# why do we spend so much money on education, and have so little results



## actsnoblemartin (Jul 15, 2007)

why do college, and even some high schools, have such liberal bias?.

Why isnt free speech, and more open debate promoted, and why arent students taught how to critically analyze/think, rather then told what to think.

what would you do to improve education?, what do you like/dislike about education

your thoughts?


----------



## Psychoblues (Sep 26, 2007)

How much ws spent on you, martin?  Think about it.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Sep 27, 2007)

The reason is because government runs it, for the most part. 

And the part which is "private", is heavily regulated by the state. There is little room for innovation and so forth.


----------



## Psychoblues (Sep 28, 2007)

Straw Man, bullshit or simple ignorance.




BaronVonBigmeat said:


> The reason is because government runs it, for the most part.
> 
> And the part which is "private", is heavily regulated by the state. There is little room for innovation and so forth.



Care to share where you heard that miscalculation or is it just a repetition of something you heard in a subway?

USPS, VA, TVA and many more provide services that no private industry could provide at a fraction of the cost.  

Bullshit is bullshit.  You speak bullshit.


----------



## Doug (Sep 30, 2007)

The Derb says it all, right  here.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Oct 10, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> USPS, VA, TVA and many more provide services that no private industry could provide at a fraction of the cost.



Err wait, you're using the postal service as an example? Surely you have heard of UPS, FedEx, DHL? Surely it would not be a stretch for them to deliver the mail? (They can't deliver regular mail, because the USPS has a legal monopoly).

Also, TVA sucks too, because government economic planning sucks in general. Sure, you can provide Product A at a sub-market cost in one place, but everyone else will have to pay more. Here's what Ronald Reagan had to say about it:



> "One such considered above criticism, sacred as motherhood, is TVA. This program started as a flood control project; the Tennessee Valley was periodically ravaged by destructive floods. The Army Engineers set out to solve this problem. They said that it was possible that once in 500 years there could be a total capacity flood that would inundate some 600,000 acres. Well, the engineers fixed that. They made a permanent lake which inundated a million acres. This solved the problem of floods, but the annual interest on the TVA debt is five times as great as the annual flood damage they sought to correct.
> 
> Of course, you will point out that TVA gets electric power from the impounded waters, and this is true, but today 85 percent of TVA's electricity is generated in coal burning steam plants. Now perhaps you'll charge that I'm overlooking the navigable waterway that was created, providing cheap barge traffic, but the bulk of the freight barged on that waterway is coal being shipped to the TVA steam plants, and the cost of maintaining that channel each year would pay for shipping all of the coal by rail, and there would be money left over."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority


----------



## Shogun (Oct 11, 2007)

I think we should review why kids are not motivated to excell in education rather than throw it to the wolves of private enterprise.  Ill see your UPS/USPS example and raise you with damn near EVERY NURSING HOME IN THE MIDWES.  If you want to see the fruits of private enterprise in an industry that isn't profitable, like education isn't, then go take your dear old grandma down to the local private nursing home in the midwest.  Really give that free trade capitalism thing a high five when you see her again and she smells like piss and bologna. 



I've said it before but it bears repeating.  Instead of using new dollars to pay for outdatable computers, teachers salaries when they get M.A.'s and a union membership, high tech facilities we should prepare them for what it is like when they graduate by assimilating them into a system of positive reinforcement for their effort.  Pay the kids.  None of you would work if you didn't get paid to do so.  You don't get off knowing that you are learning something new or getting better at what you know.  Same here.  This isn't an age where kids want to learn in order to get off the farm and not be a farmer.  Nor is it a time where segregation makes an equal opportunity sweet.  Nor is it a time where apprenticeships are around to let them know what it's like to have a master.  Pay the kids.  Not only will they learn to associate self sufficiency with their own effort (which will reduce a sense of entitlement) but it will also allow an opportunity to have funds saved for post-HS life.  It can act as a deterrent for dropping out of school.  It could pay on a scale according to effort.  It's about motivating kids instead of paying a teachers salary.  No Child Left Behind doesn't work because kids have a RANGE of abilities and life circumstances.  Private Schools will only work for those who can AFFORD to send their kids to better schools while anyone else gets to fuck off.  We need, and clearly benefit from, public schools.  I think it's just a matter of coming up with new ideas that will motivate the kids to take advantage of the effort to prepare them for life in America.


----------



## jasendorf (Oct 11, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> why do college, and even some high schools, have such liberal bias?.



Oh, this one's too easy.


----------



## karlos4473 (Oct 11, 2007)

As a former teacher of considerable experience I can speak with an inside
perspective.   Where the student body is good, the school is good.
The attempt to school kids from bad homes is overwhelming.  A few who
have a strong parent will overcome and escape a crap neighborhood.  
The remainder will be fortunate to land a job at Walmart or Radio
Shack.  Many will end up in the justice system.  We don't need 
Leave no Child Behind or other public relations bullshit.  A better
idea is to find a place to warehouse the uneducable.   I welcome 
your responses.  Peace brother and find somebode to egekate Bush.


----------



## Gem (Oct 11, 2007)

I think that the problem with education (and for complete disclosure: I am a teacher with a dual M.Ed. in Elementary and Special Education who is certified to teach elementary, special, middle school math and middle school English) is the giant elephant in the room that none of our politicians are talking about.

Just listen to them.  They will talk a lot about standards and testing.  They will talk a lot about teacher education and training, teacher salaries, etc.  They will talk about moving students from poor districts to wealthy ones...or they will talk about giving families the choice of what district their children attend.  They will talk about holding teachers accountable for the success of the student.  They will talk about requiring students to pass basic achievement tests in order to graduate.  They will go on and on and on....

But they will never mention that unless a parent/guardian is reinforcing the notion that education is worthwhile, important, and that their child is required to put in some effort in order to remain out of trouble at home...often all of the great intentions of the educators and administrators are in vain.

I like to think that I am a pretty good teacher.  I am young however, so I know I have a lot to learn.  However, I do know that students can learn from bad teachers and good teachers alike - they just enjoy the good teachers a lot more, and tend to retain _more_ of what they learned for longer periods of time.

But truthfully, and I am being painfully honest here...if your parents say to you and stick to the belief that "Your job in this house is to get an education.  And frankly, we don't care if you hate the teacher...you will bring home a B or better or there will be hell to pay."  Your child (provided he/she is of average intelligence without any learning disabilities or emotional disabilities that may come into play - although in many cases this would apply to these students as well) will figure out a way to pass the asshole teacher's class as successfully or almost as successfully as the awesome teacher's class.

Please understand, I think that teachers are _integral_ to the process.  I think that good educators can make all the difference in the world.  I, if I do my job well, can inspire a love of learning in my students that can last a lifetime.  I can awaken their minds to the joys of mathematics, English literature, world cultures, etc.  I can be there for them when they need me and help to teach them trust, loyalty, responsibility, discipline, and how hard work can pay off.  I can teach them to be kind, good people (who know how to do basic Algebra and value the importance of history).

But if I don't have a parent on my side...the job is often, almost impossible.

Politicians seem to be interested in pointing the finger everywhere else on earth...except at parents.  YOU have to make school a priority in your home.
And I do not seem that happening for many students in my class.

Some examples:

-  After assigning a math project and giving my students a 4 day weekend to complete it...one of my students came in with a note from his mother reading:  "Bobby had a busy weekend with sports and family events.  We just could not get to all of his assignments.  I hope you understand."

-  When calling a parent to discuss my concerns about her son not paying attention in class and not turning in work she stated "Thank you so much for calling.  I have been working on the honor system here that the boys were getting their work done and I guess we'll just have to go back to the method of the boys sitting around the table while I sit there and watch them do their work."  Sounds great, right?  While flipping back through this students file I saw a record of a phone call from last March, when the previous teacher had called about homework concerns...Mom had said, "He's been doing his homework in his room and I've just been taking his word that its done, you know...like the honor system.  From now on he and his brothers will be doing their work with me at the kitchen table."

-  When calling a parent to discuss a paper that a student hadn't turned in, a father told a fellow teacher - "Just get off his ass...you get him from 7 till 3...after that...what he wants to do is up to him...get off his ass."

I could go on and on...but the bottom line is:  I can teach my little butt off, I can come up with interesting, hands-on, amazing lessons, create assessments that are valid and worthwhile...but if I have parents who are absent, uncaring, or downright hostile to the importance of their child's education...my job has gone from damn tough to almost impossible.

And yet...I have yet to hear a politician say much of anything other than "We need to hold teachers accountable..."  I can tell you right now...I am REALLY F*CKING ACCOUNTABLE for my students' education.  My school district is REALLY ACCOUNTABLE, my state is REALLY ACCOUNTABLE.

In fact, the only people who don't seem to be accountable for my students' educations are the students themselves and their parents.


----------



## Shogun (Oct 12, 2007)

I agree on the lack of concerned parents..

this is one more reason why paying the kids will motivate them beyond their parents' efforts.  Focus on the kids and let them earn or lose according to their own behaviour.  Perhaps johnny would skip the sports if he knew that blowing a test would cost him 50 bucks.


----------



## Gem (Oct 12, 2007)

The one major problem I have with paying students for their work is that I feel it is basically raising the white flag in the battle of getting parents involved with their child's education and saying:

"Ok.  We surrender.  We accept that parents today are self-interested assholes who would rather concentrate on their own things than teaching their children that an education is invaluable.  Therefore, we will take over that role...and we will do so quickly and easily by treating school like work."

I'm not ready to get to the point where I allow the state to take complete control.  I think that would be a horrible mistake.

There HAS to be a way to get parents to wake-up and return to a place where they make their children do the work needed to become educated.


(p.s.  I am speaking in generalities.  I know that their are GREAT parents out there who are doing their jobs and doing them well.  To them...all I can say is, "THANK YOU!"  Sometimes you are the only thing keeping me from slamming my head into my chalkboard until I pass out.")


----------



## Shogun (Oct 12, 2007)

Fair enough... I guess I don't consider paying kids the same as taking over where the parents are lacking.  when push comes to shove there is no way we can force people to be better parents and, while trying, the kids suffer.  

I'm trying to think of something that will become motivating for the kids in order to circumvent pressure on parents AND teachers while better preparing them for how our society works in regards to work ethic and self sufficiency.  


I really do think it would work too.  I wish I had an extra pile of cash laying around to use as seed money for such an experiment.  I could be the next Phillip Zimbardo!


----------



## Psychoblues (Oct 29, 2007)

Are you just stupid or pretending to be?




BaronVonBigmeat said:


> Err wait, you're using the postal service as an example? Surely you have heard of UPS, FedEx, DHL? Surely it would not be a stretch for them to deliver the mail? (They can't deliver regular mail, because the USPS has a legal monopoly).
> 
> Also, TVA sucks too, because government economic planning sucks in general. Sure, you can provide Product A at a sub-market cost in one place, but everyone else will have to pay more. Here's what Ronald Reagan had to say about it:
> 
> ...



No postal service in the WORLD can deliver mail as cheaply and efficiently as the USPS.  No government service in the WORLD can deliver power, provide flood control and imbellish local economies as cheaply and efficiently as the TVA.  No hospital in the WORLD can provide the healthcare and medical reasearch to even compare with the VA and it's budget constraints.  

Ronald Reagan is dead.  He was a sorry excuse for a president and an even further sorry excuse for a leader of the economy and it is common knowledge at this point that he had little other than pitiful to add to the international relations department.


----------



## Psychoblues (Oct 31, 2007)

A few days with no response.  I maintain that I am correct and the others are simply detractors and looking for an otherwise unjustified argument.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 7, 2007)

Actsnoblemartin,

"why do college, and even some high schools, have such liberal bias?"

In my opinion they don't. I am wondering how most subjects get to be liberal? Of course, if the professor is smart and knowledgeable she is probably a liberal but that is another debate. Tell me how you liberalize algebra? 


"Why isnt free speech, and more open debate promoted, and why arent students taught how to critically analyze/think, rather then told what to think."

That's a good question and you serve as the perfect example. Had you experienced those things you wouldn't ask such dumb questions. So you tell us about your education and family life and we'll see if anything pertinent stands out.


"what would you do to improve education?, what do you like/dislike about education"

Make everyone upper middle class. I would advise all children to pick parents in that class category. I see them often and even the bums eventually do Ok. Just look at the fool in the whitehouse.

Any more tough questions?


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 7, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Ronald Reagan is dead.  He was a sorry excuse for a president and an even further sorry excuse for a leader of the economy and it is common knowledge at this point that he had little other than pitiful to add to the international relations department.



So so true, and the irony is he is the best the republicans can do.


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 9, 2007)

Vivo El Reagan!!!!!!!!!!



midcan5 said:


> So so true, and the irony is he is the best the republicans can do.



Did I say that right?


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Nov 11, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> No postal service in the WORLD can deliver mail as cheaply and efficiently as the USPS.  No government service in the WORLD can deliver power, provide flood control and imbellish local economies as cheaply and efficiently as the TVA.  No hospital in the WORLD can provide the healthcare and medical reasearch to even compare with the VA and it's budget constraints.



If no one can deliver mail as cheaply and efficiently as the USPS does, then why do FedEx and UPS exist? And why is there a need to have a law which prohibits them from competing with the USPS in regular mail?

Did you even read the link I gave concerning Regan's criticisms of TVA? If so, by all means respond to the specifics. I'm not a Reagan groupie, but I simply agree with this particular speech. That doesn't mean I endorse everything he ever did. Just like I like some of Kucinich's speeches, but don't endorse him wholesale.

Also, when you talk about "embellishing" local economies, you do it at the expense of the rest of the economy, and one the whole, it's less efficient and reduces living standards. For example, the southern states get more back from the government than they put in. It's easy to see the specific benefit that Program (x) brought, but it is not so easy to make a list of the things the private sector could have done if those resources had not been taken away. Rest assured though, they do exist.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 11, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> what would you do to improve education?, what do you like/dislike about education
> 
> your thoughts?



In short, privatize more of it.  Instead of makeing parents who choose private education pay twice, give them a tax credit.

Jason Lewis probably has the most well articulated insight into the sham that is public education.  If you have the chance take a listen to him sometime.

Where to start with the problems:

The main one would be the teachers unions.  As with most unions they have moved away from their intended purpose of protecting teachers.  They have turned into and are motivated by the same things that motivate most politicians.  That being the struggle to show their constiuency that they are actually needed.  I find it a bit peculiar that an institution that derives all of its funding from the government needs the protection of a union.

Our state (MN) had off year elections where much of the voting surrounded school referendums.  Of course many of them passed because most people for the 'it's for the children' Bull shit.  I have yet to see a report that shows that increased funding correlates to smarter children.  Many of the these referendums were actually renewals of old referendums.  I would have to think any moderately intelligent person should be asking, questions like what did you do with the money we gave you last time for the same project?

One major thing that needs to change is that what schools are spending on needs to be far more transparent and accessible to the public.  Currently trying to get specifics such as a line item fiscal report out of a school district is like pulling teeth.

Right now our education system is a sham mainly because government has monopolized it and doesn't allow for competition where standards can be set and measured.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 12, 2007)

In my opinion, the only thing making private schools look rosey now is their exclusivity.  Watering down private schools with vouchers would make them no better than public schools in individual student opportunity...

Certainly, people who are more concerned with instilling their personal morals and dogma may not care to look ahead that far...



I'll say it again, we need to focus on rewiring the motivation of kids so that they will be better prepared to understand self-sufficiency based on their own performance.  This would prepare them for our capitolist workforce better than letting them remain the rope in a tug of war between privateers and government education.

Pay the kids.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 12, 2007)

Shogun said:


> In my opinion, the only thing making private schools look rosey now is their exclusivity.  Watering down private schools with vouchers would make them no better than public schools in individual student opportunity...
> 
> Certainly, people who are more concerned with instilling their personal morals and dogma may not care to look ahead that far...



I don't know if that's in response to my idea or not, but vouchers and tax credits aren't the same thing.  I'm not for vouchers.  One problem I alluded to  is that if a parent does decide to send their child to a private school, the parent essentially winds up paying twice for that child to go to school.  They pay whatever percentage of their property tax goes to public education plus whatever costs to send them to private school.  As for the tax they see none of the benefit in their own children which is why I think they should get a tax credit.



Shogun said:


> I'll say it again, we need to focus on rewiring the motivation of kids so that they will be better prepared to understand self-sufficiency based on their own performance.  This would prepare them for our capitolist workforce better than letting them remain the rope in a tug of war between privateers and government education.
> 
> Pay the kids.



I'm all for personal accountability and getting people to understand the importance of self improvement.  However I'm not sure that's a concept your average 6th grader can grasp.  Maybe by high school you might, but I don't think many people become psychologically aware of their role and place in a society until their college years.  I would suggest a two front 'attack'.  We get into this debate about whos job it is to instill characteristics of responsibility in children, parents or teachers.  Why not both?  From the time they get up through the school day to when they go to bed it should be drilled into their heads by parents and teachers the importance of working hard to give themselves an advantage for the future.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 12, 2007)

I think you don't give enough credit to 6th graders.  Kids by that age understand money and how we use it to trade for goods.  By showing them how their personal effort increases or decreases money in their hands we show them how our society works and how their individual effort effects such.  It could be the case that making a child understand their role in society earlier than, as you say college, would allow them better motivation to prepare for it rather than pump them out of HS and watch the drunken ride that is college become degree mills.

I think Jr. High is a great place to start with such a program.  Perhaps set at a fraction of the REAL program set up in HS.  Still, I think such could go a long way in using positive reinforcement to instill motivation than where we are currently at or pretending that private schools are the panacea of education.

I'm trying to totally circumvent the tug of war between teacher and parent.  You can't force parents to be better parents and you can't expect miracles out of teachers.  Rather, we focus on the motivation of the kids.  By all means, suspend raises for teachers for 5 years and redirect such monies to fund this instead.  See which gets a greater increase of graduation: giving money to teachers or kids.  Put half of what they earn per semester in savings for after graduation and give them the rest.  This college saving program would be forfeited if the student doesn't graduate and will cycle back into the program to ween itself off of moneys redirected from teachers salaries.  Prorated value for each class by grade achieved.  

i'm telling you.. it would work better than throwing the entire population of publicly educated kids at private schools.

Regarding tax credits... I can see your point.  I guess my counter would be that I pay for roads that I will never drive on too but, alas, I can be malleable.  While I am not a fan of vouchers I can totally see your logic behind tax credits.  But, wouldn't that make the fed require reimbursment for a state/local tax anyway?  Wouldn't this diminish tax revenue for all local tax revenue?  Perhaps that money could be reclaimed out of fed money sent to the state...


----------



## DiogenesDog (Nov 12, 2007)

Shogun said:


> I think we should review why kids are not motivated to excell in education rather than throw it to the wolves of private enterprise.  Ill see your UPS/USPS example and raise you with damn near EVERY NURSING HOME IN THE MIDWES.  If you want to see the fruits of private enterprise in an industry that isn't profitable, like education isn't, then go take your dear old grandma down to the local private nursing home in the midwest.  Really give that free trade capitalism thing a high five when you see her again and she smells like piss and bologna.



Say on shogun!

"Piss and bologna".   We just had one of those hedge fund financed hell holes busted near me.  The only reason that it got any press is because the St. Petersburg, FL Times, is privately held and is the paper of record for West Central Florida.  SPTimes broke the story and the Tampa Tribune, (absentee corporate)  had to follow reluctantly.  These outrages will go no where until there is a Junk Yard Dog Congress and a nursing home industry with a conscience.  K-Street be damned.  

I had heard that nursing homes were best operated as faith based businesses.  Well, they are.  Some board members get together and say, "We BELIEVE that we should double our profits in the next quarter by feeding them cat food."  And so it goes.  

I AM


----------



## Kid Pickle (Nov 12, 2007)

Shogun said:


> I agree on the lack of concerned parents..
> 
> this is one more reason why paying the kids will motivate them beyond their parents' efforts.  Focus on the kids and let them earn or lose according to their own behaviour.  Perhaps johnny would skip the sports if he knew that blowing a test would cost him 50 bucks.



Concerned parents is a big part of the issue.  This stems from the fact that education is "provided" for "free" by the government.  If you have somebody who is supposed to take care of all the edumacating, then that takes the heat off of the parents.  They are free to go to work, watch teevee, and generally live their "grown-up" lives because "Someone else is supposed to be edumacating those kids," and "I don't have time," and "I don't understand what their teaching them, anyway."  

The other side of the coin is that schools, even for government entities, are incredibly good at wasting money.  It is what they are best at.  They percieve needs, go to the school board full of "concerned citizens" (who mainly just like to be on some sort of government board and be friends with the school people) for approval, get some funding (always availiable because it is for the chil'uns), and spend it extravagantly on the newest, coolest stuff that allows the teachers to do the least work, regardless of how effective or maintainable it is.

This is an oversimplification, of course, but it is pretty accurate as far as I have seen.


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 12, 2007)

You obviously have no clue as to reality, choose your argument in unintended abstract and titillate yourself with your senseless and shallow observations.




BaronVonBigmeat said:


> If no one can deliver mail as cheaply and efficiently as the USPS does, then why do FedEx and UPS exist? And why is there a need to have a law which prohibits them from competing with the USPS in regular mail?
> 
> Did you even read the link I gave concerning Regan's criticisms of TVA? If so, by all means respond to the specifics. I'm not a Reagan groupie, but I simply agree with this particular speech. That doesn't mean I endorse everything he ever did. Just like I like some of Kucinich's speeches, but don't endorse him wholesale.
> 
> Also, when you talk about "embellishing" local economies, you do it at the expense of the rest of the economy, and one the whole, it's less efficient and reduces living standards. For example, the southern states get more back from the government than they put in. It's easy to see the specific benefit that Program (x) brought, but it is not so easy to make a list of the things the private sector could have done if those resources had not been taken away. Rest assured though, they do exist.



The TVA, the USPS and the VA still provide services far cheaper and much more efficiently than you would ever admit.  Ever wonder why FedEx has never attempted to compete with the USPS?


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Nov 13, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> You obviously have no clue as to reality, choose your argument in unintended abstract and titillate yourself with your senseless and shallow observations.



I posted an article which gave some very concrete, specific criticisms of TVA. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal.



Psychoblues said:


> Ever wonder why FedEx has never attempted to compete with the USPS?



As I said, it is against the law for FedEx to deliver ordinary mail. They can and do compete quite well in package delivery, which is legal.



> The USPS holds a statutory monopoly on non-urgent First Class Mail, outbound U.S. international letters as well the exclusive right to put mail in private mailboxes, as described in the Private Express Statutes.


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 13, 2007)

Your article has been substantially dismissed and your opinion is as well as far as I am concerned, bvbm.




BaronVonBigmeat said:


> I posted an article which gave some very concrete, specific criticisms of TVA. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, it is against the law for FedEx to deliver ordinary mail. They can and do compete quite well in package delivery, which is legal.



Enjoy your 41 cent letters while you can.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Nov 13, 2007)

How come we cant throw trouble makers out of the class room so that those that wanna learn can.

Just a thought?



Shogun said:


> I think you don't give enough credit to 6th graders.  Kids by that age understand money and how we use it to trade for goods.  By showing them how their personal effort increases or decreases money in their hands we show them how our society works and how their individual effort effects such.  It could be the case that making a child understand their role in society earlier than, as you say college, would allow them better motivation to prepare for it rather than pump them out of HS and watch the drunken ride that is college become degree mills.
> 
> I think Jr. High is a great place to start with such a program.  Perhaps set at a fraction of the REAL program set up in HS.  Still, I think such could go a long way in using positive reinforcement to instill motivation than where we are currently at or pretending that private schools are the panacea of education.
> 
> ...


----------



## glockmail (Nov 14, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> ....
> 
> what would you do to improve education?, ....



1. School vouchers, paid for by the schools the student moved from.
2. Students Bill of Rights.


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 15, 2007)

Beats me, martin.



actsnoblemartin said:


> How come we cant throw trouble makers out of the class room so that those that wanna learn can.
> 
> Just a thought?




Just who do you think is a trouble maker?


----------



## ronpaul2008 (Dec 4, 2007)

The purpose of state run education systems is simply to condition the populus in such a way that the powers that be can continue to maintain control. In that respects it has been successful.


----------



## jillian (Dec 4, 2007)

Yeah, that must be it... *rolls eyes*


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 4, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> why do college, and even some high schools, have such liberal bias?.
> 
> Why isnt free speech, and more open debate promoted, and why arent students taught how to critically analyze/think, rather then told what to think.
> 
> ...



Education is a pet peeve going way back. Currently, for every person researching DNA, there is an illiterate redneck. For every potential lawyer there is a football player who cannot read. Kids are passed for social reasons instead of Academic achievement. Federal funds should be tied to results. The testing should be in English only, not Ebonics. Don't use the word omelet in a sentence. As in "omelet you pass now, but don't ax me again". Poor performing schools should be shut down and the non-functional teachers and/or bureaucrats should be scattered to the winds. That way you are not reinforcing failure. You may end up busing kids out of the neighborhood school, but I don't care.  Originally posted here.

The thing I don't like about post HS education is that trade schools (good ones) are not given the "due respect" accorded to universities. LEt's face it, a school trained certified welder, chef, carpenter, mechanic, etc is not stupid. But, try to get assitance for those. Last I looked, financial aid for trade school was minimal.

Teachers. I don't think a degree should be required. If I can pass a written test on the subject matter, and discuss it intelligently with a board of other subject matter experts why can't I be a teacher. Speaking for myself, I have experience as an instructor, but without a degree, no chance in the civilian world.

Finally. Parents. A no-nonsense MOM and DAD can help the kid a lot more than post columbine counselings.



BaronVonBigmeat said:


> The reason is because government runs it, for the most part.
> 
> And the part which is "private", is heavily regulated by the state. There is little room for innovation and so forth.



Yup. 



Psychoblues said:


> Straw Man, bullshit or simple ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've noticed his rebuttal to you. But, how is it that you are not bound to provide proof of your own claim?



Shogun said:


> I've said it before but it bears repeating.  Instead of using new dollars to pay for outdatable computers, teachers salaries when they get M.A.'s and a union membership, high tech facilities we should prepare them for what it is like when they graduate by assimilating them into a system of positive reinforcement for their effort.  Pay the kids.  None of you would work if you didn't get paid to do so.  You don't get off knowing that you are learning something new or getting better at what you know.  Same here.  This isn't an age where kids want to learn in order to get off the farm and not be a farmer.  Nor is it a time where segregation makes an equal opportunity sweet.  Nor is it a time where apprenticeships are around to let them know what it's like to have a master.  Pay the kids.  Not only will they learn to associate self sufficiency with their own effort (which will reduce a sense of entitlement) but it will also allow an opportunity to have funds saved for post-HS life.  It can act as a deterrent for dropping out of school.  It could pay on a scale according to effort.  It's about motivating kids instead of paying a teachers salary.  No Child Left Behind doesn't work because kids have a RANGE of abilities and life circumstances.  Private Schools will only work for those who can AFFORD to send their kids to better schools while anyone else gets to fuck off.  We need, and clearly benefit from, public schools.  I think it's just a matter of coming up with new ideas that will motivate the kids to take advantage of the effort to prepare them for life in America.



I think that is a very good idea that can be incorporated into changes. 



Psychoblues said:


> A few days with no response.  I maintain that I am correct and the others are simply detractors and looking for an otherwise unjustified argument.



I just checked in.....


----------



## Psychoblues (Dec 7, 2007)

OK.  You have problems with the USPS, the VA, TVA and others like the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Reclamation and many, many more then spit it out.




pegwinn said:


> I've noticed his rebuttal to you. But, how is it that you are not bound to provide proof of your own claim?
> 
> I just checked in.....



Each time bits and parcels of these governmental entities have been "contracted out" the quality of their services has been greatly reduced and the expense of their participation has been tremendously detrimental to the taxpayers of the United States Of America.  

I will not do your research for you.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2007)

Nursing Homes


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 7, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> OK.  You have problems with the USPS, the VA, TVA and others like the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Reclamation and many, many more then spit it out. Are you talking to me or a different poster? If you are talking to me, then feel free to source your assertion that I "have problems....." to spit out.
> 
> Each time bits and parcels of these governmental entities have been "contracted out" the quality of their services has been greatly reduced and the expense of their participation has been tremendously detrimental to the taxpayers of the United States Of America.
> 
> I will not do your research for you. No, you need to do your own research and provide proof of your assertions. You see, it's not up to me to disprove you. It's up to you to prove your statement is correct.



Batter Up.


----------



## Meemer (Dec 10, 2007)

Andy Rooney said it years ago:  Listen. There are dumb kids because there are dumb parents.
That's point one. (Do not take it as literally coming from me.)
The idea that everyone is cookiecutter educable is not correct. That's why so many teachers are encouraged to major or minor in special education or special needs kids because that's what the bulk of the public school age kids are. Accept that as a fact.
Point two: Parents are a huge problem. "I don't care what he does as long as he gets good grades."  "Colleges demand good grades so he has to have them." "I didn't go to school much when I was his age; he don't have to either."
Grades? A letter on a piece of paper? And that proves what exactly? Education is learning. Learning is not getting a grade. Learning is being able to think and to write comprehensibly and to do basic math and maybe even some advanced math that using thinking skills and to be aware of common cultural world knowledge and of many scientific proofs.
Schools are places where the young go to use their talents, train their brains, hone their skills...all of them.
And I completely agree...Vo-Tech schools get short shrift. Some are excellent.
Finally the paper. The state education departments continually throw paper at the districts. The paper generates money for the district. People are hired by the districts just to handle the paper that comes in, listing the requirements for new and better programs that generate more testing and more money to the districts. Guidelines go to the states from the feds. It's an endless paper chase, all purportedly geared to gain more money to be put into a system that turns out people who can take and pass tests.
Answer to what's the problem? Let teachers teach.


----------



## Psychoblues (Dec 14, 2007)

You are every bit the coward that I called you out to be.




pegwinn said:


> Batter Up.



I said "spit it out" and you said "batter up" but you never delivered a pitch.  Several days to think about it but you can't even think about a bunt?


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 14, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> You are every bit the coward that I called you out to be. And where did you do that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That would be strike one.

Here is a hint, read the off color comments and respond. I realise that you are not accustomed to actual discussion. This is an opportunity for you to receive some remedial training in communication skills and manners.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 26, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Your article has been substantially dismissed and your opinion is as well as far as I am concerned, bvbm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wow, you're kinda like Larkinn accept for the ability to coherently comment on anything.

You have many posts with your whitty little zings.  But you have yet to refute any actual points (common for you in the history of the board) and yet to make any actual points of your own (also common for you).


----------



## Psychoblues (Dec 26, 2007)

I asked for specific problems and I got a lot of shit from jerks just as jerky as you.




Bern80 said:


> wow, you're kinda like Larkinn accept for the ability to coherently comment on anything.
> 
> You have many posts with your whitty little zings.  But you have yet to refute any actual points (common for you in the history of the board) and yet to make any actual points of your own (also common for you).



I will not diminish your reputation as you attempt on my own but I will call you on the crap you espouse as truth.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 27, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> I asked for specific problems and I got a lot of shit from jerks just as jerky as you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you can back it up in writing that it is 'crap', fine, but you never do.  You basically just say it's crap 'cause Psycho says so' with no evidence to back it up.  When you get to lazy you pull your 'it's shit' or 'it's not worthy of response' B.S.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 27, 2007)

R. Crookshank said:


> The goal of education is to acquire sufficient knowledge and develop intellect suitable to a purposeful life. In this, much of what passes for education today is a waste of time, albeit that now a college education (which is little more than a high school refresher course) has come to be the ticket to middle-class society. Beyond that, what good is the pursuit of useless studies and advanced academic degrees that only certify learning beyond ones capacity to think? It seems a tiresome venture with but little prospect for any substantial reward; and yet one sees such masters of arcane knowledge (myself included), who are no good for anything but a pretentious display of pedantry. I am reminded of a noted ichthyologist who prided himself with knowing the Latin names for the entire class _Osteichthyes_, and whose students joked that the professor was so full of fish that every time he learned of a newly-discovered species another previously learned would pop out his backside in an expression of unpardonable French! One cannot help but think that more useful things might well be learned outside the halls of academe at the local tavern.



Probably the single most important class that _should_ be taught in high school and college is some form of financial literacy.  I think majors such as econ. and management are useful because they have so many real life applications.  The problem that I see is that school simply doesn't equip people with the knowledge to prepare people to make real life decisions, mainly financial ones.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 27, 2007)

R. Crookshank said:


> Thank you for your insightful reply.
> 
> The goal of education is to acquire sufficient knowledge and develop intellect suitable to a purposeful life. To seek knowledge for its own sake is, at best, an idle pursuit, and to cram ones mind full of useless information is to be worse than a blockhead. In this, the importance of education depends on what value one places on knowledge. Knowledge to fit purpose is certainly of value, for to be without it is to live in a world without light; but by the same token, to pursue useless knowledge is worse than worthless, it is a waste of precious time. See Herbert Spencer, "What Knowledge is of Most Worth," _Westminster Review_ (July 1859). Good schools are scarce, and useful knowledge invaluable. Individually, we are as much as we know; and as a nation, our democracy is dependent on an enlightened citizenry, which justifies placing a premium on education. What form that education takes - what curriculum our schools provide - is a matter, if not all important, at least essential to everyone.



The end of your post is the definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results).  We do the same thing by constantly throwing money at education thinking somehow more money equals brighter students.  There is no correlation between the two that I have ever seen.

The problem, as you alluded to is that schools are teaching little that is actually useful.  Perhaps if we taught and learned more about money, more people would see the farce that is being laid upon us everytime our education system asks for more of it.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 27, 2007)

R. Crookshank said:


> Well, if they can teach anything useful about money, other than lessons learned in the school of hard knocks, there might be fewer bankrupts.



There are all kinds of things that they could teach about money.  What's one of the first things people do after college? Generally they have to find a job and a place to live.  Yet college teaches nothing about how to buy a house or whether renting is better than buying given one's financial situation.  Would we be haveing the situation now where if people understood the very basic idea that if you have an adjustable rate mortgage and rates are low, the only direction your monthly mortgage payment is going to go is up?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 27, 2007)

im telling ya.. pay the kids.  acclimate them into our society of earning a living through work and effort.  Skip teacher salaries and tech budget for a year and pay the kids.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 27, 2007)

R. Crookshank said:


> Can anyone teach you how to be wise?  I think not; and much less when it comes to money.  Indeed, when Countrywide Home Loans (the largest mortgage lender in America) goes bankrupt, it will be for all the bad loans it made.



Are they 'bad loans' simply because people weren't 'wise'?  Understanding an ARM isn't about wisdom.  Most money matters aren't.  It's a lot of math sometimes, some common sense and basic understanding of things like interest.  My grandpa told my dad who told me some good financial words to live by

"People who understand interest, earn it, people who don't, pay it."


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 28, 2007)

Shogun said:


> im telling ya.. pay the kids.  acclimate them into our society of earning a living through work and effort.  Skip teacher salaries and tech budget for a year and pay the kids.



I'd be a little worried about that depending on what age you started.  It would teach them some things on a certain level I suppose, but I think some formal financial education would need to accompany it.  I honestly believe many, many of the U.S. problems would go away if people understood money.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 28, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> I'd be a little worried about that depending on what age you started.  It would teach them some things on a certain level I suppose, but I think some formal financial education would need to accompany it.  I honestly believe many, many of the U.S. problems would go away if people understood money.



Ok, lemme run my idea by you and you critique it:



*High School*
Kids get up to 75% of minimum wage for an "A" grade point average with fractional payoffs for lesser grades.  Each semester the kids get HALF of their earned money in cash while the other HALF goes into a savings account.  The kid will get this other half upon graduation, hopefully, used for college or home ownership.  Kids that do not graduate forfeit this money and it gets recycled back into the system.  Each semester consists of 5 months of work and will count as 800 payable hours (40*4*5) and is malleable according to ATTENDANCE RECORD (unexcused absence = 8 hours less/semester).


*Hypothetical cost/student*
I'll use figures from my area ($6.50/hr min. wage)
A= (75% of min. wage) $4.88
B= (50% of min. wage) $3.25
C= (25% of min. wage) $1.63
D= no payout
F= No payout

*Total Semester payout by GPA per student* 
A GPA/semester = 4.88 * 800 = 3904.00 (full)   1952.00 (half)    
B GPA/semester = 3.25 * 800 = 2600.00 (full)   1300.00 (half)
C GPA/semester = 1.63 * 800 = 1304.00 (full)   652.00 (half)
Half gets paid out and half goes to college savings account.



My hypothesis is that basic education is no longer seen as a suitable steeping stone for success and the requirement of higher educations helps create apathy towards an education system that doesn't seem to produce relevant results on it's own.  We live in a different society than we did 50 years ago where a basic education was a significant stepping stone to the American dream.  Now, our population has grown to the point where the dangled carrot of basic public education is no longer leading the donkey forward.  we need to change the carrot to reflect our American work ethic of working hard (personal effort) for rewards (paycheck).  I think that the above will not only entice kids with the liquid medium of our culture (money) but will also instill an understanding that it takes work to be rewarded and such will be effected according to personal effort and attendance.  Not only that, but kids will get to see the reward of savings upon graduation.  Not to mention that half of their entire payoff is worth making the effort to graduate.  This model uses positive reinforcement to mold behaviour which is, outside of random positive reinforcement (think slot machines) the best method of behaviour modification.  

The obvious bump in this road would be cost.  I would suggest that funding for this program would come from the reduction of two other areas of cost: Technology funding and Teacher salaries.  Also, I would allow donated funds from local private companies to facilitate cost.   How much PR would this kind of program be worth to Johnson&Johnson or whatever the local businesses are?  

Regarding Tech funding, it's clear that the nature of tech will ALWAYS be in a state that requires the constant upgrading of hardware.  We don't use old Apple II's despite the cost of their original investment.  My old HS bought a CPU lab that was laughably outdated 5 years after purchase.  I suggest that cutting the cost of tech would take the responsibility out of public education and place it into the hands of the kids who can buy their OWN laptops with their new source of income.  Hell, this could be another layer of motivation.

Regarding teacher salaries, I do respect that teaching provides a stable source of income for a lot of Americans and I respect the lifestyle.  I have a lot of friends in the education field.  However, education paid from the public coffers should not result in overpaid educators.  We all want more money.  However, public servants cannot expect prolific salaries any more than cops can.  I never understood how teachers qualify for larger salaries just for getting an MA while they teach the same material to the same demographic of HS kids.  Besides, the KIDS would be more motivated to learn regardless of the input of a teacher who no longer has to find a way to motivate kids but, rather, acts as a tour guide for learning.

Actual percentages and variables can be changed by the school boards to reflect budget concerns over payout.


Like I said.. chew it up and spit it out and give me some objective criticism on why this might or might not work.

thanks.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 28, 2007)

Interesting. I guess I see a couple of negative by-products. First that cheating I think would get worse.  I would be interested in what the psychological change would be long term.  Would we really be helping them understand money and make good financial decisions? Or would we be breeding a bunch of greed machines?  My gut tells me the latter.

You'd also have a hard sell with cutting teachers salaries.  Even I think perhaps they should get a little more.

You're theory is a real sink or swim approach. Given that tech is now the burden of the student (or parents if they arent makeing the grade).  Perhaps the best bet is to become less dependent on it, computers specifically.  There shouldn't be much beyond basic word processing that a kid needs.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 28, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Interesting. I guess I see a couple of negative by-products. First that cheating I think would get worse.  I would be interested in what the psychological change would be long term.  Would we really be helping them understand money and make good financial decisions? Or would we be breeding a bunch of greed machines?  My gut tells me the latter.
> 
> You'd also have a hard sell with cutting teachers salaries.  Even I think perhaps they should get a little more.
> 
> You're theory is a real sink or swim approach. Given that tech is now the burden of the student (or parents if they arent makeing the grade).  Perhaps the best bet is to become less dependent on it, computers specifically.  There shouldn't be much beyond basic word processing that a kid needs.



Interesting...  let me see if i can address a few of these.  thanks for giving me some critical thoughts, dude.

1.  I'm curious how you think cheating would get worse.  Teachers would still have to act as educational guides and filter out cheating as they do now.  Isnt there websites that allow teachers to vet for plegarism and such?  Please expand on this one.

2. I would say that it's precisely a psychological change regarding working for compensation that is necessary in order to better gel into our work force that plays by similar rules.  As it is, we expect kids to put forth effort merely because they are getting free education and because we tell them that an education is the key to a better life.  This may ring hallow to kids that are poorer or with less opportunity.  Kids don't appriciate this as a reason to learn like kids did deades ago. Specifically, I can tell you that a lot of kids that run to selling drugs do so because of social status AND the money it brings in.  Ironically, selling drugs IS a job.  I'm betting that we could reduce negative options for these types of kids by giving them a tangible example where their effort in education, isntead of the street, pays off.  Indeed, I can't think of a better way to break the cycle of welfare and those who expect handouts than to give kids some hands on experience in working for money. 

3. Greed machines?  I'm afraid living in an unapologetic capitolist culture does that already.  I'm just looking to use the system by which we operate to reach out amd make kids want to learn on their own.  We can't force kids to learn.  We can't force parents to be better parents.  We can, however, make the kids an offer that they won't want to refuse.  My theory is that testing this kind of plan in various types of school setting throughout America would drastically improve grades and graduation rates while helping kids realize exactly how our culture works as far as working for living compensation..  

4.  Yea, teachers salaries would be a huge hurdle to jump.  BUT, we have an education system to serve the purpose of educating and not for creating a class of workers.  Teachers salaries are secondary to the actual education service they provide.  Indeed, considering the current track record in many public schools it's not like they have much to bargain with anyway.  I'd hate to have to pull a Reagan and fire them all and replace them with the plethora of educators being pumped out every year.  Like I said, I appriciate that teaching provides a stable living wage...  but it makes no sense to pay teachers more just for belonging to a union and getting a Masters degree despite teaching the same type of students the exact same type of education  as when they only had a B.A.  Obviously throwing money at teachers isn't solving any problems.  Standardized tests under No Child...  isn't solving problems either.  I think that this would solve many problems we now have with a lack of student motivation to learn.  Would you have made a giant effort if you knew that you'd have recieved almost 4k for one semesters worth of work?


5.  I'm not sure if it's so much sink or swim... rather re-allocating the significant motivation to perform into the lap of the kids.  Lap tops are not required to graduate.  They help but are not a prerequisite to learning.  My point being that educational tech budgets are a sinkhole.  I've built enough cpus on my own to see the value diminish on any piece of hardware every 6 months.  Many times teachers (especially) will WANT things moreso than NEED them.  Sure, it would be nice to have every fun tech toy available for the classroom but if the end product, the education of kids, is not meeting an acceptable standard then it wasn't much of an investment.  In fact, one major lesson to be learned is how blowing the money instead of buying a computer to help with work the next year WILL negatively impact their GPA income the following semester.  Would it be better for a kid to learn how to be responsible with money in HS or in college where the credit card sharks lurk?

After all, schools can still have a cpu lab... but they don't need a new one every three years with computers for every kid in every classroom, pc AND mac, with fancy projectors, cable tv and every thing else if the educational result is such a discrace.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 30, 2007)

Shogun said:


> Interesting...  let me see if i can address a few of these.  thanks for giving me some critical thoughts, dude.
> 
> 1.  I'm curious how you think cheating would get worse.  Teachers would still have to act as educational guides and filter out cheating as they do now.  Isnt there websites that allow teachers to vet for plegarism and such?  Please expand on this one.



I you are familliar with the phrase 'money talks' I'm sure.  There are many, incentives you can give someone to acheive; better chances at college, scholarships, honor roll recognition, etc.  But there is no motivator like money.    Yes there are tools to combate plagarism, but what about math and science?  Just as there are businesses in society that will cut corners for a buck, I believe you will find the same in schools to some degree. I don't think you could apply this concept to college either.  Well you could but it would entirely defeat the purpose of college; to gain the tools to make a living.  (Whether that's what today's colleges are actually doing is a different debate).  I bet you've also heard the term 'professional student'......



Shogun said:


> 2. I would say that it's precisely a psychological change regarding working for compensation that is necessary in order to better gel into our work force that plays by similar rules.  As it is, we expect kids to put forth effort merely because they are getting free education and because we tell them that an education is the key to a better life.  This may ring hallow to kids that are poorer or with less opportunity.  Kids don't appriciate this as a reason to learn like kids did deades ago. Specifically, I can tell you that a lot of kids that run to selling drugs do so because of social status AND the money it brings in.  Ironically, selling drugs IS a job.  I'm betting that we could reduce negative options for these types of kids by giving them a tangible example where their effort in education, isntead of the street, pays off.  Indeed, I can't think of a better way to break the cycle of welfare and those who expect handouts than to give kids some hands on experience in working for money.



I'm not sure mainly because it takes an awful lomg time to develop to psychological maturity.  Probably college age at least (for many that we know in our lives, longer).  Teenagers simply don't have the psychological maturity that adults do, which is why I am somewhat hesitant to make school a job so to speak.

If you think about it there would some significant economic impacts as well. No high school kids working at McDonalds, etc.  Why would they? They're makeing there money at school.  The minimum wage is another debate as well but for many teenagers, those minimum wage jobs are there first real life work experience.  Those jobs do serve a purpose and they aren't all occupied by poor, down on there luck folk.  Why provide a pseudo-job environment when many teens already get the real world experience? 



Shogun said:


> 3. Greed machines?  I'm afraid living in an unapologetic capitolist culture does that already.  I'm just looking to use the system by which we operate to reach out amd make kids want to learn on their own.  We can't force kids to learn.  We can't force parents to be better parents.  We can, however, make the kids an offer that they won't want to refuse.  My theory is that testing this kind of plan in various types of school setting throughout America would drastically improve grades and graduation rates while helping kids realize exactly how our culture works as far as working for living compensation..



I don't think that's what capitalist society does to people.  And we are comeing more 'apologetic' all the time, if you take my meaning.  They will have time to learn how society operates later.  They do need to be kids while they are kids.  

That's why I would lean more toward a college education approach to personal finance.  No doubt serious changes need to be made to primary education, I just don't think  paying students is the way to do it.



Shogun said:


> 4.  Yea, teachers salaries would be a huge hurdle to jump.  BUT, we have an education system to serve the purpose of educating and not for creating a class of workers.  Teachers salaries are secondary to the actual education service they provide.  Indeed, considering the current track record in many public schools it's not like they have much to bargain with anyway.  I'd hate to have to pull a Reagan and fire them all and replace them with the plethora of educators being pumped out every year.  Like I said, I appriciate that teaching provides a stable living wage...  but it makes no sense to pay teachers more just for belonging to a union and getting a Masters degree despite teaching the same type of students the exact same type of education  as when they only had a B.A.  Obviously throwing money at teachers isn't solving any problems.  Standardized tests under No Child...  isn't solving problems either.  I think that this would solve many problems we now have with a lack of student motivation to learn.  Would you have made a giant effort if you knew that you'd have recieved almost 4k for one semesters worth of work?



I don't know how to solve the teachers's salary problem (if it is even a problem).  Many say merit based pay, but that opens up the cheating can of worms agian.  I'm sure you had teachers as I did, some of which would allow 'open book' tests and some that wouldn't.  One would thing the average grades of open book test takers would be higher than that of students who had to remember information, but is it then fair to pay the open book teacher more than the one who doesn't allow that?  

Most definatley the incentive would be there to work hard if there was some financial reward at the end, but there are so many factors.  What is the purpose of the monetary reward?  What is the lesson you want kids to learn?  Whatever that is, there is likely only a certain path that can be taken to reach that goal.  Many paths can be taken to get to that monetary reward.  How many of those paths do have control over?

That's why I opt for integrating it into college education.  I'm not looking to instill some deep value, really.  Just teach young people the tools they will need to make good financial decisions.  Perhaps for students more interested, advanced classes in how to really make money, i.e. House Flipping 101.   Simply giveing money as a reward doesn't do that.




Shogun said:


> 5.  I'm not sure if it's so much sink or swim... rather re-allocating the significant motivation to perform into the lap of the kids.  Lap tops are not required to graduate.  They help but are not a prerequisite to learning.  My point being that educational tech budgets are a sinkhole.  I've built enough cpus on my own to see the value diminish on any piece of hardware every 6 months.  Many times teachers (especially) will WANT things moreso than NEED them.  Sure, it would be nice to have every fun tech toy available for the classroom but if the end product, the education of kids, is not meeting an acceptable standard then it wasn't much of an investment.  In fact, one major lesson to be learned is how blowing the money instead of buying a computer to help with work the next year WILL negatively impact their GPA income the following semester.  Would it be better for a kid to learn how to be responsible with money in HS or in college where the credit card sharks lurk?



Perhaps teachers should be required to take teh college classes as well.  As for the CC sharks, hopefull by takeing the classes they can avoid them.  But one lesson should be that college kids _should_ have a credit card.  My dad made me get one.  The sooner you start establishing a (good) credit history the better


----------



## Shogun (Dec 31, 2007)

*I you are familliar with the phrase 'money talks' I'm sure.  There are many, incentives you can give someone to acheive; better chances at college, scholarships, honor roll recognition, etc.  But there is no motivator like money.    Yes there are tools to combate plagarism, but what about math and science?  Just as there are businesses in society that will cut corners for a buck, I believe you will find the same in schools to some degree. I don't think you could apply this concept to college either.  Well you could but it would entirely defeat the purpose of college; to gain the tools to make a living.  (Whether that's what today's colleges are actually doing is a different debate).  I bet you've also heard the term 'professional student'......*

In our society there is no other motivator quite like money.  It's the bloodstream of our economy.  My point is to give students experience in working for their living since this is whta they will face upon graduation.  

What about math and science?  Teachers will still serve a purpose  They will still teach and monitor performance.  I'm not sure how the internet will help a kid diagram the internal structure of a frog during a test.  Maybe if you give me a specific hypothetical.  

Yes, I'm quite familiar with professional students.  I'm not sure how that applies to high school students but I can alleviate that concern:  The program only applies to four consecutive years.  It seems to me that if a student were playing by the rules and getting paid that they will be out in four anyway.  In fact, failing students wouldnt even get a payout as listed above.

As far as cutting corners, I'm not sure how you mean.  Again, the purpose is education not creating teacher salaries.  If we expect our government to handle standards in a police force then I think we can expect the same here.  I realize that this isn't a miracle... BUT, i'm betting it would ahve a significant positive impact on graduation rates and work ethic.



*I'm not sure mainly because it takes an awful lomg time to develop to psychological maturity.  Probably college age at least (for many that we know in our lives, longer).  Teenagers simply don't have the psychological maturity that adults do, which is why I am somewhat hesitant to make school a job so to speak.*

while I agree that high school kids are not as mature as college kids who are nbot as mature as a 30 year old I have to retort that we don't shelter kids from money until they are as mature as adults.  Indeed, it's precisely this formative period that will determine some behaviour for the rest of their lives.  Let's not forget that compared to kids the same age 150 years ago we've grown to coddle our kids...  some might argue that this is half the problem.  If Ben Franklin can become an apprentice to his brother at an early age in order to gel into their culture then I believe our kids can do the same.  Hell, what age were you when you had your first job type experience?  lemonade stand?  mowing grass?  Shoveling snow?  delivering papers?  



*If you think about it there would some significant economic impacts as well. No high school kids working at McDonalds, etc.  Why would they? They're makeing there money at school.  The minimum wage is another debate as well but for many teenagers, those minimum wage jobs are there first real life work experience.  Those jobs do serve a purpose and they aren't all occupied by poor, down on there luck folk.  Why provide a pseudo-job environment when many teens already get the real world experience? *

Indeed, I'd say it would be better for them to focus on their education than working until 2am closing a mcdonalds (i did this type of thing in hs).  Do you think there would be a vacuum that isn't filled?  If anything it opens up viable jobs for people who don't live in a fruit picking state or people with no skills.  Kids will still get after school jobs because they see the direct tradeoff between work and reward anyway.  Why?  because our current pattern of behaviours facilitated by our current real-world experience giving jobs are not impressive.  Sure, SOME kids may hit homeruns but, by and large, it's not a general occurance.  But, again, I'm betting that the kids would MAXIMIZE their earning potential instead of only spending what they get from school.



*I don't think that's what capitalist society does to people.  And we are comeing more 'apologetic' all the time, if you take my meaning.  They will have time to learn how society operates later.  They do need to be kids while they are kids.  *

The very nature of capitolism hinges on greed.  Yes, that's what it does to people.  Who was the last CEO you can think of that stopped trying to maximize his profit margin?

I would argue that it's the very CREATION of adolescence as a protected status that we see a stark decline in work ethic.  Why would we keep kids ignorant regarding our society for the sake of a created status?  They can still be kids.  Hell, the last four years of school starts at age, what, 14?  14 isn't old enough to start learning a few things about earning a living?  I think it is well old enough to start forming motivation that creates a better work ethic and facilitates education by putting the motivation to excell in the hands of the student.  As it is now, the kids don't care, the teachers care enough to get paid, the parents care enough to bitch at someone despite shitty parenting, the unions care as long as yearly salaries increase; education be damned.  While Ben Franklin was CLEAR about his motivations in learning a trade at his age so to should we make it clear to OUR kids that they will be rewarded according to work and I don't think 14 is too young to start.


*
That's why I would lean more toward a college education approach to personal finance.  No doubt serious changes need to be made to primary education, I just don't think  paying students is the way to do it.*


I respect that you differ in opinion.  Thank you for playing along and responding with critical thinking.  I have to remain adamant and I think a social test with schools from different demographics would prove it.



*I don't know how to solve the teachers's salary problem (if it is even a problem).  Many say merit based pay, but that opens up the cheating can of worms agian.  I'm sure you had teachers as I did, some of which would allow 'open book' tests and some that wouldn't.  One would thing the average grades of open book test takers would be higher than that of students who had to remember information, but is it then fair to pay the open book teacher more than the one who doesn't allow that?  *

I would imagine that this is where the role of a school board kicks in.  if they allow open book tests and t-90 calcs in class AND their graduation rate is acceptable then they could still qualify for my program.  If not...  

As far as teachers salaries... theirs come from taxes and I have no problem curtailing teaher salaries to reflect the average income of the population from which they teach.  Teacher exist to educate kids, kids don't exist to provide a section of the nation with comforatble salaries and summers off.

*Most definatley the incentive would be there to work hard if there was some financial reward at the end, but there are so many factors.  What is the purpose of the monetary reward?  What is the lesson you want kids to learn?  Whatever that is, there is likely only a certain path that can be taken to reach that goal.  Many paths can be taken to get to that monetary reward.  How many of those paths do have control over?*

Purpose?  It gives a student a little financial autonomy and allows hands on experience in making and spending money.  I want the kids to learn that theywill be rewarded financially by the effort of their own motivation and work ethic.  Indeed, that certain path is to excell in school and get paid for the effort.  People flunk out all the time without incentive to learn.  Im not sure what you mean by the paths remark.  As it is, we don't reward flunking students with a diploma.  I'm talking about using the nature of our society to become an incentive in HS as they will find is the case after graduation.
*
That's why I opt for integrating it into college education.  I'm not looking to instill some deep value, really.  Just teach young people the tools they will need to make good financial decisions.  Perhaps for students more interested, advanced classes in how to really make money, i.e. House Flipping 101.   Simply giveing money as a reward doesn't do that.*

See, but college is not something that all kids get to experience.  Besides, the problem demographics that I'm looking at are ghetto kids that perpetuate a cycle of dependance on government.  Can you imagine the fiscal impact if a mere 10% of the current welfare recipients discovered the value of working?

And, I disagree that giving money doesn't change behaviour.  Did you ever have your allowance taken away as a kid for poor behaviour?  Did you ever get paid for mowing the grass or other chores?  Trade delivering newspapers for learning and you might step a little closer my way...



*Perhaps teachers should be required to take teh college classes as well.  As for the CC sharks, hopefull by takeing the classes they can avoid them.  But one lesson should be that college kids should have a credit card.  My dad made me get one.  The sooner you start establishing a (good) credit history the better*


no, classes don't help college students avoid credit cards or use them wisely.  Im sure we can both agree on that.  Hell, when I wa at school credit card companies would set up booths on the quad that looked like every junky on the playgoung scenerio i've ever heard from the drug war.  From sirts, to food to candy to money itself CLEARLY college is not the midigating factor in using money responcibely..  Id suggest that a kid who lost 4 grand as a HS freshman might think twoce before blowing imaginary money that is credit.  Indeed, GOOD credit being the key word.  GOOD credit is not what brings CC companies to campuses like carion hawks circling prey.


Hey, have a great new year, dude!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 3, 2008)

Shogun said:


> *I you are familliar with the phrase 'money talks' I'm sure.  There are many, incentives you can give someone to acheive; better chances at college, scholarships, honor roll recognition, etc.  But there is no motivator like money.    Yes there are tools to combate plagarism, but what about math and science?  Just as there are businesses in society that will cut corners for a buck, I believe you will find the same in schools to some degree. I don't think you could apply this concept to college either.  Well you could but it would entirely defeat the purpose of college; to gain the tools to make a living.  (Whether that's what today's colleges are actually doing is a different debate).  I bet you've also heard the term 'professional student'......*
> 
> In our society there is no other motivator quite like money.  It's the bloodstream of our economy.  My point is to give students experience in working for their living since this is whta they will face upon graduation.



Sure, but is it better to teach it that way or cut to the chase and just go get a job?  I think it would add an undo amount of stress into the lives of a group people that don't really need it.  Think about the stress levels of adults that struggle to come up with money and add that to the rageing hormones and immaturity of your average teenager.  

At an early ages I think it is more the parent's responsibility then our schools to teach children about money.  



Shogun said:


> What about math and science?  Teachers will still serve a purpose  They will still teach and monitor performance.  I'm not sure how the internet will help a kid diagram the internal structure of a frog during a test.  Maybe if you give me a specific hypothetical.



I guess I'm think along more nefarious lines.  Like students now being motivated to steal answer sheets.  



Shogun said:


> As far as cutting corners, I'm not sure how you mean.  Again, the purpose is education not creating teacher salaries.  If we expect our government to handle standards in a police force then I think we can expect the same here.  I realize that this isn't a miracle... BUT, i'm betting it would ahve a significant positive impact on graduation rates and work ethic.



I mean the idea behind merit pay is that the better a teacher's students perform, the more they get paid.  So, what lengths is a teacher willing to go to show said acheivement?





Shogun said:


> *I'm not sure mainly because it takes an awful lomg time to develop to psychological maturity.  Probably college age at least (for many that we know in our lives, longer).  Teenagers simply don't have the psychological maturity that adults do, which is why I am somewhat hesitant to make school a job so to speak.*
> 
> while I agree that high school kids are not as mature as college kids who are nbot as mature as a 30 year old I have to retort that we don't shelter kids from money until they are as mature as adults.  Indeed, it's precisely this formative period that will determine some behaviour for the rest of their lives.  Let's not forget that compared to kids the same age 150 years ago we've grown to coddle our kids...  some might argue that this is half the problem.  If Ben Franklin can become an apprentice to his brother at an early age in order to gel into their culture then I believe our kids can do the same.  Hell, what age were you when you had your first job type experience?  lemonade stand?  mowing grass?  Shoveling snow?  delivering papers?



But you what you end up doing is changeing the purpose of schooling; to gain knowledge.  Now the purpose is to gain money.  




Shogun said:


> *I don't think that's what capitalist society does to people.  And we are comeing more 'apologetic' all the time, if you take my meaning.  They will have time to learn how society operates later.  They do need to be kids while they are kids.  *
> 
> The very nature of capitolism hinges on greed.  Yes, that's what it does to people.  Who was the last CEO you can think of that stopped trying to maximize his profit margin?



No, the nature of capitalism is survival of the fittest. Whoever can produce innovation or gain a competitive advantage succeeds.  Said group of people may have greedy people as a sub-set.  But just being greedy isn't going to make you rich.



Shogun said:


> I would argue that it's the very CREATION of adolescence as a protected status that we see a stark decline in work ethic.  Why would we keep kids ignorant regarding our society for the sake of a created status?  They can still be kids.  Hell, the last four years of school starts at age, what, 14?  14 isn't old enough to start learning a few things about earning a living?  I think it is well old enough to start forming motivation that creates a better work ethic and facilitates education by putting the motivation to excell in the hands of the student.  As it is now, the kids don't care, the teachers care enough to get paid, the parents care enough to bitch at someone despite shitty parenting, the unions care as long as yearly salaries increase; education be damned.  While Ben Franklin was CLEAR about his motivations in learning a trade at his age so to should we make it clear to OUR kids that they will be rewarded according to work and I don't think 14 is too young to start.



I don't think it's too early to teach the lesson.  I just disagree with how, because I don't think the results will be as intended.




Shogun said:


> *
> That's why I would lean more toward a college education approach to personal finance.  No doubt serious changes need to be made to primary education, I just don't think  paying students is the way to do it.*
> 
> 
> I respect that you differ in opinion.  Thank you for playing along and responding with critical thinking.  I have to remain adamant and I think a social test with schools from different demographics would prove it.



I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot.




Shogun said:


> *Most definatley the incentive would be there to work hard if there was some financial reward at the end, but there are so many factors.  What is the purpose of the monetary reward?  What is the lesson you want kids to learn?  Whatever that is, there is likely only a certain path that can be taken to reach that goal.  Many paths can be taken to get to that monetary reward.  How many of those paths do have control over?*
> 
> Purpose?  It gives a student a little financial autonomy and allows hands on experience in making and spending money.  I want the kids to learn that theywill be rewarded financially by the effort of their own motivation and work ethic.  Indeed, that certain path is to excell in school and get paid for the effort.  People flunk out all the time without incentive to learn.  Im not sure what you mean by the paths remark.  As it is, we don't reward flunking students with a diploma.  I'm talking about using the nature of our society to become an incentive in HS as they will find is the case after graduation.



What I mean is we have a stated goal.  We really both want the same thing.  But will your plan actually acheive that?  What is the likely hood given a lot of factors that that is how kids will actually turn out?

sorry I hacked off a bunch.  It was getting long.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 3, 2008)

Sure, but is it better to teach it that way or cut to the chase and just go get a job?  I think it would add an undo amount of stress into the lives of a group people that don't really need it.  Think about the stress levels of adults that struggle to come up with money and add that to the rageing hormones and immaturity of your average teenager.  

At an early ages I think it is more the parent's responsibility then our schools to teach children about money.  

sure, wouldn't it be nice if PARENTING became a reliable solution?  but, alas, that doesn't seem to provide the results we  hope for.  In fact, our schools DO already try to teach kids economic responsibility but with lackluster results.  I don't think that my idea would provide any more added stressthan found already in after school jobs for 15 year olds.  If anything, my idea would re-align the concept of working for wages with actual rewards for making an effort in education instead of flipping burgers.  



I guess I'm think along more nefarious lines.  Like students now being motivated to steal answer sheets.  


Ahh.. fair enough.  There will always be exceptions to everything and I am under no illusion that some kids won't cheat.. But, any more than they do now?  



I mean the idea behind merit pay is that the better a teacher's students perform, the more they get paid.  So, what lengths is a teacher willing to go to show said acheivement?

I would answer that the only way to show student achievement is by actual student achievement.  A teacher can't manipulate ACT results like they can class grades. 


*
But you what you end up doing is changeing the purpose of schooling; to gain knowledge.  Now the purpose is to gain money. * 

Gain money for the accrual of knowledge.  What do you think kids in modern America go to school for now?  to gain knowlege of because they are forced to do so by the state regardless of their individual education?  Kid's these days don't make an effort to learn just for the sake of learning.  If they did then we woulnd't need to complain about public education.  If a greater number of kids learn via positive reinforcement of getting paid, in correlation with the same process post-graduation, then I don't see a problem with it.



*
No, the nature of capitalism is survival of the fittest. Whoever can produce innovation or gain a competitive advantage succeeds.  Said group of people may have greedy people as a sub-set.  But just being greedy isn't going to make you rich.*

Capitolism, the very root word conveying increased value on investment, is not merely "survival of the fittest".  the "fittest" are not companies that fail to RETURN A MAXIMIZED PROFIT.  Indeed, being greedy IS the byproduct of a system that hinges on the capitalization of funds.  Look at OIL Ceo's defending current gas prices for the sake of their stock holders despite national reprocussions to the common person.  the "fittest" are also the greediest.  We've never seen Microsoft take the position that it already has enough market shares and will dampen it's capitalist market strategy in order to invest in competition.  Innovation is not the hallmark of capitalism.  What innovations come from the stacked conglomerates of entity corporations and parent organizations?  How is the monoploies of Bell Labs anything else than a product of free market capitolism?  How were they're business strategies NOT a prduct of grossly unfettered greed?  We may disagree about this dependingon our perspective of Capitalism but I'd have to argue that there is a specific reason why capitalism results in blatant green time and time again.





I don't think it's too early to teach the lesson.  I just disagree with how, because I don't think the results will be as intended.


Perhaps they would, perhaps they would not.  Certainly, I dont have a working crystal ball.  I would be willing to try such a program in a handful of schools in each state in order to test the viability of this approach before making it universal policy.  In this case, if I could make this happen, I'd take a friendly wager with you to find out.




I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot.

Again, thank you for your participation and consideration.  Even if this isn't THE answer it is AN answer.  We can all agree that public education seems to be failing and it's probably more important to come to an agreeable solution than to get caught up in a partisan lack of consideration.  I probably feel the same way about school vochers as you do for an idea like this.  Because you considered mine I would be open to consider your alternatives.




*What I mean is we have a stated goal.  We really both want the same thing.  But will your plan actually acheive that?  What is the likely hood given a lot of factors that that is how kids will actually turn out?

sorry I hacked off a bunch.  It was getting long.*

That's exactly what I'd love to find out by testing such a program in problem schools.  Indeed, we both have the same goals in mind but different opinions of the correct paths to take.  Im not sure what your opinion of a viable solution might be but, if it happens to be school vouchers I'd make the follwoing deal:

divide the states and test your idea in half and mine in the other half.  Set dates for evaluation at 5 years, 10 years or the terms of two presidents and decipher the results.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 3, 2008)

Shogun said:


> That's exactly what I'd love to find out by testing such a program in problem schools.  Indeed, we both have the same goals in mind but different opinions of the correct paths to take.  Im not sure what your opinion of a viable solution might be but, if it happens to be school vouchers I'd make the follwoing deal:
> 
> divide the states and test your idea in half and mine in the other half.  Set dates for evaluation at 5 years, 10 years or the terms of two presidents and decipher the results.



I'll just cut to this because it kinda gets to the heart of it.  Through high school I wouldn't change much where the children are concerned.  I don't have the stats but if I had to guess the majority of teenagers are doing some sort of work for pay already.  Yes, their education needs to be their number one priority.  

I know many parents are doing their jobs where their children are concerned, but I don't see how that will improve by providing an added excuse to not do said job.  

I would change school funding drastically.  First it needs to be much more transparent.  In our state anyway it is nearly impossible for the public to get an itemized report of what a district spends it's money on.  From there we can determine what expenditures are appropriate and what constitutes mis or over calculations.  It would be great if teachers unions were done for.  A radio show host here (MN) I think brought up an interesting question.  (If you have the ability I would reccomend listening to the Jason Lewis show).  Anywho the question is, why does a group of peope (teachers, school workers, etc.) that is paid by the U.S. government, need a union? In our state especially which is overwhelmingly liberal.  Why do the unions need to fight for them when the state is controlled by the left and wants to pay teachers more anyway? 

I know we want to be able to show that our kids are the best and brightest in the world, unfortunately that has to start with parenting.  The only way it's going to happen is to make......parents.....accountable.....are you thinking what I'm thinking?  Perhaps you propose paying the wrong group of people...hint, hint.

As for the financial education, I would start in college and make it a first semester requirment.  The basics like checkbooks, credit cards (and their benefits and pit falls) and the importance of establishing a credit history.  After that have an optional curriculum of other important financial advise such as financing your first home, etc.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll just cut to this because it kinda gets to the heart of it.  Through high school I wouldn't change much where the children are concerned.  I don't have the stats but if I had to guess the majority of teenagers are doing some sort of work for pay already.  Yes, their education needs to be their number one priority.  

Id need to see a source that conveys as much and I'd have to wonder if such is the case accross the specific demographics that need the most work.  Specifically, inner city ghetto schools.  I'm not sure if selling pot counts as a legitimate job although I can tell you that it can be hard work.  Indeed, by paying them for their motivation in education instead of flipping burgers how wold this not make gaining an education more important than becomeing a minimum wage slave after school when they should be doing their homework? 



I know many parents are doing their jobs where their children are concerned, but I don't see how that will improve by providing an added excuse to not do said job. 

may do, but Many, MANY don't.  How wold you suppose we get those who fail in parenting to become better parents?  We can't.  Thus, putting the motivation to learn on the student whose life with benefit from learning a good work ethic.  I'd love to hear any ideas on getting parents to do a better job otherwise.



I would change school funding drastically.  First it needs to be much more transparent.  In our state anyway it is nearly impossible for the public to get an itemized report of what a district spends it's money on.  From there we can determine what expenditures are appropriate and what constitutes mis or over calculations.  It would be great if teachers unions were done for.  A radio show host here (MN) I think brought up an interesting question.  (If you have the ability I would reccomend listening to the Jason Lewis show).  Anywho the question is, why does a group of peope (teachers, school workers, etc.) that is paid by the U.S. government, need a union? In our state especially which is overwhelmingly liberal.  Why do the unions need to fight for them when the state is controlled by the left and wants to pay teachers more anyway? 

Transparent, I agree.  Itemization of spending, I agree.  I appriciate Unions but, just like their antithesis, they are looking out for themselves instead of the reason they are around in the first place: education of kids.  I would entertain the question but I think it may be better addressed in a different thread.



I know we want to be able to show that our kids are the best and brightest in the world, unfortunately that has to start with parenting.  The only way it's going to happen is to make......parents.....accountable.....are you thinking what I'm thinking?  Perhaps you propose paying the wrong group of people...hint, hint.


It may START with parenting but, by age 15-18, it doesn't end with parenting.  I still think that kids of this age bracket would be able to thrive on an opportunity.  But, I'm not sure that I took the hint.  Please, be specific.  Who could we pay in order to get parents to be better parents?  



As for the financial education, I would start in college and make it a first semester requirment.  The basics like checkbooks, credit cards (and their benefits and pit falls) and the importance of establishing a credit history.  After that have an optional curriculum of other important financial advise such as financing your first home, etc.

yea.. But I learned all that in High School.  I took Home Economics as a freshman and business and marketing my sophomore year.  In fact, the marketing class was involved with DECA AND an internship program where kids could get school credit and get out of school at noon if they had a job.  I really don't think that kids in HS are incapable of riding this roller coaster.  In fact, I'd argue that the earlier we were able to mold their behaviour the better for our society overall.

I guess my question becomes, How would a kid REALLY understand the gaining and losing of money and the importance of establishing credit if they dont get the hands on experience of gaining and losing money?  4k per semester earned for learning might be a greater motivation than minimum wage flipping burgers.



Again, please elaborate on who we should be paying to get better parents.  I'd like to clear that up before commenting on it.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 3, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Id need to see a source that conveys as much and I'd have to wonder if such is the case accross the specific demographics that need the most work.  Specifically, inner city ghetto schools.  I'm not sure if selling pot counts as a legitimate job although I can tell you that it can be hard work.  Indeed, by paying them for their motivation in education instead of flipping burgers how wold this not make gaining an education more important than becomeing a minimum wage slave after school when they should be doing their homework?



I don't know either.  I'm sure you're right about the demographic issue and whether teens work or not.  I'm only speaking from experience (small town northern MN high school) and I am hard pressed to think of many students that didn't have some type of job. 




Shogun said:


> may do, but Many, MANY don't.  How wold you suppose we get those who fail in parenting to become better parents?  We can't.  Thus, putting the motivation to learn on the student whose life with benefit from learning a good work ethic.  I'd love to hear any ideas on getting parents to do a better job otherwise.



Sorry, meant _are NOT_ doing their jobs.  My point is though if another goal is to have better parents, I don't see how you reach that goal by haveing a third party take over the roles parents should be playing.  Yes, it's hard if not impossible to get some parents to do what their suppossed to, but that's no reason to make it even easier for them to not do what they're suppossed to DO.




Shogun said:


> Transparent, I agree.  Itemization of spending, I agree.  I appriciate Unions but, just like their antithesis, they are looking out for themselves instead of the reason they are around in the first place: education of kids.  I would entertain the question but I think it may be better addressed in a different thread.



very well, have at it if you like




Shogun said:


> It may START with parenting but, by age 15-18, it doesn't end with parenting.  I still think that kids of this age bracket would be able to thrive on an opportunity.  But, I'm not sure that I took the hint.  Please, be specific.  Who could we pay in order to get parents to be better parents?



Pay the parents.  



Shogun said:


> yea.. But I learned all that in High School.  I took Home Economics as a freshman and business and marketing my sophomore year.  In fact, the marketing class was involved with DECA AND an internship program where kids could get school credit and get out of school at noon if they had a job.  I really don't think that kids in HS are incapable of riding this roller coaster.  In fact, I'd argue that the earlier we were able to mold their behaviour the better for our society overall.



good high school.  Not sure whether you would be the exception or the rule.  I know I didn't get any of that in high school or college.



Shogun said:


> I guess my question becomes, How would a kid REALLY understand the gaining and losing of money and the importance of establishing credit if they dont get the hands on experience of gaining and losing money?  4k per semester earned for learning might be a greater motivation than minimum wage flipping burgers.



Agreed they have to at some point.  I'm not oppossed to haveing teenagers get a jobs just to get the experience of work responsibility and what not. I just don't know how wise it forcefully integrate into their lives.  I suppose a basic finance classes in high school isn't too dumb.



Shogun said:


> Again, please elaborate on who we should be paying to get better parents.  I'd like to clear that up before commenting on it.



Answer above. as to why, the first argument would be why pay them for something they should be doing anyway.  My answer would be because honeslty the ends justify the means.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 4, 2008)

it's a busy day today but I would like to finish this conversation next week.


----------



## Psychoblues (Jan 6, 2008)

Next week?  You're a moderator, Sg!!!!!!!!




Shogun said:


> it's a busy day today but I would like to finish this conversation next week.



If you have no argument, admit it.  If you're tired of the contest admit that as well.  If you wish to concede then that is what you should do.  Please don't delay the subject until you feel better or can research some reich wing magazine for a response.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 6, 2008)

I would probably consider the tone of THIS thread elevated above the type that you are used to PB.  I mean, I'm flattered that you think I am interesting enough to follow up on but sometimes real life beckons.


----------



## Psychoblues (Jan 11, 2008)

Not surprisingly, your bullshit is just that.




Shogun said:


> I would probably consider the tone of THIS thread elevated above the type that you are used to PB.  I mean, I'm flattered that you think I am interesting enough to follow up on but sometimes real life beckons.



You have certainly had plenty of time to answer a simple question even shallowly.  The thread is important and you regard as next weeks work.  Spit it out or admit that it is beyond your comprehension.  You chose to spit it out.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 11, 2008)

Psychoblues said:


> Not surprisingly, your bullshit is just that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps if _someone_ (*cough* Psycho *cough*, *cough*) were to add something of any merit at all the thread would continue.  Does it tell you anything that the two people respectfully disagreeing with each other in a thread both think you're a complete tard?


----------



## Psychoblues (Jan 11, 2008)

Have you ever noticed that you are considered somewhat a turd on this board?




Bern80 said:


> Perhaps if _someone_ (*cough* Psycho *cough*, *cough*) were to add something of any merit at all the thread would continue.  Does it tell you anything that the two people respectfully disagreeing with each other in a thread both think you're a complete tard?



Considering your uninformed comment I suspect your reputation to prevail.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 21, 2008)

Psychoblues said:


> Have you ever noticed that you are considered somewhat a turd on this board?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's really hard to take offense to being considered a turd by the likes of you, Larkinn and Edward.  And my reputation is far better than yours seeing as you never post any actual information.  Just stupid insults


----------

