Santorum Drops Out

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Baneblade]

I really wish people would understand that the more people you educate, the higher job requirements get. You aren't helping anyone but Sallie Mae. They get tons of money from students buying degrees to get jobs their fathers could get with a 5 minute interview and a GED.

The more education you have, the less education is worth. Knowledge works just like currency... because knowledge is currency.

Associate's Degrees are actually bad for you now, employers just assume you were too lazy to get a Bachelor's.

Giving everyone a college degree just means that McDonald's and Wal-Mart will require a college degree, while the company you got the degree for, only wants the guy with a PhD and six years internship experience.

There are tons of jobs that don't require any real education to do, but someone has to do them.

Education /= Wealth

Anyone can be a millionaire in a matter of years if they have the willpower and discipline to make it happen... even if they work for minimum wage.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I don't know about the professors but statements like the one you just made there do not make you seem like a rational person with which to have a productive discussion.

[quote

And you would have done just fine in the US. You don't need to be in the 10% to go to college, but if you were in that 10% you'd be going to the state university of your choice for free. There's also local colleges, online colleges. The limit is not the money - its your own desire and effort.
[/quote]
No i'd be a lifetime in debt under ever increasing interest rates. Such a inviting prospect.

Individualism is a tough call for a nanny state supporter, but imagine for a second a world where people actually worked for what they have. Think of it, a situation where you control your own destiny and you actually get to keep the stuff you earn. It's yours.

Oh so you are against free education? you have to work to learn to read! Get a job and pay your own way through despite having to have a full time job to get enough money to live and to pay for the education. Imagine the inspiration they will serve to those who cant read!
Really, its not like they are handing out degrees for free, you still have to work for them. Except you wont have to work a job at the same time in order to feed yourself and you can concentrate on your education.

Sure the free ride get-everything-handed-to-you is less effort, less productive to society, and could get you by, but that's as far as you'll go.

Since you seemed to use it as an example of a better society, Britain has less socio-economic mobility than the United States. Fewer people move up the socio-economic ladder than in the US. All that health care, handouts, gunlessness, and free-ride education doesn't do anything to improve people's lot in life. Maybe there's more to success than trying to balance the scales, eh?

Hey, at least we dont have people going bankrupt for the sheer temerity of getting an illness, Still in the top-10 economies and four times less murders than the US.

At least with our system, people have the opportunity of a level playing field with the rich. If people dont take it, sucks for them.

[Figment]

Btw, fun articles about Ron Paul with a lot of references.

http://thefbm.com/2012/01/04/the-str...y-of-ron-paul/
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/g...-ron-paul.html

[Baneblade]

People still believe citing statistics is racist...

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

People still believe citing statistics is racist...

Interpreting them in particular ways in relation to race can be, yes. For example, it would not be racist to say the majority of crime is committed by certain groups if statistics say so. It would however be racist to attribute certain reasons or aspects to these groups in general and create unreasonable correlations.

Came across a few quotes in those articles that tend to do just that, or are at the very least insulting.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/education/10educ.html

This sort of article, maybe?

Btw, does that wiki article state if demands on the student to get into secondary education are higher in the UK than in the USA?

Or this one:
http://www.edgetech-us.com/map/EduLvls.htm

Seems the south east is underperforming at least.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[HalfManHalfGod]

The sad truth is that most the money goes to supporting the giant bureaucracies rather then into the classroom.


Watch "Waiting for Superman" on netflix, it really spotlights the American public school systems.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Malorn

That NYT article cites Finland as one of the best countires.

According to Wikipedia Finland spends about 2750 (in dollars) per capita on education.

The US spends 3240 per capita

So we spend more and get less (according to the article's analysis, but I take NYT articles with a grain of salt).

Clearly throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it, which any intelligent person would already know.

No, which means there's also a good possibility that there's a difference in system.

http://www.fdupillar.com/?p=196

As this article suggests, the pacing in the US is slower. That corresponds to what classmates of mine (who did their final year in the US) said: when they took the last year of high school in the US, it was three years behind our own class - the only new thing they learned was Spanish, since it was the only thing they never had taken (wasn't taught at our school, though some other schools have Spanish, Russian and Chinese as optional langauges).

Another thing is that it suggests the US system is very inwards oriented (US focused), which means knowledge of the outside world is poor, whereas in pretty much all other high ranking countries, a much wider perspective is given.




If you once again excuse the comparison with the Netherlands, our school system is focused on seperating students by performance levels on the previous school. To get into a specific higher level school, college or university, your grades have to match requirements.

This means that not everyone of the same age attends the same schools and classes, but rather they're grouped together so they can be taught by the same teacher on the same level and a different focus, without having to wait for those further behind to catch up. Pacing between the different schools differs greatly. What some schools do in 4-6 years, others do in three and then have 3 more years of advanced classes. Someone who is a bit slower learner can progress and advance from a lower class through the different schools if they meet requirements.

As I understand it, in the US it is the opposite in public schools, where everyone gets the same level of education, regardless of personal performance.

[HalfManHalfGod]

Originally Posted by Figment

No, which means there's also a good possibility that there's a difference in system.

http://www.fdupillar.com/?p=196

As this article suggests, the pacing in the US is slower. That corresponds to what classmates of mine (who did their final year in the US) said: when they took the last year of high school in the US, it was three years behind our own class - the only new thing they learned was Spanish, since it was the only thing they never had taken (wasn't taught at our school, though some other schools have Spanish, Russian and Chinese as optional langauges).

Another thing is that it suggests the US system is very inwards oriented (US focused), which means knowledge of the outside world is poor, whereas in pretty much all other high ranking countries, a much wider perspective is given.




If you once again excuse the comparison with the Netherlands, our school system is focused on seperating students by performance levels on the previous school. To get into a specific higher level school, college or university, your grades have to match requirements.

This means that not everyone of the same age attends the same schools and classes, but rather they're grouped together so they can be taught by the same teacher on the same level and a different focus, without having to wait for those further behind to catch up. Pacing between the different schools differs greatly. What some schools do in 4-6 years, others do in three and then have 3 more years of advanced classes. Someone who is a bit slower learner can progress and advance from a lower class through the different schools if they meet requirements.

As I understand it, in the US it is the opposite in public schools, where everyone gets the same level of education, regardless of personal performance.

What you're referring to is called "tracking" in the US. Mostly its based off standardized tests administered. If you do really well you are tracked up higher where generally the better performing teachers are. If you do not so well you are tracked lower and placed in classes that designed to play catch-up but generally have lower performing teachers.

The bad thing with our public teachers union is that they are not paid based off performance in the classroom. In DC a public school reformist gave the union the opportunity to have wages as high 140kUSD but they had to give up tenure which basically means you can't be fired, ever. The union never let it come up for a vote to its members.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Quality of teachers is definitely important. Not being allowed to be fired based on poor performance seems a rather awkward rule. :/



Btw, you say that tracking is similar, but does it mean that you get a wider curriculum if you are performing well, or just the same curriculum, faster?

EDIT: Just saw Malorn's post in between, missed that one. Thanks for the explanation. I agree that the issue of race card being played exists, but then it would probably also show the Asians would perform best due to cultural pushing by parents.

[Malorn]

Meh.