The Morality of Wealth

[Jeff K.]

Just observing your lack of reading skills.

[Analytics]

Just observing your lack of reading skills.

Lol.

[Farnsworth]

Jeff K.,

Analytics said: "If you don't meet the requirements, the option isn't available."

How is he wrong? You originally claimed that "College is pretty much free in the US." You then asked Analytics to prove that it wasn't while presenting the College Cost reduction Act of 2007, I can only assume, as your evidence that "college is pretty much free." But this act doesn't just accept everyone, nor does it allow people to attend college "for free."

According to this website, the public service loan forgiveness program has several restrictions:

* Term: The forgiveness occurs after 120 monthly payments made on or after October 1, 2007 on an eligible Federal Direct Loan. Periods of deferment and forbearance are not counted toward the 120 payments. Payments made before October 1, 2007 do not count. Likewise, only payments on a Federal Direct Loan are counted.

So debt forgiveness doesn't even kick in until ten years of payments have been made and only after you have worked for ten years for the government. That doesn't sound to me like it is "pretty much free" for everyone. It goes on to explain employment eligibility requirements:

* Employment: The borrower must be employed full-time in a public service job for each of the 120 monthly payments. Public service jobs include, among other positions, emergency management, government (excluding time served as a member of Congress), military service, public safety and law enforcement (police and fire), public health (including nurses, nurse practitioners, nurses in a clinical setting, and full-time professionals engaged in health care practitioner occupations and health care support occupations), public education, early childhood education (including licensed or regulated childcare, Head Start, and State-funded prekindergarten), social work in a public child or family service agency, public services for individuals with disabilities or the elderly, public interest legal services (including prosecutors, public defenders and legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization), public librarians, school librarians and other school-based services, and employees of tax exempt 501

[Farnsworth]

Weren't you just advocating opening the colleges up to as many people as possible? Hate to break it to you but "free" isn't really free. SOMEONE will pay, and the fact that a lender is involved in the current system is not nearly as big a driver of increased costs as are other factors; namely, salary inflation, bureaucratic waste, and fraud, just to name a few

Agreed. But I would also add that it would be counterproductive to provide everyone a college education. Yes, in general a college education is beneficial to the individual, but only because college graduates are currently in a position to negotiate competitive wages in the job market. However, let's suppose that everyone in the country has a PhD from some University. On the one hand it is great that we have so many educated people, but on the other hand wages will be driven down so much that it would be superfluous to seek a graduate degree. Do we really suppose that if every American has a graduate degree, than there will be no one to serve or cook food? No more valet parkers? No more house cleaning? No more fruit pickers, etc? Those jobs will still be filled because there simply aren't enough high paying jobs for everyone.

Sadly we see this trend already. Once upon a time a degree used to guarantee a good job, but nowadays more and more people with degrees find themselves needing to go back to school to earn a Master's or Doctorate just to have an advantage over the rest of those holding a mere Bachelor's degree.

[Jeff K.]

So debt forgiveness doesn't even kick in until ten years of payments have been made and only after you have worked for ten years for the government. That doesn't sound to me like it is "pretty much free" for everyone. It goes on to explain employment eligibility requirements:

Sorry, it is matched with the Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, payments will not exceed 10% of income.

There are so many programs out there, especially for minorities, almost everyone can take place, not a some, and not a few. When combined with Pell Grants (need basis) and other groups, it becomes fairly clear that anyone determined to go to college can with substantial government aid.

analytics did exaggerate and frankly has some kind of chip on his shoulder about the fact that college is available with students loans and through a myriad of other ways which he seems to conveniently overlook.

[Jeff K.]

Agreed. But I would also add that it would be counterproductive to provide everyone a college education. Yes, in general a college education is beneficial to the individual, but only because college graduates are currently in a position to negotiate competitive wages in the job market. However, let's suppose that everyone in the country has a PhD from some University. On the one hand it is great that we have so many educated people, but on the other hand wages will be driven down so much that it would be superfluous to seek a graduate degree. Do we really suppose that if every American has a graduate degree, than there will be no one to serve or cook food? No more valet parkers? No more house cleaning? No more fruit pickers, etc? Those jobs will still be filled because there simply aren't enough high paying jobs for everyone.

Sadly we see this trend already. Once upon a time a degree used to guarantee a good job, but nowadays more and more people with degrees find themselves needing to go back to school to earn a Master's or Doctorate just to have an advantage over the rest of those holding a mere Bachelor's degree.

Education is only counterproductive if you want an ignorant slave population. Otherwise it is the tide that lifts all boats.

To presume there must be an "elite" class in order to make an education valuable simply boggles the mind and reflects a poor understanding of economics.

[Farnsworth]

Education is only counterproductive if you want an ignorant slave population.

????

Otherwise it is the tide that lifts all boats.

In general, yes. But only because we live in a society where there is a demand for educated workers. The reason is because there are more high paying jobs than there are highly educated workers, which is why so many highly educated foreigners are recruited to work in the USA. We could at some point reach an equilibrium, but ultimately if everyone is equally educated, the only winners, from an economic perspective, are the employers.

To presume there must be an "elite" class in order to make an education valuable simply boggles the mind and reflects a poor understanding of economics.

Who said anything about an "elite class"? I provided an elementary example of how supply-demand works in the job market, and this is hardly a moot point. I'm not sure I could simplify it further for your benefit, but what I said is true nonetheless. In a world where everyone has the highest education possible, wages would be substantially lower than they are now because tens of millions of equally qualified applicants will be vying for the same positions. Why would an employer hire Bobby over Jimmy if they are equally educated and both are fresh out of school with no experience? Because Bobby was willing to work for less. People will settle for lower wages just to have a job, the same way illegal immigrants drive down wages substantially. They are in no position to negotiate for higher wages. They are just grateful to be working.

And the Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 is not a debt forgiveness program. It legislates that all new federal education loans beginning July 1, 2010 will be made through the Direct Loan program and this was done for the sake of efficiency, not for the sake of providing more "free education." In fact, according to this website, this piece of legislation:

The major provisions that were dropped included the Perkins loan expansion and reengineering and the indexing of the maximum Pell Grant to 1% over the inflation rate. Funding for the College Access Challenge Grant program was cut from $3 billion to $750 million and the Community College funding was cut from $10 billion to $2 billion. Funding for elementary and secondary education was eliminated. Finally, the additional FAFSA simplification changes were dropped. These included replacement of the 6 asset questions with a net asset cap on eligibility for need-based federal student aid and the elimination of 12 of the untaxed income and benefits questions.

So it seems you're still very far from substantiating your ludicrous claims that education is basically free in the USA. I applied for financial aid many years ago, and numerous family members have applied for grants and loans too. Some were more successful than others, but nary a one of them came close to getting their education for free.

It seems to me that Analytics was right. But he is an economist, so I'm not surprised.

[Farnsworth]

I think a person who is genuinely nice will still be genuinely nice if they work hard and become rich. They will probably still be nice if they encounter misfortune and become poor. The same applies to genuine jerks.

Hmmm. Not sure "nice" is the issue here. But if becoming wealthy doesn't change a person for the worse, then it kinda makes you wonder what all that New Testament warning was all about. I mean if there is no risk to becoming wealthy, what's the whole point behind scriptures like, "easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter heaven"? And all that talk about how we're commanded to forsake earthly treasures and give them away to the poor, not complain about taxes, render to Caesar what is his, etc.

Was Jesus just joking when he said all this stuff?

[Analytics]

There are so many programs out there, especially for minorities, almost everyone can take place, not a some, and not a few. When combined with Pell Grants (need basis) and other groups, it becomes fairly clear that anyone determined to go to college can with substantial government aid.

analytics did exaggerate and frankly has some kind of chip on his shoulder about the fact that college is available with students loans and through a myriad of other ways which he seems to conveniently overlook.

I didn't exagerate at all. All I said was that the GI Bill (and, if you insist, the non-military versions of it) aren't available to everybody. That isn't an exageration.

You've totally misunderstood my point here. I totally agree that if somebody wants to go to college, there are lots of ways to pay for it. What I am saying, though, is that I have serious reservations about student loans. They work out for some people. Great. But there are unintended microeconomic and macroeconomic consequences. Are they worth the cost? I'm suggesting they aren't.

When your prophet said that we should avoid death like the plague, I'm starting to think he understood what he was talking about.

[Deborah]

not complain about taxes, render to Caesar what is his, etc.

Ether 10:5 "yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings."

Mosiah 7:15 "For behold, we are in bondage to the Lamanites, and are taxed with a tax which is grievous to be borne."

Mosiah 11:3 "And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain."

Mosiah 2:14 "And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne

[Farnsworth]

Complaining about unrighteous and egregious taxes is nothing new. Since an income tax is confiscating a portion of a person's income it is an unrighteous tax and I will continue to complain.

Deborah, I'm astonished that you would see Book of Mormon scriptures trumping the direct teachings of the savior as outlined in the New Testament, especially considering Mosiah and Ether were written long before Christ's ministry.

But your claim that income taxes are "unrighteous" is not supported by these scriptures. These scriptures mentioned "heavy" taxes, but didn't define what should be considered heavy, nor did it tell us to rebel against them. It seems like you just did a search for the word "tax" and assumed the hits would somehow support your political views. Well, they don't.

Taxing one's income is an American past time that is entirely constitutional and just. It is what funded the Civil War and without it, we'd be a Confederate nation. It is no more a "confiscation" of wealth than tithing is. You might say tithing is voluntary, but it is actually a commandment enforced by ecclesiastical authority the same way taxes are enforced by the IRS. Failure to pay either carries its own set of repercussions and Americans get away without paying income taxes all the time. Currently income taxes are at lower rates than they've been at in many decades, so I'm not sure how one could consider them "heavy" or burdensome. Extremely low tax rates is one of the reasons we have such an outrageous deficit. Our nation simply couldn't function without the income tax.

[LeSellers]

I agree with Thomas Jefferson that education through college should be free.

CFR that Jefferson advocated this.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

I didn't exagerate at all. All I said was that the GI Bill (and, if you insist, the non-military versions of it) aren't available to everybody. That isn't an exageration.

You've totally misunderstood my point here. I totally agree that if somebody wants to go to college, there are lots of ways to pay for it. What I am saying, though, is that I have serious reservations about student loans. They work out for some people. Great. But there are unintended microeconomic and macroeconomic consequences. Are they worth the cost? I'm suggesting they aren't.

When your prophet said that we should avoid death like the plague, I'm starting to think he understood what he was talking about.

My focus was on all organizations to help those who wish to go and was very clear in my cfr challenge. Your dodge was disengenuous to say the least.

[Farnsworth]

CFR that Jefferson advocated this.

Lehi

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/university.html

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/2/aky148.shtml

http://jschell.myweb.uga.edu/history/legis/jeffersonuniversal.htm

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Education is only counterproductive if you want an ignorant slave population.

????

Are you unaware that educated people in history have generally always ruled over the less educated. This was especially clear in the south where the education of black slaves was illegal.

Quote

Otherwise it is the tide that lifts all boats.

In general, yes. But only because we live in a society where there is a demand for educated workers. The reason is because there are more high paying jobs than there are highly educated workers, which is why so many highly educated foreigners are recruited to work in the USA. We could at some point reach an equilibrium, but ultimately if everyone is equally educated, the only winners, from an economic perspective, are the employers.

I would prefer a carpenter that can do high math to one that cannot add, multiply, subtract or come up with net present value when deciding whether or not to buy heavy equipment for his trade. Otherwise he would depend on someone else.

Indeed how many people end up remaining in the profession they went to college for? I know many CEO's who obtained their degree in engineering, engineers who originally had a business degree (which required even more schooling), CPA's with degrees in folklore, and carpenters who have degrees in international business. What this shows is the college and university education system in the US (best in the world by the way) does more than merely prepare one for some profession or other, it is more extensive than that.

If everyone went to college, then everyone would be well trained to adapt which many who don't go to college cannot do, look to the factories and unemployed in Detroit where the idea of working "after" high school without going on with one's education has had disasterous results.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

To presume there must be an "elite" class in order to make an education valuable simply boggles the mind and reflects a poor understanding of economics.

Who said anything about an "elite class"? I provided an elementary example of how supply-demand works in the job market, and this is hardly a moot point. I'm not sure I could simplify it further for your benefit, but what I said is true nonetheless. In a world where everyone has the highest education possible, wages would be substantially lower than they are now because tens of millions of equally qualified applicants will be vying for the same positions. Why would an employer hire Bobby over Jimmy if they are equally educated and both are fresh out of school with no experience? Because Bobby was willing to work for less. People will settle for lower wages just to have a job, the same way illegal immigrants drive down wages substantially. They are in no position to negotiate for higher wages. They are just grateful to be working.

The implication is very real. College has always created an elite class in history. Universities whether in Islamic based nations, Asian nations, or the west have almost always had that elitist class. It is because the educated tended to know more about organization and application of knowledge and facts synthesized and articulated into an outcome. It is ridiculous to overlook it.

So when you say too much college or education for a society is a bad thing. You in turn, just like those dear old plantation owners, want to ensure a compliant lower class that can be manipulated and controlled.

As to your somewhat mixed up view of economics, having a college education does not mean you aren't willing to work for less (is this part of the "me" generation I am speaking with?). I worked in a hospital as a registrar, and made good money. When I recieved my degree and desired to work in the field I wanted, I had to take a substantial pay cut in order to start at the bottom once again. I was fine with that because I knew it would work out. There are a large number of people who take pay cuts when they get their degree, especially when they leave grocery stores and other companies which are traditionally blue collar. So your point regarding the educated naturally wanting more pay in an interview is false. It depends entirely on the individual job applicant.

To believe that educated or college degreed individuals aren't grateful to just be working is ridiculous and small minded.

[Jeff K.]

And the Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 is not a debt forgiveness program. It legislates that all new federal education loans beginning July 1, 2010 will be made through the Direct Loan program and this was done for the sake of efficiency, not for the sake of providing more "free education." In fact, according to this website, this piece of legislation:

Quote

The major provisions that were dropped included the Perkins loan expansion and reengineering and the indexing of the maximum Pell Grant to 1% over the inflation rate. Funding for the College Access Challenge Grant program was cut from $3 billion to $750 million and the Community College funding was cut from $10 billion to $2 billion. Funding for elementary and secondary education was eliminated. Finally, the additional FAFSA simplification changes were dropped. These included replacement of the 6 asset questions with a net asset cap on eligibility for need-based federal student aid and the elimination of 12 of the untaxed income and benefits questions.

So it seems you're still very far from substantiating your ludicrous claims that education is basically free in the USA. I applied for financial aid many years ago, and numerous family members have applied for grants and loans too. Some were more successful than others, but nary a one of them came close to getting their education for free.

Wrong again, I haven't even begun showing the private scholarships available, many of which go uncliamed. You probably did not do a very good job on searching out for financial aid, you probably weren't willing to put forth service for your nation in order for the education to take place, so of course you chose to limit your options. Good for you, but don't project your lack of succes or your family's lack of succes upon others. Education is basically there to be had by anyone and basically free, especially relative to the many obstacles in other countries where they follow your advice and limit the education to the few who can afford to do so.

Technical issues aside, I am amazed you somehow believe that it is a bad thing to have a highly educated public in a society. Unless of course you are like George Fitzhugh who defended one of the most pernacious institutions in our nations history. He would have agreed with you that college should not be for "some" people.

[LeSellers]

Three Presidents and a University

[Farnsworth]

The implication is very real. College has always created an elite class in history.

Weight lifting has also produced a physically stronger class of humans. But if all humans can lift the same amount, then a "stronger class" no longer exists. Why is this so hard for you to grasp the concept of equality?

Universities whether in Islamic based nations, Asian nations, or the west have almost always had that elitist class

That's nice. But it has nothing to do with what I said. I spoke of a hypothetical situation where everyone has an equal education.

It is because the educated tended to know more about organization and application of knowledge and facts synthesized and articulated into an outcome. It is ridiculous to overlook it.

It is even more ridiculous to try dragging me down this straw man bunny trail. You're trying to argue against something I never said, just for the sake of arguing it seems. Having fun?

So when you say too much college or education for a society is a bad thing

That isn't what I said. I said, "it would be counterproductive to provide everyone a college education" and I clarified this to mean in terms of economic value to the individual. But nice try, putting words in my mouth to suit your straw man.

You in turn, just like those dear old plantation owners, want to ensure a compliant lower class that can be manipulated and controlled.

Except I never said this. I mean there's always that.

As to your somewhat mixed up view of economics, having a college education does not mean you aren't willing to work for less (is this part of the "me" generation I am speaking with?)

I never said this either.

Just a suggestion here, but you should really try to review what people write, because it seems you have serious issues with basic comprehension. I never said having a college educations "means you aren't willing to work for less." Nothing even close to that really. Again, what I presented was just a basic economic axiom. When all workers are equal in every sense, the ones who will get hired are those willing to work for lower wages. This is a universal truth in a free society and it is our every day reality. Just look around you. This is why companies overlook the legal status of immigrants who are willing to work for less. They also overlook their language deficiency because their main objective is to pay a minimum for a job performed. There is nothing "mixed up" about this.

So your point regarding the educated naturally wanting more pay in an interview is false.

That wasn't my point. My point was so simple, even my 14 year old understood it. My point that if everyone has an equal education, wages will go down substantially because all the negotiating power will be in the hands of the employers, and not the employees. It is a simple matter of supply/demand which seems to fly right over your head. It is the same principle that regulates prices in a market economy.

It depends entirely on the individual job applicant.

I guess you also missed the part where I said if all things are equal among the applicants. Meaning, experience and education.

To believe that educated or college degreed individuals aren't grateful to just be working is ridiculous and small minded.

I've never believed that, nor have I implied it. So I'm guessing you're one of those guys who likes to make stuff up just to shoot down straw man arguments? In three tries, it seems you still haven't understood anything I've said.

BTW, did you ever get around to supporting your claim that college education is free in America? Or is Analytics the only one who has to back up everything he says (or doesn't say)?

[Farnsworth]

None of these supports your assertion that Jeffersion advocated that "education through college should be free" as you cliamed earlier.

Jefferson did propose that three years of public education, if the family allowed it, should be had at government expense so that a person could read (which government-run, tax-funded, grtf, aka welfare, schools do not achieve), write (another failure in grtf-welfare schools), and calculate (need I say it?) so as to make him a productive citizen and able to manage his own affairs. But free college was not among his goals.

Unless you can point out the passages, from Jefferson's own writings, not someone else's interpretations of them, I cannot accept this assertion.

Lehi

It wasn't my assertion. I was just trying to point you in the direction of some sources that discussed the issue.

I don't know either way, although it does seem likely that Analytics is right. Thomas Jefferson felt it was important for the government to make sure its people was educated for reasons listed in his argument, and I highly doubt he would have considered today's high school diploma (which didn't exist then as it does today) enough to consider someone adequately educated. I suspect he believed in education that can only be found in private schools or Universities, in our day.

[LeSellers]

It wasn't my assertion. I was just trying to point you in the direction of some sources that discussed the issue.

I caught that after I hit "Add Reply". It's fixed now.

I have read Jefferson extensively. I know his positions on education, and except for the taxation part (which gives government control over too much, including what is taught and learned), he's dead on.

I don't know either way, although it does seem likely that Analytics is right. Thomas Jefferson felt it was important for the government to make sure its people was educated for reasons listed in his argument, and I highly doubt he would have considered today's high school diploma (which didn't exist then as it does today) enough to consider someone adequately educated.

He'd laugh his red head off. But the point I'd make here is that school ? education. I can teach anyone who wants to learn to read, write and cipher (arithmetic, not mathematics) in about six months. The issue is the person must be ready and willing to learn. GRTF-Welfare schools run on the idiotic assumption that every child, at age 6, is equally ready and equally willing to learn. As John Taylor Gatto, twice NYC and once NY State teacher of the year, says, one child learns to read at age four, another at age nine. By age thirteen, there is no difference, until the labelers flag the second as "damaged goods". And that's what happens in the grtf-welfare school system (and they get paid extra for the labeling, so they love doing it).

David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal development, when both are 13, you can

[Farnsworth]

He'd laugh his red head off.

Actually, Jefferson wouldn't take such a serious subject lightly.

But the point I'd make here is that school ? education

Technically yes, but in practice, virtually everyone educated today is educated via schooling. So it is a distinction without a difference really.

I can teach anyone who wants to learn to read, write and cipher (arithmetic, not mathematics) in about six months.

No you couldn't. People are different, come from different backgrounds, have varying levels of IQ, etc.

The issue is the person must be ready and willing to learn.

And capable.

GRTF-Welfare schools run on the idiotic assumption that every child, at age 6, is equally ready and equally willing to learn.

No it doesn't. It runs on the constitutional assumption that all children deserve the opportunity to receive an education.

As John Taylor Gatto, twice NYC and once NY State teacher of the year, says, one child learns to read at age four, another at age nine. By age thirteen, there is no difference, until the labelers flag the second as "damaged goods". And that's what happens in the grtf-welfare school system (and they get paid extra for the labeling, so they love doing it)

But many of the children are damaged due to their cultural background. Many of them come from broken homes, were not raised by parents who read to them at night, nor did they emphasize the value of an education, etc. What the folks on the right don't seem to understand is that education in private schools yields better results (grades, ACT/SAT test scores, etc), not because government sucks at education. It yields better results because private schools don't generally receive children from poorer neighborhoods, broken homes, etc. They generally receive students who come from wealthier backgrounds. Most of a child's education and capacity for education comes from the home, not the school.

Government mucks up everything it puts its greasy, grasping, greedy hand to. Education is but one example.

It isn't a valid example at all. Government is simply forced to take in all students at the Middle-High School levels, whereas private schools have the luxury of choosing students that are more receptive to discipline and education. Very much in the way private health insurance companies regularly reject clients who they consider high risk, and pick the low-risk clients. It is all about making money, not about a genuine concern for anyone's health. Likewise, private schools are in the money making business and they design their entrance exams so that those who can attend, are generally those who are relatively smart. This lowers the burden on their teachers to work harder because the parents have already done most of the work. It also explains the contrast in results between public and private schools. After all, how do you explain the success of government funded Universities? It is because no one is required by law to attend college. Kids who come from a broken background are less prone to respond to authority or be educated, and this is a sociological axiom that won't get wished away by rhetoric from the Right.

I pity the students who is denied real learning, the taxpayer who must fund it, the families who suffer through it, and the teachers who must surrender their integrity to teach in the grtf-welfare system.

I've taught at the High School and University level and can explain the difference between Joey who was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth, and Antoine, whose father left his alcoholic mother when he was three, forcing him into a gang-life of crime just to stay alive. You seem to be under the delusion that the kids dealing crack in the school's gymnasium are denied quality education because their teachers receive their checks from the government instead of a private institution. This is easy to imagine when you're not teaching at a school where metal detectors and security guards are at every entrance. Some teachers working in these environments aren't paid enough to deal with the psychological abuse and physical threats that they experience day in and day out. And I attended a public school that was considered the best in my state. Four people in my graduating class scored perfect on the SAT; the nearby private school produced only two students who scored perfectly on the SAT. Of course, we lived in a fairly wealthy area too. So the real factor is demographics, not whether a school is privately or publicly funded.

Now the worst public schools are almost always located within major cities, in poorer areas. Do you think this is just coincidence? Is it really more rationale to explain this as a matter of hiring bad teachers and letting the government fund them? Thugs in these districts create a hostile environment less conducive to education for the rest of the students who may or may not be interested in learning what the teacher is teaching. And if schooling was left entirely to the private sector, the fact is millions of students wouldn't go to school at all because they simply can't afford it. Meaning, fewer educated people in America, which is precisely what Jefferson didn't want!

And the only reason some of these charter schools are lobbying for the voucher movement, is because they want to be subsidized by the government the same as private colleges. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that has made people like the founder of the University of Phoenix, billionaires. It has nothing to do with producing more educated people. If the private schools were located in Brooklyn or Compton, the local students wouldn't be able to attend because they wouldn't pass basic entrance exams. But even if they were accepted and their education was paid for with government funded vouchers, the results would be just the same as if the school was publicly funded.

Not everyone can be like Jaime Escalante, who had to go way beyond the duties of a teacher to get his students to achieve. He divorced his students from their troubling environments, kept them in school long after school hours so they didn't have to deal with the everyday struggles that defines who they were as poor East Los Angeles students. Jaime was a genius and an exception, but the results he produced came from something you cannot teach or pay teachers to do. He had a unique relationship with his students and had a similar background, which enabled him to earn their respect and trust. But these cases, however wonderful, are exceptions to the rule. Teachers are not paid to work 80hrs a week as he did, nor are they paid to be personal therapists as he was. Only if they were, could we ever hope for schools in poorer, crime-ridden neighborhoods to yield the same results as private schools in wealthier neighborhoods.

Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson was not a strict Constitutionalist. It seemed to be a basic guideline for him to build on later. He sought to extend government authority beyond the original enumerated powers, and in fact was responsible for the greatest exercise of government authority that was not constitutionally granted.

[LeSellers]

Actually, Jefferson wouldn't take such a serious subject lightly.

You're reading me too literally.

Technically [school ? education] yes, but in practice, virtually everyone educated today is educated via schooling. So it is a distinction without a difference really.

I deny that most people are "educated". It pivots on the definition of "educated", and for me, it means having learned how to think, not what (or when) to think. In the grtf-welfare schools of today (and indeed, in any time), children are indoctrinated, not educated.

No you couldn't [teach any child to read and cipher in six months]. People are different, come from different backgrounds, have varying levels of IQ, etc.

And capable.

I could, and if there were a way to demonstrate it, I would. If you come up with one, and I think it reasonable, I'd be glad to give it a shot.

I do acknowledge that the blind, the deaf, and those mentally challenged people of, say an "IQ" of less than 70 might take longer, but any normal child can learn to read in weeks, not years. Those who have been mucked up by the state's schools will present another major challenge, but I believe they can learn, after they have unlearned the bad techniques shoved down their throats in school.

No it [the grtf-welfare school system] doesn't [run on the idiotic assumption that every child is equally ready to read at age 6]. It runs on the constitutional assumption that all children deserve the opportunity to receive an education.

"Constitutional"? Where, prithee, in the USmerican Constitution, does the word "education" even appear?

I understand that the anti-Catholic (and anti-Mormon) Blaine amendment was imposed on territories (including Utah) as a condition of statehood. It is now part of 34 state constitutions, but to claim it is "constitutional" is to distort the concept of natural rights, and especially of religious rights. Its purpose was to discriminate against Catholic children in the Midwest and LDS children in Utah.

But many of the children are damaged due to their cultural background. Many of them come from broken homes, were not raised by parents who read to them at night, nor did they emphasize the value of an education, etc. What the folks on the right don't seem to understand is that education in private schools yields better results (grades, ACT/SAT test scores, etc), not because government sucks at education. It yields better results because private schools don't generally receive children from poorer neighborhoods, broken homes, etc.

Then you'll explain why many states contract out the very students you list above to private schools. The student did not change, only the school, and those students who are given this right (or, better, who re-take it) to control their learnings do just as well as the other "privileged" students in the school.

Further, this excuse fails to account for the fact that, in XIX, most schools would not take students who could not read, because it was not worth the teacher's time to waste it on such a rudimentary skill. Yet, few children were actually denied entry, because those parents, who were far poorer, far more busy with the business of living, managed to teach their children to read and write. today's parents have bought into the fallacy of "teaching children is a job for professionals, don't try this at home." I have seen too many notes from teachers telling parents not to teach their children how to read because it will confuse the child, since the parents will not use the "approved" methods. (Methods that do not work very well. Methods that were designed to teach deaf children to read a language they had never heard.)

They generally receive students who come from wealthier backgrounds. Most of a child's education and capacity for education comes from the home, not the school.

This is nothing but grtf-welfare propaganda. Most private schools are Catholic, and their student bodies do not differ markedly from the neighboring grtf-welfare schools.

The famous schools (e.g., Sudbury Valley, and Sidwell) are expensive and do have an elite clientele. But that's not the case for the model or mean school.

It isn't a valid example at all. Government is simply forced to take in all students at the Middle-High School levels, whereas private schools have the luxury of choosing students that are more receptive to discipline and education. Very much in the way private health insurance companies regularly reject clients who they consider high risk, and pick the low-risk clients. It is all about making money, not about a genuine concern for anyone's health. Likewise, private schools are in the money making business and they design their entrance exams so that those who can attend, are generally those who are relatively smart. This lowers the burden on their teachers to work harder because the parents have already done most of the work. It also explains the contrast in results between public and private schools.

More unfounded propaganda.

See above in re: the lack of significant differences between the students in most private schools and those in grtf-welfare schools.

After all, how do you explain the success of government funded Universities? It is because no one is required by law to attend college.

That's part of the reason, and no one, hardly me, is denying that education by coercion is a foolhardy enterprise.

But the indoctrination in grtf-welfare schools is the primary reason that so little learning goes on.

In addition, the whole design of grtf-welfare schools is to waste time. We can prove this by looking at the student who is unable to attend school because of an illness (as my mother was in the 1930s, for almost three years). The time it takes for the student to "keep up" with his peers is minimal

[LeSellers]

Kids who come from a broken background are less prone to respond to authority or be educated, and this is a sociological axiom that won't get wished away by rhetoric from the Right.

The "Right" does not describe me, and the Right is just as adamant that every child be corralled in the grtf-welfare system. They want to control the minds of children as much as the Left.

I've taught at the High School and University level and can explain the difference between Joey who was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth, and Antoine, whose father left his alcoholic mother when he was three, forcing him into a gang-life of crime just to stay alive.

I've taught in middle schools and elementary schools. I can tell the differences, too. But that does not mean that a good system, a private system that actually had to make its clients (the parents) happy, would not do a far better job of educating children.

You seem to be under the delusion that the kids dealing crack in the school's gymnasium are denied quality education because their teachers receive their checks from the government instead of a private institution.

That's Gatto's claim, and he was an intimate observer for thirty years. In my experience, he is right.

Teachers have to please the people who write their paychecks: the state. In a private school, the parents write the checks, and the parents will be happy only if their children are learning. Since the state does not care if children learn, the teacher is not concerned about it, either, at least it is not his primary concern.

The fact that the state does not care if a child learns is found in the fact that children do not learn. There is virtually unlimited money for schools and there is total access to the students, but the learning does not happen. If it did, we would assume that this was the goal of the state, and since it does not, we must therefor assume that the state does not want the learning to take place. No matter what the subject in human action, the desired result is the actual result after repeated trials. The state has controlled schools for 170 years. That's more than long enough to determine what it is the state has in mind.

This is easy to imagine when you're not teaching at a school where metal detectors and security guards are at every entrance.

My middle school in California had drug sales going on daily. I almost saw one, but didn't get around the corner fast enough.

Some teachers working in these environments aren't paid enough to deal with the psychological abuse and physical threats that they experience day in and day out.

Teachers are paid too much. Why? Because anyone with a pulse and eyelid flicker can become a teacher. The price of anything is determined by the potential supply at a given demand. Since aspiring teachers have arbitrary hurdles placed in front of them, there are fewer people who will qualify than who could do the work. Therefor, the supply is artificially restricted and the price for teaching labor is artificially high.

Whether they have an impossible job or not is wholly beside the point. Keep in mind that teachers do not accomplish the result that the grtf-welfare system promises: they do not teach children to read (witness the 50% functional illiteracy rate), they cannot cipher, they cannot think.

A wise electorate would fire the whole lot of them and demand its money back. But, because government-run, there is no recourse to failure live up to the marketing hype.

And I attended a public school that was considered the best in my state. Four people in my graduating class scored perfect on the SAT; the nearby private school produced only two students who scored perfectly on the SAT. Of course, we lived in a fairly wealthy area too. So the real factor is demographics, not whether a school is privately or publicly funded.

And those two were from a school with how large a student body, compared to the size of your grtf-welfare school's?

Moreover, the SAT and the ACT test what the grtf-welfare schools tech, not what children ought to learn. So it is not terribly surprising that grtf-welfare school students would fare better since they are routinely seeing the same questions in their classrooms that appear on the tests. Nonetheless, the family-centered educated score 20 percentile points higher on those standardized test than do their grtf-welfare incarcerated peers.

Now the worst public schools are almost always located within major cities, in poorer areas. Do you think this is just coincidence?

No, it is the result of painstaking racism and class identification. a

In the 1890s, William Torrey Harris, US Commissioner of Education (and "industrialist"), told his cronies that they need not worry about the children getting too highly educated, because, said he, the schools were "scientifically designed" to keep them from aspiring to any position the schools had not chosen for them.

Is it really more rationale to explain this as a matter of hiring bad teachers and letting the government fund them?

I have not said that the teachers are bad, they are trammel

ed. Rather than teach children, they must teach a curriculum, the curriculum determined by the state, not by the students, and not by their parents.

Thugs in these districts create a hostile environment less conducive to education for the rest of the students who may or may not be interested in learning what the teacher is teaching.

In a rational setting, those students would be expelled. They are manifestly not learning themselves, so the money and other resources spent on them is wholly wasted. In any case, the parents of the other students would simply pull their children from the offending school and it would fail, as it should.

And if schooling was left entirely to the private sector, the fact is millions of students wouldn't go to school at all because they simply can't afford it.

False, once again!

First, the price for schools would fall, and the cost (taxes) would not be confiscated from the parents and others now paying them. School would become more affordable than it is now. Don't forget that the average state per capita expenditure exceeds $10,000. The average cost of private schools is less than $9,000. Take the huge impact of government spending on schools and the price would fall.

Second, there are already hundreds of private scholarships for K-12 (ugh! grading children like hams!), and thousands for college students. It hardly seems unlikely that people would not support more children, if for no other reason than that little children are cuter.

Third, we have already seen that, given a reasonable program, parents are willing to pay for superior education for their children. In San Antonio, the scholarship required parent to pay half, and there were four applicants for every scholarship. these were limited to low-income families, so it was not a bunch of lawyers and doctors who could afford the uncovered half without giving up Saturday golf. It was poor, largely Hispanic families who would have to sacrifice harshly.

Finally, are you going to tell me that a grandfather like me, with 26 grandchildren would allow his own children to fail to educate their children? 'Tain't gonna happen.

Meaning, fewer educated people in America, which is precisely what Jefferson didn't want!

Your argument is based on a huge fallacy, so your conclusion is illogical.

And the only reason some of these charter schools are lobbying for the voucher movement, is because they want to be subsidized by the government the same as private colleges. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that has made people like the founder of the University of Phoenix, billionaires. It has nothing to do with producing more educated people. If the private schools were located in Brooklyn or Compton, the local students wouldn't be able to attend because they wouldn't pass basic entrance exams. But even if they were accepted and their education was paid for with government funded vouchers, the results would be just the same as if the school was publicly funded.

I'm no fan of vouchers. They represent a Trojan horse that will destroy all non-grtf alternatives.

I am no fan of charter schools which are, after all, just another form of grtf-welfare schools.

I advocate that parents take back the responsibility of educating their children. The rest is just distraction

These private universities (and private schools of all sorts) do exist to make money. but you are completely wrong in claiming that they are not about teaching. If they did not succeed in meeting the expectations of the students/clients, they would fold. As they are making their owners millionaires, we are left with no conclusion other than they are teaching and teaching very well. Bad businesses, absent governmental intrusion, fail because people are not compelled to buy their product. With no willing buyers, there is no profit.

Not everyone can be like Jaime Escalante, who had to go way beyond the duties of a teacher to get his students to achieve. He divorced his students from their troubling environments, kept them in school long after school hours so they didn't have to deal with the everyday struggles that defines who they were as poor East Los Angeles students. Jaime was a genius and an exception, but the results he produced came from something you cannot teach or pay teachers to do. He had a unique relationship with his students and had a similar background, which enabled him to earn their respect and trust. But these cases, however wonderful, are exceptions to the rule. Teachers are not paid to work 80hrs a week as he did, nor are they paid to be personal therapists as he was. Only if they were, could we ever hope for schools in poorer, crime-ridden neighborhoods to yield the same results as private schools in wealthier neighborhoods.

Poor teachers. They don't like the pay, they ought to change careers. They don't like the work, they should become street sweepers.

If parents were in charge, all teacher would be whatever the parents wanted the teachers to be. and if that means every teacher would become a Jaime Escalante, then that's what all teachers would become. Otherwise, they wouldn't be teachers any more.

Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson was not a strict Constitutionalist. It seemed to be a basic guideline for him to build on later. He sought to extend government authority beyond the original enumerated powers, and in fact was responsible for the greatest exercise of government authority that was not constitutionally granted.

I know. He was not a "Federalist", he had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.

He bought Louisiana without the power to do so.

But you are misleading us. His objection to the Constitution was that it made the central government too powerful and encroached too much on individual rights.

And now, back the the topic as defined by the original post. (Sorry for the derail.)

Lehi

[mbh26]

you probably weren't willing to put forth service for your nation in order for the education to take place

Jeff the army doesn't even take everyone. I'd like to have been a warrior and am probably more cut out for it by evolution but I have a medical condition. As a VA hospital resident I saw those guys coming in with Traumatic brain injury or other unidentified mental issues from Iraq all the time. Do you have any idea what that type of environment does to your brain and ability to work and function. How productive are they now? Their situation now is worse than it was before and people really don't care about them much.

Technical issues aside, I am amazed you somehow believe that it is a bad thing to have a highly educated public in a society. Unless of course you are like George Fitzhugh who defended one of the most pernacious institutions in our nations history. He would have agreed with you that college should not be for "some" people.

Jeff, Farnsworth is right that the lousy results in inner city school has little to do with the teachers. But I personally think it's not all due to alcoholic fathers either. A lot of it has to do with the level of motivation of the kids, their culture, and DNA. They knew they'd never use high school chemistry when I was teaching it and I think they were right. How much of this education is really about making the student a more productive worker? I suspect more nefarious reasons that go toward protecting the income of those who were at the top selling it. But it sure wasn't me as the first year teacher of these adolescent buffoons, buffoons who bore no personal responsibility for anything. It's as if teachers are people hired to take the blame for societies problems. You can't blame the kids or the parents because you're not paying them. Coerced education is so far from true capitalism that I can't believe you are in favor of it. It's a complete joke and not a very funny one! Teachers opt to take their services to private schools for less pay because they don't have to deal with these kids. They just decline the offer to do business with these kids and their families for the simple reason that it is not worth it.

I already established on this thread earlier that even most college degrees are worthless. It's nothing more than a screening process for companies. It doesn't make people more productive workers. It's still a win/lose situation.

Sorry LeSellers I didn't realize you had taught. Even so, let the electorate fire me. The teachers should have their own business like doctors or lawyers. How would the class system that results be much different than it is now? It's about IQ in my experience, not nearly as much about work ethic as I once thought.

Poor teachers. They don't like the pay, they ought to change careers

I did and most teachers who can do. There's no difference between a first year med student and a teacher. My butthole mentor was right about that, except I noticed a very important difference for me. I had a health condition and thought teaching would be easier but it wasn't and the oppurtunity to make my life better was even worse. I can't believe I became a doctor but I did it. I'd like to go and flaunt my degree in that mentors face right now. Street sweeping didn't pay well either, but if faced with the choice again, I'd do the street sweeping.