**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

She had to rig the machines to beat Comrade Sanders.

[Jack Sawyer]

She had to rig the machines to beat Comrade Sanders.

We agree 100%

[BananaStand]

In a trial, both sides are represented by attorneys. Attorneys are professional deceivers, and each gets a chance to convince the jury of innocence or guilt. With unlimited latitude, each side could present evidence convincing enough to sway a jury's decision their way. By presenting evidence that panders to jury's emotions, or is heavily prejudicial, these professional deceivers can literally manipulate 12 people into delivering the outcome they want.

To prevent that, we have a judge who decides which evidence is fair to present, and what isn't.

Politicians are just as deceitful as attorneys. Often they are the same people. They are totally capable of winning votes by lying, deceiving, manipulating, pandering, and otherwise making unrealistic arguments. There needs to be some kind of control for when Bernie promises everyone a rainbow in their living room.

On the GOP side, I wouldn't hate a President Jeb. At the time, it seemed unlikely that he could beat Hillary. But looking back now at how shitty a job Hillary did on the campaign....I think he would have been fine.

I'll trade Trump for Jeb straight up, right now.

[wufwugy]

jeb wouldn't come remotely close to doing as good of a job as trump has so far.

[Jack Sawyer]

In a trial, both sides are represented by attorneys. Attorneys are professional deceivers, and each gets a chance to convince the jury of innocence or guilt. With unlimited latitude, each side could present evidence convincing enough to sway a jury's decision their way. By presenting evidence that panders to jury's emotions, or is heavily prejudicial, these professional deceivers can literally manipulate 12 people into delivering the outcome they want.


To prevent that, we have a judge who decides which evidence is fair to present, and what isn't.


Politicians are just as deceitful as attorneys. Often they are the same people. They are totally capable of winning votes by lying, deceiving, manipulating, pandering, and otherwise making unrealistic arguments. There needs to be some kind of control for when Bernie promises everyone a rainbow in their living room.

Politicians are *more* deceitful than attorneys. Hold the lying and conniving cunts accountable for what they do and say. I agree with you 100%.



Bernie, however, has a track record of doing exactly that which he says he would do and has done. It’s unnatural by your politicians standards, it’s unlikely we will ever see this again.


Elections over. Where is Hillary? Nowhere to be found. The only mention of Hillary after the elections were that she was holding a party for her donors. As in, fuck the American people, her donors are important.


Bernie, however, went to Standing Rock marches in Washington DC to protest the pipeline with the people who were there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6tzrAykz8M


Bernie has been very vocal in opposition to many things Trump has been doing, which he apparently was against during his whole campaign (and professional career). He grilled appointee after appointee, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=464GWbS2zy4


He promised, and delivered, tuition-free college in New York state.
https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...te-200010.html


The dude really truly seems to practice what he preaches, and has been doing this for decades.

On the GOP side, I wouldn't hate a President Jeb. At the time, it seemed unlikely that he could beat Hillary. But looking back now at how shitty a job Hillary did on the campaign....I think he would have been fine.


I'll trade Trump for Jeb straight up, right now.

I completely agree with you brother, trade Trump for Jeb. You could probably get a 2nd round draft pick as well.

[BananaStand]

I don't agree with free education, assuming you're talking about college. K-12 should still be free. Actually, have you read MY presidential platform? It was a while back in the shit-posting thread, but I laid out how I could solve every one of this country's problems by shutting down high schools. It started as a joke, but the more i think about it, the more I think it could work.

Free college education is wrong in my opinion, and I'll explain why:

First, it's too expensive. The reason it's expensive is because the Clinton administration decided that it was a right, and gave everyone access to cheap government loans. Most business will add up their costs of providing a service, add a profit margin, refine it by comparing the results to market rates, and finally publish a price. Colleges simply ask "how much is the gov't giving kids these days? That's how much tuition costs". So when Roody Poo state does that, it empowers Harvard to charge several times more. And the whole market gets fucked. Adding MORE cash to that money pit seems totally In-friggen-sane.

Secondly, community colleges are relatively cheap. I've seen places that charge as little as $150 per credit. If you're an 18 year old, employable, and living with your parents, you should be able to work and pay your own way through college. If you're not supported by your parents, you'll probably have to take fewer classes at a time, perhaps take a little longer to finish your degree. While that's unfortunate that some people have to work harder than others, it's not an injustice that needs government intervention.

Thirdly, and I'll have to find a link for this, but the stat I heard is that 30% of community college curriculum are remedial. My tax dollars are funding high schools that the gov't can't run effectively. There's no way you'll convince me to shell out more money for colleges to go back and fix what our high schools fucked up.

College became accessible to pretty much everyone over 20 years ago. Now it seems that's not good enough. Everyone wants the residential college experience. And I'm not supporting that with my tax dollars.

Basically, if the reasoning behind free college is the assumption that a person can't be competitive economically without a college degree.....then the problem is in K-12. If a high school graduate can't compete, then the problem is high schools, not a lack of college.

[Jack Sawyer]

First, it's too expensive. The reason it's expensive is because the Clinton administration decided that it was a right, and gave everyone access to cheap government loans. Most business will add up their costs of providing a service, add a profit margin, refine it by comparing the results to market rates, and finally publish a price. Colleges simply ask "how much is the gov't giving kids these days? That's how much tuition costs". So when Roody Poo state does that, it empowers Harvard to charge several times more. And the whole market gets fucked. Adding MORE cash to that money pit seems totally In-friggen-sane.

I agree with you. It’s expensive as fuck. And the prices keep going up. Back when I started at the Uni, I had to pay an equivalent of $300 per year. Nowadays it’s pegged at around $3000 per year, and keeps going up. It makes no sense, since nothing changed, only the government decided to stop subsidizing the university, to start putting money is not useful stuff.


If you make it free, for everyone at every institution, these costs can be held in check. One thing of note though: every college should be the same. I know that’s a completely foreign concept for Americans, but bear with me: In the Netherlands, every single college adheres to the same standards. It doesn’t matter whether you go to TU Delft (North AF), Unimaas (like a bike ride away from Belgium), Erasmus (R’dam, one of the most famous and busiest port cities across the pond of England) or on Curaçao (Caribbean island part of the kingdom, where I’m at) the actual studies are exactly equal and are all good AF compared to other countries. Govt. made sure of that.

Secondly, community colleges are relatively cheap. I've seen places that charge as little as $150 per credit. If you're an 18 year old, employable, and living with your parents, you should be able to work and pay your own way through college. If you're not supported by your parents, you'll probably have to take fewer classes at a time, perhaps take a little longer to finish your degree. While that's unfortunate that some people have to work harder than others, it's not an injustice that needs government intervention.

If you focus on your studies before this, it would be better for you in the long run. Not working while studying is better for you to concentrate on getting your shit done. There’s always the army to enlist and still get education for those who don’t want to study anything. And the truly lazy can simply wait tables, and not care about education at all. It’s a free country after all.


Once again, the money is there, as measured by the literal trillions being spent in nation building abroad. Spend it on your own citizens!

Thirdly, and I'll have to find a link for this, but the stat I heard is that 30% of community college curriculum are remedial. My tax dollars are funding high schools that the gov't can't run effectively. There's no way you'll convince me to shell out more money for colleges to go back and fix what our high schools fucked up.


College became accessible to pretty much everyone over 20 years ago. Now it seems that's not good enough. Everyone wants the residential college experience. And I'm not supporting that with my tax dollars.


Basically, if the reasoning behind free college is the assumption that a person can't be competitive economically without a college degree.....then the problem is in K-12. If a high school graduate can't compete, then the problem is high schools, not a lack of college.

Then this has to be taken care of. It has to start from the ground up. People have to take a cold hard look at the current state of education, where it fucked up or is fucking up, and fix it. Again, the money is there, you are already paying tax dollars which are being spent elsewhere in nation building, foreign wars, drone strikes etc. Start spending it on your own citizens!




Bigly!




The current state of affairs is if you want to get educated, you will undoubtedly end up with a huge student loan debt on your shoulders which you have to work your ass off to pay off. Or you need rich parents, or you need to be athletic enough to land a sports scholarship (which means you have to concentrate on sinking 3’s and not on what the capital of Eritrea is). It’s too big a burden for many, and if this can be eliminated then there is no doubt that your society as a whole will benefit tremendously.

[Jack Sawyer]

Why don't they just do all that with K-12?

They are not doing anything at any level apparently and that has to change. People have to start giving more of a fuck rather than just accept the status quo and running with it.

[wufwugy]

Operation Destroy Milo is underway. Day 1 is a resounding success. He's off CPAC and his book deal is dropped.

He was taken out of context, those trying to destroy him actually don't care about those things when their stars do them (Dunham), and they are those at the spearhead of ruining regular Americans' lives. Looks like patriots and defenders of freedom have to circle the wagons for Milo now. Gotta stop the scoundrels yet again. This might be a real tough one. They planted the pedo supporter label on him with the opening kick. They don't care what they ruin as long as they keep their power.

[Jack Sawyer]

Operation Destroy Milo is underway. Day 1 is a resounding success. He's off CPAC and his book deal is dropped.


He was taken out of context, those trying to destroy him actually don't care about those things when their stars do them (Dunham), and they are those at the spearhead of ruining regular Americans' lives. Looks like patriots and defenders of freedom have to circle the wagons for Milo now. Gotta stop the scoundrels yet again. This might be a real tough one. They planted the pedo supporter label on him with the opening kick. They don't care what they ruin as long as they keep their power.

Milo is apparently a serial provocateur, as I showed in a vid posted with him on Bill Maher. He started calling the other people stupid for no reason, not everyone accepts such acts. That said, he should be allowed to speak his mind on whatever nonsense he wants to where he wants to. I find it pathetic that people prefer to gag others than be exposed to their thought, however heinous these may be.


They did do the same thing to PewDiePie as well as I have showed with vids around these as well, except those were actual jokes (in poor taste) that the dude did. Milo’s case, in that interview with Joe Rogan, seems to be a bit different.


But still, let the man speak.

[BananaStand]

Milo is apparently a serial provocateur....

But still, let the man speak.

I'm gonna have to do a little more reading up on Milo. I've only heard of him in the last month or two. But from what I can tell he seems to thrive on attention, and thus says provocative things in order to get himself attention. I'm all for free speech, but he has to realize that not everyone has to listen to him.

If he gets canned from Breitbart because his antics are costing them advertising dollars....fuckin' c-ya Milo. You'll get no sympathy from me. Same thing with CPAC and whatever else he's caught up in. These things don't exist just to be Milo's soapbox. If the people running CPAC feel that Milo's message is not consistent with theirs, or if his presence will bring negative attention to what would otherwise be a positive event....fuckin' c-ya Milo.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm all for free speech, but he has to realize that not everyone has to listen to him.

You are completely correct, not everyone has to listen to him. But still, free speech is free speech, we should not opress the voices of those we don’t like because we don’t want our voices be opressed as well. Let him speak, and those that don’t want to listen, will not listen, as no one forces them to listen anyway. By making something harder to access to, that is when you make people want to search more for that which is forbidden.

If he gets canned from Breitbart because his antics are costing them advertising dollars....fuckin' c-ya Milo. You'll get no sympathy from me. Same thing with CPAC and whatever else he's caught up in. These things don't exist just to be Milo's soapbox. If the people running CPAC feel that Milo's message is not consistent with theirs, or if his presence will bring negative attention to what would otherwise be a positive event....fuckin' c-ya Milo.

This is the tactic of the SJWs, to shitcan the income of those they don’t like. This can backfire greatly. Plus, I will defend his right to speak his shitty mind forever.


Milo isn’t toxic per sé, definitely not more toxic than the Richard Spencer dude. Let him speak, ridicule his speech with actual facts and factual points, make people know WHY you dislike him and what he is speaking is such shit.


Never gag. Gagging means you can not win the argument, ergo your own position is weak AF.

#nevergag

[BananaStand]

This is the tactic of the SJWs, to shitcan the income of those they don’t like.

While I agree the SJW's are ass-holes, I do have some faith in a free market to judge right and wrong. Milo can speak wherever his speech doesn't hurt sales.

This can backfire greatly

yes it can.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3e99557336a1

Market has spoken.

[wufwugy]

Never gag. Gagging means you can not win the argument, ergo your own position is weak AF.

#nevergag

A+++

[wufwugy]

I'm gonna have to do a little more reading up on Milo. I've only heard of him in the last month or two. But from what I can tell he seems to thrive on attention, and thus says provocative things in order to get himself attention. I'm all for free speech, but he has to realize that not everyone has to listen to him.

If he gets canned from Breitbart because his antics are costing them advertising dollars....fuckin' c-ya Milo. You'll get no sympathy from me. Same thing with CPAC and whatever else he's caught up in. These things don't exist just to be Milo's soapbox. If the people running CPAC feel that Milo's message is not consistent with theirs, or if his presence will bring negative attention to what would otherwise be a positive event....fuckin' c-ya Milo.

I suspect he was given CPAC keynote address just so it could be taken away. The move against Milo (and others) is deep state at its core. Establishment Republicans hate him just as much as the failing MSM. And it isn't even about Milo, but about Steve Bannon and Trump. The power order in the United States that exists regardless of who the President is can only keep their power if they defeat that team of patriots.

[wufwugy]

They did do the same thing to PewDiePie as well as I have showed with vids around these as well, except those were actual jokes (in poor taste) that the dude did. Milo’s case, in that interview with Joe Rogan, seems to be a bit different.

How so?

From what I can see, he was a victim of child sexual abuse and used gallows humor to address it. Normally the media would call him a victim who is coping the best way he knows how. But because they want to destroy him and what he represents, they're twisting him into a pedo supporter.

[Jack Sawyer]

For more info on Milo, here you go

[wufwugy]

For more info on Milo, here you go

Fantastic video. I'm very happy he came around to show Salon's hypocrisy in the end, since he showed Salon in a not-unfavorable light in the beginning. The guy says a bunch of quality stuff in there. I may have to look at more.

[BananaStand]

CPAC is run by a lobbying organization, not any public entity. That lobbying organization can decide who they want on their team. Forcing Milo on them robs them of their free speech, no?

[Jack Sawyer]

CPAC is run by a lobbying organization, not any public entity. That lobbying organization can decide who they want on their team. Forcing Milo on them robs them of their free speech, no?

Ok, but how is Milo being "forced" on them?

[BananaStand]

Ok, but how is Milo being "forced" on them?

He was not, force is probably the wrong word. I was more referring to you call to "let the man speak". I'm just asking...why should they?

[Jack Sawyer]

He was not, force is probably the wrong word. I was more referring to you call to "let the man speak". I'm just asking...why should they?

Because they already had their agreements. However, much like in the PewDiePie story from a few days ago, or rather exactly like the PewDiePie’s story, reporters went and found 2 year old footage of Milo saying things, and then went to his sponsors and business partners for comment. These people knew about these things I imagine prior to this, but then they presented him as being arguably even more toxic than he already is. The people he ad engagements with, his business parters et.al. had no recourse but to drop him.


SJW tactics are getting more and more out of hand.


A while back, some dude named Thunderf00t on youtube called out a few feminists. She invented some dirt on him, doxed him to find out his real name and who he was, and then confronted his employers with the invented stuff on him.


It’s getting out of control. Whatever you say and people do not agree with you, they will go out of their way to attack your income. It’s pathetic, and now it seems to happen on a larger scale as whole organizations go after individuals.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It’s getting out of control. Whatever you say and people do not agree with you, they will go out of their way to attack your income. It’s pathetic, and now it seems to happen on a larger scale as whole organizations go after individuals.

To me, the practice of reporting on someone's private life to their employer is ridiculous, as most gossip is.

The real fault is in the employer treating petty revenge behavior as though it's ethical.

While the tattle-tale is out of line, the employer should just laugh at them and ask what it has to do with their employee's ability to do their job when they are ON the clock.

Firing someone for something they did which is no part of their ability or record of performing their job is a crime against freedom.

***
Also, the broad generalization to "people who disagree with you will go out of their way to attack..." is too far.
There are some bad actors, but I disagree with basically everything everyone does on an individual level, and I've never attacked anyone over it...
Well, not since I was an angsty teenager, anyway.


The hyperbolic rhetoric coming from all sides in this thread is ... SMH.
You guys really are too smart to make these broad extrapolations from such tiny data sets.

[BananaStand]

Not to de-rail, but a funny side note on 13 year olds ...

I went out to pick up my lunch this afternoon and the TV inside the shop was tuned to local news. Seems that the government in my state is voting on some significant new legislation today. The new law sets the minimum age for marriage at 18.

It's currently 13!! Not only that, it's 14 for boys.

Is that weird? Like, for there to be two different ages suggests that someone put some thought into this, but apparently not enough thought to realize 13 year olds shouldn't be getting married.

[wufwugy]

Not to de-rail, but a funny side note on 13 year olds ...

I went out to pick up my lunch this afternoon and the TV inside the shop was tuned to local news. Seems that the government in my state is voting on some significant new legislation today. The new law sets the minimum age for marriage at 18.

It's currently 13!! Not only that, it's 14 for boys.

Is that weird? Like, for there to be two different ages suggests that someone put some thought into this, but apparently not enough thought to realize 13 year olds shouldn't be getting married.

Organize society smartly and 13 is probably too young in general but not as too young as people might think. Our current standards are out of whack, and they keep getting pushed back. These days, people generally don't seem to become adults until mid-twenties (or ever?!). The typical 15 year old Amish can run circles around our precious snowflakes.

[CoccoBill]

Not to de-rail, but a funny side note on 13 year olds ...

I went out to pick up my lunch this afternoon and the TV inside the shop was tuned to local news. Seems that the government in my state is voting on some significant new legislation today. The new law sets the minimum age for marriage at 18.

It's currently 13!! Not only that, it's 14 for boys.

Is that weird? Like, for there to be two different ages suggests that someone put some thought into this, but apparently not enough thought to realize 13 year olds shouldn't be getting married.

Where's that? Just so I know not to let my daughter go to college there.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is that weird? Like, for there to be two different ages suggests that someone put some thought into this, but apparently not enough thought to realize 13 year olds shouldn't be getting married.

Times they are a changin'.

Throughout most of civilized history, average life expectancy for a human was ~35 years. Getting married at 13 - 15 just makes sense if you only have 20 years left to raise the kids.

***
Note that until the rise of city life, people tended to rove about in bands of ~100 people or so. They might wander across another band only 2 - 3 times a year. Their ailments were not really communicable, out of the nature of the situation. There were no populations big enough for a cold to keep sweeping loops through the populace. Any disease which was too aggressive at infesting their hosts runs the risk of killing all the local hosts. Life expectancy was higher because human pathogens had a much harder time with vectors.

Current advances in health care and hygiene have greatly extended life expectancy back to where it was before the rise of civilizations.
Ugh. The rise of cities is more accurate. My Anthropology professor liked to talk as though humans had no civility until we built cities.
Whatever.

We're figuring out how to live together, guys! It's only taken us like 12,000 years to do it. We're the best!

[MadMojoMonkey]

Inb4 the outspoken anti-pedo guy is found to be a pedo-guy.

Like the anti-gay congressman who was found out to be totes gay.

Or Bill Cosby calling out black people for behaving badly, only to be found out that he's Mr. Rapey McRapester.

[wufwugy]

For sure those are both huge.

[wufwugy]

It's funny, I watched this:



Then came across this:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/by...form=hootsuite

Under budget, ahead of schedule.

[Savy]

The premise isn't it creates only good schools it's that it gets schools to be better on average.

I'd be interested in seeing some figures with regards to the number of home schooled children who go onto college and their success as a group in that setting. I imagine what you are noticing is actually more down to two things.

1 - Very gifted kids are a lot more likely to be home schooled as it creates a reason for it to happen so you have the random sample of people who are home schooled but skewed top heavy with gifted kids. Kids with very bad behavioural problems and those who struggle massively are much more likely to be in special schools or left in standard education.

2 - The thought of high school - college - university (and us equivalent) is a very standard path for kids in schools. It's where you end up if you don't really put all that much thought into it not to mention all the pressures on kids to take this path even if it isn't what they really want. With homeschooling there is much less likely to be that same pressure (as parents are kid of rejecting state education by homeschooling) so those that end up there are more likely to want to be there.

[wufwugy]

2 - The thought of high school - college - university (and us equivalent) is a very standard path for kids in schools. It's where you end up if you don't really put all that much thought into it not to mention all the pressures on kids to take this path even if it isn't what they really want. With homeschooling there is much less likely to be that same pressure (as parents are kid of rejecting state education by homeschooling) so those that end up there are more likely to want to be there.

This selection bias is definitely there.

[CoccoBill]

I understand that's the premise, but I can't find any proof of that actually happening. There seems to be a huge variance in the performance of American schools, and on average they're not achieving good results at least based on standardized tests. My intuition says that competition makes the best better and the worst worse, since being on the short end automatically cuts funding, limits the available expertise and creates a social environment that makes it very hard to achieve results.

It would be interesting to know what is the number of homeschooled applicants to higher education and what their acceptance rates are. It does seem that the ones that get in to colleges/universities perform well or at least on par with others, which seems to support your first point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling#Supportive

[wufwugy]

I understand that's the premise, but I can't find any proof of that actually happening. There seems to be a huge variance in the performance of American schools, and on average they're not achieving good results at least based on standardized tests. My intuition says that competition makes the best better and the worst worse, since being on the short end automatically cuts funding, limits the available expertise and creates a social environment that makes it very hard to achieve results.

You're definitely right about there being huge variance. The US system has very little choice, so it isn't choice causing this variance.

[BananaStand]

I'll be honest guys. All this back and forth about what's the best kind of school seems totally moot to me.

Parental emphasis on education and their involvement is far and away the most influential factor in a child's academic success. A kid whose parent checks homework, communicates with the teacher, reinforces lessons in the home, and closely monitors progress will be lightyears ahead of a kid whose parent just asks "did you do your homework" and only checks in at report card time.

It doesn't matter what kind of disparity there is in the quality of schools between those two kids. One will succeed, the other maybe not.

[wufwugy]

I'll be honest guys. All this back and forth about what's the best kind of school seems totally moot to me.

Parental emphasis on education and their involvement is far and away the most influential factor in a child's academic success. A kid whose parent checks homework, communicates with the teacher, reinforces lessons in the home, and closely monitors progress will be lightyears ahead of a kid whose parent just asks "did you do your homework" and only checks in at report card time.

It doesn't matter what kind of disparity there is in the quality of schools between those two kids. One will succeed, the other maybe not.

Humans are animals. We're not necessarily going to make great decisions all the time. When you live in a system that incentivizes worse decisions, guess what you're gonna get. When you live in a system that incentivizes better decisions, guess what you're gonna get.

[Savy]

Is there any reason to think that a higher more centralised average is better than a lower one with higher peaks?

In the UK schools with pupils who fall into a certain like low group get paid more for every pupil (it's a considerable amount, ~£1,000/year), teachers/management tend to get paid at a higher rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupil_premium

I think what Finland does is a miles better solution than anything I have seen I just don't think it's optimal.

[wufwugy]

Is there any reason to think that a higher more centralised average is better than a lower one with higher peaks

If we're talking results in the long run, I suspect the latter would be better.

Let's say we're back before Isaac Newton was born, and we're gonna bet on two different scenarios. Who would you rather bet on inventing calculus: a super genius with IQ 200+ and access to the academia of the time, or a whole bunch of 120-130 IQ people with the same access? I don't know, I might have to go with the super genius.

Let's say an asteroid the size of India is heading towards Earth and is gonna smash into us in 1 year. The world leaders get on TV and say "It's okay, we got 1000 200+ IQ science and creative geniuses working round the clock all across the world and they're gonna stop that asteroid." Or they get on TV and say "It's okay, we got a million above average people working round the clock..." Which one would you have more faith in inventing some new crazy thing that will save the Earth?

Over time, as the people in the tail of brilliance invent more things, being average or in the lower tail becomes exponentially better.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Let's say an asteroid the size of India is heading towards Earth and is gonna smash into us in 1 year. The world leaders get on TV and say "It's okay, we got 1000 200+ IQ science and creative geniuses working round the clock all across the world and they're gonna stop that asteroid." Or they get on TV and say "It's okay, we got a million above average people working round the clock..." Which one would you have more faith in inventing some new crazy thing that will save the Earth?

Over time, as the people in the tail of brilliance invent more things, being average or in the lower tail becomes exponentially better.

In this scenario, is not cut and dry which group will find the best solution first.

What will be needed is a spark of genius and enough training to recognize that for what it is. That training is easily self-taught outside of formal academia.

I'll take 1 Michael Faraday over 100 "200+ IQ" dancers and playwrights and firemen and whatnot. Just one genius experimentalist, even w/o any formal education is worth more than a million brilliant people who don't care about the subject matter, and whose training is not relevant.

[Poopadoop]

In this scenario, is not cut and dry which group will find the best solution first.

What will be needed is a spark of genius and enough training to recognize that for what it is. That training is easily self-taught outside of formal academia.

I'll take 1 Michael Faraday over 100 "200+ IQ" dancers and playwrights and firemen and whatnot. Just one genius experimentalist, even w/o any formal education is worth more than a million brilliant people who don't care about the subject matter, and whose training is not relevant.

Agree with the sentiment and I would add that most of the great insights come from hard work and serendipity, with a large helping of lateral thinking.

I've met people with genius level IQs who never seemed to contribute anything useful despite that.

[wufwugy]

Agree with the sentiment and I would add that most of the great insights come from hard work and serendipity, with a large helping of lateral thinking.

I've met people with genius level IQs who never seemed to contribute anything useful despite that.

Could you go more into detail about lateral thinking?

[CoccoBill]

Define better?

[BananaStand]

I'm still not seeing what's so great about Finland's education system. Spending 15 minutes outside every hour, short school hours, and little homework sounds like a system that's designed to be easy. It's not surprising to me that alot of kids get good grades. It's not totally clear to me how PISA determines what's "best", but I'm skeptical.

I mean, did we not just have two pages of how it's impossible to compare rape statistics between countries? Now you're telling me we can put Finnish schools up against schools in Mumbai, Tokyo, Moscow, Rio, and Houston...and determine a winner?

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a Finnish car. I've never seen a Finnish restaurant. I've never heard someone refer to "a fine piece of finnish engineering".

Their crowning achievement seems to be 'Clash of Clans', the rest of their economy is supported by cardboard.

In America, our education system separates the studs from the duds. We identify the studs and they go on to lead businesses, drive economic expansion, and fuel innovation. The duds can still get a diploma, and a decent general education. If the duds drag down the average to something lower than another country where every kid comes out the same, I don't necessarily classify that as a failing of America's education system.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm still not seeing what's so great about Finland's education system. Spending 15 minutes outside every hour, short school hours, and little homework sounds like a system that's designed to be easy. It's not surprising to me that alot of kids get good grades. It's not totally clear to me how PISA determines what's "best", but I'm skeptical.


I mean, did we not just have two pages of how it's impossible to compare rape statistics between countries? Now you're telling me we can put Finnish schools up against schools in Mumbai, Tokyo, Moscow, Rio, and Houston...and determine a winner?


I've never pulled up to a red light next to a Finnish car. I've never seen a Finnish restaurant. I've never heard someone refer to "a fine piece of finnish engineering".


Their crowning achievement seems to be 'Clash of Clans', the rest of their economy is supported by cardboard.

Skepticism is good. I like skepticism.


What you write above though, you are dissing Finland. Just because “you’ve never heard of them” does not mean they are shit. Ilari Sahamies and Patrik Antonius would like to have a chat with you


About Finland, and be sure to click on the education link (Spoiler alert: 9.3/10)




http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/finland/

In America, our education system separates the studs from the duds. We identify the studs and they go on to lead businesses, drive economic expansion, and fuel innovation. The duds can still get a diploma, and a decent general education. If the duds drag down the average to something lower than another country where every kid comes out the same, I don't necessarily classify that as a failing of America's education system.

An education system should, well, educate the people. Not separating winners from losers, it’s not a competition. It’s not a game. You have to adhere to certain standards, which is what degrees are about, therefore it is of paramount importance that standards are in place. If every institution meets a certain standard, then you can be sure that a person with X degree from Y institution knows exactly the same as a person with X degree from Z institution. Then it’s a question of finding out about the personalities, who can apply what they should know better, who actually gives a fuck, etc.


Some great people have no degrees at all, but as we are moving towards more complex societies, it starts becoming required that education be more complete. This is the importance of making higher education more easily available to all. What is easier than being fully free/no student loan upon finishing? This way, you will also have more people participate in what they actually want to not what they have to.

[wufwugy]

An education system should, well, educate the people.

Are we thinking about this differently? I think an education system should help the people. Education itself isn't necessarily a beneficial thing. I've covered some of the ways in which I think it can be detrimental.

When I look at the world, I see a lot of people who would be better off not being educated. N=1 example: I know some illegal aliens from Mexico who are merely decent at English and who can't do more math than add and subtract, and they make more money excavating construction sites with heavy machinery than the average highly educated college graduate does. Even though these guys are already much better off by not following the average education route, could you imagine how much better off they would be if they were encouraged to do so as early teens and there was, say, a government policy of mandated savings like a 401k for a proportion of earnings?

I think too often our societies' ideas on education are guided too much by how we wish the world is instead of the way the world is.

[wufwugy]

In America, our education system separates the studs from the duds. We identify the studs and they go on to lead businesses, drive economic expansion, and fuel innovation. The duds can still get a diploma, and a decent general education. If the duds drag down the average to something lower than another country where every kid comes out the same, I don't necessarily classify that as a failing of America's education system.

Let's take it further. There always will be relative duds. Simply due to the nature of distribution, there will always be those whose skills will be below average and who need to work jobs that take below average skills.

Take janitorial services for example. They are among the most simple jobs in existence, yet some kinds of janitorial work are unusual enough that it takes somebody to be a career janitor. An example is somebody who cleans commercial floors at night. It's a bad idea to have teens do this part time when they're pursuing something else. It requires people who make lifelong careers out of the work.

What is the best thing for these people? Is it to go to college? No. Is it even to go to high school? Actually, no. Is it to learn math beyond counting and basic arithmetic? No. Is it to learn history, humanities, social sciences? No, no, and no. One of the best things I can think of that a society can do for these people is to incentivize them to work as early as possible and to invest as much as they can. Earlier years are simply more productive than later years, exponentially so. If somebody is gonna make a career as a janitor, he'll be far better off starting at 15 than at 22. Depending on investment quantity and years worked total, that can be a difference of 500 grand or similar by retirement.

Proper incentives can create economic and social equality between duds and smarts. A poor dud who is properly encouraged to work as early as possible and invest (something like dollar cost averaging), could actually end up in the same class by the time he's 65 as a non-poor smart. But he's not gonna get there as long as government policy is not about efficiency.

[Poopadoop]

Let's take it further. There always will be relative duds. Simply due to the nature of distribution, there will always be those whose skills will be below average and who need to work jobs that take below average skills.

Agreed.

Take janitorial services for example. They are among the most simple jobs in existence, yet some kinds of janitorial work are unusual enough that it takes somebody to be a career janitor. An example is somebody who cleans commercial floors at night. It's a bad idea to have teens do this part time when they're pursuing something else. It requires people who make lifelong careers out of the work.

Don't see why there's such a need to create people solely for the purpose of this type of job. What is the problem with having a teenager mop floors part time?

What is the best thing for these people? Is it to go to college? No. Is it even to go to high school? Actually, no. Is it to learn math beyond counting and basic arithmetic? No. Is it to learn history, humanities, social sciences? No, no, and no. One of the best things I can think of that a society can do for these people is to incentivize them to work as early as possible and to invest as much as they can. Earlier years are simply more productive than later years, exponentially so. If somebody is gonna make a career as a janitor, he'll be far better off starting at 15 than at 22. Depending on investment quantity and years worked total, that can be a difference of 500 grand or similar by retirement.

There is more to an education that what you learn. Everyone knows the basic chemistry you learn in high school applies to very little if you don't pursue a career that explicitly uses it. Same goes for a lot of other subjects. The point in learning isn't just about the knowledge gained, it's about learning how to learn.

Anyone (janitor included) should have the opportunity to pursue learning. Your idea about pigeonholing people at an early age and then just giving them the bare education level they need to do their job seems pretty state-oriented to me. Doesn't the career janitor have the right to go to school at least to grade 12?

Proper incentives can create economic and social equality between duds and smarts. A poor dud who is properly encouraged to work as early as possible and invest (something like dollar cost averaging), could actually end up in the same class by the time he's 65 as a non-poor smart. But he's not gonna get there as long as government policy is not about efficiency.

You realise you're actually incentivizing smart people to become janitors here right? I mean I don't have to go to school or do anything that involves thinking or hard work I just finish grade 3 , spend a week in mop college, and start earning money.

[wufwugy]

Don't see why there's such a need to create people solely for the purpose of this type of job. What is the problem with having a teenager mop floors part time?

I'm a big fan of teenage part time work. There a bunch of simple jobs they can do. Cleaning floors is even one of them, but not all kinds of floor cleaning would qualify. Some of them are things like midnight to six AM jobs. Teenagers are not going to be reliable at that part time nor would it be beneficial for them.

If this example doesn't fly, there are better ones. Something else teenagers should not be doing part time is cleaning the windows of skycrapers.

Anyone (janitor included) should have the opportunity to pursue learning. Your idea about pigeonholing people at an early age and then just giving them the bare education level they need to do their job seems pretty state-oriented to me. Doesn't the career janitor have the right to go to school at least to grade 12?

I agree. It is incredibly difficult (maybe impossible) to get this right with a public education system.

You realise you're actually incentivizing smart people to become janitors here right? I mean I don't have to go to school or do anything that involves thinking or hard work I just finish grade 3 , spend a week in mop college, and start earning money.

If that is the case, then it means that the system really doesn't work well for those who end up in janitorial work, since it's implied that there is significant room for improvement for those who end up in janitorial work.

As for your explicit point, an increase of smart people in blue collar professions would be a good thing. Blue collar work in the states is in this really weird situation where the work is rewarding and pays extremely well, yet the zeitgeist is that only losers do it. Smart people in blue collar build businesses. I know a few people who started their blue collar businesses from scratch and out of their homes who are millionaires today and employ many others. Smarts can be applied to "simple" fields too. A dud career janitor might be a janitor for 40 years, and a smart career janitor might build a janitorial business that benefits thousands.

[Jack Sawyer]

Let's take it further. There always will be relative duds. Simply due to the nature of distribution, there will always be those whose skills will be below average and who need to work jobs that take below average skills.


Take janitorial services for example. They are among the most simple jobs in existence, yet some kinds of janitorial work are unusual enough that it takes somebody to be a career janitor. An example is somebody who cleans commercial floors at night. It's a bad idea to have teens do this part time when they're pursuing something else. It requires people who make lifelong careers out of the work.


What is the best thing for these people? Is it to go to college? No. Is it even to go to high school? Actually, no. Is it to learn math beyond counting and basic arithmetic? No. Is it to learn history, humanities, social sciences? No, no, and no. One of the best things I can think of that a society can do for these people is to incentivize them to work as early as possible and to invest as much as they can. Earlier years are simply more productive than later years, exponentially so. If somebody is gonna make a career as a janitor, he'll be far better off starting at 15 than at 22. Depending on investment quantity and years worked total, that can be a difference of 500 grand or similar by retirement.


Proper incentives can create economic and social equality between duds and smarts. A poor dud who is properly encouraged to work as early as possible and invest (something like dollar cost averaging), could actually end up in the same class by the time he's 65 as a non-poor smart. But he's not gonna get there as long as government policy is not about efficiency.

It being free != it being compulsory. But keep in mind also that that specific work, for example, will inevitably be taken over by roombas at one point or another. What then?


Also, there could be some kind of janitorial specialization for those that really want to do that.


People are different. Not everyone can be a superstar. But this should definitely not be decided on the size of their checkbooks.

[wufwugy]

It being free != it being compulsory.

It not being compulsory is very important. It would be cool if it wasn't overly incentivized too.

But keep in mind also that that specific work, for example, will inevitably be taken over by roombas at one point or another. What then?

It is ironic that during the time of continually increasing demand for relatively unskilled labor, the fear that's going away is also increasing.

People are different. Not everyone can be a superstar. But this should definitely not be decided on the size of their checkbooks.

You're right, it should be about what people value.

[CoccoBill]

I'm still not seeing what's so great about Finland's education system. Spending 15 minutes outside every hour, short school hours, and little homework sounds like a system that's designed to be easy. It's not surprising to me that alot of kids get good grades. It's not totally clear to me how PISA determines what's "best", but I'm skeptical.

What in your mind is then the purpose of education, if it's not educating kids? The education performance is measured currently with the performance of the students in standardized tests such as PISA. Should Finland start maybe making the system harder for kids, would that make it more great?

I mean, did we not just have two pages of how it's impossible to compare rape statistics between countries? Now you're telling me we can put Finnish schools up against schools in Mumbai, Tokyo, Moscow, Rio, and Houston...and determine a winner?

In education there are standardized tests. In rape, as we've talked about, those do not exist. So yes, I'd say it's much easier to compare the schools. Not in a perfect manner, of course, but at least in a much a much more objective way.

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a Finnish car. I've never seen a Finnish restaurant. I've never heard someone refer to "a fine piece of finnish engineering".

Their crowning achievement seems to be 'Clash of Clans', the rest of their economy is supported by cardboard.

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a car from Wyoming either, nor been to a restaurant from there. I'm not convinced the measuring stick of the performance of an educational system is engineering innovations exported, but yeah we got Nokia, Angry Birds, sauna, linux and molotov cocktails. And while we're bragging, guess which country has the all-time most olympic medals per capita?

In America, our education system separates the studs from the duds. We identify the studs and they go on to lead businesses, drive economic expansion, and fuel innovation. The duds can still get a diploma, and a decent general education. If the duds drag down the average to something lower than another country where every kid comes out the same, I don't necessarily classify that as a failing of America's education system.

Well, I would. If someone is bright and motivated, they're likely to excel in almost any environment. I wouldn't say America has so many more innovations and successful businesses than Finland because of your educational system, but because there's 320 million of you and 5 million of us.

[BananaStand]

What in your mind is then the purpose of education, if it's not educating kids?

Define "educate". Are we trying to pass tests, or are we trying to create citizens who can excel in a competitive economy?

Finland has the lowest income inequality in Europe. Is that good, or bad? Personally, I wouldn't be thrilled about it. It's income mobility that matters much more in my opinion. And Finland sucks at that.

The education performance is measured currently with the performance of the students in standardized tests such as PISA. Should Finland start maybe making the system harder for kids, would that make it more great?

Probably. Meritocracy is awesome. I don't think anyone thinks that Chinese schools are easy. Did you notice who actually scores best on those PISA tests?

In education there are standardized tests. In rape, as we've talked about, those do not exist. So yes, I'd say it's much easier to compare the schools. Not in a perfect manner, of course, but at least in a much a much more objective way.

GTFO with that man. If a woman says "yes" it's not rape. If She says "no" it is. The PISA test has alot more moving parts. I'm doing a little digging right now myself. Did you know in 2006 the US's results were disqualified because of a misprint in the test? So what are we even comparing here?

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a car from Wyoming either, nor been to a restaurant from there. I'm not convinced the measuring stick of the performance of an educational system is engineering innovations exported,

Wyoming's not a country, and I'm sure you've pulled up to many American cars. So I'm not seeing your point. Did Finland put a man on the moon?

but yeah we got Nokia,

Huh? Who cares? They were relevant for less than a decade and have since been overwhelmed by Asian companies. You know....from countries that PISA says have better schools

Angry Birds,

zzzzzz

sauna,

C'mon. Finland wasn't independent until 1917. I'm sure someone before that figured out that sweating feels awesome.

linux

Windows for the win!

and molotov cocktails.

Projectile incendiaries were invented before 1917.

And while we're bragging, guess which country has the all-time most olympic medals per capita?

If they're in winter olympic events, I'm not that impressed. Unless it's hockey. They got silver in 1980 (America got gold!) and they haven't been relevant again since.

Well, I would. If someone is bright and motivated, they're likely to excel in almost any environment. I wouldn't say America has so many more innovations and successful businesses than Finland because of your educational system, but because there's 320 million of you and 5 million of us.

I agree with the bolded. Now what's in Finland to motivate a bright kid? This goes back to Finlands lack of income inequality. That kills meritocracy.

If Finland's goal is to make as many slightly above average kids as possible and have them grow up to lead pedestrian, unimpressive careers, fine, they win.

[CoccoBill]

Define "educate". Are we trying to pass tests, or are we trying to create citizens who can excel in a competitive economy?

I'd define it as learning intellectual, moral and social skills and knowledge. Like I said earlier, learning to pass tests should absolutely not be the goal of education, and the lack of emphasis on testing is perceived to be one of the key reasons why Finland has been doing well. Tests still are a a fairly easy way to gauge performance somewhat objectively.

Finland has the lowest income inequality in Europe. Is that good, or bad? Personally, I wouldn't be thrilled about it. It's income mobility that matters much more in my opinion. And Finland sucks at that.

Some say that income inequality is bad.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...15/sdn1513.pdf
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

Probably. Meritocracy is awesome. I don't think anyone thinks that Chinese schools are easy. Did you notice who actually scores best on those PISA tests?

I'm not sure what your point is. Singapore is on top, top 20 is dominated by asia and northern europe. The US schools have massive amounts of homework and tests are a weekly occurrence, yet you suck on PISA. Maybe even more work is needed there?

GTFO with that man. If a woman says "yes" it's not rape. If She says "no" it is. The PISA test has alot more moving parts. I'm doing a little digging right now myself. Did you know in 2006 the US's results were disqualified because of a misprint in the test? So what are we even comparing here?

The concept of yes/no seems to be quite unclear in some places, when it comes to implied or expressed consent. In some countries marital rape does not exist. What constitutes rape varies greatly. The PISA tests are standardized, even though clearly rigged since US is not on top.

Huh? Who cares? They were relevant for less than a decade and have since been overwhelmed by Asian companies.

Yeah, a tiny country dominating a whole global industry for 10 years is nothing, at least it in no way qualifies as engineering feat worth mentioning. Stop trolling.

If they're in winter olympic events, I'm not that impressed. Unless it's hockey. They got silver in 1980 (America got gold!) and they haven't been relevant again since.

Both, and applies to both gold and total medals.

I agree with the bolded. Now what's in Finland to motivate a bright kid? This goes back to Finlands lack of income inequality. That kills meritocracy.

If you think of the greatest minds in human history, how many of them were motivated by money?

If Finland's goal is to make as many slightly above average kids as possible and have them grow up to lead pedestrian, unimpressive careers, fine, they win.

I think it'd be quite challenging to make over 50% be above average.

[BananaStand]

and the lack of emphasis on testing is perceived to be one of the key reasons why Finland has been doing well. Tests still are a a fairly easy way to gauge performance somewhat objectively.

wait, which is it? If Finland doesn't emphasize testing, and testing is how you gauge performance objectively, then how do you know if they're doing well? If you're putting ALL your stock in this PISA test, I think you're being a little glib. It's really not as simple and 'standardized' as you might think.

Some say that income inequality is bad.

And others say it's great. Again, Income "mobility" is the key, in my opinion. Of the poorest 20% in the US, nearly 2/3 of that population advances to a higher quintile within a generation. If that were impossible, then income inequality is bad. If there is robust income mobility, then the people on the bottom are there because they've chosen to be shitty people.

Today, 64 percent of the people born to the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile -- 11 percent rise all the way into the top quintile. Meanwhile, 8 percent born to the richest fifth fall all the way to the bottom fifth. Sometimes great wealth makes kids lazy and self-indulgent, and wrecks their lives
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...nequality.html

I'm not sure what your point is. Singapore is on top, top 20 is dominated by asia and northern europe. The US schools have massive amounts of homework and tests are a weekly occurrence, yet you suck on PISA. Maybe even more work is needed there?

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was that the hardest schools show the best test results. I'm not sure volume of homework and tests translates directly to 'difficulty'.

The PISA tests are standardized, even though clearly rigged since US is not on top.

Sounds kinda snarky. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Finlands schools are bad. And I'm not saying that US's are good. I am saying that they seem to have entirely different goals when it comes to educating kids, hence a standardized test result is not a great basis for comparison. Plus, as I said, the test doesn't seem to be as "standardized" as one may think.

Yeah, a tiny country dominating a whole global industry for 10 years is nothing, at least it in no way qualifies as engineering feat worth mentioning. Stop trolling.

The bolded is quite an exaggeration. McDonalds dominates Burger King. Coke dominates Pepsi. I'm not sure Nokia had that big of an advantage over Motorola, Samsung, LG, and whoever else. Nokia had a nice run....that's it.

If you think of the greatest minds in human history, how many of them were motivated by money?

Millions of them. Literally millions of them.

I think it'd be quite challenging to make over 50% be above average.

What? Are you kididing me right now? Isn't that the whole point of this argument....that Finland has so many kids acheiving at rates higher than the worldwide average? If Finland had an even distribution of below, average, and above average kids, then they would be in the middle of the pack in the world rankings. But they're not....they're at the top.

[wufwugy]

Huh? Who cares? They were relevant for less than a decade and have since been overwhelmed by Asian companies. You know....from countries that PISA says have better schools

This helps show why using the small pieces of data and extrapolating to the whole doesn't work that well. My Chinese studies professor claims that the testing system for Chinese pre-college is doing more harm to them than good. They do score better, but the atypically intense inefficient approach they use is costly to their psychological, social, and even professional health.

[Jack Sawyer]

GTFO with that man. If a woman says "yes" it's not rape. If She says "no" it is. The PISA test has alot more moving parts. I'm doing a little digging right now myself. Did you know in 2006 the US's results were disqualified because of a misprint in the test? So what are we even comparing here?

Hmm, on this particular point, she can “say yes” on the spot, be into it and everything with second and third helpings and all, and then “say no” four months after the fact and it would still be considered rape in Sweden.

[BananaStand]

Hmm, on this particular point, she can “say yes” on the spot, be into it and everything with second and third helpings and all, and then “say no” four months after the fact and it would still be considered rape in Sweden.

No, it would be considered as a reported incident of rape, not definitively a rape.

[Jack Sawyer]

What "experts"? Are you suggesting that there is a definitive right/wrong determination on whether income inequality is a good thing or a bad things? Because there isn't. There's substantial debate supporting both sides. My personal preference, is to have income inequality along with income mobility. If there is no mobility, then inequality sucks. But if there is mobility, and you're not happy with you're income, you can do something about it. That's awesome.

Do keep in mind that this can lead to an increase in crime as well.

Do you want a better paycheck? or do you wanna be just a little bit better at high school algebra than everyone else?

This is not mutually exclusive. How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

[wufwugy]

Fake mouse trap designer.

[Poopadoop]

I get called that a lot.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Not compulsory = only after some arbitrary point.

Pigeon-holing a person as nothing more than an employee is naive both in what a person is and in what a society gains from a good citizen.
Uneducated citizens are terrible for maintaining a non-corrupt gov't.

Still, point well made about windows on skyscrapers. There are countless examples, but that is excellent.

A huge part of early school years is about exposing the young people to new and unfamiliar subjects. You never know what's going to turn you on your heels with how cool you think it is, despite other people not getting into it. A society which fails to inspire the brilliance of its citizens is less innovative.

[wufwugy]

Pigeon-holing a person as nothing more than an employee is naive both in what a person is and in what a society gains from a good citizen.
Uneducated citizens are terrible for maintaining a non-corrupt gov't.

I completely agree. This is a very important point. Do you think that a school system run by the government has enough incentive to teach students to be critical of the government?

[OngBonga]

I've never pulled up to a red light next to a Finnish car. I've never seen a Finnish restaurant. I've never heard someone refer to "a fine piece of finnish engineering".

This is such an American thing to say.

In terms of economic output per capita, their economy is on a par with the UK. International trade represents a third of their GDP. Just because you don't get many Finnish goods in America, doesn't mean they are a poor country. They just so happen to trade with Europe and Russia more than they do USA. For a nation with a fuck ton of tundra, they do remarkably well.

Also, I bet you, or someone you know, has had a Finnish phone. Remember the old Nokia? They were far and away the best phones before the smartphone age.

I would say that the old Nokia is a fine piece of Finnish engineering. So that at least fucks your last comment.

[OngBonga]

Finland boast three Formula One World Champions, compared to USA's one. In fact they sit fifth in the all time list by nation. They would be fourth if the current WC wasn't pretending to be German.

[CoccoBill]

That sounds like infowars-level paranoia. Do you think it'd be the individual teachers that'd teach their pupils to be obedient sheeple, or would that be an official policy set by the ministry of education?

[wufwugy]

That sounds like infowars-level paranoia. Do you think it'd be the individual teachers that'd teach their pupils to be obedient sheeple, or would that be an official policy set by the ministry of education?

I take this to mean that you think the answer to the question regarding the government and its incentives is "yes, the government has a greater incentive to teach people to be critical of the government than not."

[CoccoBill]

I take this to mean that you think the answer to the question regarding the government and its incentives is "yes, the government has a greater incentive to teach people to be critical of the government than not."

Rather "I find it very hard to believe this would incentivize anyone to teach to be less critical, at least outside of North Korea." What incentive would private schools have to teach to be more critical?

[wufwugy]

Rather "I find it very hard to believe this would incentivize anyone to teach to be less critical, at least outside of North Korea."

Do you think the US government lies about things?

What incentive would private schools have to teach to be more critical?

Critical of the government? Lots. People don't like being taxed, told what to do by what is essentially an outsider, etc..

Critical in general? That incentive exists too, due to things like schools in a private system only receiving funds if they have a reputation of getting the kinds of results consumers want. One of those results can be parents' kids learning how to be critical.

[CoccoBill]

Do you think the US government lies about things?

Government is made up of people, people lie, so in the sense of course. Generally as a whole, as part of some official agenda or policy, I don't think they lie on a consistent and purposeful sense, except for the past few weeks.

Critical of the government? Lots. People don't like being taxed, told what to do by what is essentially an outsider, etc..

How does that relate to private schools?

Critical in general? That incentive exists too, due to things like schools in a private system only receiving funds if they have a reputation of getting the kinds of results consumers want. One of those results can be parents' kids learning how to be critical.

Why wouldn't or at least couldn't that work exactly the same with a public school? Private schools only receive parts of their funding from the government or not at all, they're less dependent on it. Public schools that don't meet targets can also get their board changed or the whole school closed down, and conversely are also incentivized to attract students.

[BananaStand]

Whatever faith I had in American education just evaporated

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/02/...work-help.html

So the kid can't do math, which is bad enough

She also seemingly can't ask her mother for help

She apparently doesn't have any friends, teachers, tutors, siblings, or neighbors to ask for help. Also she apparently doesn't know how to ask google for shit.

Finally, she reaches out to the cops, for math help.

And then...

The cop gets it wrong!!

You win Finland.

[wufwugy]

I think your criteria might be better. Compare quantities of bankruptcies (relatively) in the private world to in the government world and you'll still get significantly different results.

[Jack Sawyer]

The next one, however, caught Gruber out: (90 + 27) + (29 + 15) x 2

"Take the answer from the first parenthesis plus the answer from the second parenthesis and multiply that answer by two," the cop messaged.

Hahahaha idiot fucking cop

[MadMojoMonkey]

Seriously, bananananana...

It seems like your over-arching argument is "People should be more like me, so that the gov't can be simpler by catering to only one set of needs and provisions."

OR, "I don't see why the gov't needs to be so complex. I'll never need a social program, so there should be no social programs."

It seems silly to say, "Hey all slackers, get jobs and you'll be better." as though it's a serious call for policy. Or that we should change policy to assume that all people will do this, or that we are somehow justified in not helping our fellows when they are in times of need.

Granted, whether or not the feds need to be the ones helping is totally a separate issue than whether or not we, as a society, help people.

[BananaStand]

It seems like your over-arching argument is "People should be more like me, so that the gov't can be simpler by catering to only one set of needs and provisions."

What?? Sure, I support smaller government. Not sure how I'm presenting myself as the model citizen here. I'm just saying that taxpayers handing academia a blank check has been tried...and failed.

OR, "I don't see why the gov't needs to be so complex. I'll never need a social program, so there should be no social programs."

Why are we talking about social programs? I thought the debate was about how to pay for college.

It seems silly to say, "Hey all slackers, get jobs and you'll be better." as though it's a serious call for policy. Or that we should change policy to assume that all people will do this, or that we are somehow justified in not helping our fellows when they are in times of need.

What "time of need"? We're talking about an 18 year old, presumably living with his parents, who wants to go to college. There are a myriad of ways to make that happen. Alot of them require a moticum of effort. Yet somehow we're talking about "times of need" for kids who don't get to live in a dorm and play 'frat boy' without going into debt?? Someone find me a tiny violin....

Or that we should change policy to assume that all people will do this

I support policy changes that encourage meritocracy. If a high school graduate can't earn a living, then the problem is in high schools, not the lack of college. That's the government's responsibility. As I said earlier, the system should be set up so everyone can acheive "average" pretty easily. If you work harder, you get farther. Makes sense to me.

If you make mistakes like dropping out, or having babies you can't support, then your quality of life should reflect that. Yes people make mistakes that are virtually impossible to overcome, and are doomed to that lower quality of life. For those people, we have safety nets like welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and more. I'm fine with that.

What I see are regular kids wanting the same privileges that rich kids get. Specifically, the residential college experience. You're telling me that we need a social program to fix that inequality. I'm telling you we had one, and it failed miserably. Now I'm telling you that we really don't need one because A) It won't work, and B) even without it, kids still have the opportunity to be successful. It just so happens you have to work a little harder. Why is that so terrible?

[MadMojoMonkey]

What?? Sure, I support smaller government. Not sure how I'm presenting myself as the model citizen here. I'm just saying that taxpayers handing academia a blank check has been tried...and failed.

Interesting, but nothing to do with what I said.

The word or topic of academia is nowhere in my post. Are you confusing me for someone else?

As for the model citizen part, I hope you did your hair 'cause a mirror is here.

For reference:

It seems like your over-arching argument is "People should be more like me, so that the gov't can be simpler by catering to only one set of needs and provisions."

Nothing to do with academia.

Why are we talking about social programs? I thought the debate was about how to pay for college.

Why? IDK. It's going on.

The current topic was pondering what role the gov't takes in education will produce the best results. The schools are public schools and are therefore part of a social program. The gov't's involvement makes it a social program.

I'm exppanding from that onto a greater, more generalized observation about your overall message as a participant in this thread.

What "time of need"? We're talking about an 18 year old, presumably living with his parents, who wants to go to college. There are a myriad of ways to make that happen. Alot of them require a moticum of effort. Yet somehow we're talking about "times of need" for kids who don't get to live in a dorm and play 'frat boy' without going into debt?? Someone find me a tiny violin....

Ahh. The mirror bit.

I'm not talking about anyone but you. This is the first I've heard of this 18-year-old, and it's not relevant aside from exemplifying my point about your overarching political message. This whole hypothetical example, devoid of the nuance inherent in human decision-making, has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with you setting standards for other people's behavior based on your own limited life experiences and personal capabilities.

You're saying that other people should do like you do (or would do) in that situation. If they don't, then that's their own fault and they should certainly not expect your sympathy, let alone any gov't support.

So you're the model citizaen, whose behavior sets the bar for other people's behavior.

The violin bit is childish bravado, intended to mock me or my point while over-simplifying the humanity of people you've never met.
It lends no credibility to the maturity of your position.

I support policy changes that encourage meritocracy. If a high school graduate can't earn a living, then the problem is in high schools, not the lack of college. That's the government's responsibility.

What is and isn't the gov't's responsibility is what isn't at all clear. That's the whole point of these political conversations. We're exploring the idea-space of people with different interactions with this same society and the gov't that we find ourselves in. As member-citizens of the government, it is our collective will which is manifest in this gov't. This is why these conversations are so vital. We need to see perspectives which are dramatically different than our own and to see the relative equality (when the other people are deemed "intelligent" and "upright citizens") in both what we perceive and what others perceive.

As I said earlier, the system should be set up so everyone can acheive "average" pretty easily. If you work harder, you get farther. Makes sense to me.

... so it should make sense to everyone?
Everyone should be like you, the model citizen?

(Never mind that this is def. not how the system is set up. Tons of people who do not work hard at one thing have more social priveleges and advantages than people who work equally hard or harder at multiple things.)

If you make mistakes like dropping out, or having babies you can't support, then your quality of life should reflect that. Yes people make mistakes that are virtually impossible to overcome, and are doomed to that lower quality of life. For those people, we have safety nets like welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and more. I'm fine with that.

Ahem...
"If you can't do the things banananananana has done, or would do, then you deserve whatever shit life is out there."

What I see are regular kids wanting the same privileges that rich kids get. Specifically, the residential college experience. You're telling me that we need a social program to fix that inequality. I'm telling you we had one, and it failed miserably. Now I'm telling you that we really don't need one because A) It won't work, and B) even without it, kids still have the opportunity to be successful. It just so happens you have to work a little harder. Why is that so terrible?

What you see is not what everyone sees.
In fact, as a physicist, I can assure you that there is no other presence in the known universe which shares the view of the universe you see with your eyes.
Your perspective is universally unique.

People feeling entitled to stuff is totes a human thing. Rich kids feel entitled, poor kids feel entitled, janitors and presidents... all feel entitled. I don't see how this is any part of any intelligent criticism of anything at all. Unless you're lamenting the convoluted nature of wanting things as a living being.

"You're telling me..."
No, I never told you anything of the sort. I'm not sure where you've gotten the impression that these are my positions.

"I'm telling you"
What, now? I mean... that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, so I'll not address it.

"Why is that so terrible?"
It's only terrible in the egocentric assertion that all people can be expected to handle the same stresses of their lives at least as well as you have handled the stresses of your own life. It's only terrible in the implicit idea that everyone is 100% responsible for their situation with 0% being due to outside factors beyond their control.