sculpt, some might want to glue flowers into large vehicles on a yearly basis.

mactastic

Feb 24, 2004, 02:23 PM

Why even subsidize higher level math then? Most people don't use beyond multiplication tables anyway. Anyone who wants to learn more than the times tables should do it after school and not on my dime. That way the people who don't want to learn math aren't paying for the people who do.

And writing? There are spellcheckers now, so beyond basic spelling and grammer, why make it core curriculum? Once you can endorse your paycheck the rest is voluntary learning.

Literature should be an after school activity too. Why subsidize those who have an interest in Shakespeare for pete's sake? Most of us will never need Shakespeare! I don't want to pay for anything beyond "See Spot Run".

There, now state sponsored education can be over by 4th grade. That should cut the amount we spend on education.

Krizoitz

Feb 24, 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Governmental funding and educational testing IS compartmentalizing. When has a government program not been a carbon copy rubber stamp designed to churn out identical pieces of stuff?

Reading, writing, arithmetic. Arts, music, sports should be after-school activities. It can be subsidized by private charities, endowments, violin manufacturers, art supply stores, and golf club makers.

Some people function just fine without music and the arts. The ones that want to can avail themselves to their choice of music or the arts. Some students might want to act, some might want to sing, some might want to bang on the drum all day. Some students might want to paint, some might want to sculpt, some might want to glue flowers into large vehicles on a yearly basis.

Once again, education is about more than just being able to read and add. If you want a society where all people can do is add and read then I pity you.

Music and art enrich peoples lives and if it weren't for exposure in school alot of children wouldn't get that chance. Not to mention the numerous links between students who have exposure to art and music doing BETTER in school.

To me your argument sounds incredibly selfish. I ask you to go to a middle school band and choir concert. Look at the excitement in their eyes as you see them making music and tell me that it isn't worth it.

krossfyter

Feb 24, 2004, 03:13 PM

"The best schools have the best art programs. Excellence in education and excellence in the arts seem to go hand in hand._ A report in Soundpost (vol. 17, 1990, p.21) states that, “students who take arts courses tend to have higher scores on Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) than those who do not.” It continues by saying, “The more arts courses a student takes, generally speaking, the higher his or her SAT scores.” In fact study indicates students who have four years or more of art and music education score 59 points higher on the verbal SAT and 44 points higher in math. That the arts actually tend to improve students verbal and numerical skills can be seen as only a bonus to those who already value the arts for more aesthetic reasons.

In early childhood education symbols and images first clothed the creative thinking of the child, not written words._ Being able to assemble letters in proper sequence to spell rabbit does not constitute an understanding of a rabbit._ It is the interaction between symbols, the self, and the environment that provides the process of reading. As we grow in our knowledge and understanding of new words or terms we continue to evolve through these relationships._ One of the basic ingredients of a creative art experience is the relationship between the artist and his/her environment.

The arts are everywhere in our lives from the car you drive to the advertisements you see._ They are a part of the home designed just for your family and they continue adding depth and dimension to the environment we live in and shaping our experience daily._"

Arts education builds within the student:

-Visual discrimination
-Creativity
-Self-discipline responsibility
-Motivation to learn
-Fulfillment through productivity;
Cultural, Historical and Community
-Awareness
-Ability to make aesthetic judgments
-Self-expression
-Improves Academic performance

-The Importance of the Arts in the Schools
Frank Boever

Dont ***** with ART!

Frohickey

Feb 24, 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Once again, education is about more than just being able to read and add. If you want a society where all people can do is add and read then I pity you.

Music and art enrich peoples lives and if it weren't for exposure in school alot of children wouldn't get that chance. Not to mention the numerous links between students who have exposure to art and music doing BETTER in school.

To me your argument sounds incredibly selfish. I ask you to go to a middle school band and choir concert. Look at the excitement in their eyes as you see them making music and tell me that it isn't worth it.

A society where everyone can read and do math, and I mean, everyone, 100% literacy is a very good thing. Thats like the Holy Grail. Society should strive for this.

Music and art are subjective. It should be done in an environment where the practitioner has the freedom to explore and try new things. When you make it part of the school curriculum, you shackle it with a grading system, and that would tend to stifle creativity. That is why the urge to make it an after-school activity.

Also, there is no reason to call people selfish. I have no horse in this race. I'm not a music or art teacher that have spent a sizeable portion of their life in getting prepared to teach kids what music or art is. When I see these links about how music or art in school is supposed to be better for kids, etc, I see it being made by groups who have a vested interest in seeing the music/art programs be expanded in order to validate their choice... so, who is selfish?

As to spending time in the middle school band and choir concert, I can't count how much time I have spent in the band room hanging out with friends in junior high and high school. Lunch time was 55 minutes, and the place was large enough to have lots of non-music people congregate with their friends, but also supervised so that the bullies and lowlifes are not there to ruin it, like they have done the cafeteria. We can hang out with musically-inclined friends, and be their 'audiences' when they figured out some cool new song to play. We can also say that it sucks, and try something else. :p

Okay, I see your point in that its good to expose children at an early age to music and the arts, its the manner in which its done is the issue.

mactastic

Feb 24, 2004, 03:50 PM

Literature and math can be just as creative as music and art. I mean, if we shackle kids with grades in literature classes, does that not stifle creative writing just as surely as it would a musician?

Besides, these studies that say you need math to succeed are all done by people who have learned math and who have a vested interest in justifying their choice in life. Makes me think they have an agenda and we don't really need math to survive the way people would have us think.

krossfyter

Feb 24, 2004, 03:55 PM

yes ... lets not talk about how math and literacy are more important then art/music.

to make a value judgement on one over the other is dangerous.

the obvious importance or equality of art to math can be found in how our brain is divided in terms of function.

analytical and creative.

the problem i have with gradeschool or the way i was taught is that they seem to value the analytical over the creative... and now im having to retrace... back pedal... go back and develop more of my creative side. unlearn!

our society is filled with people who have been taught like this.... we have neglected the creative side of our brain.

generally speaking.

3rdpath

Feb 24, 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey

Music and art are subjective. It should be done in an environment where the practitioner has the freedom to explore and try new things. When you make it part of the school curriculum, you shackle it with a grading system, and that would tend to stifle creativity. That is why the urge to make it an after-school activity.

what a load of steaming tripe.

1) you don't have to grade music or art classes. mine weren't. you're shackling theory is a convenient cop-out. and btw, isn't a creative writing class subjectively graded. should we throw that out also? furthermore, what about subjectivity makes it inappropriate for school? life is subjective...get used to it.

2) you act like art/music and reading/math are areas of brain activity that don't overlap. they influence eachother greatly, stimulating development in all activities. it's moronic not to craft a curriculum that takes advantage of this synergy.

3) after school classes would ultimately be attended by those who could afford them...thereby making them inaccessible to many many children of lower income families.

4) school is the OBVIOUS place to explore and try new things...umm, isn't that called "learning"? education IS exploration.

frohickey, i'm constantly amazed at how much you know and how little you understand...

pseudobrit

Feb 24, 2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Also, there is no reason to call people selfish. I have no horse in this race. I'm not a music or art teacher that have spent a sizeable portion of their life in getting prepared to teach kids what music or art is. When I see these links about how music or art in school is supposed to be better for kids, etc, I see it being made by groups who have a vested interest in seeing the music/art programs be expanded in order to validate their choice... so, who is selfish?

Oh, get off it! You're telling me the only reason we have music and art programmes in school is because of the clout of the powerful art teachers' lobby? What utter nonsense.

Frohickey

Feb 24, 2004, 07:11 PM

The reason there is music and art teachers is that somewhere, somehow, someone came up with the bright idea that they don't want to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, and its better for them to teach art and music instead.

I could see a teacher that shares their passion for art and music to their students after school. It could be an english teacher, or a calculus teacher, etc.

Krizoitz

Feb 24, 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Also, there is no reason to call people selfish.

I did not call you selfish, I said it was selfish argument. There is a difference and I wrote it that way intentionally. This just confirms my belief that people don't read what people write, they read what they want to see.

mactastic

Feb 24, 2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
The reason there is music and art teachers is that somewhere, somehow, someone came up with the bright idea that they don't want to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, and its better for them to teach art and music instead.
WTF??? Do you have any proof that art and music teachers evolved from readin', 'ritin', and 'rithmatic teachers that didn't want to work real hard? Or is this more of your inane babble?

I could see a teacher that shares their passion for art and music to their students after school. It could be an english teacher, or a calculus teacher, etc.
How about a teacher who has a degree or has spent their life studying art or music? Is that too much to ask?

And you still are dodging the issue of 'ritin' being subjective material. Are you only interested in quantitative subjects?

3rdpath

Feb 24, 2004, 07:51 PM

Frohickey

Feb 24, 2004, 07:56 PM

Okay, I see things like this.

We have a few schools that are not teaching some kids the basics. Instead of focusing on the basics with whatever limited financial resources available, we should keep funding more ancillary subjects. And it doesn't end in financial resources, there is also the limited time in a day with which to teach students. There are 24 hours in a day. If 8 of those hours are not enough to teach the basics and the extra stuff, should we add more hours?

How about this instead? The kids that do not learn the required basics get more of the basic courses. Reading, writing, arithmetic. If they have mastered these basics as measured by tests, then their curriculum can be expanded to include art and music.

wwworry

Feb 24, 2004, 08:02 PM

most studies have shown that a more rounded education is a better education, including the arts and phys-ed. The developing brain is not fenced in.

mactastic

Feb 24, 2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Okay, I see things like this.

We have a few schools that are not teaching some kids the basics. Instead of focusing on the basics with whatever limited financial resources available, we should keep funding more ancillary subjects. And it doesn't end in financial resources, there is also the limited time in a day with which to teach students. There are 24 hours in a day. If 8 of those hours are not enough to teach the basics and the extra stuff, should we add more hours?

How about this instead? The kids that do not learn the required basics get more of the basic courses. Reading, writing, arithmetic. If they have mastered these basics as measured by tests, then their curriculum can be expanded to include art and music.

But then you still have the art and music teachers on the payroll, right? I thought your whole point was that we spend too much money on the arts in school. How do you propose to cut those costs by disallowing a segment of the school population from taking art classes while still offering it to others?

And how would you propose that students who aren't offered the chance to take any fine arts classes get in to college? Here in California there is a fine arts requirement to get into the UC system. There is also a foreign language requirement, and I can't see how you would allow language classes in your imaginary school district.

And what qualifies as art? Strictly teaching math and english comp/lit leaves out history, government, economics, physics, chemistry, phys ed, foreign languages, CAD drafting classes, wood and auto shop, biology, yearbook etc. Students will be ill-prepared for life with a high proficiency in math and english at the expense of all the others.

As to the hours spent in school (assuming we're not talking about a university) I think far too much time is wasted there. Too many standardized tests, too many passing periods, attendance 6 times a day, unprepared or apathetic teachers, and many other things make the school day inefficient. Block scheduling is much better than the standard 50 minute periods, but there are far too many teachers resistant to it because it means they'll have to teach more. The summers-off agrarian holdover doesn't need to be there, more schools should go to a more year-round approach with breaks in the schedule timed to coincide with the changing of terms. Schools that start in
September, then have a huge break over X-mas and come back for 2 more weeks of the semester before it ends at the end of January are stupid. Kids spend plenty of time in school already, I don't think more hours will make the education better. Also consider that students spend something like 2 weeks of the year taking standardized tests for various agencies gauging their performance.

Teachers need to trade tenure for pay-for-performance. Removing the insult of being paid the same as the slacker teachers, along with removing the summers-off people as well; coupled with a leaner administration paying salaries that don't cap until after 100,000 to highly qualified individuals would go a long way towards improving the math and english skills of primary students. That in turn would save universities from having to offer seas of remedial math and english classes.