American Education

[snusjus]

btw the earth was created in 7 days by god and george boosh and ronald regan was the best presidents that ever was

[paulwall9]

:lol: :lol: ROTFLMFAO

[dupee419]

this is sooooo ****in' funny!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dupee419]

never, in my right mind, did i expect this threaad to turn into this.

[paulwall9]

I do really like this thread LOL!

[sundog]

btw the earth was created in 7 days by god and george boosh and ronald regan was the best presidents that ever was

That's the closest to the truth you'll ever get. :lol:

[paulwall9]

LOL!!!

[RobsanX]

It's because we are so comfortable with the language that we tend to not be as formal as those who do not speak English as a first language... Chill out, and don't take things so seriously!!! :P

[paulwall9]

LOL!!!!!!ALSO TRUE

[shikitohno]

As far as I'm concerned, there are a number of reasons for this. First and foremost is complacency. For a long time, the US was one of, if not the, dominant world power. If you were from the US, and you had a college degree, you could pretty much go anywhere and be guarenteed a job. People got used to it, and kids that grew up in that environment just accepted it as the way things are, so they didn't try as hard to succeed as their parents did. Then they had kids, and it got a little bit worse.

I think our fear of taxes and inefficient government procedures is what killed it though. Nobody wanted to pay higher taxes to provide free university education or health care, despite overwhelming evidence from countries with such systems in place that it's cheaper to have free access to preventative medicine than to only have people come in when they're desperately ill, or that it pays off to educate students who deserve it but can't afford it for free.

Also, we have this ridiculous idea that everyone should go to college. This is just stupidity. Not everyone benefits from going to high school, much less college. It would do better to have a system in place, where at the end of middle school, students sit an exam, and if they pass with a sufficient score, they have the option of going to high school. If they pass but not with a high enough score, they can go to trade school. Those who don't pass or don't want either school can join the military. Then again at the end of high school, a similar exam could be given to determine eligibility for university.

That way, you don't have people who were brilliant enough to be an astrophysicist working at McDonalds because they couldn't afford university. You also keep jobs around for those who couldn't go to university or chose not to. This helps keep unemployment down, because there are jobs that don't require a college degree, and the people who have them aren't going to be working them because there'll usually be better jobs available to them.

It would also make socialized education more affordable, since you wouldn't have to pay for that kid that eats glue with one had and wipes his ass with the other to go to uni. But that runs contrary to American ethos, where anybody can do anything if they try hard enough. There would be mothers up in arms shouting, "Don't you dare say my little snowflake can't go to uni, just because he eats glue with the one hand, and wipes his bum with the other! He's ambidextrous, clearly a talented genius. He just needs a university education to find out what he wants to do."

So, we've gotten to the point where a college degree from Berkley is practically required to be cashier at a record store earning just above minimum wage. It's also why our universities' degrees are worth less and less. When schools need to inflate grades and dumb down classes to keep their statistics looking squeaky clean, the rest of the world takes notice.

If congressional pork barrel spending wasn't so high, lobbyists weren't an entrenched part of the political theatre, and only students who showed the aptitude to benefit from a university education were allowed to go, it would be easily affordable. As those things seem stuck in place, I can only imagine that the US will continue to slide down, until it realises that it's no longer a super power, and shouldn't be trying to force its agenda down the throats of other nations when it has much more pressing issues it needs to resolve at home.

That was a mouthful.

[VBSnus]

I think that people who were meant to achieve will achieve. I went to public schools (and not very good ones), and did not go to college. Well, I went, but I dropped out my first year with a 0.2 GPA. I was already making more in high school as a software developer than I would as a graduate, and school just wasn't for me.

Einstein was...an assistant patent examiner. Obviously he was able to break loose of that prison due to his staggering intellect and move on to bigger and better things.

Public schools might suck in many ways, but they're also just a tool, a resource. With the internet, millions of books in print, and a good parent or two (or three or four or...you get the point) there's no reason that a child can't excel (low income is another story though). You can take beginner to collegiate level courses in iTunes for Cthulhu's sake. You just have to have the drive to make it happen and some basic tools in your arsenal.

The problem America is facing right now is not a lack of education, but a lack of innovation and opportunity. An ideal capitalist economy would allow the millions who can't find jobs right now to enter the market in a different way, by becoming self-employed or starting a business. The market would be able to correct itself by introducing new ideas, new competition, etc. But it's incredibly hard to start a business in the USA due to healthcare, extra taxes (FICA, FUTA, etc), extra paperwork, monopolies, etc etc etc. Instead, we're stuck with the same businesses doing the same things they always have. Every once in a while a big innovation comes through like the Internet which lets us burst at the seams, because small timers can start and gain success without being stamped down by the monopolies that be.

But what if the next big innovation isn't ours? What if it belongs to some other nation? What if .com, .net, and .org addresses were mostly foreign and we all had to use .co.us? Do you think we'd have the presence that we do today online?

Innovation and the ability to start business and compete are what makes this country strong. Lose this and we lose our edge in the world, public school or no.

[shikitohno]

Yes, that's true. But you're falling for what my psych professor called the "I know a man" fallacy. Everyone knows somebody who bucks the statistics. Einstein had his first breakthrough on relativity when he was less than 10, if I remember correctly. Perhaps you're quite skilled with computers. Most people don't immediately know what they're good at, and for many they figure it out in school, or at university. Many also fail to ever figure it out. Schools are just a tool, but you get better results with a well designed tool than with a poor one. There's a reason why we use combustion engines in trains when steam powered ones work too.

Innovation is exactly what I'm talking about. The US has been stagnating using a system for education (and other services) that research shows to be inefficient compared to models used in other countries. Europe took a hit during the recession, but not as quickly or as hard as the US did because they had a better system in place. Well, Western Europe anywise, can't guarentee Bulgaria and Hungry did so well.

Self-regulating markets are a philosophical fantasy, in my opinion. If you could create a society independent of other nations, and set a certain number of people there with varying levels of resources, the groups that have the most education and most resources will tend to dominate. Perhaps an utter fool will be the richest man there, and lose his fortune. But the people that rise up to fill his place will hold on to their fortunes, and take care to keep other people down. It's human greed. Capitalism favours the few against the many, in its most idealistic form. It will eventually fall in on itself, because the gap between the rich and everyone else grows too large, and people revolt.

I'd put my money on countries with power divided between numerous elected officials with limited terms, like the UK or France, to provide a better standard of living and to outlast democratic captilist ones like the US, where the names change but money and power remain deep in each others pockets.

Just my opinion, so obviously it's not infallible, but that's what I've garnered from history and current events.

[paulwall9]

Man I love reading these post when they get real insightful!!!

[VBSnus]

Yes, that's true. But you're falling for what my psych professor called the "I know a man" fallacy. Everyone knows somebody who bucks the statistics. Einstein had his first breakthrough on relativity when he was less than 10, if I remember correctly. Perhaps you're quite skilled with computers. Most people don't immediately know what they're good at, and for many they figure it out in school, or at university. Many also fail to ever figure it out. Schools are just a tool, but you get better results with a well designed tool than with a poor one. There's a reason why we use combustion engines in trains when steam powered ones work too.

Well said, and you are right. A good tool is invariably better than a poor one, and we should be doing everything we can to provide the highest possible level of education. Perhaps what I was saying is that it shouldn't be that hard with all the resources available to us. Of course those don't do any good without funding and political will.

Self-regulating markets are a philosophical fantasy, in my opinion. If you could create a society independent of other nations, and set a certain number of people there with varying levels of resources, the groups that have the most education and most resources will tend to dominate. Perhaps an utter fool will be the richest man there, and lose his fortune. But the people that rise up to fill his place will hold on to their fortunes, and take care to keep other people down. It's human greed. Capitalism favours the few against the many, in its most idealistic form. It will eventually fall in on itself, because the gap between the rich and everyone else grows too large, and people revolt.

Trickle-down economics don't work when the people at the top turn off the faucet, right? I don't believe self-regulating markets will always fail if there is a sufficient level of new products and services in limited supply. Of course, you may be right...large companies which are well established can just buy up what would have otherwise been a competitor.

I'd put my money on countries with power divided between numerous elected officials with limited terms, like the UK or France, to provide a better standard of living and to outlast democratic captilist ones like the US, where the names change but money and power remain deep in each others pockets.

The countries you're mentioning have lasted hundreds of years and have changed government structures to get where they are today. We're a young nation, and we definitely need time to grow. In its heyday, France was a powerhouse against the Brits and the Welsh. Eventually Britain became a power unto itself, as did Italy, Scotland, and other west European nations. We're the powerhouse now...but can we really say it will be forever?

France actually tops the charts in health care, whereas we're down at #37 in the world. Our healthcare survives on innovations (which are being more and more sullied by lobbyists and drug companies every day) and the habits of the American people, which are to assume everything is a disease for which there is a drug. This will eventually fall upon itself as well.

As for economy...our country is already not ours. It belongs to the corporations, and the corporations belong to the American elite and foreign nations.

[paulwall9]

Wow, I did not know france had the best health care system that is very intresting!!