RICH PEOPLE

[evan]

That's essentially what most educators are somewhat fighting for right now, but at the same time if poor schools fail this also opens up a problem for those affected communities where if the district is statistically poor they could be at a huge disadvantage when it comes to actually trying to integrate into a higher success rate school.

You also talk about specialization, which I don't disagree with, but the when is dangerous. Germany has a system like this where majors are decided around the age of 16. The problem that comes up often is that like how many people often change their majors in a university, avoiding specialization allows kids to focus on fostering skill sets from a broader standpoint, allowing versatility in case they decide to apply themselves in a different field of work. 

Part of the reason online classes are under-established is because the effectiveness of the classes is also underwhelming. Not to say that I can pull up a statistic saying that "those who take internet courses generally turn out worse than their live attendance peers" but the reality is that the knowledge is solely dependent on the learner unless it is basically structured exactly the same as an in-person class or lesson anyways, as multiple perspective learning is argued to be the most effective type as of nowadays. And frankly this is what already exists in the realm of online education when at a university, or at least from what I understand based on my experiences here.

I don't disagree with the notion of "grade x not being equivalent to the knowledge itself", and frankly teachers nowadays seem to rarely want to pander to that issue as much as students do, which leads us to the topic of Standardized Testing, because the reason that entire mentality still exists is actually for that reason; most classes had to build their knowledge around preparing kids for getting into college, and college applications are dictated heavily by standardized testing and GPA. This creates a culture; it's no longer about the information, it is about fulfilling standards represented only on paper, and in test forms that are arguably some of the most arbitrary out there. Fortunately, the curricula of standardized testing is being changed thanks to the most recent bill passed, Every Student Succeeds. This will lead to a massive reduction in test-based assessment, and allows teachers to basically adjust what the purpose of grading is for, which is representing the quality of work a student puts into the class, which is much closer to actually representing a student's skills than it is the ability to arbitrarily do work when told.

Edited December 13, 2015 by evan

[MalletFace]

54 minutes ago, Rassah said:

That's a problem that is already present even with schools not competing and supposedly receiving similar funding. I'm actually suggesting letting poor performing schools fail and close up completely, just like we allow crappy businesses fail and close up, to be replaced with better businesses. I would also love to see much more recognition of non-traditional online education. Right now it seems colleges and jobs only care if you went to a 8am to 2pm standard school. I would like to see them, and other schools, honor credits from online education sites too, be it things like Khan Academy, Ted Talks, or some educational games. Judge students based on skills and knowledge, not on whether they completed grade X, whatever that entails.

In the U.S. Southeast and some of the Midwest, where schools function more locally than as an element of the state, schools with poor performance are essentially allowed to fail and close up.

This causes a cascade of problems across the schools in the area, though; they all get a small increase in funding but have to pay much more in increased costs for buses, instruction, equipment, and other things. There were several schools shut down in my area because of performance-related issues. These closings resulted in other schools in the area performing worse, and some of these were even forced to close, too. This setup does not help the poor performance that the Southeast and Midwest have as a whole in their primary and secondary education.

I can say that higher education in my state works well, though, and it has been using online education pretty well for some time. It is old hat for us.

While it is not at all what you appear to be wanting (I just want to mention it because I think this should be universal), most of the classes within our transfer list for our Comprehensive Articulation Agreement, a law which many private institutions have voluntarily included themselves in despite not being required, may be taken completely online. These classes certainly don't work like they would in a standard 8 A.M. to 2 P.M. school.

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

I would much prefer . . . where students could pick what they wanted to learn when . . . the classes were focused on modern skills, and education was done with real world examples . . . Start from the big picture and dig deeper into details as you examine whatever it is you're studying . . .. And have schools actually compete by trying to give the best education for the best price . . .

The U.S.A. is very much a country in which the individual is supposed to take the initiative when it comes to education, and those without initiative are supposed to be left alone to slowly fade out of the system. I would prefer all schools do that, and I am privileged to be attending a school where those are implemented to some degree, but shifting towards those ideals in all schools would be very hard, aside from the last - it is already here.

Schools in the Southeast and some of the Midwest tend to function as businesses governed by local populations and overseen by districts than as extensions of the state, as I said before. They already compete to give the best education for the best price, and that has not worked out. The old mills and rails define where the centers of population are, and schools are usually only able to function in those areas. This limits the amount of money they can get locally, and severely limits the type of student they get. When one school fails because it is unable to keep up with nearby schools, all of those students either drop out or get pushed on as a financial burden to another school that is already taking in as much money as it can possibly gather without invoking the state or federal government's magic budget wand. This budget wand at these levels, though, usually works faster than you would expect - I've seen an instructor apply for a grant and have it reviewed and approved within the month.

The only major thing they don't do that a conventional business would is charge students and their families directly for their services. Doing that would violate the right to education - a right that the U.S. government has recognized for at least the primary and secondary levels.

[Rassah]

9 hours ago, evan said:

That's essentially what most educators are somewhat fighting for right now, but at the same time if poor schools fail this also opens up a problem for those affected communities where if the district is statistically poor they could be at a huge disadvantage when it comes to actually trying to integrate into a higher success rate school.

That's the CURRENT problem, with our ALREADY existing publicly funded schools. Poor districts are at a huge disadvantage trying to integrate into, or get access to, a higher success rate school. So we're already starting from a worst case scenario.

9 hours ago, evan said:

You also talk about specialization...

Not really. I meant offer many classes, but not have them structured where some specific class must be in some grade. Some kids learn faster, some slower. I was doing algebra in 3rd grade and calculus by 5th, and learned botany and biology from 2nd grade on, so basic addition/subtraction math and basic sciences were boring the hell out of me. Let kids learn the topics they want at their own pace, but also eliminate the stigma of learning something at a much higher age by having an out of "I just never got around to learning this particular thing, instead having been focusing on something else." Like, of I'm only staeting to learn Algebra in 10th grade, maybe it's cause I've been focusing on chemistry, biology, or art before.

9 hours ago, evan said:

Part of the reason online classes are under-established is because the effectiveness of the classes is also underwhelming.

I don't know if there's any evidence to that. I do know that teachers sometimes fail to teach a specific topic, and kids only finally get it after watching a video with a detailed explanation. Also, teachers always teach one way, sometimes doing better or worse depending on the teacher, and get feedback from about 30 students. To change any issues, enough teachers have to bring up the issue to the higher ups, and after much bureaucracy, things change. Online educational sites get feedback from hundreds to thousands of students, and can change instantly. And if they're competing against other sites, they have to change instantly to stay ahead. In a way, the way online education sites learn to teach is how Google self driving cars learn to drive: when one car figures out and fixes an issue (one student points out an issue), all the cars learn and benefit (all the students benefit).

9 hours ago, evan said:

I don't disagree with the notion of "grade x not being equivalent to the knowledge itself", and frankly teachers nowadays seem to rarely want to pander to that issue as much as students do, which leads us to the topic of Standardized Testing...

Agreed on standardised testing. Better to have competing testing/certification. Just like in the private market we have numerous certifications you can get, with companies issuing them building their reputation on being thorough and rigorous, and not just giving out certificates to anyone who studies specifically for the test, it would be good to have certifications staked by those company reputations. It would also solve the problem of Ivy League access being restricted to only those who are super rich. Instead of getting a $400,000 Harvard degree, anyone would be able to get a $400 Harvard certification in a field, or a reputable equivalent, regardless of where or how they studied.

[Rassah]

8 hours ago, MalletFace said:

In the U.S. Southeast and some of the Midwest, where schools function more locally than as an element of the state, schools with poor performance are essentially allowed to fail and close up.

This causes a cascade of problems across the schools in the area, though;

You basically listed public/government caused problems. One single source of funds, having to be spread out, still no competition, kids having to be spread out to other schools, no better alternatives popping up, and still no recognition of private alternative education. In a free market, schools should fail only because a better alternative came up and everyone switched to the newer and better, as is the reason all businesses fail in a free market. Not because a monopolistic service became so horrible that there was no other option than to shut it down and put it out of its misery.

8 hours ago, MalletFace said:

I can say that higher education in my state works well, though, and it has been using online education pretty well for some time. It is old hat for us.

I didn't mean that schools should start putting classes online so that kids can learn *the exact same thing they would learn in class* from home, I meant online education sites like Khan Academy should become accepted *alternatives* to schools and universities.

8 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Schools in the Southeast and some of the Midwest tend to function as businesses governed by local populations and overseen by districts than as extensions of the state, as I said before. They already compete to give the best education for the best price, and that has not worked out. 

If they get money from government tax dollars instead of from parents directly, and have their education style decided by an overseeing bureaucracy, then they're not anything like a business. If a parent can't easily move their student between two or three schools at any time, or another school can't easily set up shop and offer another education choice, specifically targeting the population they're setting up business in (such as targeting the mills and rails types of students), then they're not competing either. So I'm not surprised it has not worked out. They never fixed the essential problem.

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

Sadly you're too blinded by money to realize that most of the poorly-performing and failing schools are caused by the very laws regulating them.

Then there are communities themselves that fuck the schools up - http://forward.com/news/196685/is-hasidic-board-to-blame-for-gutting-public-schoo/

If you were actually educated, you wouldn't be saying the nonsense you're spouting.

Sadly you're too biased and blinded by your ideology to realize that my whole entire point about everything ever is that poorly performing and failing government institutions are caused by the very laws regulating them, that regulations themselves have been used for decades primarily to give advantages to privileged corporations and moneyed interests at the expense of all of us, and that communities have been mainly to blame for causing all of this, often by getting lied to and tricked into passing things that end up hurting them in order to benefit special interests.

WTF do you think AnarchoCapitalism, and cypherpunk technologies like Bitcoin, Etherium, and OpenBazaar are all about? "If you were actually educated..." Hah! Stupid child...

[Rassah]

15 minutes ago, 6tails said:

And again, you're incorrect. The problem is caused by the people not forcing the government to fucking listen.

LOL! Maybe if you vote harder? I'm sure that will solve all your problems. Just really give it to that voting machine next time you're in there. Break a sweat from voting so hard. Or, maybe, instead of fighting the system, join it and change it from within? You know, like every oppressed population (e.g. Jews, Soviets, Cubans, Koreans) did when faced with a corrupt government that was exploiting and killing them. It's obvious to me now that North Koreans can fix their hellish situation (did you know they still have Nazi style concentration camps and human experiments, including vivisection?) if they just force their government "to fucking listen!" Or better yet, government is the law. Why not just obey it like a good little citizen?

 

Quote

EG the problem lies with ourselves, but your money and pride and lack of education refuses to allow you to admit that.

No, the problem lies with YOURselves and your stupid, brainwashed, uneducated society that still believes voting makes a difference and that you can fix things if you just vote harder, while my very extensive education, experience, connections, and yes, access to money related information that poor people simply don't get or even care about, leads me to my specific educated conclusions. The fuck do you think I got my education from? McDonald's high?

Edited December 13, 2015 by Rassah

[evan]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

That's the CURRENT problem, with our ALREADY existing publicly funded schools. Poor districts are at a huge disadvantage trying to integrate into, or get access to, a higher success rate school. So we're already starting from a worst case scenario.

Not really. I meant offer many classes, but not have them structured where some specific class must be in some grade. Some kids learn faster, some slower. I was doing algebra in 3rd grade and calculus by 5th, and learned botany and biology from 2nd grade on, so basic addition/subtraction math and basic sciences were boring the hell out of me. Let kids learn the topics they want at their own pace, but also eliminate the stigma of learning something at a much higher age by having an out of "I just never got around to learning this particular thing, instead having been focusing on something else." Like, of I'm only staeting to learn Algebra in 10th grade, maybe it's cause I've been focusing on chemistry, biology, or art before.

I don't know if there's any evidence to that. I do know that teachers sometimes fail to teach a specific topic, and kids only finally get it after watching a video with a detailed explanation. Also, teachers always teach one way, sometimes doing better or worse depending on the teacher, and get feedback from about 30 students. To change any issues, enough teachers have to bring up the issue to the higher ups, and after much bureaucracy, things change. Online educational sites get feedback from hundreds to thousands of students, and can change instantly. And if they're competing against other sites, they have to change instantly to stay ahead. In a way, the way online education sites learn to teach is how Google self driving cars learn to drive: when one car figures out and fixes an issue (one student points out an issue), all the cars learn and benefit (all the students benefit).

Agreed on standardised testing. Better to have competing testing/certification. Just like in the private market we have numerous certifications you can get, with companies issuing them building their reputation on being thorough and rigorous, and not just giving out certificates to anyone who studies specifically for the test, it would be good to have certifications staked by those company reputations. It would also solve the problem of Ivy League access being restricted to only those who are super rich. Instead of getting a $400,000 Harvard degree, anyone would be able to get a $400 Harvard certification in a field, or a reputable equivalent, regardless of where or how they studied.

The reason I keep coming back to that is that I don't see how what you're saying implies that there is a solution that actually addresses that specific problem. I fully understand that is happening; I'm trying to get you to explain why you seem to want that venture based on your arguments.

What you're describing exists and is continuing to exist further. When I was in school I was assigned to reading at the 5th grade level by 1st grade due to the fact that my literacy scores were so high. I placed into upper level math, but there is also Calculus offered for 8th graders, etc etc. The thing about the elementary levels is that there is no focus and that's good; generalized knowledge at that level comes with fundamental principles of learning, attacking, and gaining information, in such a way that if a teacher focuses on building a student's ability to think critically, he is more likely to be able to then take a subject he likes and do much more with it. It becomes less and less about what a classroom can offer, and much more about whether or not you can create interest and initiative in the student while still providing information. The stigma you described can be negative, but until they get to a certain level of any form of knowledge, that shouldn't be a problem until at least high school. Curriculum at the elementary level should have mutually inclusive benefits, otherwise students will not be able to apply transfer skills and be adaptable. If adaptability isn't learned, the stigma actually worsens.  At the higher levels I don't disagree. However, there are certain paradigms in place, specifically the AP/IB and college transfer system. I think this debate frankly boils down to when the issue you're describing is actually an issue, to which most people argue in very young classrooms, to which that might warrant more progress on this topic, since I feel we might have similar mindsets but different arguments about them.

I don't either, I offer it simply as an empirical argument which I'd quickly discard for the right numbers. I don't disagree with what's said here so much as I think it's more subjective than objective. The argument could go on for a while because of the fact that to my knowledge there frankly isn't much standardization in online classes. The number of formats at my school alone is vast, and it's hard to dictate what could be beneficial due to the fact that there are so many forms, all of which could be more or less effective than in person teaching. There are some topics I also refuse to bend on. Music needs to be taught in person, that's not a discussion I'm willing to even entertain, I'll say that much. Other topics I'm much more receptive to that possibility.

It took me a minute to grab exactly what you're saying but I do agree with that. A lot of people have the qualifications and skills necessary to succeed much earlier in their college degree than the 4 year program actually warrants, and often a degree gets mixed up with quality of ability. There are some real shitheads going to many different high level schools, and for that matter you can't expect 100,000 master specialists to all be coming from University of Michigan; that's just inherently not something that happens. As a result I'd like there to be more opportunities for someone's effective workmanship to be represented in itself, rather than have the name of the school on a degree supersede it. 

All of this is worth talking about, but there are also some inherently difficult debates that have ambiguous answers at their core. For instance, understanding whether or not live teaching is effective also warrants a discussion about what you actually think should happen in a learning situation, and that in itself is something that even teaching philosophers don't entirely agree on. I think that's why nowadays you see more of a widespread list of options than you do specific tracks with which to get your degree. People are trying to find the best ways to arm their students with knowledge, and it's just a matter of what repercussions each format has in order to critically determine the best answer for students.

Edited December 13, 2015 by evan

[Rassah]

1 minute ago, 6tails said:

Yea, speak for yourself. I actually do useful and productive things that help people, like figure out better ways of producing food.

Like USSR did in 1930's? That's nice. How's that going to solve your government problem? Or actually help people? You plan on becoming a slave your whole life to work to feed everyone? Plan to swim across the ocean with the food strapped to your back to deliver it to where it's needed?  I mean, it sounds like you're implying money, trade, specialization of skills, and global economics don't matter, just go back to subsistence farming, helping everyone grow food, and we'll be OK.

 

1 minute ago, 6tails said:

Meanwhile, you GAMBLE on a currency with ZERO BACKING and rant about it like it's the second coming.

Thanks for admitting you don't know what money is, or what investing is, or what backing is.

1 minute ago, 6tails said:

Son, your cryptocurency has been busted in the black hat circles for ages. It can be wiped at any time.

And thanks for admitting you have no connection to black hat circles, and don't even understand the basics of cryptography, let alone hacking. "Mr. Robot" you are not.

[Rassah]

5 minutes ago, evan said:

The reason I keep coming back to that is that I don't see how what you're saying implies that there is a solution that actually addresses that specific problem. I fully understand that is happening; I'm trying to get you to explain why you seem to want that venture based on your arguments.

It's because I believe what you described, where students are offered different level options and custom teaching by teachers, is more an exception to the rule. You basically get lucky if your get a school or a teacher like that, and there's no feedback for it (school/teacher does not get a financial reward for it), and thus no real incentive to do it. There's also no advertising about it, and thus no competition. No school advertises "Send your child to our school, and well give him a customized education based on his personal level." If that was advertised, with schools getting more income for at is obviously a better service, all schools would do it, and try to go even further.

The online education was just part of the discussion. I'd want real life schools setting up and competing too. I think I started this discussion with the suggestion that schools should teach by focusing on real life scenarios (e.g. disassemble a car engine, learn about mechanics, pressures, physics, math, etc, and have fun doing it while satisfying their curiosity). So, obviously, same goes for music classes being in person.

And thing is, I don't know what is the best way to teach kids is. But the problem is, no one really does. Some stuffy privileged "do-gooders" think they do, and unilaterally make that decision for all of us, and expect us to toe the line, but they often fail, as expected. In a quickly paced competitive environment, where anyone is free to join and compete, the best way to teach will be an ongoing, constantly improving process. Like, what is the best design for a smartphone? No one really knows. But with so many companies competing, trying, and innovating, we keep getting better and better options, and best of all at a lower and lower price.

Now, there might be an issue where you buy something you thought was great, but it turns out to suck. And from that there may be an objection that you may have sent your kid to school for a few years, and it turned out to be a crappy ripoff that wasted years of your child's life. But, education isn't supposed to be only starting from age 6 and coming to an end at 18. It's an ongoing life process. And if you slowed down a bit at some point, I think that's perfectly OK too (hell, I didn't go into my bachelors program until I was 23, after already having years of work experience).

[evan]

Hey, uh @6tails, do you have anything substantial to say other than "here's where I work and therefore I'm right?"

Like, I do understand that your background could validate an argument should you so choose to expand upon it, but you've literally just made vague presumptuous statements. If you don't want to argue then whatever, but if you expect anyone to actually find what you're saying valid, you could actually do more than cite one article, never reference it again, and, in a narcissistic fashion, continuously just say "yes I know what I'm talking about and yes I'm right".

It's not that you have to, more that if you are as educated as you seem, your behaviour does NOT suggest it.

[MalletFace]

52 minutes ago, Rassah said:

You basically listed public/government caused problems. One single source of funds, having to be spread out, still no competition, kids having to be spread out to other schools, no better alternatives popping up, and still no recognition of private alternative education. In a free market, schools should fail only because a better alternative came up and everyone switched to the newer and better, as is the reason all businesses fail in a free market. Not because a monopolistic service became so horrible that there was no other option than to shut it down and put it out of its misery.

If they get money from government tax dollars instead of from parents directly, and have their education style decided by an overseeing bureaucracy, then they're not anything like a business. If a parent can't easily move their student between two or three schools at any time, or another school can't easily set up shop and offer another education choice, specifically targeting the population they're setting up business in (such as targeting the mills and rails types of students), then they're not competing either. So I'm not surprised it has not worked out. They never fixed the essential problem.

Schools, at least in this area, get most of their money from local sources. Less than a quarter comes from the federal government, and less than the remaining half comes from state government. The rest comes from local - mostly non-government - sources.

The parents, also, can easily move their children around as much as they want. In this school district, that is as simple as a single form and a phone call. We also have private schools, education non-profits mostly, setting up shop and providing alternatives all the time. I can tell you of two private Christian schools, a magnet school, and two that I have no idea what they are about that have been created in this school district within the last few years.

I also want to note that even a business can "suffer" from a bureaucracy. I have no idea why you say an overseeing bureaucracy definitely rules something out of being a business.

I have to return to the idea, though, that requiring parents or students to pay directly for their education violates the right to education, something even the U.S.A. can stand by, and that's something I will not waver on. Even if it results in a lower quality of education, I will never waver on it.

[AshleyAshes]

Ugh, seeing someone bluster about 'How much I could pwn you, but I won't actually do it, but I could so do it, trust me!' is almost, ALMOST as insufferable as elitist, libertarian bullshit.

[Zeke]

15 hours ago, Rassah said:

Why do we want free education provided by the *state?* I'd prefer free education provided by capitalism. State education has been sucking more and more every year.

Because free education by the state is technically "federal' because of the NCLB act. The Feds set the standards of how they regulate the education and testing,  and what the scores are determines how much funding you get. 

28 minutes ago, 6tails said:

I'm merely returning the behavior a troll presented to me. Golden rule, and all that.

If you want to know why Bitcoin is totally useless and a major risk, here.

I know how to encode illegal things into a bitcoin blockchain.

I could make BTC illegal by simply showing people how to use it to transfer child pornography.

Watch how fast politicians make cryptocurrency illegal if word of that got out.

The protocol is that broken. And unable to be regulated means you'd be powerless to stop it.

Thanks, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, for giving criminals a chance to be criminals with even better secrecy.

Oh, wait, that's been known about for YEARS - http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/technology/security/bitcoin-porn/index.html

And still hasn't been fixed.

Useless.

/Anon/ is going after the Daesh for having 3+ million stocked in bitcoin. That's the only way they can get most funds without it being tracked. If the US puts regs on it, then it can be sure that some parts of the world will follow suit.

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

You're beyond transparent in your attempt, and obviously ill-educated to boot

Sorry, but your opinion is not valuable, compared to opinions of accredited Top-10 universities, and professionals in the field who not only respect me, but seek out my educated opinions on these topics.

Quote

I know plenty about it, and every last bit of it is a fool's game, and all that 'economic science' bullshit belongs in the laughing stock right along soft sciences like psychology.

The alternatives have sure proved themselves though. Oh, wait, you don't like me bringing up tragedies as examples. It's too bad the ONLY examples of alternatives are all tragedies

Quote

I love how you tell the *CTO* of an auction company, a remote software development company, and the admin of several ENCRYPTED video chats knows nothing about cryptography.

Hey, you're the one who said, and I am quoting directly here:

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

Son, your cryptocurency has been busted in the black hat circles for ages. It can be wiped at any time.

So either you think elliptic key cryptography based on secp256k1 has been cracked, which would make you a bullshitter, don't know what cryptography is, making you a pompous idiot, or don't even know the first thing about the topic (bitcoin) being talked about, making you just blowing hot air for nothing. So, these are my assumptions. Pick one.

By the way, CTO of an auction company, what is it that you think I do?

Edited December 13, 2015 by Rassah

[Rassah]

40 minutes ago, 6tails said:

I'm merely returning the behavior a troll presented to me. Golden rule, and all that.

Bitch, YOU started it! On another thread that was locked. And then you carried it here!

40 minutes ago, 6tails said:

If you want to know why Bitcoin is totally useless and a major risk, here.

I know how to encode illegal things into a bitcoin blockchain.

I could make BTC illegal by simply showing people how to use it to transfer child pornography.

Already done. There are links to child porn already embedded in the bitcoin blockchain. Want to make it illegal? That's easy. Just ban the internet and all forms of communication.

40 minutes ago, 6tails said:

And unable to be regulated means you'd be powerless to stop it.

And that's the fuckin' point. Common people can use it to trade freely amongst themselves, and governments and their banker friends are powerless to stop it.

40 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Oh, wait, that's been known about for YEARS

And still hasn't been fixed.

Useless.

Did you know you can draw pornography and child porn on US dollar bills? Useless.

It's OK, lots of people don't get it. Especially IT people without any economics backgrounds he male assumptions about how it works and make opinions without even investigating it.

[Rassah]

41 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

Schools, at least in this area, get most of their money from local sources. Less than a quarter comes from the federal government, and less than the remaining half comes from state government. The rest comes from local - mostly non-government - sources.

That's surprising that you have mostly private and privately paid for schools that don't rely on compulsory taxation...

41 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

The parents, also, can easily move their children around as much as they want. In this school district, that is as simple as a single form and a phone call. We also have private schools, education non-profits mostly, setting up shop and providing alternatives all the time.

That's pretty cool too. I think it would have been better off if they were for profit, since the better they do, the better their reward... But I'm glad things are moving in that direction at least in some parts of the country.

41 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

I also want to note that even a business can "suffer" from a bureaucracy. I have no idea why you say an overseeing bureaucracy definitely rules something out of being a business.

Oh, most definitelydefinitely! And those business typically get creamed and die off. Unless they manage to prove to a politician how important they are, and get a bailout or some anticompetitive regulation... I expect there will still be bureaucracy problems, but I hope they, like public schools, will be too slow to adjust and improve, and be pushed out of business.

41 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

I have to return to the idea, though, that requiring parents or students to pay directly for their education violates the right to education, something even the U.S.A. can stand by, and that's something I will not waver on. Even if it results in a lower quality of education, I will never waver on it.

It's a law, right? So something some dudes decided should be the case? What supports this as being an actual right?  I mean, technically, parents and students are already paying directly for their education. The money that schools and teachers get originally came from parents. There's just a third party standing in the way taking a big cut of it. So, why is that third party standing between parents and schools a right?

(And BTW, libertarian capitalist provided education, such as Khan Academy and Wikipedia, both started and run by libertarians, are already free, supported only by donations. Hey @6tails! Look at that! Rich capitalists providing something for free, and of higher quality, than socialist and communists ever could with all their taxes and extortions!)

[Pignog]

Forgive my dumb hungover ass if this has been covered, but if mandatory free education turns into a private service we pay for, how do poor families send their kids to school? Or do they choose between that and other necessities of life?

Second, since the schools' focus is on turning a profit now, where is the incentive to provide a substantive education? We already have post-secondary for-profit schools like University of Phoenix, and they basically steal students' money in exchange for a meaningless piece of paper (insert joke about this applying to all colleges here).

We're also missing the point of primary and secondary education, but I guess it's also debateable depending on your world-view. The goal is to create well-rounded, educated citizens, not worker drones. If we turned basic education of the masses over to McDonalds, they're not going to produce civically minded people. They're going to stream students into being fry cooks at the low end and business managers at the high end.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Pignog

[MalletFace]

47 minutes ago, Rassah said:

It's a law, right? So something some dudes decided should be the case? What supports this as being an actual right?  I mean, technically, parents and students are already paying directly for their education. The money that schools and teachers get originally came from parents. There's just a third party standing in the way taking a big cut of it. So, why is that third party standing between parents and schools a right?

(And BTW, libertarian capitalist provided education, such as Khan Academy and Wikipedia, both started and run by libertarians, are already free, supported only by donations. Hey @6tails! Look at that! Rich capitalists providing something for free, and of higher quality, than socialist and communists ever could with all their taxes and extortions!)

It is not a true law, and no country is obligated to follow it. Even if a country was, there would be no way to enforce it.

Also, "Direct /de'rekt/; adj: Without intervening factors or intermediaries"

I am not sure how people are paying directly at the moment. There is no "technically" about it. They pay for part of their own cost indirectly so that nobody has to pay completely on their own, and they do this through an intermediary.

And I am doubtful - nearly confident - that Khan Academy and Wikipedia are of higher quality; yes, they look nicer and people enjoy them more, but studies have shown that the quality of education a student receives from each of these is dubious. Khan Academy is built by a man that has no idea how to teach - but a good grasp on how to run a business - and Wikipedia was made to be a digital encyclopedia, there is no teaching,

You seem to like Khan Academy, but using its lessons tends to leave students happier with their instruction but with less knowledge gained. The problems are supposed to help with this, but many of the videos do not even have problems to go along with it; the video simply leads into the next.

For example, here are some questions students had on Khan Academy lessons that should have been addressed in the video or problems. These are fundamental ideas that are simply neglected in the entirety of the lesson.

• "why is there fractions isn't this suppose to be decimals?"
  • He never informs learners that decimals may be written as fractions, but he writes decimals as fractions and fractions as decimals. He assumes that this is known despite already covering a fundamental topic as it is.
• "Somewhat confused about the differences between atom versus element like is there a different between gold atom versus gold element?"
  • An actual explanation for "atom vs. element" is never given, and he basically goes on to list elements. The next lesson never mentions this and simply moves on to discuss protons. Electrons are never mentioned in the "Introduction to Atoms" section.
• "is there something smaller than a atom?"
  • He never truly explains that atoms are made of smaller parts; he assumes this to be known. He also assumes it to be known that protons and neutrons are made of smaller parts, and he still never explains an electron.
• "In 3:01 Mr.Khan said that 60 mph was the velocity. Isn't supposed to be speed?"
  • The questioner is totally right. Many of his videos include this type of issue, and these are never corrected. Also in this video was him using force and the Newtonian equation for force in examples but never explaining what F, m, or a were. He seems to assume this is known.

To add another note, it is usually the community that has to address these questions; these are volunteers with no teaching experience providing answers to these important and fundamental questions. Many times the answers are even incorrect.

Edited December 13, 2015 by MalletFace

[Rassah]

15 minutes ago, Pignog said:

forgive my dumb hungover ass if this has been covered, but if mandatory free education turns into a private service we pay for, how do poor families send their kids to school? Or do they choose between that and other necessities of life?

The same way they do now, by paying for it. What, you think "free" stuff is free? Heck no. Teachers earn salaries, book makers make their profits, and school boards and politicians get their kickbacks. And it's all paid for by poor people too, through the sales taxes they pay directly, the property taxes they pay indirectly (included as part of their rent), and other various taxes. So, they'll just have more money left to afford stuff, and if they want to use that money to pay for their kid's school, then they can.

But, as I keep saying, there are tons of free, donation supported options available already. People claim "we need taxes and social programs, because charities don't work," and yet Wiki, Khan Academy, Coursera, Academic Earth, MIT online, Ted Talks, and others prove that wrong.

Quote

Second, since the schools' focus is on turning a profit now, where is the incentive to provide a substantive education?

For any profit, the incentive is to get customers, and the only way to get customers is to offer the best product at the lowest price. That incentive is broken in public schools, because customers (tax payers) are shoveled into the system by force, and the purchasing of products (education for students) is almost mandatory (some exceptions for homeschooling and private schools).

If schools provide a shitty educational product, why would parents shop there, and thus why would they earn a profit?

Quote

We already have post-secondary for-profit schools like University of Phoenix, and they basically steal students' money in exchange for a meaningless piece of paper.

That's absolutely true, and I DESPISE Phoenix, DeVry, and others for doing it, but that is a different problem entirely.

In the case of shit schools like Phoenix, the underlying problem, and how it all started, is university loans that can not be dismissed in bankruptcy. See, some well wishing folks wanted EVERYONE to get a higher education, and wanted to force banks to give student loans to anyone who asks. But, banks don't have an infinite supply of money (except the central bank), and if everyone got a loan for feminist interpretive dance, failed getting a job, and defaulted on their loan, then banks would run out of money fast (and then how would you buy a car, house, or anything with a credit card?) So, banks said OK, on the condition that student loans can not be dismissed ever. They're the only loan that you can't dismiss in a bankruptcy, which make you a permanent debt slave (unless you pay them off). Now, there are no risks to the bank, and they can lend to anyone who comes asking.

Universities like Phoenix and DeVry (actually ALL universities, but these are the most notorious) pray on that by offering you an education, charging you ridiculous amounts, and selling you a shitty product. They can overcharge you as much as they want, because they know you can just get a student loan while being too stupid to know what that actually means, and banks are happy to give you a loan for any amount, because they know you'll have to pay it back, even if it takes you your whole life. And so, college tuition keeps rising like crazy every year, and places like Phoenix and DeVry pop up to pray on people. Another unintended consequence of good intentions predicably going wrong.

There's an easy way to fix all of that: Make student loans dismissable in bankruptcy just like credit card debt. Banks would shit (gold) bricks, but soon enough, anyone wanting an education would have to present themselves, their skills, their intended degree, and their university to a loan officer, and the BANK would have to do a fuckton of research to make sure it's not a shit university (bye bye Phoenix and DeVry!), not a shit degree (bye women's and African American studies, unless you can prove you can get a job in it), and bye ridiculously high tuitions (banks would have to negotiate those down with universities, cause no bank would be stupid enough to risk so much money on a maybe job).

[Brass]

If you're an orphan you can go to college debt free + what ever grant money is provided to you. Just become an orphan. 

[Rassah]

45 minutes ago, Pignog said:

We're also missing the point of primary and secondary education,

I don't think they should be separated into primary and secondary, or elementary, middle, and high. There's no reason for it.

45 minutes ago, Pignog said:

The goal is to create well-rounded, educated citizens, not worker drones.

I agree wholeheartedly, and that's exactly what I want, well rounded educated citizens. What we have NOW is education that creates worker drones. Everyone is taught "study hard, graduate, and get a good job." That's what people get degrees for (myself included, unfortunately). No one is taught to learn a lot about a lot, find your passion, and learn how to develop it into your own business, venture, group, or whatever, and make your own money and future. That is reserved only for the elites of the world, or anyone lucky enough to figure it out on their own. Even the way schools are structured - start at such time, break for lunch, end at such time, follow the rules, respect authority, do not slack off on someone else's time, do not question things unless specifically appropriate - looks like training for a job.

Quote

If we turned basic education of the masses over to McDonalds, they're not going to produce civically minded people.

Nobody would send their kids to a McDonald's school (even though McDonald's has an excellent restaurant management university, called Hamburger University).

@MalletFace Yes, there are of course issues with Khan Academy. And that's expected. And it's great that you found them. That's pretty much the point. Question are public, issues are public (instead of just posts by insensed parents on Facebook), and they can be quickly and easily fixed, if the platform is opened up for anyone to contribute those answers, OR allow other educators, like Coursera and Academic Earth to do it better and steal Khan's customers. Problems are not a bad thing, hiding them or pretending they don't exist (like schools and education boards do) is.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Rassah

[Onnes]

Let's consider some numbers for the cost of education. The lowest per-student spending for public schools is in Utah, at around $6,500 a year. The poverty rate in Utah is around 13%, and is defined as being below $24,000 of yearly income for a family of four. (Being Utah, this poverty rate increases dramatically for racial minorities.) 

Even with the lowest per-student spending in the US -- the average is above $10,000 -- the actual cost to send a single child to a public school for a year comes out to be more than a quarter of the poverty benchmark income. For other states, the fraction would be even higher. I chose the best case scenario for these sets of numbers.

Why does education cost so much? Labor. We know from decades of experience across numerous countries that teachers do better when they have extensive practical training and small class sizes. (The practical training part is actually a big problem with US teacher prep, but that's an aside and wouldn't do a thing to labor costs for many reasons.) Employing large numbers of people with advanced education is damn expensive, and there's no way to make it less expensive short of abusing labor gluts to drive down prevailing wages, and doing that will certainly result in lower quality instruction.

So that's how you end up the current model of public education funding. In per-child terms, education is fucking expensive. We therefore spread that cost around; even if you don't have a child in public school, you still pay in with your taxes, and progressive taxation ideally would shift the largest burden to those who suffer the least paying it.

EDIT: Also, let me briefly comment on the idea of having children get their primary education from free online resources. Most people are terrible at self-directed learning. I have to teach introductory physics to college students, most of whom have near perfect SAT/ACT scores and perfect high-school grades. These college students are terrible at self-directed learning. They need to be guided along by the hand on what to study and they need people there to answer questions when they get stuck. And these are successful college students, not young children.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Onnes

[MalletFace]

14 minutes ago, Rassah said:

@MalletFace Yes, there are of course issues with Khan Academy. And that's expected. And it's great that you found them. That's pretty much the point. Question are public, issues are public (instead of just posts by insensed parents on Facebook), and they can be quickly and easily fixed, if the platform is opened up for anyone to contribute those answers, OR allow other educators, like Coursera and Academic Earth to do it better and steal Khan's customers. Problems are not a bad thing, hiding them or pretending they don't exist (like schools and education boards do) is.

The problems are not visible to those that do not understand them, though. Nobody is aware that there is a better alternative if they do not know a problem exists. Standard academia, especially post-secondary, is a culture built around understanding the misconceptions a beginner might have.

These digital educators hold a position of authority in which anything they tell their "customers" is the truth; these people are inherently unable to tell when information they are being given is false. These educators do not rely on reviews by other educators to keep their jobs. These educators are not required to obtain any training in their field. These educators do not rely on being able to keep a license through regularly attending classes to better understand information. These educators can do almost anything they want.

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, Onnes said:

Let's consider some numbers for the cost of education. The lowest per-student spending for public schools is in Utah, at around $6,500 a year.

Stop right there. THAT, RIGHT THERE, makes NO FUCKING SENSE. $6,500 * 30 = $195,000. Teachers complain about making $45,000 to $60,000 a year. Where the fuck is the remaining $135,000 going? Education is WAY overpriced and overbloated, which is a symptom and perfect example of bureaucracy. 

 

1 hour ago, Onnes said:

EDIT: Also, let me briefly comment on the idea of having children get their primary education from free online resources. Most people are terrible at self-directed learning. I have to teach introductory physics to college students, most of whom have near perfect SAT/ACT scores and perfect high-school grades. These college students are terrible at self-directed learning. They need to be guided along by the hand on what to study and they need people there to answer questions when they get stuck. And these are successful college students, not young children.

Then these children shouldn't be studying physics in the first place. If it's not something they are interested in, then why force it on them? If they are really interested, they will find the answers eventually, or participate in a group where someone who knows the answer will let them know. Maybe their terrible self directed learning skills are also a failure of their prior public school teaching?

59 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

The problems are not visible to those that do not understand them, though. Nobody is aware that there is a better alternative if they do not know a problem exists.

Because no one has a reason to care or look into it. We know about problems with games, smartphones and electronics, restaurants, and other things we shop for, because we value our money and want to read reviews to make sure we don't get ripped off. And companies want to be reviewed by reputable reviewers because they want their products out there. With education nobody cares, because it's all public, so everyone assumes government took care of vetting and reviewing (though school reviews still exist, and some parents still check them).

59 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

These digital educators hold a position of authority in which anything they tell their "customers" is the truth; these people are inherently unable to tell when information they are being given is false.

No different from public school educators. An unfortunate problem yet to be fixed...

59 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

These educators do not rely on reviews by other educators to keep their jobs. These educators are not required to obtain any training in their field. These educators do not rely on being able to keep a license through regularly attending classes to better understand information. These educators can do almost anything they want.

Yep. And if they suck and lie, their business dies. Just like any other.

[evan]

15 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Stop right there. THAT, RIGHT THERE, makes NO FUCKING SENSE. $6,500 * 30 = $195,000. Teachers complain about making $45,000 to $60,000 a year. Where the fuck is the remaining $135,000 going? Education is WAY overpriced and overbloated, which is a symptom and perfect example of bureaucracy. 

Yes, because the only expensive thing in a school building is the teacher...

Before you continue, do you actually know the financial breakdown of a public school? Not the ability to call surface level numbers but the actual numbers going into any school's budget, in a general range.

15 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Then these children shouldn't be studying physics in the first place. If it's not something they are interested in, then why force it on them? If they are really interested, they will find the answers eventually, or participate in a group where someone who knows the answer will let them know. Maybe their terrible self directed learning skills are also a failure of their prior public school teaching?

I am starting to question if you actually have any idea why teachers are there in the first place.

You have to understand that I agree with initiative, but if you think students can and should be judged as either worthy or stupid simply because they aren't able to immediately grasp foreign material, you're frankly part of a bigger problem when it comes to actually teaching students.

Edited December 13, 2015 by evan

[Rassah]

Just now, evan said:

Yes, because the only expensive thing in a school building is the teacher...

Let's say the teacher earns $60,000 (though you really don't need to pay that much for up to 5th level education). Classroom space can't be more than $1,500 per month for 9 months. Hell, I'm getting a much bigger place than a classroom, with utilities included, for less than that. That's still only $73,500, and you can earn more money by renting out the space during summer months and evenings. That still leaves $121,500. No way educational materials cost that much. I think all of that is basically "administrative costs," aka bureaucracy and cushy jobs for unnecessary people. But maybe I'm wrong? What do you think we must spend $121,500 per class every year on?

[AshleyAshes]

Jesus fucking Christ guys, the budgets and expenditures of public education systems are a matter of public record.  Instead of just guessing out of your asses and then speaking authoritatively of your ass guesses, why don't you make an actual effort and start researching?

Staffing, auxiliary staffing, library budgets, AV budgets, computer labs, electrical bills, HVAC demands, athletics departments, maintenance, transportation, and everything else can all be find in itemized budgets available for public scrutiny, pick a school district and go reading.

Edited December 13, 2015 by AshleyAshes

[Rassah]

33 minutes ago, evan said:

Before you continue, do you actually know the financial breakdown of a public school?

Sorry, you edited this after I already submitted my response. Not really, but I hope you are willing to inform me. And also explain WHY those costs are needed, and have to be so high.

Quote

I am starting to question if you actually have any idea why teachers are there in the first place.

Maybe I don't. I thought it was to teach kids things they want and need to learn. Some no doubt think teachers are there to babysit kids while the parents are at work, and some think teachers are there to make kids conformist, obedient little worker drones...

Quote

If you think students can and should be judged as either worthy or stupid simply because they aren't able to immediately grasp foreign material...

I do not think that, no. I don't think anyone should be judged as worthy or stupid just based on whether they like and can handle a specific topic. That's what public schools think, with certain grades requiring students to grasp some specific material, and if they fail, schools judging them as stupid, failing to advance them a grade, and failing them from graduating, at which point everyone judges them as stupid. If someone can't grasp basic physics or math, but are excellent at art design, marketing, building relationships, and selling products, then they're plenty worthy at that skill, and should be allowed to pursue it and the associated career without advanced math, or schools and standardized tests judging them as stupid.

EDIT: Thanks Ashley. I personally don't give enough fucks to research it, but thank you for a list from which I would probably cut quite a bit already.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Rassah

[evan]

21 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Sorry, you edited this after I already submitted my response. Not really, but I hope you are willing to inform me. And also explain WHY those costs are needed, and have to be so high.

Maybe I don't. I thought it was to teach kids things they want and need to learn. Some no doubt think teachers are there to babysit kids while the parents are at work, and some think teachers are there to make kids conformist, obedient little worker drones...

I do not think that, no. I don't think anyone should be judged as worthy or stupid just based on whether they like and can handle a specific topic. That's what public schools think, with certain grades requiring students to grasp some specific material, and if they fail, schools judging them as stupid, failing to advance them a grade, and failing them from graduating, at which point everyone judges them as stupid. If someone can't grasp basic physics or math, but are excellent at art design, marketing, building relationships, and selling products, then they're plenty worthy at that skill, and should be allowed to pursue it and the associated career without advanced math, or schools and standardized tests judging them as stupid.

Why, do you judge your students who have trouble grasping basic physics as stupid?

I'll get to the budget. I will admit I took on more than I can chew making that statement, but I will make an attempt to honor it and make sure I know the divisions of a school budget before I continue. I just know that as a music student, they somehow manage to run out of money for us. If there was some money they were being luxurious about, I've yet to see it, having been on the end of the budget for my primary educational focus.

 

But then here's the issue. You argue a lack of success is immediately related to a mass interest somewhere else. That's really just not always the case. The teaching format may be designed to accommodate everyone, but it inherently can't pick up on the human spectrum and just make things make perfect sense to every person. The idea of being able to grasp knowledge automatically is not directly related to the passion for it. I've taught younger kids who have musical families, who play themselves, who want to get better, and can't immediately grasp concepts that are within reach. Or even, looking at my own knowledge, I didn't understand Serialist music theory and still don't understand it well enough to demonstrate it. A majority of college students struggle with theory, for that matter. Students who are mastered performers, who understand these concepts on some level, who have an inherent love for the music that demonstrates it. 

However, bad self-directive learning, while I think is something taught in public schools due to the whole "No Child Left Behind" discussion from before, is also not something that can just be overlooked and used as justification for the argument "then these students shouldn't be learning physics". That's my issue. Your response to the problem isn't realistic or offers anything conducive to the student who is simply bad at being able to make conclusions independently. This is actually exactly why I argue against specialization, too; if someone is good at something, that doesn't mean they should be deterred from something they may not be the best at. That's the whole point of Guidance-based learning, which isn't to coddle a student or compensate for the fact that they should be doing something else; it's the fact that students do have the potential to learn topics should it be delivered in a way that isn't just a wall of information. Teachers have the ability to introduce students not to the information, but to the perspective necessary for information to make sense.

Also, jesus, no. I just feel that your statements construct themselves that way. Your perspective only allows for students to be specialized and not capable of learning perspectives with which they can make sense of large bodies of information, which is part of the problem with the  grading system you are complaining about.

Edited December 13, 2015 by evan

[Onnes]

32 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Jesus fucking Christ guys, the budgets and expenditures of public education systems are a matter of public record.  Instead of just guessing out of your asses and then speaking authoritatively of your ass guesses, why don't you make an actual effort and start researching? ...

I guess I naively assumed people had seen a public school before and would not immediately propose that classes were typically taught by one person in the basement of their home.

 

56 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Stop right there. THAT, RIGHT THERE, makes NO FUCKING SENSE. $6,500 * 30 = $195,000. Teachers complain about making $45,000 to $60,000 a year. Where the fuck is the remaining $135,000 going? Education is WAY overpriced and overbloated, which is a symptom and perfect example of bureaucracy. 

As others have already noted, the single-room schoolhouse is largely dead. For a very broad overview of where public education expenditures go, you can consult the National Center for Education Statistics. It gives a pretty good picture of how labor dominates the school budget. If you go through it, you'll also see that over the past 50 years there's been a monumental effort to halve the student-to-teacher ratio, which of course causes instructional costs to rise considerably. 

 

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Then these children shouldn't be studying physics in the first place. If it's not something they are interested in, then why force it on them? If they are really interested, they will find the answers eventually, or participate in a group where someone who knows the answer will let them know. Maybe their terrible self directed learning skills are also a failure of their prior public school teaching?

They are pursuing a liberal arts education; it's broad by design. This also is not limited to physics. Many of these students are premedical, and they have the same problems when they hit medical school itself. I know this because my mother is teaching faculty at a med school and we like to share depressing academia stories. 

I'm fortunate enough that when I'm teaching, it's at a university where I know all the incoming students have incredibly strong academic backgrounds. What everyone learns very quickly in this situation is that people who can study effectively on their own without significant guidance, even within a high-achieving population, are a minority. Maybe that's a skill that can be taught, but I have yet to see anyone figure out how. Practically speaking, it mostly just makes them ill-suited for academic career paths -- if they can still learn through strongly directed coursework then they can still get an education, and a lot of how we structure educational institutions implicitly acknowledges this fact.

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, Onnes said:

I guess I naively assumed people had seen a public school before and would not immediately propose that classes were typically taught by one person in the basement of their home.

Well, you clearly don't get the situation.  You're dealing with a man who uses the costs of renting a home to operating a large educational institution, so we have to instruct him to look up the budgets!

[Clove Darkwave]

3 hours ago, evan said:

I'll get to the budget. I will admit I took on more than I can chew making that statement, but I will make an attempt to honor it and make sure I know the divisions of a school budget before I continue. I just know that as a music student, they somehow manage to run out of money for us. If there was some money they were being luxurious about, I've yet to see it, having been on the end of the budget for my primary educational focus.

 

But then here's the issue. You argue a lack of success is immediately related to a mass interest somewhere else. That's really just not always the case. The teaching format may be designed to accommodate everyone, but it inherently can't pick up on the human spectrum and just make things make perfect sense to every person. The idea of being able to grasp knowledge automatically is not directly related to the passion for it. I've taught younger kids who have musical families, who play themselves, who want to get better, and can't immediately grasp concepts that are within reach. Or even, looking at my own knowledge, I didn't understand Serialist music theory and still don't understand it well enough to demonstrate it. A majority of college students struggle with theory, for that matter. Students who are mastered performers, who understand these concepts on some level, who have an inherent love for the music that demonstrates it. 

However, bad self-directive learning, while I think is something taught in public schools due to the whole "No Child Left Behind" discussion from before, is also not something that can just be overlooked and used as justification for the argument "then these students shouldn't be learning physics". That's my issue. Your response to the problem isn't realistic or offers anything conducive to the student who is simply bad at being able to make conclusions independently. This is actually exactly why I argue against specialization, too; if someone is good at something, that doesn't mean they should be deterred from something they may not be the best at. That's the whole point of Guidance-based learning, which isn't to coddle a student or compensate for the fact that they should be doing something else; it's the fact that students do have the potential to learn topics should it be delivered in a way that isn't just a wall of information. Teachers have the ability to introduce students not to the information, but to the perspective necessary for information to make sense.

Also, jesus, no. I just feel that your statements construct themselves that way. Your perspective only allows for students to be specialized and not capable of learning perspectives with which they can make sense of large bodies of information, which is part of the problem with the  grading system you are complaining about.

Oh man I like your posting style.

 

This is why I like heated arguments to be a part of internet forums. These are things I would not normally go find myself, so it is nice to glean these kinds of things in one's spare time.

[Rassah]

6 hours ago, evan said:

However, bad self-directive learning, while I think is something taught in public schools due to the whole "No Child Left Behind" discussion from before, is also not something that can just be overlooked and used as justification for the argument "then these students shouldn't be learning physics". 

When I said that, I didn't mean that if a student seems to be failing at a subject, they should be considered a failure and not taught that subject. If that's what you've read, you completely misunderstood. I only meant that the students shouldn't be *forced* to learn a subject unless and until they want to. If they want to learn music, because they have a main for something, and they struggle with something but keep wanting to learn it, of course, by all means, help them keep learning it. But don't force students learn subjects that have absolutely no interest in, won't remember after the test, and won't ever use in their lives. It's a waste of their time and everyone else's money.

 

5 hours ago, Onnes said:

As others have already noted, the single-room schoolhouse is largely dead.

That's not a single room schoolhouse. That's the cost of renting one room to house 30 students. You can rent a building with more than one room. Just pay $1,500 per room. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Also, the $1,500 was for a commercial property that a buddy of mine just snagged for his business, in a pretty nice part of town. Sorry, I thought I said that, but it was in my head and never typed.

Quote

For a very broad overview of where public education expenditures go, you can consult the National Center for Education Statistics. It gives a pretty good picture of how labor dominates the school budget.

Of course it's gonna be labor. That's the stuffy, self-important administrative types that I referred to as bureaucracy.

Quote

They are pursuing a liberal arts education

That in itself is a degree that banks shouldn't loan money for. If you want to learn that as a hobby, have at it on your own dime...

Quote

 it's broad by design. This also is not limited to physics.

And this is what I'm saying makes no sense. If you are going to learn physics as a profession, study physics. If you're going to learn medicine, study medicine. That's how it works in many other countries (including USSR countries). They don't have a general university. Least of all that Tragedy liberal arts. Just trade schools that focus on specific subjects. Why does a student need to spend $5000 on a history or English lit class for an engineering or medical degree???

Quote

What everyone learns very quickly in this situation is that people who can study effectively on their own without significant guidance, even within a high-achieving population, are a minority.

So those students will be the unfortunate majority that has to pay for guided education from a physical school, instead of learning from watching videos. But even online classes aren't completely self-directed. They can have discussion groups, and students who have problems can motivate the education site to create better videos that explain complex issues in more detail, again benefiting all students who may have this exact same issue in the future.

I may be confused here, but what is it that you're arguing for exactly? Status quo? Keeping schools and universities exactly as they are now? You didn't strike me as a conservative...

5 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

You're dealing with a man who uses the costs of renting a home to operating a large educational institution..

Sorry, the $1,500 I mentioned was for a large commercial property that my business buddy snagged recently. I thought I mentioned it but I didn't. However, that's for square footage. I'm not comparing an apartment to a schoolhouse. It makes sense to calculate $1,500 per 30 students, with $1,500 covering something about the size of a classroom. If I had used $20,000 per month in my example, that would have been an entire school building for just 30 students, and would not have made sense. Do you get it now? Jeez, what I think are simple concepts just sometimes fly over your head...

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rassah

[FenrirDarkWolf]

Oh my god, it's a topic I can agree with Brass on! Maybe we can salvage our broken relationship yet...

But I digress, @Rassah, what, exactly, IS your problem with poor people?

My parents don't make enough to even think about retiring, and just living day to day is quite a struggle for my family, let alone helping me through college(I'm only a freshman, and I already have over ten thousand in student loan debt). I AM a business major(Business Analytics to be precise, with an Accounting minor). and I still feel like I'll quite never have enough money to help them too, because I would like to help my family.

I can't speak for other cities, but honestly, my school was the most economically disadvantaged and many of the departments were underfunded, but yet we were still a better a school than the other two main schools, the big public school and the wealthy school, because we weren't quite as big as the former, and got a bit better education compared to the latter. Also I don't know how that fits into the conversation, but I felt the need to say it.

[evan]

33 minutes ago, Rassah said:

When I said that, I didn't mean that if a student seems to be failing at a subject, they should be considered a failure and not taught that subject. If that's what you've read, you completely misunderstood. I only meant that the students shouldn't be *forced* to learn a subject unless and until they want to. If they want to learn music, because they have a main for something, and they struggle with something but keep wanting to learn it, of course, by all means, help them keep learning it. But don't force students learn subjects that have absolutely no interest in, won't remember after the test, and won't ever use in their lives. It's a waste of their time and everyone else's money.

Actually, Rassah, I read back to see what the original statement was, and the reason we're at odds is because you added the concept of interest without even beginning to assume that low self-directive capacity could exist for other reasons (rather, it was an oversight added in at the end of your statement). Your entire first argument is that the students aren't interested, and in spite of other arguments you've dragged that back in, that is a factor that was never brought up to begin with. You took the initiative to assume that these kids with low self-directive capacity were just being forced by your perception of a flawed educational system and not just struggling in the first place regardless of willingness or interest in the subject. That is why I've been drawing these conclusions. Your intent isn't malicious or presumptive, but your quickness to assert something that wasn't there is creating implications. 

We don't actually disagree on the rest of your beliefs listed here.

Also, I feel like you're calling Onnes a conservative just because his proximal preferences of educational change are notably different from yours. There is more than way to create progress.

Edited December 14, 2015 by evan

[Onnes]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Of course it's gonna be labor. That's the stuffy, self-important administrative types that I referred to as bureaucracy.

If you had actually looked at the spending distribution, you'd have seen that administration made up for less than 10% of the total, which is quite reasonable considering the amount of necessary bureaucracy involved in compulsory education.

 

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

That in itself is a degree that banks shouldn't loan money for. If you want to learn that as a hobby, have at it on your own dime...

All non-vocational four year degrees in the US have general education distribution requirements. The term "liberal arts" traditionally included basically everything outside of professional programs; every student in the sciences is getting some kind of liberal arts education.

 

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

And this is what I'm saying makes no sense. If you are going to learn physics as a profession, study physics. If you're going to learn medicine, study medicine. That's how it works in many other countries (including USSR countries). They don't have a general university. Least of all that Tragedy liberal arts. Just trade schools that focus on specific subjects. Why does a student need to spend $5000 on a history or English lit class for an engineering or medical degree???

So those students will be the unfortunate majority that has to pay for guided education from a physical school, instead of learning from watching videos. But even online classes aren't completely self-directed. They can have discussion groups, and students who have problems can motivate the education site to create better videos that explain complex issues in more detail, again benefiting all students who may have this exact same issue in the future.

First, physics is an academic discipline. Most of the physicists I know wouldn't want to go back and discard the general education side of their degrees, simply because they enjoy academic learning. But this is completely besides the point anyway; that paragraph of my post was just to say that in my experience these students have the same difficulties in their chosen field as they do with their gen-ed courses, so personal interest doesn't look to be what keeps them from excelling without guidance.

You are making assertions of fact about how people in general can effectively learn with absolutely no basis outside of your own wishful thinking. This entire discussion started because you suggested replacing universal primary and secondary education with charitable oligarchs and self-directed instruction. The reality is that evidence driven pedagogy has been going in the opposite direction, emphasizing student to student collaboration alongside guided discussions and problem solving with the instructor. These are things that are incredibly difficult to make work outside of a physical classroom full of students, and it's not for a lack of trying.

 

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

I may be confused here, but what is it that you're arguing for exactly? Status quo? Keeping schools and universities exactly as they are now? You didn't strike me as a conservative...

If you want to eliminate universal free education then be upfront and say so. Pretending that some as-yet-unknown phenomenon will sweep in and replace the public education system should it be demolished is just silly. You can't build something as important as education policy and practice on the principle of "whatever works for Rassah works for everyone." Whatever you do to it, you need to maintain both access, which for universal education means free, and you need to maintain effectiveness, which requires actually looking at what is known to work at scale and what isn't.

[AshleyAshes]

7 hours ago, Rassah said:

Sorry, the $1,500 I mentioned was for a large commercial property that my business buddy snagged recently. I thought I mentioned it but I didn't. However, that's for square footage. I'm not comparing an apartment to a schoolhouse. It makes sense to calculate $1,500 per 30 students, with $1,500 covering something about the size of a classroom. If I had used $20,000 per month in my example, that would have been an entire school building for just 30 students, and would not have made sense. Do you get it now? Jeez, what I think are simple concepts just sometimes fly over your head...

Your not being very forward with the square footage.

Also, I didn't assume it was an entire school, I assume you approximated the square footage of a single classroom to a single apartment dwelling.

[Spot]

Rich people and poor people suck. Get on my middle class level. >:C

[AshleyAshes]

31 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Rich people and poor people suck. Get on my middle class level. >:C

I can be middle class but always talk about how poor I am, right!? D:

[MalletFace]

55 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I can be middle class but always talk about how poor I am, right!? D:

Of course! You also get pandered to by every party you can think of without actual action for free!

Edited December 14, 2015 by MalletFace

[AshleyAshes]

28 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

Of course! You also get pandered to by every party you can think of without actual action for free!

Obamacare terk er jerbs!!!

[Pignog]

so when are we getting those cabbages obama

[Rassah]

Speaking of topic, what RICH PEOPLE are currently getting into: http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/12/11/should-you-invest-in-bitcoin-10-arguments-in-favor-as-of-december-2015/

10 hours ago, FenrirDarkWolf said:

But I digress, @Rassah, what, exactly, IS your problem with poor people?

I don't know... Nothing I guess. What is YOUR problem with poor people?

10 hours ago, evan said:

Actually, Rassah, I read back to see what the original statement was, and the reason we're at odds is because you added the concept of interest without even beginning to assume that low self-directive capacity could exist for other reasons.

Actually I'm not even sure how the self directive topic got into this discussion. I guess my comments about free education already being available online? I've elaborated what I also want physical schools to be like, so I guess that's not really an issue.

10 hours ago, evan said:

Also, I feel like you're calling Onnes a conservative just because his proximal preferences of educational change are notably different from yours.

Nah, it was just too point out that conservative is by definition someone who dislikes change and wants to keep things as is, even if they're bad. Democrats are becoming the conservative party now, wanting to preserve the institutions we have now, even if they're turning sour.

 

8 hours ago, Onnes said:

If you had actually looked at the spending distribution, you'd have seen that administration made up for less than 10% of the total, which is quite reasonable considering the amount of necessary bureaucracy involved in compulsory education.

Well then you lied to me when you said "It gives a pretty good picture of how labor dominates the school budget.." As I said, I don't care enough to look at the numbers in detail, because they don't matter. $6,000 per student is too much regardless of how you cut it, and it doesn't in any way detract from my point that competition would make things better.

8 hours ago, Onnes said:

All non-vocational four year degrees in the US have general education distribution requirements.

Yes, I know, you've said that, and I've said that it's a waste of time and money. Your don't get a job in "general education." Learn general things in school, and focus on specific stuff in university, where you don't have to pay tens of thousands of dollars and get into huge debt for it. Like they do in other much more educated countries.

8 hours ago, Onnes said:

First, physics is an academic discipline. Most of the physicists I know wouldn't want to go back and discard the general education side of their degrees

If they *want* to learn it, then there is no issue with "forcing" them to learn it. Nor have I claimed that students shouldn't have personal guidance, so I don't know why you keep insisting on that point. I'm getting frustrated because you seem to point out things where I'm wrong which I never claimed.

8 hours ago, Onnes said:

You are making assertions of fact about how people in general can effectively learn with absolutely no basis outside of your own wishful thinking.

Can you explain how "let students in school pick which class they want to take when, and letting them avoid classes they're not interested in until they are ready" translates to "students should learn with absolutely no basis?" I'm really confused about where you are getting these ideas.

8 hours ago, Onnes said:

This entire discussion started because you suggested replacing universal primary and secondary education with charitable oligarchs and self-directed instruction.

I wasn't suggesting replacing it, I was pointing out that it's already happening. With regards to the school, I'm commenting on Elon Musk's school, where classes are set up similarly to how I've described them, with difference ages learning together. And yes, to a point, if someone WANTS to learn, they'll do it even if only options they have is serf directed (though even online teaching sites aren't entirely self directed).

8 hours ago, Onnes said:

If you want to eliminate universal free education then be upfront and say so.

I can't say so, because there no such thing. Universal free education doesn't exist. Universities are expensive as hell and getting worse, from our discussions here we know that primary education costs at least $6,000 per student per year. If anything, I have been arguing for making education cheaper than your "free" version.

8 hours ago, Onnes said:

Pretending that some as-yet-unknown phenomenon will sweep in and replace the public education system should it be demolished is just silly.

So it's a good thing it's not  "as-yet-unknown." It's known because there are examples of it starting to pop up, and they seem to be not only great, but actually free (instead of "free"). I'm basically saying, " Hey, why don't we let kids have more choices, and start recognizing their achievements on sites like Khan Academy as proof of education?" And you for whatever reason keep insisting "No, we have to keep forcing kids to learn all those things we forced on them before, and must protect our degree producing monopolies. No other ideas allowed!" (Is that goes teachers typically think?)

 

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

You were not being very forward with the square footage.

Also, I didn't assume it was an entire school, I assume you approximated the square footage of a single classroom to a single apartment dwelling.

We were both asses in that case I guess.

2 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

I can be middle class but always talk about how poor I am, right!? D:

Curious, if you lost your job today, how long can you survive on what you have saved up? (Using all your assets/investments)

[Terminal7]

58 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Curious, if you lost your job today, how long can you survive on what you have saved up? (Using all your assets/investments)

I don't know if she's being cynical or not -- but I do have my doubts about her losing her job. She really doesn't seem to be that type.

Unrelated to the current conversation: If kicking people out of already terrible housing authorities and replacing them with condos for richer people , shows "growth" of certain areas, my family and community may as well be taking a stand-up commute to hell - not like it's any different.

But of course, you're not the one having to feed 4 people in a house with a salary of |$21,000 and no child support - and a father that's been running you on welfare since you were 11. That's something you'll never understand, no matter how much you empathize, or how much "education" has been regurgitated for years.

 

 

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Curious if you lost your job today, how long can you survive on what you have saved up? (Using all your assets/investments)

About six months.  Which is pretty good for someone who only finished college in Aug 2014.  Also, I lost my job in October if you'll recall and only spent 2 busines days unemployed.  I'm highly employable and the film industry would have to emplode for me to risk long term unemployment.  ...or if I got caught leaking content to the internet, that'd get someone blacklisted from every job from Toronto to Los Angeles.

If I lost my job today, I'd fall back on one of the offers I declined six weeks ago.

[evan]

6 hours ago, Rassah said:

Well then you lied to me when you said "It gives a pretty good picture of how labor dominates the school budget.." As I said, I don't care enough to look at the numbers in detail, because they don't matter. $6,000 per student is too much regardless of how you cut it, and it doesn't in any way detract from my point that competition would make things better.

He very clearly is referring to administration, not general labor. You are misreading his statement. And frankly you're using a strawman here; the whole reason we are talking about this is because you seem to think that the money that goes into a school is unreasonable, and now you're openly ignoring a chance to at least understand WHY the average cost is 6,000 per student. I don't care if you think it's too much, do you actually understand what would happen to the institution if you wanted to change that?

adding more to this post in a minute...

Edited December 14, 2015 by evan

[AshleyAshes]

If $6000 is too much per student per year, but private schools have an average tuition if $9500 per year in the United States, I don't see how the rationalization can be made that it can be much, much, much cheaper somehow.  There are not cited examples of how it can be cheaper, so how can anyone argue that it can vs cheaper anyway?

[evan]

7 hours ago, Rassah said:

I don't know... Nothing I guess. What is YOUR problem with poor people?

Not sure why you're saying this considering you've just asked a poor person that question, when you actually HAVE expressed ideological differences you feel you have with poor people, and why, if you felt this comment was an attack, it would be even worth being petty in response.

Quote

Actually I'm not even sure how the self directive topic got into this discussion. I guess my comments about free education already being available online? I've elaborated what I also want physical schools to be like, so I guess that's not really an issue.

It got into the topic because your argument is that said online education is equitable in quality to the current traditional education model, which is in dispute based on what has been brought up about the way students learn. Thus Onnes referenced what he was seeing in his classroom, thus self directive. 

Quote

Nah, it was just too point out that conservative is by definition someone who dislikes change and wants to keep things as is, even if they're bad. Democrats are becoming the conservative party now, wanting to preserve the institutions we have now, even if they're turning sour.

And my point is that not all change is the same. Just because you feel that your idea of change is effective, doesn't mean that a peer who disagrees is a liberal. Teachers have been trying make massive changes in the system for a while, seeing as there's that whole issue of standardized testing we kept coming back to. In fact, we're in a state of change where classrooms could become massively more effective. You're simplifying what qualifies as change to meet your own preferences.

I have some ideas as to some things that are problematic. I don't have a less biased source to show them, but they do discuss it here.

Quote

And yes, to a point, if someone WANTS to learn, they'll do it even if only options they have is serf directed (though even online teaching sites aren't entirely self directed).

Do you have proof of this? Learning psychology is far more complicated than you seem to think, and I'd like to see if you can prove that humans who are aware they understand nothing about a topic can effectively understand how to break down knowledge in such a way that they can self-teach.

You're right that online classes are not self directed in all cases, to which online learning could be highly effective. But you seem to have a perspective on this that I have just yet to see evidence on.

Quote

So it's a good thing it's not  "as-yet-unknown." It's known because there are examples of it starting to pop up, and they seem to be not only great, but actually free (instead of "free"). I'm basically saying, " Hey, why don't we let kids have more choices, and start recognizing their achievements on sites like Khan Academy as proof of education?" And you for whatever reason keep insisting "No, we have to keep forcing kids to learn all those things we forced on them before, and must protect our degree producing monopolies. No other ideas allowed!" (Is that goes teachers typically think?)

I think he's probably arguing for traditional classrooms because they have a shitload of effectiveness to them (WHEN DONE CORRECTLY). Studies suggest that a hybridized study has the highest success rate, which means that if you really want students to succeed, online academies are limited.

Edited December 14, 2015 by evan

[Rassah]

7 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

About six months.  Which is pretty good for someone who only finished college in Aug 2014.

So you're 6 months worth of wealthy. Not bad. The question isn't how fast you can find employment again, but simply a more objective measure of wealth. Most people are less than 2 weeks wealthy. The rich are typically indefinitely wealthy. I'm about 10 years to indefinitely. Someone who earns $250,000+ a year and has a nice house and car, while spending all of their income on mortgages and loans, is actually still poor by that definition of wealth, while someone who has some assets that earn them $30,000 a year (like a rental property for instance), and who lives meagerly in a small apartment with an old car on $25,000 a year is richer than that $250,000 income person. This is why I don't consider the amount of money someone earns to matter when it comed to how rich someone is. I.e. even if you brag that you have a million bucks, that still doesn't say anything, since you could be in a situation where you'll be forced to spend it all in a few months. It's ALL about asset income vs liabilities/expenses.

 

2 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

If $6000 is too much per student per year, but private schools have an average tuition if $9500 per year in the United States, I don't see how the rationalization can be made that it can be much, much, much cheaper somehow.

Easy. Competition always always always makes things cheaper. Again, there's little to no competition in schools. Even in private schools. Private schools can even charge a premium by claiming they are selling luxury education compared to the crappy public schools.

 

1 hour ago, evan said:

Not sure why you're saying this considering you've just asked a poor person that question

I asked a (poor?) person that question because they asked me that question. There was no reason for them to ask that question, since I have no problems with poor people. If they have no problems with poor progress either, then they got to see what it's like to be asked a (mis)leading question too.

Quote

when you actually HAVE expressed ideological differences you feel you have with poor people,

I don't have ideological differences with poor people, I have ideological differences with statists, socialists, and communists. They're not all poor people, and not all poor people hold those ideologies.

Quote

And my point is that not all change is the same. Just because you feel that your idea of change is effective, doesn't mean that a peer who disagrees is a liberal.

You mean conservative? You are conservative if your want to preserve the status quo, not if you don't think a change will be effective. And especially conservative if you don't even support *trying* alternatives. E.g. conservatives didn't support even trying to let gay marriage be legal, out of fear it will ruin all marriage. Conservatives don't support even trying to let people who pay into their social security manage some of their funds in their own investments, out of fear that it will ruin all of social security. And in this case the conservative is arguing pretty hard against trying the idea of online self-directed learning or allowing students to choose which classes they want to take, out of fear that it will ruin the whole education system.

Quote

Teachers have been trying make massive changes in the system for a while, seeing as there's that whole issue of standardized testing we kept coming back to.

That's not a massive change. All purposed changes have been tiny and incremental. A massive change would be something like abolishing grades, or changing teaching styles from teacher led where kids just sit still and listen, to participatory learning where kids learn hands on in a group and the teacher just provides guidance. If it's still kids being forced to sit at desks and being told what to do, it's not a massive change.

 

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, evan said:

Do you have proof of this?

Do I have proof that if someone wants to learn something, they will try to learn it? Does that require proof???

1 hour ago, evan said:

Learning psychology is far more complicated than you seem to think

Please refrain from claiming what I think. I don't have any thoughts on the difficulty of learning psychology, and have not indicated anything about that.

1 hour ago, evan said:

I'd like to see if you can prove that humans who are aware they understand nothing about a topic can effectively understand how to break down knowledge in such a way that they can self-teach.

They don't have to. The online materials break the knowledge topics down for them. They simply have to start with lesson one.

1 hour ago, evan said:

I think he's probably arguing for traditional classrooms because they have a shitload of effectiveness to them (WHEN DONE CORRECTLY). Studies suggest that a hybridized study has the highest success rate, which means that if you really want students to succeed, online academies are limited.

I only brought up online academies as a resource for those for whom other options are limited (e.g. if you can't get into a university, or can't afford the tens if thousands it will cost, you STILL have options to learn things, if you want to). As for traditional classrooms, they have had a shitload of decline in quality over the decades, while at the same time we are spending more on them than we ever have before. We need to break the pattern somehow. 

[evan]

5 minutes ago, Rassah said:

You mean conservative?

i did mean to say conservative. liberal where it is in that sentence is a mistype.

 

although frankly i saw your little bit about "not wanting to change education" and i am a little aggravated because you dont seem to understand that i am in favour of change dictated by teachers, not bitcoin economists.