Science Education in America: Why I'm Homeschooling My Kid in Science

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've sent my kids to both public and private schools and the private schools are much more sticklers for organization and base their grades much less on knowledge of the subject than on other issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say the "private" school market is a sliver of what it would be if the government were entirely out of the way. The obvious explanation for what you observe is that the private schools are generally tied towards religious groups today.

In a truly free market with less barriers to entry, other people would be able to provide the service.

[/ QUOTE ]

But surely according to the theory of comparative advantage, if someone is providing free education then the surviving schools that charge should be much better than the average in a free market?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, wasn't the author of the linked article angry about his kid's grade, not the amount of science he learned? As other people said, why would you expect this to be different in a private school?

And I think Phil is bringing up good points worthy of discussion and I don't know why you are doing what you are doing. You are just brushing his points aside without any debate - some sort of reverse-trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a shame because its important stuff.

I assume the argument for non-state education is that if you're paying fees and unhappy with the school you can take your business elsewhere whereas if you're paying from taxation you have to pay again or take what's offered.

In any case a system that allows people willing and able to arrange notepads to do better then people understand the subject far better is aweful for science education and a disaster because it fills the world with people who value presentation over content.

chez

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've sent my kids to both public and private schools and the private schools are much more sticklers for organization and base their grades much less on knowledge of the subject than on other issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say the "private" school market is a sliver of what it would be if the government were entirely out of the way. The obvious explanation for what you observe is that the private schools are generally tied towards religious groups today.

In a truly free market with less barriers to entry, other people would be able to provide the service.

[/ QUOTE ]

But surely according to the theory of comparative advantage, if someone is providing free education then the surviving schools that charge should be much better than the average in a free market?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker?

Hint: People like free subs. Sub makers would not be able to compete fairly, so the market (if it existed at all) would be a far cry from what it would be if it did not have this competitive barrier. And all the tax money that was taken to provide subs would have been better used by individual sub shop owners who have an obvious interest in providing a good service.

Moreover, I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure there are a plethora of laws that restrict who can provide schools and where, which I would of course argue interfere with what would be a better service if the market determined these things.

[andyfox]

"there are a huge number of people . . . unable to recognize that it is the structure of the system itself that is ultimately destructive to genuine understanding and creativity."

Include me among those people. Please, then, explain why. I'm not being snide here, I truly want to hear the argument. The article cited by Borodog was about a particular teacher who is a stickler for organization. I've known many teachers--both my own and those who taught my kids, and noth in public and private schools--who were the same way and were wonderful teachers.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
And I think Phil is bringing up good points worthy of discussion and I don't know why you are doing what you are doing. You are just brushing his points aside without any debate - some sort of reverse-trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe because Phil made it pretty clear he was more interested in petty trolling than actual debate?

I really don't understand why he gets all bent out of shape even if this WAS meant to be an AC thread (which, I don't think it necessarily was, especially when you consider that Boro is a man of science and could easily have been motivated by only that). Is being an ACist not allowed? Since the state in some way will affect basically everything we could talk about, I guess Phil would rather Boro just not start threads, since they *could* all be construed as an "AC thread in disguise" whenever someone asked him a question that begged that answer.

If in one of Phil's threads someone asked him a question that he answered with something to the effect of "public school is good," would Boro or any free market fans bash him for making the thread? "ZOMG this is a state thread in disguise!!1!!!1!" No way. And it's not because we're necessarily any more polite than Phil. It's just that when you're confident in your message you don't really feel the need to resort to nonsense to attack other messengers.

If you had to deal with this guy doing this to all of your threads, you'd probably ignore him too, even if he found a nut every once in a while. I don't get why you, especially as a moderator, would defend Phil here. You accuse Boro of "reverse-trolling".... shouldn't you be more worried about the person doing the "-trolling"?

If you want to layout what exactly you'd like an answer to though, I'm sure someone will address it.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would increase the average quality of food from private sub-makers, while decreasing their number. This is because they have to compete with a free product. This competition will drive anyone who doesn't provide a premium, high-quality product out of business. Basic economics.

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
Read this for example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/op...mp;oref=slogin

[/ QUOTE ]

This article seems a little weak on data. The article appears to state quality of education varies from school to school. Seems to be a reasonable assertion.

I think the primary difference between private and public, is that private allows you to choose your poison. You're not proximally "stuck" with the quality of the local public school.

Regardless of where your politics lie, almost all in the US would agree that there are many problems in the public primary school system. OP is just demonstrating, anecdotally, one of the many issues (science falling into the abyss currently occupied by geography skills) that currently plague the US public schools.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would increase the average quality of food from private sub-makers, while decreasing their number. This is because they have to compete with a free product. This competition will drive anyone who doesn't provide a premium, high-quality product out of business. Basic economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basic you might even say "fictitious." How would the intangible drive to "compete with a free product" (in the absence of magic wands or fairy god mothers) result in a market doing things that seem impossible?

They're not already doing their best to provide the best service?

Say I'm a professional baseball player. I'm working hard. Been perfecting my craft all my life, and working particularly hard the last few years. Lift weights an hour a day, 10 hours of cardio a week, 3 hours of batting practice every day. Spend lots of time with my coaches fine tuning my mechanics. Eat healthy, live healthy. Such a small edge between me and the next guy, and I want to maximize it. Everything is a well oiled machine. I've finally gotten to the point where I have enough of an edge to expect a starting job next season.

Then, baseball playing robots show up. They're a big step quicker, stronger, and just plain better than me. They do things I could only dream of. Do I (and my comrades) just magically "get better" because now there is a really high bar to compete with, or do you think maybe we're faced with something we just can't overcome, no matter how hard we might try?

The reason the subs are free at one place is not because the market found that price as an efficient solution. If such were the case, I would agree that this is great for the industry. But it's not the case. It's artificial. And no sub shop can compete with it (in the absence of holding a gun to someone's head and making them support my business). The result is you will eat stale bread.

Your post is actually pretty enlightening. I can actually see why people would support government interference in markets when they hold such flagrant misconceptions of how economics actually works.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Canada has a decent ( but not great) government medical system. It's almost impossible ( for legal reasons) to set up private services in most of the field. But some manage to, and they thrive.
Politicians win and lose there power over the quality of the sandwiches, as seen by the voters, that is the control system. The evolution debates indicate that the voters aren't that informed to be able to act as quality control agents. Potholes they can understand.

luckyme

[RedRover]

Uh... His point is that any sub shops that DO survive must have some advantage over the free ones. Not that the free ones make the for-pay sub shops better magically somehow.

Likewise, the private schools that can survive in the face of the same thing being given away for free must be surviving because they have some other advantage. In this case, they provide a perceived better education. For some, this means a better religious education. For others, it means a better science education. Jam's point, though, is that the best private schools should already exist and getting rid of the public school system will just create a bunch of mediocre private schools.