Time to write off public education?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I loved college, would do it again in a heartbeat, and might do more some day.

I'm not advocating the slightest bit of government involvement. I'm just saying that I think higher education evolved inefficiently (whether because of government or not). For 70%+ of kids, college is a big party. They're not interested in learning, they're just going through the motions.

I think that most of what we learn in college, for most professions, is not that relevant. You get a degree in whatever, start your first day of work, and your co-worker teaches you everything you need to learn.

I'm not saying that college can't be a very positive experience - but IMO for most people it's just a waste. It's a waste of their parents' money and a waste of their time when they could be earning.

Of course you still need to go in this day and age to get any decent job, and it's a blast even if you're not interested in learning, but as I said, I think it's inefficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

This narrative doesn't square with the fact that many top international students go to great ends for the opportunity to attend and study at American institutions of higher education. Either they're behaving irrationally, or American higher education truly is comparatively better than the rest of the world's.

If you need some objective measures, The Economist recently wrote an article about the quality of higher-education worldwide where it claimed that the American higher-education system was a paradigm for the rest of the world to follow; the article cited a higher-education ranking formula created by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China. The results are dominated by American universities:

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give the poor the money to buy the things we feel they shouldn't do without but let them spend it the way they feel is best for them.

That solution is so blatantly obvious, simple, and correct that I often fall into the trap of imputing bad motives to people who disagree with it, especially when they are politicians and policy makers. Others I can forgive for being dupes but the actual puppet-masters who subject us to this stuff... I have a very hard time not believing they are evil.


[/ QUOTE ]

Amen. It's our only out.

I'm certain that the NEA is evil, divorced from the best interests of the children it ostensibly serves. No, it obviously doesn't serve the children. What was I thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

The NEA is not evil. It is the labor union for teachers. It advocates for what is in the best interest of the teachers. That is its job. Often this is not the same as what is in the best interest of students. But we shouldn't expect the NEA to act in the best interest of students anymore than we expect the AFL-CIO to act in the best interest of consumers. Or, for that matter, any more than we expect a corporate board to act in the best interest of consumers (as opposed to shareholders).

[/ QUOTE ]

I was reasonably sure that my post would suggest that the middle letter in NEA, education, was not any part of their concern.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Now you'll get banned for kiddy porn. Watch yo ass.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hinted at this in an earlier post but I will just come out and say it explicitly here.

The answer to this problem, and almost all problems caused by the government's provision of services, is to allow people to choose their own service. If we as a society cannot abide the notion that someone without funds can't get a service, then we should give them the funds, not the service.

When the government gets involved in providing a service, it is nearly instantly captured by special interests, and it is also impossible to give anyone what they want specifically. the end result is that almost no one gets what they want.

We provide food to the poor without the government taking over the production and distribution of food to the poor.

The same should be done with schooling, health care, retirement savings and every other service offered by our government.

Give the poor the money to buy the things we feel they shouldn't do without but let them spend it the way they feel is best for them.

That solution is so blatantly obvious, simple, and correct that I often fall into the trap of imputing bad motives to people who disagree with it, especially when they are politicians and policy makers. Others I can forgive for being dupes but the actual puppet-masters who subject us to this stuff... I have a very hard time not believing they are evil.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm confused. Would you agree or disagree with HeavilyArmed's position that our current public education system is a disgrace compared to 45 years ago (apparently, the glory days of public education.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't even addressing anything about HeavilyArmed's putative racism.

I do, however, know a lot about the current state of our system, and how it works, and I have personal experience with it, and it is failing ME in many ways. I know for a fact that all the incentives are skewed. There's no way to deny that much.

I am convinced that the best services come from competition and that when the government commandeers resources to provide services that don't have to respond to competition is it practically a natural law that those services will not be as good as the services that would exist in a more competitive environment.

So the question is how can we reap the benefits of competition and ensure that the unfortunate poor have access to those benefits? We all agree that we don't want a world where the poor are just shut out from opportunities because of their birth status.

And the answer is simple: stop using government to provide a one-size-fits-all monolithic solution with corrupted incentives and give the poor the money they need to let them shop for the services they want.

I don't see how we can make our education system *worse* by allowing parents to make all the decisions about where and how to educate their kids, but it will not only increase personal liberty for the poor, but I am convinced it will increase their opportunity for quality education.

The main arguments against that kind of approach are - ironically - racist. These poor dumb black people are too ignorant or irresponsible to be trusted with making decisions about their own child's education. Defenders of the status quo can prevaricate all they want but that's what it boils down to. ( You can also subsitute "poor dumb black people" with "ignorant christian rubes").

We are well aware that the Japanese k-12 is quality, but they have few ghettos, and less influential teachers unions (from my understanding). And I have no doubt anyway that the parental satisfaction level, and probably education quality as well, would increase by changing their system to one I have described.

In America all of our ghettos have inadequate schools, almost without exception. In many areas the schools are flat out dangerous. So defending public schools because the all-white suburbs appear adequate is a cruel joke.

Our nation's poor are being played by the unions and politicians and special interests and misguided guilty upper middle class baby boomers.

Right now, today, in our system, a parent in West Oakland has practically no opportunity to secure a good education for their child. None. They are hardly better off than the worst case libertarian scenario of letting them flounder on their own.

That is an undeniable fact. So I say so much for the public school apologists.

natedogg

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
As we have been over many, many times, it not my preference that is being implemented by the state. It is the preference of the most people. As I pointed out in the other thread earlier today, the preference of the most people is the best we can hope for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to not agree with the statement that the preference of the most people is the best we can hope for, because there is yet a distinction to be made: preserving the rights of people from non-aggression or usurpation by others, is a different and more refined value than merely attempting to actualize the preferences of the greatest number of people. For example, what if most of the people wanted to enslave a certain minority group? Is realizing the preference of the greatest number of people the best we can hope for in that case?

I think the state should firstly provide a barrier to thwart those who would usurp the rights of others; and only after that consider attempting to bring to fruition any preferences of the greatest number of people (if at all). Where the two principles conflict, the first should take precedence.

[ QUOTE ]
Allowing everybody to roam free in AC land wouldn't make everyone's preferences materialize, so stop suggesting that the state is the sole reason why people don't have everything the want.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see problems with both the state and with AC. If there must be a state (or if one would inevitably develop in an AC environment), I would suggest that its purpose should primarily be not to positively implement preferences for the majority, but rather to protect individuals from having their rights usurped by others. People can work towards realizing their own preferences as long as others aren't hindering them from so doing. I see little need for imposing group preferences for the majority at the expense of others, since nearly everybody can work towards their own preferences if blessed with an absence of coercion and interference. I think this important distinction deals with the primary role of the state; and whether that role is preservation of individual rights, or whether that role is merely pleasing the most people.

Democracy can lead to tyranny, and only strong constitutionally guaranteed rights can protect people from the tyranny of the majority. I'm very skeptical of the role of government as a vehicle for actualizing preferences (for many reasons, including but not limited to: corruption, human error, bureaucratic waste and overhead, tyranny of the majority, slowness to change when mistakes are discovered). I'm not dead-set against that role for government in absolutely all cases, but I think the focus of government is most wisely placed in a preservative role rather than an activist role. Once government reaches an activist role, there is no end to people trying to use the power of government to get what they want at the expense of others.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
there is yet a distinction to be made: preserving the rights of people from non-aggression or usurpation by others

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the content of your post, but you are glossing over an important step - who determines what the "rights of people" are to be protected? To me, these inviolable rights must be defined at the start, presumably or ideally on the basis of the views of the majority of individuals whose "rights" are to be protected. One the majority has determined the "basic rules", any subsequent vote through the democratic process that is overruled by the basic rules does not represent a departure from democracy, IMO.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is yet a distinction to be made: preserving the rights of people from non-aggression or usurpation by others

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the content of your post, but you are glossing over an important step - who determines what the "rights of people" are to be protected? To me, these inviolable rights must be defined at the start, presumably or ideally on the basis of the views of the majority of individuals whose "rights" are to be protected. One the majority has determined the "basic rules", any subsequent vote through the democratic process that is overruled by the basic rules does not represent a departure from democracy, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, agreed; but I was using "democracy" as a proxy term for your statement that the best we can hope for is government to implement the preferences of the greatest number of people. I assumed that when you stated that, you were talking about current preferences, not about a country's constitutional foundation.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, agreed; but I was using "democracy" as a proxy term for your statement that the best we can hope for is government to implement the preferences of the greatest number of people. I assumed that when you stated that, you were talking about current preferences, not about a country's constitutional foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

For sure, my comments were not 100% clear on that. However, if I were to preface each of my comments with a 200 page dissertation on what exactly I mean when I say "democracy", all my posts would ignored.

[tboss888]

[ QUOTE ]
I've thought for a while that school as we have it in the US is a huge waste. College is a 4 year vacation that makes a 40+ hour work week all the more depressing when you transition. Better off for society if we just learn what we need to learn and start earning 3 years earlier. I know you were talking about high school, but the same principles apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very dependent on what kind of school you go to and what major you choose. I spent more grueling 100 hour weeks in college than I ever have on the job.

[Dan.]

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] my public HS education.