Banning of Private schools?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:41 pm UTC

Tractor wrote: You have to earn your keep somehow. If you're not able to show your competence, you have to use your own cash. You can't give away everything.

EXACTLY. Except YOU have to earn it, not your parents.

Because if your parents are earning it the cylcle is made possible to be rich have kids that are rich thus become rich etc.

Aren't we getting better anyhow? Using the current system we have come pretty far.

I would claim that during the middle ages we were getting better, and that during the french revolution we were getting better too. Pace matters.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:26 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
Tractor wrote: You have to earn your keep somehow. If you're not able to show your competence, you have to use your own cash. You can't give away everything.

EXACTLY. Except YOU have to earn it, not your parents.

Because if your parents are earning it the cylcle is made possible to be rich have kids that are rich thus become rich etc.

Shenanigans.
The parents are just giving the kids a hand. Otherwise they are hoarding their money for themself. Using it for the kids is much more productive for the overall society.
And besides, anyone can start that richness cycle you describe there, and at any time it could end, for various reasons. Nothing is a given.

3.14159265... wrote: Pace matters.

Perhaps so, but the human race is progressing at a remarkable rate.
9 x 6 = 42

Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Yes I agree, I am completely happy with the rate humans are progressing, but I think if it can be made faster we should make it faster, cuz there are people that have much different ideas than us, and they deserve the freedom. We think we live in a really liberal age, but so did people in the 19th century.

And for the cycle begining and ending. First off, WHY SHOULD THERE BE A CYCLE.
Secondly, The cycle can be started by anyone almost if they try, but in general the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Thats what I am against. Don't tell me you believe that social class is not a highly inheritable thing.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:44 pm UTC

Maybe there should be a communism thread, since this one has gotten a little out of control.

Tchebu
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:42 am UTC
Location: Montreal

Postby Tchebu » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:49 pm UTC

A right to education doesnt mean everyone should have the same quality education. It means everyone should be provided with a certain education for free. If someone decides to provide a better education to people than that minumum, they have every right to demand money for it. The problems with private education arise not because of the private education but because later on this might become a cause of certain discrimination (i.e. someone from a private school might get an advantage when applying for a job) although the final exams are all regulated by the government anyway, so the final test of knowledge is the same anyway. If such discrimination DOES really happen then its THAT that we have to fight against instead of preventing people from getting a better education.

The reasoning behind banning private schools is similar to the reasoning behind left-winged ideologies. Basically it says is "Take from the rich give to the poor". Except if you take private education away from the rich, the poor wont benefit from it... you end up just "taking from the rich" but not "giving to the poor" so it becomes more of a "I dont have this opportunity, so noone else should either" reasoning. Besides in the "take from the rich, give to the poor" way of thinking (when talking about money) the idea is to take away the EXCESS money from the rich... to take away what they dont need, and give it to those who need it more... but in education, there is no such thing as EXCESS knowledge...

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:50 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote:Maybe there should be a communism thread, since this one has gotten a little out of control.

QFT (which I almost mis-typed as WTF...oops).

As to private schools, given the current system, perfectly fine. If we were to break out of the current system, to something different/better, that may need to be re-evaluated.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Postby wisnij » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:52 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Is it better that we have an unequal and unfair but, on average, *better* education, or....

..a society where everyone is educated equally poorly?

I personally would prefer a more intelligent society, given the options.

QFT. It may be that even the best working system turns out to lead to inequality. If that is the case... well, it sucks, but we'll have to deal with it. Trading off results in favor of ideology would not be an optimal solution.

I think it's important that we also draw a distinction between fairness and equality. Fairness means the rules apply the same way to everyone, which I think is a reasonable approximation of the way things are currently. Nobody is saying to poor families that they are not allowed to send their children to expensive universities; they simply don't have the ability to pay for it. Which brings us to equality, meaning that for some particular metric, everybody scores the same. For the purposes of the discussion at hand, that metric is financial.

Now, I am totally in favor of eliminating unfairness (by this definition). Everyone should be equal under the law, not be discriminated against, etc. Eliminating inequality is another matter. Sometimes inequality happens for unfair reasons, but other times it is just a natural consequence of the situation. (A group of runners on a track may have unequal speeds, but you don't tell the faster ones to slow down so they can all finish at the same time.) Whether a given inequality should be eliminated or reduced is thus a complicated question, and cannot be assumed a priori.
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:00 pm UTC

wisnij wrote:I think it's important that we also draw a distinction between fairness and equality. Fairness means the rules apply the same way to everyone, which I think is a reasonable approximation of the way things are currently. Nobody is saying to poor families that they are not allowed to send their children to expensive universities; they simply don't have the ability to pay for it. Which brings us to equality, meaning that for some particular metric, everybody scores the same. For the purposes of the discussion at hand, that metric is financial.

Now, I am totally in favor of eliminating unfairness (by this definition). Everyone should be equal under the law, not be discriminated against, etc. Eliminating inequality is another matter. Sometimes inequality happens for unfair reasons, but other times it is just a natural consequence of the situation. (A group of runners on a track may have unequal speeds, but you don't tell the faster ones to slow down so they can all finish at the same time.) Whether a given inequality should be eliminated or reduced is thus a complicated question, and cannot be assumed a priori.


Thank you for addressing this. I noted this as well, but in a much less elegant way (From first page - "I said nothing of unequal opportunities. I'll give you all the opportunities to do whatever you want. If for some reason you don't have the resources to take advantage of the opportunities, tough cookies, it doesn't mean they aren't there.")

wisnij wrote:Whether a given inequality should be eliminated or reduced is thus a complicated question, and cannot be assumed a priori.

Which is why I was claiming that, in our current system, private schools are a perfectly valid thing to have.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:04 pm UTC

Neither is it that in races, the winner gets to stand 5m ahead of the losing people in the next race. This would be unfair, but in the real world no only do the ones that get richer get more opportunities afterwards they even get to pass it on to their kids.

So here is a race 10 people start together.
The first starts 10m ahead from now on, he always wins, he passes it to his son who always wins etc. This case is not obsolete of course since poor people become rich and rich people become poor, but a greater percentage stay around where their parents are.
I Think everyone will agree that education must be an important part of this division.
So why then accept it. "Students of the public schools, Unite!"?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:25 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:I Think everyone will agree that education must be an important part of this division.
So why then accept it. "Students of the public schools, Unite!"?


Not at all, or in fact.

I mentioned it earlier, the quality of education does not test signficantly better in private schools (At least in this country).

The non-education-related opportunities are better, yes.

And, for want of a better descriptor, the 'old-boys-networks' play a large part.

Nor, in fact, is that gap as big as you indicate.

If you equate success to financial freedom.. then you'd have more weight in your point. I'd also class you as a waste of space, though. :P
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:32 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:Yes I agree, I am completely happy with the rate humans are progressing, but I think if it can be made faster we should make it faster, cuz there are people that have much different ideas than us, and they deserve the freedom.


Argh.

Our social progress in the last 2000 years has been Sweet. Fuck. All.

Technologically, we've zoooooomed ahead. Philisophically, we've made some interersting in roads.

Sociologically, we've completely failed to apply any principles we've learnt from the any other field, and continue a blithely irrational approach, mired in tradition and stullified by monumental levels of inertia.

We educate badly, and in the wrong things, we legislate poorly, and are too lazy to accurately or adequately investigate the breaking of that legislation.

We've created sociological factors that are *worse* than at any stage in history. Totally artificial social pressures on a race (us) that is trying to get used to them within 10 generations.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:44 pm UTC

VannA wrote:
3.14159265... wrote:Yes I agree, I am completely happy with the rate humans are progressing, but I think if it can be made faster we should make it faster, cuz there are people that have much different ideas than us, and they deserve the freedom.


Argh.

Our social progress in the last 2000 years has been Sweet. Fuck. All.

Technologically, we've zoooooomed ahead. Philisophically, we've made some interersting in roads.

Sociologically, we've completely failed to apply any principles we've learnt from the any other field, and continue a blithely irrational approach, mired in tradition and stullified by monumental levels of inertia.

We educate badly, and in the wrong things, we legislate poorly, and are too lazy to accurately or adequately investigate the breaking of that legislation.

We've created sociological factors that are *worse* than at any stage in history. Totally artificial social pressures on a race (us) that is trying to get used to them within 10 generations.


Last 2000 years? We're including the Dark Ages in this?


I would have to argue that the sociological factors during the Crusades, or the 100 years' war were worse than modern ones...
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:48 pm UTC

Owijad wrote:
VannA wrote:
We've created sociological factors that are *worse* than at any stage in history. Totally artificial social pressures on a race (us) that is trying to get used to them within 10 generations.


Last 2000 years? We're including the Dark Ages in this?


I would have to argue that the sociological factors during the Crusades, or the 100 years' war were worse than modern ones...


Actually, you are correct. That should read "We've created somesociological factors that are *worse* than at any stage in history."

I am specifically referring to the 'ideal' of a nuclear family, but I am sure there are others.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Postby wisnij » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:48 pm UTC

Owijad wrote:I would have to argue that the sociological factors during the Crusades, or the 100 years' war were worse than modern ones...

Yeah, I'm going to have to second that. I don't think we've burned anyone for being a witch recently, either.

Recognizing that we still have work to do is totally not a reason to ignore all the progress that has been made.
Last edited by wisnij on Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:49 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:48 pm UTC

VannA,

I wouldn't go that far. Sociologically speaking, I think we've come a long way from monarchy, constant war, and slavery.

Unfortunately, that is not spread over the entire world. But I think that in this day and age, people have a lot more personal freedoms than ever before. Particularly in western civilization.

And with that, I have lost sight of the original topic. But I'm curious: What's worse than at any other stage in history? Surely you don't think the gap between rich and poor is something new?

Edit after seeing the last few posts: The nuclear family is bad? What was better? Arranged marriages? I don't understand.

User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Postby wisnij » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:51 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote:I wouldn't go that far. Sociologically speaking, I think we've come a long way from monarchy, constant war, and slavery.

Indeed. Steven Pinker even argues that, statistically, we're living in one of the most peaceful eras in human history.
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:58 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote:VannA,

I wouldn't go that far. Sociologically speaking, I think we've come a long way from monarchy, constant war, and slavery.

Unfortunately, that is not spread over the entire world. But I think that in this day and age, people have a lot more personal freedoms than ever before. Particularly in western civilization.

And with that, I have lost sight of the original topic. But I'm curious: What's worse than at any other stage in history? Surely you don't think the gap between rich and poor is something new?

Edit after seeing the last few posts: The nuclear family is bad? What was better? Arranged marriages? I don't understand.


Tribes. The extended family. Multiple child-carers.

Deserves another topic. I'll work on it.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:13 am UTC

Sure not everyone can be a boss or doctor, but that does not prevent them from doing well. I am neither, and I am doing well for myself. All it means is the route is different.


Right, but you are not everybody, there is a fairly large group of people are best suited for jobs which do, sadly, not pay very well. It is necessarily not at all a question of not trying, having a friend who suffers from severe chronic headaches and is struggling just to pass high school, it is hardly fair saying she "isn't trying hard enough". It is in fact, not true.

Now it's true some parents will be advantageous over others, but I feel you can give similar benefits to all kids,

Similar to what we have now - it's called the public education system, with optional private education.


The bolded part is what you are missing, not all kids can have that optional private education, that is what it's all about (for me at least).

By medium I meant the school itself. Individual teachers matter quite a bit. And those will vary from school to school, regardless of public or private. Which was the original thing here anyway.


However the quote

Children that don't want to learn don't learn any differently in a private school than they do in a public school. Children that do want to learn will learn well everywhere.

Implies something which I consider very false. Thing is there can be made no sweeping generalizations that public (in educational quality) > Private or vice versa, however, there are most certainly some private schools that are better at teaching kids than the public options. Saying that the kids will learn as well at either is untrue, as it seems we both agree on, different schools are of different quality.
All kids should have equal access to education.
Private schools do not consent to that.

I've said before private schools are businesses but in fact I believe all schools are businesses and economics shows us that privately owned businesses are more efficient then state owned businesses because they have to be competitive.


I Disagree, not all school re businesses. Sure it's true that they have "income", "expenses", and some sort of "business plan" but public schools are not driven for profit, and they should not, as any public organisation, be about economic gain, as previously mentioned, your social status should not affect your service.
The bad thing ABOUT private schools is that they are businesses, and having a public sector working for profit is very scary indeed, simply because the poorest will then be completely abandoned, why should you spend extra resources trying to help the "troubled kids" or the handicapped etc etc? They are not financially viable!
See in some areas competition can be good, but ONLY competition is insane, places where workers have no right usually end up very ugly indeed. At least for the workers.

Ok so it's still not a fair system, I'm not trying to say it is but what I'm trying to show is that the economy benefits from private schools because there is a higher level of education in the country. A better economy benefits the entire nation.


I definitely agree that a higher level of education benefits the country, however again I do not think that Private schools as a whole are better than Public schools, on average. The problem lies that some are.
It might help to use my stereotypes types of private schools
The religious
The "orthodox" (montisory for example)
And the "ultra snob"
The Religious and orthodox schools will probably be about as good as public education, religious serves no real purpose while orthodox ones do, however I do not think that is necessarily limited to private schools, you can have those advantages in public schools as well.
However the "ultra snob schools" that cost a fortune to get into and that only accept the really rich and/or (usually or) the really smart will have better results, simply because they have so much more resources. I am however doubtful that spending so much money on a select few is really more financially viable that spreading that money across a larger group of people, which is also, the right thing to do.


One way that private schooling used to be fair was the assisted places scheme run by the conservative government in the UK. If you were bright enough then the government would help fund you through private school. (However, this was stopped when the labour government came into power, making me wonder how much they really meant their education, education, education)


So if you were smarter than chummy rich dude, but not as smart as brilliant poor dude, you got worse education than both. Ah Conservatives, why not take us straight back to the Middle Ages already!

Is it better that we have an unequal and unfair but, on average, *better* education, or....

..a society where everyone is educated equally poorly?

I personally would prefer a more intelligent society, given the options.


Of course a better educated society is always better, and portraying is at "equally poorly" is a pretty good way of making it seem worse, however I do not see that such would be the case, I would however, as always, support spending more money on schools because education is that important. The education quality for the elite few might drop, but I do not think that would have a profound effect on society at large.

You have to earn your keep somehow. If you're not able to show your competence, you have to use your own cash. You can't give away everything.


So the smart kids earn it by .. being smart? Or at least potentially smart, IQ tests being the way they are.
And give everything away? That sounds a bit harsh, what you are saying is "you can't give everyone a good education!"
I say you can and should.

The parents are just giving the kids a hand. Otherwise they are hoarding their money for themself. Using it for the kids is much more productive for the overall society.


But it is most likely even more socially productive to educate a larger group, i.e. pay taxes!

A right to education doesn’t mean everyone should have the same quality education. It means everyone should be provided with a certain education for free.


Well really you can say it means what you want it to mean, just as I do, you can say the right to free speech means you are allowed to speak what you want to as long as it is not THAT upsetting. I can say it's ANYTHING AT ANY TIME!
Either way, I have stated my opinion; just pointing out that it is not some "this is a factual inaccuracy" but "I disagree" point.


The reasoning behind banning private schools is similar to the reasoning behind left-winged ideologies. Basically it says is "Take from the rich give to the poor".


Okey, seriously, it is apparent you do not know what "left wing" means. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a LEFT ideology, see it's also about equality, that some people shouldn't earn fifty billion while others earn five dollars. Then there's a scale up to about "We must rise up against the establishment and form a Proletariat dictatorship" That would be left wing.

Except if you take private education away from the rich, the poor wont benefit from it... you end up just "taking from the rich" but not "giving to the poor" so it becomes more of a "I don’t have this opportunity, so no one else should either" reasoning. Besides in the "take from the rich, give to the poor" way of thinking (when talking about money) the idea is to take away the EXCESS money from the rich... to take away what they don’t need, and give it to those who need it more... but in education, there is no such thing as EXCESS knowledge...


The poor will benefit in that the rich won't have an advantage in education over them, if the rich has access to information and education that the poor do not this will obviously be an advantage, which is, as said many times, unfair. I am however not saying you should go "WORSE EDUCATION FOR ALL!" but "better education for all", with the rare exception of those who go to the oh so fabled "super snob schools" since their budgets are, for an entire population, completely unsustainable.

I think it's important that we also draw a distinction between fairness and equality. Fairness means the rules apply the same way to everyone, which I think is a reasonable approximation of the way things are currently. Nobody is saying to poor families that they are not allowed to send their children to expensive universities; they simply don't have the ability to pay for it. Which brings us to equality, meaning that for some particular metric, everybody scores the same. For the purposes of the discussion at hand, that metric is financial.


Well everybody could vote in Greece, you just needed to be a free man who owned land.
Everybody can attend any school they want
They just need to have wealthy parents!
True, it's not entirely the same, but it largely applies, just as you cannot "become" free (well, actually you could, but really it was not up to you as much as it was luck of getting a nice 'master') you cannot "become" the child of a wealthy family.
Really I see no case where fairness doesn't apply
"To be in the military you cannot be gay"
See that applies to everybody.
Problem is, some people are gay.
There is no real distinction

Unfortunately, that is not spread over the entire world. But I think that in this day and age, people have a lot more personal freedoms than ever before. Particularly in western civilization.


OT, but the last ten years, in western society, we have lost some as well, due to a retarded F'in fight on terrorism, which I addressed in that topic, and I fight it incredibly frustrating.

This is a very long post :D :P though to be honest mostly quotes
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:46 am UTC

EXACTLY

So basicly what the other people are arguing is that sophists were a fair way of education in greece. Surely everyone learned basic excersises and some arithmetic, but only the rich learned rhetoric, math, physics etc which made them council members.

For our progress as humans, Yes we are progressing, but when bruno said the earth is round, they killed him, but at that time people were more civilized than say the 11th century. Also in england after the industrial revolution, in the mid 1900s they gave Turing the genius of his time, hormone injections cuz he was gay. In todays' world in America they are teaching evolution in schools. There is still shit, just cuz we are too conservative to notice it now, doesn't mean we have no room to improve.

No private schools, cuz private schools are just meant to keep the rich rich. Also when I said success Vanna I did mean financial success, that was not to mean that I meant a good life is being rich. However that education was correlated with financial success.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Postby wisnij » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:39 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:
The reasoning behind banning private schools is similar to the reasoning behind left-winged ideologies. Basically it says is "Take from the rich give to the poor".

Okey, seriously, it is apparent you do not know what "left wing" means. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a LEFT ideology, see it's also about equality, that some people shouldn't earn fifty billion while others earn five dollars.

Perhaps they should. I've read some arguments suggesting that variation in income is not necessarily a bad thing. It may even be good.

fjajfan wrote:True, it's not entirely the same, but it largely applies, just as you cannot "become" free (well, actually you could, but really it was not up to you as much as it was luck of getting a nice 'master') you cannot "become" the child of a wealthy family.

No, but you can become wealthy yourself. Or try, at least. Everyone has the right to try. Not everyone will succeed, but that's just life.
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:59 am UTC

wisnij wrote:No, but you can become wealthy yourself. Or try, at least. Everyone has the right to try. Not everyone will succeed, but that's just life.

That is one of the most fundemental flaws in peoples thinking.
Its not just LIFE. Its life in the year 2007 in your country. In the middle ages, people said "I work 12 hour days, and the landlord gets his way with everything, but thats just life."
Just because things are the way they are, doesn't mean they ought to be, and MUCH more importantly, that they will have to remain that way.
The rules of society are not determined by nature (unless you are a determinist) but rather by the people in the society.

Now to rethink the point you made, WHY should one person have to try, and the other get it without trying. See the answer can't be "its just life, its unfair, deal with it".
My answer goes: "It doesn't, It shouldn't, I will try and do something about it. By at least being a vocal critic of the system."
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:57 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:
Sure not everyone can be a boss or doctor, but that does not prevent them from doing well. I am neither, and I am doing well for myself. All it means is the route is different.


Right, but you are not everybody, there is a fairly large group of people are best suited for jobs which do, sadly, not pay very well. It is necessarily not at all a question of not trying, having a friend who suffers from severe chronic headaches and is struggling just to pass high school, it is hardly fair saying she "isn't trying hard enough". It is in fact, not true.

I know I am not everybody. I know there is no 'general case'. I know not everyone has the best jobs out there. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter. It can still be possible to do well without the absolute best job.

fjafjan wrote:
Similar to what we have now - it's called the public education system, with optional private education.


The bolded part is what you are missing, not all kids can have that optional private education, that is what it's all about (for me at least).

I know not all do, not all have the resources readily available. But it is available to all if you can gather said resources.

fjafjan wrote:Thing is there can be made no sweeping generalizations that public (in educational quality) > Private or vice versa, however, there are most certainly some private schools that are better at teaching kids than the public options. Saying that the kids will learn as well at either is untrue, as it seems we both agree on, different schools are of different quality.
All kids should have equal access to education.
Private schools do not consent to that.

There are also some public schools that are better than private ones. It doesn't matter, as these facts cancel each other out. No 2 schools are identical, public or private. Private schools are just as equal as public.

fjafjan wrote:
You have to earn your keep somehow. If you're not able to show your competence, you have to use your own cash. You can't give away everything.


So the smart kids earn it by .. being smart? Or at least potentially smart, IQ tests being the way they are.
And give everything away? That sounds a bit harsh, what you are saying is "you can't give everyone a good education!"
I say you can and should.

And where do we get these resources to give everyone everywhere the best possible? The magical education fairies? Once we get our utopian society up and running, I'm all for it. In the meantime, I'll go with what we've got.

fjafjan wrote:
The parents are just giving the kids a hand. Otherwise they are hoarding their money for themself. Using it for the kids is much more productive for the overall society.


But it is most likely even more socially productive to educate a larger group, i.e. pay taxes!

I was assuming one already paid taxes, etc. And you cannot tax everyone to death.

fjafjan wrote:
snipped fair vs equal


Well everybody could vote in Greece, you just needed to be a free man who owned land.
Everybody can attend any school they want
They just need to have wealthy parents!
True, it's not entirely the same, but it largely applies, just as you cannot "become" free (well, actually you could, but really it was not up to you as much as it was luck of getting a nice 'master') you cannot "become" the child of a wealthy family.
Really I see no case where fairness doesn't apply

Since when can a family not become wealthy? Nothing is preventing you from earning $. And it's not just a matter of the parents, the resources can be acquired in other ways (scholarships come to mind).


Besides, if one were to abolish private schools right now (temporarily ignoring Squeak's note that the public system would be completely overloaded), what would most of those normally in the private schools do? Hire tutors instead. Would you still find fault with that? (Especially if one compares this to the hiring of bodyguards in addition to the normal police protection one is allowed, from my example earlier in the thread). If you don't, what's the difference between tutors and the actual school? If you do, why?
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:18 am UTC

My only argument is that, private schools are unfair, everyone should acknowledge this, and if there is an opportunity people should take it.
Say, turn all the private school spaces into public schools, and say hire the teachers to teach the public curriculum. Are they gonna hire tutors. Yes they will, they will wanna get every single little advantage they can, but then, the schools can provide tutoring for those who want, which was available in my school for 2 hours a day. Also I tutored there, so the best ones are there volunteering too, so no problem of parents BUYING the best tutor.

Problem solved. Lets get crackin. :lol: How I wish it was that logical
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Postby wisnij » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:13 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
wisnij wrote:No, but you can become wealthy yourself. Or try, at least. Everyone has the right to try. Not everyone will succeed, but that's just life.

That is one of the most fundemental flaws in peoples thinking.
Its not just LIFE. Its life in the year 2007 in your country. In the middle ages, people said "I work 12 hour days, and the landlord gets his way with everything, but thats just life."

It is just life that you can't always get what you want!

3.14159265... wrote:Now to rethink the point you made, WHY should one person have to try, and the other get it without trying. See the answer can't be "its just life, its unfair, deal with it".

Why not? As long as we allow people to acquire wealth, there will always be some who haven't earned it through their own efforts. Maybe that is just a side-effect that we have to accept.
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

a thing
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:18 pm UTC
Location: Chicago

Postby a thing » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:29 am UTC

Banning private schools would be unfair to the children who can afford a private school when they'd be denied a good education in a public school.

Do I write too long of sentences?
Disclaimer: My posts may change (dramatically) within the first 15 minutes they're posted.

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:58 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:My only argument is that, private schools are unfair, everyone should acknowledge this, and if there is an opportunity people should take it.
Say, turn all the private school spaces into public schools, and say hire the teachers to teach the public curriculum. Are they gonna hire tutors. Yes they will, they will wanna get every single little advantage they can, but then, the schools can provide tutoring for those who want, which was available in my school for 2 hours a day. Also I tutored there, so the best ones are there volunteering too, so no problem of parents BUYING the best tutor.

Problem solved. Lets get crackin. :lol: How I wish it was that logical


So tutors are ok in your book?
And what about home schooling?
Aren't both of these 'unfair' by your definition?

fjafjan wrote:Well everybody could vote in Greece, you just needed to be a free man who owned land.
Everybody can attend any school they want
They just need to have wealthy parents!
True, it's not entirely the same, but it largely applies, just as you cannot "become" free (well, actually you could, but really it was not up to you as much as it was luck of getting a nice 'master') you cannot "become" the child of a wealthy family.


How about we use a different modern example.
Everybody can have any car they want.
You just need to be wealthy!
So, do we stop production of expensive cars because not everyone can get them?
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:23 pm UTC

wisnij wrote:Why not? As long as we allow people to acquire wealth, there will always be some who haven't earned it through their own efforts. Maybe that is just a side-effect that we have to accept.


Yeah, within a capitalist system, there's no real feasible way to put everyone on the same playing field. Attempting to just messes everyone up.


3.14 wrote:Are they gonna hire tutors. Yes they will, they will wanna get every single little advantage they can, but then, the schools can provide tutoring for those who want, which was available in my school for 2 hours a day. Also I tutored there, so the best ones are there volunteering too, so no problem of parents BUYING the best tutor.


Actually, yes, there will be that problem, because the best tutors will quickly learn that they can make exorbinant amounts of money. And since private and superior education would now have the stigma of government restriction about it, the demand would be higher, and this privelege would be restricted to the *even richer*.

Seriously, without an overhaul to the entire system of wealth, reward, and community, banning private schools is a horrible idea. It would be better to leave things as they are, and focus on brining the public schools up to par.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:23 pm UTC

Tractor wrote:How about we use a different modern example.
Everybody can have any car they want.
You just need to be wealthy!
So, do we stop production of expensive cars because not everyone can get them?


That analogy is flawed for a number of reason
first of all cars are usually not an actuall necessity, or right, which educational quality is
But most importantly, you can, atleast to some extent, change your wealth situation to accomodate for a car, a child however, cannot change who her or his parents are. I pointed that out in my example, you cannot change if you are black, white, man, gay, tall etc. Or born a slave. You can change your views, behaviour and to some extent income, while I think we should not overlook the group of people ultimately unable to change their income.

I know I am not everybody. I know there is no 'general case'. I know not everyone has the best jobs out there. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter. It can still be possible to do well without the absolute best job.


But alot of those people won't be able to get their kids into (the best) private schools, giving them an unfair disadvantage.

I know not all do, not all have the resources readily available. But it is available to all if you can gather said resources. [/quote

But see it's about the kids. Are you expecting five year olds to "get a job" so that they can get into a better school? That seems pretty damn insane.
The point remains that since not all can be on the 'better' side of the earning curve, and since then the largest group cannot afford that best education it is unfair to provide it just to a few kids who have no more right to it than others.
There is a difference between kids and adults in that adults can earn things, while children cannot.


[quote]There are also some public schools that are better than private ones. It doesn't matter, as these facts cancel each other out. No 2 schools are identical, public or private. Private schools are just as equal as public.

That is BS, it has already been said that "private schools are (usually) a business, they cannot accept everybody" (note, that was not an exact quote but part of the content), sying that they are as equal, being able to chose who they will and will not accept is simply not true.
Since not all can attend all private schools, they are obviously not as equal as public schools

And where do we get these resources to give everyone everywhere the best possible? The magical education fairies? Once we get our utopian society up and running, I'm all for it. In the meantime, I'll go with what we've got.

Where do you get the magic money for all public schools?
Taxes, obviously more for those who can pay for it.

I was assuming one already paid taxes, etc. And you cannot tax everyone to death.

If you can afford private school for your child you should be able to pay more taxes once that expence has been removed. And really, show me one "rich" person that has been "taxed to death" rather than "taxed to be forced to somewhat reduce spending on luxury items"?
Oh no!

Since when can a family not become wealthy? Nothing is preventing you from earning $. And it's not just a matter of the parents, the resources can be acquired in other ways (scholarships come to mind).


A family can become wealthy, BUT THE CHILD CAN DO NOTHING TO INFLUATE IT! This is the situation I am arguing against

Two kids, let's say they are 15, somewhat around that age people start expcting you to make serious decitions for your future life
At that point one of them has had a poor education, not out of own violition but simply that is because what was possible
The other has had a great one, because that was offered
"Your parents could have made more money" is not an excuse as to why one might not get into uni.

Besides, if one were to abolish private schools right now (temporarily ignoring Squeak's note that the public system would be completely overloaded), what would most of those normally in the private schools do? Hire tutors instead. Would you still find fault with that? (Especially if one compares this to the hiring of bodyguards in addition to the normal police protection one is allowed, from my example earlier in the thread). If you don't, what's the difference between tutors and the actual school? If you do, why?


Well obviously it wouldn't be an "overnight thing" where you go and tear down all private school. One viable option would be to simply overtake them, I imagine alot of private schools have facilities well suited for education, using those would be great. Nothing needs to be fundamentally changed other than the way the school and possibly education is being run, aswell as how students are accepted.
As for Tutors I have nothing against furhter education, however that such education should have a cost is what I am objected to. And difference between tutors and schools are in either case obvious, first of all what scool you attend have more consequences than your educational quality, it is about who your friends are and what their background is like, if all your friends are rich and the only poor people you hear about are robbing banks and or people, you are likely to turn into a snob, thinking ones humanity is directly linked to ones income. the same goes for the poor, dehamanising the rich if they never meet them and realise that they are just people too.


Perhaps they should. I've read some arguments suggesting that variation in income is not necessarily a bad thing. It may even be good.


I think that some unequity in income can be good, definately, however, focising wealth to a few individuals is not effective, first of all they are much more likely to waste it, in poor investments and other wastefullness.
But reallly, as I have said earlier, it's not so much about extreme financial effectiveness as it is fairness and morlity,

No, but you can become wealthy yourself. Or try, at least. Everyone has the right to try. Not everyone will succeed, but that's just life.


And how likely you are to try depends heavily on the quality of your education, which depends on the wealth of yours parents, which depends on the quality of THEIR education and the wealth of THEIR parents AND THIS IS WHAT I AM NOT LIKING!
Still, that is not actually a counter argument to private schools being both unfair and unequal. It's simply an excuse to defend the system perpetuating injustices.

Banning private schools would be unfair to the children who can afford a private school when they'd be denied a good education in a public school.

First of all children cannot afford anything, childrens wealth and income is all dependant on their parents, their are a few very rare children that actually HAVE an income (that is not just a few dollars doing a paper route or something) most of them are actors, who became so by having parents with "connections". But I will disregard this incredibly small group.
Since children canot afford this or that, but their parents can or cannot, it is only unfair in that they cannot get the absolute best possible for them, not giving someone an unjustified advantage is not actually unfair, it's just not what they might want.
See it would be pretty sweet having what Nobles often had before the enlightenment, namely Protection from laws, I forget what the term is. It would be really sweet and it would only be natural for me to want to give this privilige to my child aswell, just as one might want to give their child better education than most others are able to. It would however not be "unfair" to not do so, just as it is not "unfair" that the decentants of those nobles don't have an advantage in court today.

And your sentance was just fine :P
I might be stretching it though...
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:32 pm UTC

Squeak wrote:I've said before private schools are businesses but in fact I believe all schools are businesses and economics shows us that privately owned businesses are more efficient then state owned businesses because they have to be competitive.


No, economics does not show us this.

In different situations, a private company or a public company can be more efficient. The situation matters, as does the local definition of efficiency -- do you mean cost per service-you-care-about-rendered? Profit to the owners of the organization? Other?

Any claim to the contrary either isn't grounded in economics, or is cherry-picking arguements from economic theory.

...

Second, note that the world isn't a zero-sum game. Incentives, like "work hard or your kids will get crappy schooling" actually change how productively people work. What if giving 5% of students a worse education doubles the productive ability of a nation?

...

Third, note that property rights are enforced and made up by the state. What resources someone has a "right" to have nearly complete control over is a social artifact.

...

VannA wrote:Our social progress in the last 2000 years has been Sweet. Fuck. All.


I disagree. The wealthiest nations in the world today are no longer slaveholding: slaveholding is relegated to backwater poverty stricken districts. 2000 years ago, you would be hard pressed to find a region of the world that didn't allow slaveholding or indentured servatude.

That is just an example of social progress: I could probably generate others.

We educate badly, and in the wrong things, we legislate poorly, and are too lazy to accurately or adequately investigate the breaking of that legislation.


We educate better than we did 2000 years ago. :)

We've created sociological factors that are *worse* than at any stage in history. Totally artificial social pressures on a race (us) that is trying to get used to them within 10 generations.


How so? The rate of violence in developed nations is ridiculously low. I would argue that massive peace and prosperity is a sign of something being done right.

If you add in "some" to your statement -- well, duh. Variance is to be expected when poking at something as complex as the social life of humans. Uniform improvement isn't a reasonable standard.

fjafjan wrote:The bolded part is what you are missing, not all kids can have that optional private education, that is what it's all about (for me at least).


How do you pay for it without doing damage to the economy?

The USA has advantages over Scandinavia.

3.14... wrote:My only argument is that, private schools are unfair, everyone should acknowledge this, and if there is an opportunity people should take it.


There is a defintion of fair under which private schools are unfair.

Say, turn all the private school spaces into public schools, and say hire the teachers to teach the public curriculum. Are they gonna hire tutors.


And then shoot people who start up private schools? Do we fund religious schools with government money? Do you give people any choice asto what schooling they put their kids through? Is there any local control over schooling? Any plans on how they should evaluate changes and/or improvements in the system?

Do you ban social clubs outside of school?

[

So if you where offered 500$ per day to tutor, would you still be volunteering?

And you aren't the best tutor. The best tutor would be a professional educator spending one-on-one time with the child.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:50 pm UTC

How do you pay for it without doing damage to the economy?

The USA has advantages over Scandinavia.


how? Well I dunno, our economy seems to be doing pretty well right now (though ofcourse as the rest of the world, in the "right now" perspective in a small "down" after the chinesse drop), it might do some short term damage to the ecenomy. Having a larger well educated work force is pretty certain to make up for it though

And certainl USA has advantages over Scandinavia, but I think it's a matter of what you are striving for. American politics usually emphathise only the financial gain or loss of a situation, rather than the human and moral implications, if something is not cost effective you don't do it, and money rules. So what do you get? A more effecient country, the biggest economic power in the world.
In scandinavia Human factors play a much bigger part, and while GDP is usually not as high, or score as well in other eceonomic comparisons (though not miles behind either) usually score alot better when probing for "happyness", where one also take into account how much work one does, health, etc etc.
This is probably an over simplification but I think it will hold prtty true, if you value effeciency over humanity you will be more effecient, if you value hamanity over effeciency you will be more humanitarian.

Second, note that the world isn't a zero-sum game. Incentives, like "work hard or your kids will get crappy schooling" actually change how productively people work. What if giving 5% of students a worse education doubles the productive ability of a nation?


with those numbers? It's arguable, since you would not need to give those last 5% a bad education with that financial boost. But I do not think the numbers are anywhere near that. Not to mention the inhumanity of that logic.
"If we say "if you do not earn enough money you will get burnt for fuel" that might make people work more!"
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:53 pm UTC

In scandinavia Human factors play a much bigger part, and while GDP is usually not as high, or score as well in other eceonomic comparisons (though not miles behind either) usually score alot better when probing for "happyness", where one also take into account how much work one does, health, etc etc.
This is probably an over simplification but I think it will hold prtty true, if you value effeciency over humanity you will be more effecient, if you value hamanity over effeciency you will be more humanitarian.


It is true that northern europe rates highest on standard of living.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:22 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
I know I am not everybody. I know there is no 'general case'. I know not everyone has the best jobs out there. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter. It can still be possible to do well without the absolute best job.


But alot of those people won't be able to get their kids into (the best) private schools, giving them an unfair disadvantage.

No, they simply won't be able to get into the most expensive private schools. Which does not mean best.

fjafjan wrote:
There are also some public schools that are better than private ones. It doesn't matter, as these facts cancel each other out. No 2 schools are identical, public or private. Private schools are just as equal as public.

That is BS, it has already been said that "private schools are (usually) a business, they cannot accept everybody" (note, that was not an exact quote but part of the content), sying that they are as equal, being able to chose who they will and will not accept is simply not true.
Since not all can attend all private schools, they are obviously not as equal as public schools


Equal as in where it matters - quality of education. Not equal as in cost.

fjafjan wrote:If you can afford private school for your child you should be able to pay more taxes once that expence has been removed. And really, show me one "rich" person that has been "taxed to death" rather than "taxed to be forced to somewhat reduce spending on luxury items"?
Oh no!


I think everyone should be taxed equally. Why should those who have earned more be forced to give away a higher percentage of it? Screw that. Really though, that is a topic for a different thread.

fjafjan wrote:
Since when can a family not become wealthy? Nothing is preventing you from earning $. And it's not just a matter of the parents, the resources can be acquired in other ways (scholarships come to mind).


A family can become wealthy, BUT THE CHILD CAN DO NOTHING TO INFLUATE IT! This is the situation I am arguing against

Two kids, let's say they are 15, somewhat around that age people start expcting you to make serious decitions for your future life
At that point one of them has had a poor education, not out of own violition but simply that is because what was possible
The other has had a great one, because that was offered
"Your parents could have made more money" is not an excuse as to why one might not get into uni.


And here we differ again. The child is a part of the family unit. I don't see why you think the child should be ripped out of it and tossed to the dogs.

fjafjan wrote:
Besides, if one were to abolish private schools right now (temporarily ignoring Squeak's note that the public system would be completely overloaded), what would most of those normally in the private schools do? Hire tutors instead. Would you still find fault with that? (Especially if one compares this to the hiring of bodyguards in addition to the normal police protection one is allowed, from my example earlier in the thread). If you don't, what's the difference between tutors and the actual school? If you do, why?


Well obviously it wouldn't be an "overnight thing" where you go and tear down all private school. One viable option would be to simply overtake them, I imagine alot of private schools have facilities well suited for education, using those would be great. Nothing needs to be fundamentally changed other than the way the school and possibly education is being run, aswell as how students are accepted.
As for Tutors I have nothing against furhter education, however that such education should have a cost is what I am objected to. And difference between tutors and schools are in either case obvious, first of all what scool you attend have more consequences than your educational quality, it is about who your friends are and what their background is like, if all your friends are rich and the only poor people you hear about are robbing banks and or people, you are likely to turn into a snob, thinking ones humanity is directly linked to ones income. the same goes for the poor, dehamanising the rich if they never meet them and realise that they are just people too.

The types people you are exposed to are not necessarily a function of the type of school. Your same argument could be applied to 2 public schools in different areas of the country. Completely arbitrary.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:17 pm UTC

The USA is a richer country than the scandinavian nations.

This is dispite the current oil wealth of norway and sweden.

The USA also generates more nobel prize winners per capita than norway or sweden.

The USA also invests more money in basic scientific research than norway or sweden per capita.

The USA also invests more money in research and development than norway or sweden per capita.

The USA has far less natural gas and oil reserves per capita than the scandinavian nations. Note that a huge chunk of those nations prosperity comes from the large oil and natural gas reserves in the area: these are effectively "money in the bank".

If you have a huge pile of such "money in the bank" value in the form of easily tapped oil/gas reserves, socialist policies make a lot of extra sense. The value of those reserves is mostly fixed, and not all that dependant on the creativity of the local industry and people. So you can strip out capitalist motivation factors, and add in the socialist wealth-distribution advantages, with minimal cost.

...

Norway and Sweden might be nicer places to live, on average, but on the margin the USA is often a better place to live. Suppose you are a top-notch research scientist: is the USA a better place to live, or is Norway and Sweden a better place to live?

What I'm saying is that social policies have costs. These costs may or may not be justified, but ignoring the existance of these costs is dishonest.

I'd rather live in Norway or Sweden than the USA I suspect. The high levels of cultural homogeniety would get tiresome after the novelty wore off... (I'm used to net-migration rates about 3 times higher than the Scandinavian nations have)

...

Note that threatening to turn people into firewood is a bad way to motivate them. If the standard to become firewood is too low, people will be overly risk-adverse and play it safe to stay away from being firewood.

If the standard to become firewood is too high, you lose a huge chunk of your population which could be somewhat productive on the margin, and you run into problems with mass revolts against your cordwood empire.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:17 pm UTC

That's one of my problems with the whole idea. There are some really good public schools out there, and some really bad ones. Since it's preposterous to make the good ones worse, you'd have to make all the bad ones just as good as the best. That's a nearly impossible task.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:07 pm UTC

I am a commi, so you guyz work it out my point of view. Anybody have any info on the schooling system in cuba? or russian in the 1920s-50s?

Also, we have not yet heard one good argument why private schools should exist.
Say they didn't, and you wanted to open a private school, convence me the government of any developed country to let you undermine the public schools.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:09 pm UTC

An argument against establishing is not an argument for banning, and vice versa.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:56 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:I am a commi, so you guyz work it out my point of view. Anybody have any info on the schooling system in cuba? or russian in the 1920s-50s?
No, and why is this relavent?

3.14159265... wrote:Also, we have not yet heard one good argument why private schools should exist.

I gave a few reasons a few posts up from the bottom on the second page. There are differences in style from public schools which some prefer, and under such conditions some learn better.

3.14159265... wrote:Say they didn't, and you wanted to open a private school, convence me the government of any developed country to let you undermine the public schools.

Owijad is right, this is not an argument for banning.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

The cuba thing just cuz I wanted to know how they implented the education system there. Well we commi left wing people are whiners and want to make everything equal, so if there is no point to something and it leads to inequality we wanna ban it i.e. private schools.

I agreed with your reasons tractor that there should be private schools for the handicapped if they wish and for the mentally challenged and even maybe for those that are mentally superior, this is another argument however.

The point is private schools are where normal rich kids go, to become rich people.

And you just crystalized my point, see when people are DIFFERENT they need DIFFERENT treatments.

Are you saying rich kids are DIFFERENT from poor kids.
That they somehow deserve DIFFERENT things?

We have upto now established that:

Education is correlated with financial success
Private schools are as accessable to poor kids than rich kids.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Kin
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:54 am UTC

Postby Kin » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:18 pm UTC

While most of my views follow squeak, except my background (no private), I would like to mention that privates help the state where a general year of tuition costs the state, if I recall, 5000 dollars for high school, the private school gets non of that and the state saves 5000 - increases the benefits to the more poor slightly and greatly to the more fortunate.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:27 pm UTC

So you are saying, that the poorer students get 5000 per year in return for working in mcdonald's for the rest of their life vs going through university and getting an easy ass job that pays 80K a year.

Maybe the poor people should thank the rich... They are oh so generous.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests