Education
 

It's been touched on a little in the health care thread, so why not have it out on this one too?

Personally, I see a public high school education as something everyone needs the opportunity to have. It's hard to amount to anything more than a self-sustaining biological organism without one. Without doubt, every citizen/lawful resident deserves the opportunity to at least reach the standard baseline of education to be a useful member of society. I doubt anybody here seriously dislikes public K-12 education. I think private schools should be an option for anybody who wishes to enroll their children in one, but they should not receive a single dollar of public funding. I'm ambivalent on charter schools. I don't think most parents or children have the necessary motivation and drive to ensure that someone's education is provided to satisfactory levels without direct supervision.

College, on the other hand, is not a right IMO. A college education is the ticket to greater wealth. You go to college (or at least I do) because it makes the difference between having an okay job and a great one- in my case I have somewhat valuable technical skills with autocad and experience with many types of civil engineering, and I could quit school and make ~$40k in today's dollars for the rest of my life with no further diplomas or even much continuing education. Since I want more from life than that much money can give me- i.e. larger, quicker maturaing retirement fund, money to travel, money for hobbies like building autocross cars, etc.- I am choosing to make the sacrifice of income I won't receive for the next few years because becoming an engineer helps me meet my personal goals.

I don't think getting through college financially should be much harder than it already is. I support subsidies for state university systems, federal tax breaks for students like the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credit, and Pell grants. I'm also okay with students finding ways to get other grants and scholarships, because those things usually come with some sort of price. You have to work hard to qualify, or pay them back by working in a given field for a given time. But in the end, I do think it should require more than just showing up to receive a college degree. We all need to give a little to get the benefits.

Besides, if we handed out college degrees, they wouldn't have value anymore. It would be no better than getting a high school diploma. Nice that you did it, but so did everybody else. Not only that, but our semi-free market economic system demands a large percentage of us be employed in low-tech or unskilled labor positions. The people that cut grass, or make your hamburgers, or deliver your mail, or pick up your trash, or change your oil, or cashier you at the grocery store, or drive delivery trucks, or fight our enemies overseas etc. etc. etc. don't need college degrees. It's a free country, and we're all free to settle for the minimums society should provide for us. If you're born of sound mind and body, it takes essentially no effort to finish high school and get a boring, low level job that pays enough to pay your rent, buy your clothes, own a car and feed yourself. The only pothole in that right now is that people who aren't lucky enough to be born immortal end up dying sooner or suffering more because they aren't wealthy. But that's for the other thread.

Couldn't have said it better myself. /thread? haha

Your last paragraph says it all. We need people who drop out or just barely finish high school to do all the jobs that nobody else wants to do. If everyone has a college degree, we'll have physics majors flipping our burgers.

If you want to look at it from a Marxist/conflict theorist view, this is the upper class (bourgeoisie) keeping down the lower class (proletariat) by allowing those who have money to get more money and those without money to stay there. But, as you said, that's the nature of the economy...

The one problem I have with what you're saying Kevin, is that a high school education is not enough anymore to make a person capable of succeeding on their own. I don't think it's because the world is more complicated than it was 40 years ago... it's probably because the education system isn't as good relative to the complexity of the world as it used to be.

Now I'm not advocating that all college level schooling should be free. But I would argue that if a person wants it, they should have access to at least a 2-year college type school, or a trade/apprenticeship type post high-school education paid for by my taxes. I know I'm sounding more and more socialist in these threads, but I firmly believe that properly educating everyone is the "magic bullet" that will make the difference between America's survival as a prominent world nation and becoming China's place to outsource their manufacturing over the next 100 years.

Certainly there will be a noticeable difference between someone with a gov't school college degree and someone coming out of MIT, and certainly the cost of providing both those degrees will be drastically different. But unless we're able to significantly raise the bar on what it takes to graduate high-school, a post HS education is effectively mandatory these days if you want the opportunity to excel in life. IMO, everyone deserves the option to get some trade-specific or higher level education, and as a tax payer, I would consider that cost to me as an investment in my own future as well as the future of my kids.

Answer me this... is the world better or worse if the guy flipping burgers has had the opportunity to learn physics? Sure it's not applicable to his job, but there's something to be said about learning for learning's sake. That kid's life is likely more enriched if he's been to school than otherwise.

But like you pointed out... our system is setup to keep the poor poor, and the rich rich. IMO, arguing that it's okay to accept that system for the economic benefit is frankly short-sighted, because the only economic benefit is to those that are already rich. But eventually, as Marx pointed out, the poor become far more numerous than the rich. Eventually the rich have no one to extract money from, or the proles revolt. It's actually in the best long-term interest of the class in power to educate the masses, but the rich don't tend to think beyond their own lifespans.

The key phrase you just wrote Scott, is "opportunity to excel." Having a rich (in experiences and opportunities, not literally money) and satisfying life isn't a right. You get what you work for. I advocate free public K-12 education because that's the minimum you need to survive just with a moderate level of security that you'll still have your home and modest life next month.

I'll grant that there should be more and better access to tech-type schooling at the high school level. But most places, and Washoe County in particular, have a pretty good system set up for technical education that is pretty darn cheap, and usually accommodates a part-time job. I don't think it's too much to ask for people who want to move up just a rung or two on the economic ladder to spend two years as 'starving students' before they reap the benefits of their additional education. I'm all for raising the floor of the lowest members of our society, but getting up off of it is still up to the individual.

The only reason this country has managed to go 220+ yeas on a continuous system without a revolution (Civil War wasn't quite the same) is because of the perceived ability to be upwardly mobile. It's still literally true that *anyone* can go out and make themselves fabulously wealthy through sheer effort and hard work- if they are equipped with enough brains and motivation to overcome whatever social, political and economic obstacles they face. What the masses who wish they were rich and aren't fail to realize is that there are 3 ways to be rich. Get born that way, get unbelievably lucky in some way, or be unbelievably good at what you choose to do and work harder at it than anyone.

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. I think that people should never stop learning. It may not be applicable (like my poli sci class is to my Information systems degree) but it helps someone understand the world better and I've experienced this myself...

Some people (not all of them) just choose to be those people who deliver our mail or flip our burgers. They have no desire to understand the world better, and offering the two-year gov't vocational school will not appeal to them... If someone wants a higher education, they'll get it via community college or cheaper universities. It wont be as easy as free, but it'll make people appreciate it and help them become unbelievably good at whatever they choose to do instead of looking at it as another extension to high school where they just want to get out and dont really care.

The people that don't want to finish high school, or barely graduate and just want to work, will be the same people that don't want to go to college for 2 years afterwards. It is wayyy too easy to get financial aid/loans. There is no excuse IMO to not being able to afford a state university, or at least a CC. I get a bunch of money from the Pell grant and state grants, and subsidize the rest with loans. The Pell grant is need based, so the people you are arguing for are guaranteed to get it if they want it, Scott.

If people would quit making excuses for their situation and actually do something to improve it, I think they would find that it is not that impossible. It does take hard work and tenacity, but it is possible to improve your situation.

I don't understand what you're arguing with me about. I'm not suggesting that people be required to go to college. Just that if they want to go, there should be a way to do it for free. Grants and loans are nice measures to help out, but my idea was more in line with offering a program where if you're welfare eligible, you could be improving yourself getting a basic college education plus getting a place to live, food, etc. If you want/need to have welfare support, you "pay" for it by going to school (and then to a job-placement program perhaps). Basically, welfare isn't something you get on to sustain you, it's temporary assistance to give you everything you need to be able to eventually get by on your own.

People that don't want to finish high school are clearly on their own. Nothing I'm talking about would ever require someone that doesn't want help to take it. Burnouts can be burnouts all they want... and with my idea, burnouts don't get shit, as opposed to all the burnouts that are on welfare today.

I read it as, "Everyone should be required to attend not only high school, but 2 years of higher education after that." That is what I was arguing against. And I feel that the necessary programs are already in place for people that want to go to college, but can't afford it. How do I know? I'm one of those people. My family isn't on welfare, and they help out occasionally when they can, but I pay for the majority of my education/housing/food/books/whatever via loans and grants.

I'm not trying to demean you in anyway, I honestly don't know: was the FAFSA around when you went to school? Did you ever use it? Do you know what it is? It is a GREAT resource for people without money that want an education. I was offered ~$8,000 per semester this year in grants and loans. That covers everything I need it to.

1) This is funny, because I attended a symposium on Home Schooling today. The basis of Home Schooling, for the most part, is obviously the fact that both the consequences and products of government schooling do NOT work for everyone, and SHOULD not be forced on everyone. It has been 30 years since the start of the Home Schooling revolution, and the stats support the claims straight up.

2) I know I have said this before here: anybody can go to college and get a degree, regardless of income or (lack of) family aid. I am living proof - I started with working as a mid-teen with most of the money going to the family general fund while supporting my room and board (which means I started in the negative), and managed to get a 4-year science degree debt-free with NO scholarships, government aid, and paying my own bills along the way. It was called work, and anybody can do it - hell if I was a recognized minority it would have been even easier. People in ANY walk of life have the opportunity to learn as much as they want. It's all about priorities, and where they want to spend their time. If someone made a bunch of bad decisions early in life, it will be that much harder to get back to square one, and THAT IS ON THEM. I made the choices I did, including rejecting paths to more immediate income and instant gratification, in favor of WORKING MY WAY THROUGH SCHOOL. Not only did that give me a tremendous amount of experience, but it also made me a better manager. I am sick and tired of people whining that this can't be done.

3) College degrees are pretty much literally handed out by the state schools to those who can pay and show up for classes. I have very little respect for the quality of education that goes into a 4-year degree, and even many graduate programs. I think I have worked with and supervised enough of the products of this system over the last 8 years to evaluate this in a reasonable manner. Most of the problem is that the state schools are revenue-driven, and student evaluations of faculty are highly influential in the annual review process.

4) Any form of education (public, private) will give you as much as you want to put into it.....especially in these days of nearly-free access to all sorts of information and tools, there is literally no excuse for not applying yourself in High School. If you want to talk more government intervention: rather than requiring (or giving for free) 2 years of higher education, we would better off as a society if we had 2 years of compulsory military service or compulsory work (starting with physical labor). Our kids are too busy learning how to be leeches and dependent rather than individual productive citizens.

I hit the button once, I swear!

Re: home schooling. I support the option. I do not support the suggestion that anything more than a VERY small minority can produce successful graduates of such a program who go on to bigger and better things.

My entire college education was paid for with a fafsa loan, aside from the portion that was paid for by the taxes that prop up the California state college system. Then I got a job here at in Reno at igt and paid off my loans in a bit under 5 years.

Really the only thing that irks me about student loans is that it means many graduates enter the job market in the red. You start your first career job already a serf to the corporate system. That's not exactly giving everyone a baseline shot at success... what that does is ensure a fresh workforce that can't easily start competing businesses and instead has to jump right in to working for "the man" before the loan payments cath up with you.

But honestly, my issues with college level education are so so so far down on my list of things wrong with America that I'd consider them off the radar. As far as education is concerned the priority problem is with primary education and it's total lack of accountability towards the quality of students it produces. I'm not really down on higher education as I stands, and I would actually consider the federal loan and grant programs some of the better programs put together by the govt.

I see the fundamental flaw in the education system as the insistence that everyone has to excel all the way through college. It's an unreasonable expectation. There should be space made for kids who can't even stand being in high school to go to a tech school, and essentially get an Associate's in HVAC installation or Welding or whatever up front. It's the opportunity to get as educated as one wants that should be vigorously upheld, not trying to push everyone into actually doing it.

The kind of people that want to run their own successful business when they graduate college are the same people that will do what it takes to get there. Work during college instead of taking loans out if you don't want debt, or find a way to get more loans when you graduate to start up your own business. ScottyS isn't the first person I've heard of that has worked to pay for school instead of getting loans. My friend goes to Alaska to roof all summer to pay for school. People make too Manu excuses.

Personally, I have enough faith in making money with a civil engineering degree that I don't mind getting into debt now.

I do agree that the problem is with schooling way earlier than college though.

What is interesting is that every decade the number of homeschoolers go up (doubled between 1990 and 2000), and so far all of the testing metrics show the students scoring much higher than average. OK, so we know that not EVERY household would be able to pull this off - but we have no idea where that percentage lies yet.

The point is, that a theoretical (unfounded) fear of wide(r)spread homeschooling is no basis for placing restrictions on it or to discriminate against it and its students (such as the Federal government attempts to do on a regular basis, hiding the language in education-related bills, and the typical cooperation level of the public education system on all levels).

That's correct, people pass classes all the time who should be flunked - to make them work harder next time. For every person that truly works hard and still doesn't get the material (I almost never see this, the curriculum styles allow nearly anybody to "get it" in any non-technical subject), there are dozens if not hundreds of slackers that get pushed through. I am not kidding.

The ability to learn for all but the truly disabled comes down to how much you want to put into it. If you don't want to learn anything in High School, then you probably aren't going to want to listen to the lectures on welding exotic alloys or checking all run-out points on a piece of machinery. Basic technical education is called the WORKPLACE for these types, and it teaches much faster than a classroom will. Again, anybody in the workforce can choose to go through community college if that is what they desire - at $6/hr in the 90's, I somehow made it happen.

I also am convinced that public High School performance does not dictate ability, as mass public education has become more of a social exercise and babysitting service than preparing kids for real life. People perform at their best in various environments, and unfortunately High School replicates almost nothing in real life.

Thing is, going to school really is partly "babysitting" and teaching people to socialize and get along with people who are different in some way. You don't get that from home schooling. And like I said, I would trust the education of a child with very, very few of their parents. The numbers you point to of increase in homeschooling from 1990-2000 are still VERY small numbers. Like I said, it's possible and permissible, but it's definitely not something that public money and effort should be spent on.

Actually, the whole "socialization" argument is a fallacy. How well are today's youth "learning how to get along with different people" any better than someone who simply gets their education in a smaller crowd? It's not like home-schoolers are kids locked in the basement, and it's not like public schools don't foster social group segmentation......in fact, there have been plenty of studies suggesting that forcing all kids into the same educational box at the same time is MORE detrimental to social, learning, and skill development on average than the flexibility offered by homeschooling.

I don't want government money for it, that would simply allow the government excuse for more control, but I do think that home-schoolers should not be forced to fund public education at the same rate as those who are using it. Again, my main point in regards to the homeschooling/government interface is to increase visibility, enlighten the ignorant, and reduce discrimination.

It doesn't matter what the current total number of children are if the effective limits have not yet been reached. Back when the U.S. percentage was 1%, people were saying the same things you are. Funny, now it is more like 3%, and enough time has passed for meaningful studies to report results of typical quality of education, test performance, social standing, volunteerism, and overall success.

These are very broad generalizations you are making, and I'm not sure how much of it pure conjecture (opinion) vs. multiple direct observations (events).

Social group segmentation is a function of human behavior, it is not because of dumping kids into a classroom together. The only thing that prevents it is isolating children to those same social groups altogether.

I still don't see the advantage of home schooling. What exactly does it provide that traditional public education lacks? And why cant parents provide those things as an addendum to the educational system rather than trying to completely bear the burden themselves?

Schooling is no question important, but the most important aspect of excelling in anything is personal drive. Some of the most successful people I know do not have college degrees or the ones that do, do not have them in their current field of work. You can hand someone all the skills possible to succeed. Unless they have the drive to use them, they are worthless.

One thing I'll say about home schooling is that a ardent there has the chance if being taught be a teacher with a phd and a skill set that pulls in six figures that has a personal interest in the student's success. A public school student on the other hand is most likely getting taught by someone that's making $35k per year after getting the minimum required diploma that is required to pass all their students on to the next underpaid teacher at the end of the year.

Public school teachers are massively under appreciated, and I've got to believe that has to contribute to lower quality education no matter how dedicated the teachers are to their students. A good, dedicated parent (likely the type of person successful and smart enough to choose homeschooling in the first place) is probably going to be much more invested in the students success.

This wouldn't be a problem of course if as a society we valued education enough to pay teachers $100,000 a year thus making the job attractive to people other than the folks willing to do the work just because of their idealism. Imagine if those brilliant people that have learned how to eek out the massive profits by manipulating the global economy instead dedicated themselves to eeking out the very best from their high school students.

Another way to put it: if we spent the amount of money on education that we currently spend on our military, we could probably get away with spending the amount of money we currently spend on education on our military.

Interesting topic. So many discrepancies in the 'system'.

My kids went to school at our church, through 5th grade. They didn't have to wear uniforms, like many do at Catholic schools, but much of their academia was rigorous. And it was all out-of-pocket expense for me, with no benefit of tax breaks or refunds. At the time, I wished there was a voucher program so that I could apply some government funds that the families of public school children received; but we forged ahead anyway.

When we moved to Reno, they started the public school system. I found their schools had diverse programs and greater access to facilities (i.e. computer labs), but much less discipline, and much more tolerance for mediocre performance. And government-subsidized. And with new state budget cuts, I don't see it getting better, but I do see quality slipping away.

In today's economy I think that is already happening.

Agreed! Also, they are waving signs ...

Nobody said that homeschooling isolates children from interaction with others. Data show that they are in fact more capable of dynamic interaction outside of their demographic. This has also been my personal observation. Good thing you said that social segmentation is a natural human function - the synthetic environment of the public school in many instances brings out the worst of this tendency, in my opinion.

Besides all of the resultant advantages I already referenced that can be observed and measured, homeschooling gives the parent the ability to choose the curriculum, the learning pace (faster or slower), schedule, and far more control over the child's focus and drive. Being able to tailor these things to the individual child is something that high teacher/student ratios give, and public education cannot. In fact, they will not. It is the focus of public education to try to make all students function as similarly as possible, not cater to diversity so that each child can excel to their unique ability. Classes would not function if every student was taught at their ideal pace, and with techniques that fitted them best.

I think that you are missing something: those parents seriously considering this WANT to be able to do this, it is not a burden but rather an interest and goal. Depending on which state you are in, political, social, and economic discrimination hinders many from being able to do it. Your addendum comment doesn't make sense: why send a child to public school for several hours, and then spend several hours more trying to undo the crap and methods that they learned there?

Bottom line, if you are fine with the State, some clueless 23yo education major, and peer groups raising your kids in an environment that you have no control over - fine, go for it. Nobody is stopping you and the system is happy to have your child there. But, in this country, we still have the theoretical freedom to manage our own kids' education ourselves (novel idea!), so fighting for less discrimination in this field is worthwhile, especially since all measurable metrics show a HUGE positive difference.

Given that my wife is a teacher, I'm finding your assertions about public education and how the system really works to be more disturbing than you're finding mine regarding the inability of 97% of parents to properly educate a child.

You have your experiences, I have mine. I'm not listing mine in the interest of not making this personal, but rest assured, I am not speaking from the position of the uninformed. That's not a card I need to play in this discussion.

React to the data, not to the emotion.

You're right, this isn't worth making personal and I'm not interested in that either. But some of your statements about the people in education were very cynical and not true. The low pay of teachers right now pretty much guarantees that only people who really care about the profession actually move into it. My wife has dual BS degrees that worth be worth twice as much in a private field, but she really likes being a teacher. So the suggestion that public education fails because of the personnel involved is just not true. The main problem is that public education is such a political football, and a lot of people who aren't professional educators get to influence the system.

Heh, my cynical comments were simply based on the fact that I've been in a required curriculum department at the U for 10 years now, and I see a lot of different majors come through. I've met your wife, she is not my "typical education major". I believe that the public education failure is mostly due to letting government manage it - it does become the "political football" - and policy rarely is ever set by the on-the-ground personnel in any form of bureaucratic government (welcome to my world, actually). Oops, back to Spatial Analysis before the prof kills me.

Ah, I've been talking about K-12 mostly. As I led with in this thread, college is totally different, and I agree that the salaries and the research opportunities attract a lot of people who aren't really that dedicated to the product they turn out. Also, for K-12 educators, I'd say my wife actually is pretty close to the typical. At least for ones still young enough not to have been totally crushed by the system. :p

At least the police force will employ all those stupid dogs that drop out early.

I have to agree with this. It's easy to say that everyone should be responsible for themselves but we are slowly building a society where it's difficult to find competent workers. I know some of you are manager level folks, what quality of people do you see come through when you interview? There are high school grads (many) in Nevada who can't spell or alphabetize. That's not good for anybody. Right know as a country we survive by importing a lot of our best workers from foreign countries but how long can that model sustain? I just got back from Beijing and let me tell you it's not so bad. The more advanced they get the more likely people will be to stay there instead of coming here.

We are not an economy that grows because of manufacturing and blue collar jobs, we are driven by innovation and information. Those are things that largely require a higher education. There are always stories of people that became rich with a high school diploma but I assure you they are the gross minority. The more that we gut our home grown work force the more we slow down our economy as a whole. It's easy to sit here and say people should work hard and figure it out on their own but the reality is a more educated America is better for all of us.

When I was younger my mom took a temp job up in Alaska so I was home schooled for ~6 months during that time. We joined the local home schooling organization so I hung out with plenty of other kids who were home school. I've also known a half a dozen other kids later in life who were home schooled. I know it's a personal decision but I would implore you not to do it. Almost all the kids I knew were quite successful academically and were more often than not nice enough but trust me they were all "off" socially. School isn't just a place to learn it's a shared experience amongst the American populace. There is a whole frame of reference that our society and our societal norms are based on that they are missing.

Not to be cocky but I'm sure I'm one of the most educated people on this board and consequently I know a lot of people who are very successful academically. The thing most of them have in common is parents who helped and encouraged them academically when they were younger. By all means your should teach your kid on your own in addition to whatever school they attend, but homeschooling starts kids off a step behind in my experience.

JC

Too bad about your experience. Mine has not been the same. I have known at least 100 homeschooled kids over the course of my life so far, and their levels of proficiency, adaptability, and capability are on average far better than the hundreds of public-educated people I have dealt with over the same time period. Again, my observations are consistent with national-level statistical results.

I don't normally talk about what I do for a living, but there is a distinct possibility that I am more integrated into academia than you are. For whatever that seems to be worth.

"Off" socially is a completely subjective measure. How many high school graduates today appear to be "off" socially? Depends on who you ask, doesn't it? It has been referenced in a round-about way earlier in the discussion, but I think we all know that stats between children and parents are highly autocorrelated. This has all sorts of implications, even when looking at the issue strictly subjectively, as most people tend to do.

Obviously, I would not be so informed on and interested in this topic if I had no personal experience with it. ;-)

I had several home schooled friends, all of which were behind compared to what I was learning in school. One of them was a year older than me and very much so a hard worker and always getting his work done way before it was due. He decided to join public school for personal reasons and he actually had to start in a grade lower. That is my experience. I have noticed that my little sisters age group (13-14) seems to be worse. I don't blame the work given to home school kids. I think it is a product of parents being too busy to devote to proper time to the task of being a teacher.

This is my issue with home schooling. It's not the concept, it's the fact that few families can pull it off successfully. But it's really not that relevant to the debate. Public education needs to be improved, and private/charter/home education are kind of on the fringe and not really key to the well-being of our society as a whole.

I don't know if Nevada state schools are vastly different or what, but I went to Cal Poly and I can assure you nobody was just handing out engineering degrees to every warm body that filled a chair. It was a fucking hard program.

True. But you could get a liberal arts degree just by being there everyday. I had high school AP classes 10 times harder than my general ed courses at Cal Poly.

Haha, if we were all engineers and scientists, the world would either be wonderful place or a slowly-expanding cloud of dust right now....:lol: