Forum Post: PUFF On A Plan for Education
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 2:43 a.m. EST by puff6962
(4052)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We must once again be a nation of builders. At the end of World War II, returning GI’s were faced with a bleak job market. Our federal government anticipated their plight and, in order to shrink number of excess workers, offered the "GI bill. " This insight allowed millions, who would otherwise lack adequate financial resources, to attend college. This investment bred a generation of entrepreneurs, engineers, intellectuals, and scientists. The investment was returned tenfold. We are once again faced with a crisis that has left millions of Americans without gainful employment and unqualified for a transitioning economy. Our federal government should immediately take measures to shrink the surplus of workers in our economy. There’s never been a better time in history to be in school. The job market is bleak and our skill sets need improvement. A national endowment should be created to fund what our country needs most; engineers who understand business. Scholarships, grants, and generous financial aid should be granted to those who will participate in approved programs. The net effect will be a new generation of experts proficient in science and in the business opportunities of the future.
A wise investment in our future will occur while abating, somewhat, the plight of the unemployed
If you want to change the world, you change the incentives.
There's a wonderful lady that worked in the education system for decades, Charlotte Iserbyt, that I think you should meet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezTIYd5UFRY
I like this.
Then write your congressman.
Most engineers already get master's degrees in business mgmt. Employers pay for engineers to get MBAs. You're always so late.
Can you cite your reference for you first statement.
Still waiting for those numbers.....and I'm being polite. Please come out and play.
Had any luck with those numbers? Come on, you are failing in your duties as my worthy adversary.
lulz. This line of comments was great to read because I didn't notice the guys name until you called him your adversary.
with the exception of that was then and this is now. and we seem to have a surplus of "college educated idiots" and no jobs for them
how does pushing a few hundred thousand more through "Higher" education help?
we already have thousands in the street
We have too many communications and business majors and not enough people who know how to build things.
If you want to shrink the work force temporarily then you have two options.....get people in school until things get better and/or incentivize employers and governments to offer early retirement options for older workers.
A surplus of college educated "idiots?" What about the surplus of those without a college education who never had a chance?
Grow a pair and think for just once.
I think creation of jobs by the private market is the best solution. It will happen, in time, after we all stop freaking out.
Ya, we can all flip burgers for each other or sell pieces of paper back and forth and pretend we're rich.
No nation can survive that does not build things.
I would love to rail more, but I seem to have a lot to respond to tonight.
It's really embarrassing the direction our nation is heading. China built a massive bridge across part of an ocean and we stopped funding aspects of our space exploration program.
The fucking odd thing about it is that it is the burger flippers who are adamant about economic policies that will lead to only more burger flipping.
It makes zero sense. A lot of people are stupid and a lot of people are ignorant. At least stupid people are open to reason and logic and can be educated. Ignorant people will remain ignorant.
Well, we need to compete with other countries in order to "build things". We can't compete with China for manufacturing of crap goods.
The best counter point to your post is Hong Kong and it's stellar growth the past 20-30 years. They have no natural resources but got so rich so fast because of free trade.
Horseshit. They got so rich because they have cheap labor, speak English, and were the island of stability for investments flowing into East Asia.
Free trade is not a pathway to riches, it is a race to the bottom.
hey - you are are the money here - i would try to take you on a slightly different path - our economy is inherently sick - consumerism is an unstable way to run a society. we need production for use and not for profit and we also need to address the resource scarcity that is looming on the horizon. the whole way economic activity is measured is twisted - we need to change direction - having said that - keep at it - you go the right idea!
Free trade has become a vehicle for a very small minority of Americans to reap massive profits by exploiting the cheapest labor on the planet while simultaneously selling off chunks of America by eroding our manufacturing base.
These people are stealing food from your plate while preaching the gospel of laissez-faire capitalism.
we agree but i think it always was - take a look at how laissez faire worked in britian in the 1800's
There really isn't much evidence to support your statement. The united states is a free trade zone and guess what happened since it was founded? That's right. A freaking explosion of wealth largely because of free trade.
What was the average rate of GDP growth in this country between 1945 to 1980?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
What has it been since trickle down economics and free trade took the reigns?
i would look at the golden age of capitalism - 1948n to 1970 or some where near that time - look at tax rates etc - keynes set up a system that prohibited the virtual senate from dictating policy - here is noam - NOAM CHOMSKY: Well I basically agree with your picture. In my view, the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s is probably the major international event since 1945, much more significant in its implications than the collapse of the Soviet Union.
From roughly 1950 until the early 1970s there was a period of unprecedented economic growth and egalitarian economic growth. So the lowest quintile did as well -- in fact they even did a little bit better -- than the highest quintile. It was also a period of some limited but real form of benefits for the population. And in fact social indicators, measurements of the health of society, they very closely tracked growth. As growth went up social indicators went up, as you'd expect. Many economists called it the golden age of modern capitalism -- they should call it state capitalism because government spending was a major engine of growth and development.
In the mid 1970s that changed. Bretton Woods restrictions on finance were dismantled, finance was freed, speculation boomed, huge amounts of capital started going into speculation against currencies and other paper manipulations, and the entire economy became financialized. The power of the economy shifted to the financial institutions, away from manufacturing. And since then, the majority of the population has had a very tough time; in fact it may be a unique period in American history. There's no other period where real wages -- wages adjusted for inflation -- have more or less stagnated for so long for a majority of the population and where living standards have stagnated or declined. If you look at social indicators, they track growth pretty closely until 1975, and at that point they started to decline, so much so that now we're pretty much back to the level of 1960. There was growth, but it was highly inegalitarian -- it went into a very small number of pockets. There have been brief periods in which this shifted, so during the tech bubble, which was a bubble in the late Clinton years, wages improved and unemployment went down, but these are slight deviations in a steady tendency of stagnation and decline for the majority of the population.
Financial crises have increased during this period, as predicted by a number of international economists. Once financial markets were freed up, there was expected to be an increase in financial crises, and that's happened. This crisis happens to be exploding in the rich countries, so people are talking about it, but it's been happening regularly around the world -- some of them very serious -- and not only are they increasing in frequency but they're getting deeper. And it's been predicted and discussed and there are good reasons for it.
About 10 years ago there was an important book called Global Finance at Risk, by two well-known economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor. In it they refer to the well-known fact that there are basic inefficiencies intrinsic to markets. In the case of financial markets, they under-price risk. They don't count in systemic risk -- general social costs. So for example if you sell me a car, you and I may make a good bargain, but we don't count in the costs to the society -- pollution, congestion and so on. In financial markets, this means that risks are under-priced, so there are more risks taken than would happen in an efficient system. And that of course leads to crashes. If you had adequate regulation, you could control and prevent market inefficiencies. If you deregulate, you're going to maximize market inefficiency.
This is pretty elementary economics. They happen to discuss it in this book; others have discussed it too. And that's what's happening. Risks were under-priced, therefore more risks were taken than should have been, and sooner or later it was going to crash. Nobody predicted exactly when, and the depth of the crash is a little surprising. That's in part because of the creation of exotic financial instruments which were deregulated, meaning that nobody really knew who owed what to whom. It was all split up in crazy ways. So the depth of the crisis is pretty severe -- we're not to the bottom yet -- and the architects of this are the people who are now designing Obama's economic policies.
Actually fairly steady. There has been some negative growth but mainly, it's been positive.
Source: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=149
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States
I don't see anything that supports what you say. There are also better sources than wikipedia on this matter btw.
http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393060691
I'm not going to buy a book. Any statistic that proves your point can either be cited from the internet or you can extract a quote from the book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0393060691/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used
From 1945 to 1980, the average GDP growth.....following enactment of New Deal policies, progressive taxation (marginal rates peaked above 90% under Eisenhower), and with massive investments in infrastructure.....was 3.5 to 4% depending on source.
Following the advent of trickle down economics, massive cuts in revenues, and regressive policies favoring the rich, it has averaged less than 2%.
The Reagan, and post Reagan years 1990-1995, are best shown by this publication:
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/beyond/beyondco/beg_04.pdf
Ok, but equating tax cuts with a lower GDP growth isn't a very good argument. Not to mention, the Regan years weren't exactly successful at cutting taxes or regulations. The increase in spending while he was president I think is only third to Bush Jr and Obama.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
Lulz the repubs said that back when GWB first became president and then cut their taxes saying that would create more jobs. Yet recently the head of the GOP said that didn't even create more jobs. All you can count on in the corporate world is maximizing profits. And currently their model for that is firing employees and putting the extra work on the remaining employees without a pay raise. And Obama spoke out against all this and then extended the Bush tax cuts like the fraud that he is.
I'm all for tax cuts for everyone but we can't do that until the government does some serious cutting and restoring the power of the monetary system to the constitutional arrangement. Pass HR 2990 and then cut out all the crap in the government and end the wars. No more deficit, no more borrowing from China, and no more federal reserve printing money for their own self interests. The Federal Reserve used our tax dollar bailouts to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air. Could you imagine if we had the ability to govern such wealth? Under the outline of HR 2990 we could create a full employment economy and strengthen and extend our infrastructure.
I think that's a great idea, but I have a problem with limiting it to only certain professions. The country should increase investment in ALL education. Without the humanities and arts, we would be left with a soul-less nation, without the ability to think ethically. Nor are the humanities and arts slouches in terms of generating economic growth.
I agree with that completely.... artist are our imagination. Not one piece of science today was but inspired by a piece of sci-fi (art) from yesterday. What we present to our children as artists, is the communities visions and imaginings.... powerful, and relevant things.
Thank, you, but the truth is I was less interested in creativity than in ethics, (though creativity is certainly important.)
Fine artists (not commercial ones, who work for clients) are intimately concerned with freedom, especially freedom of thought. They struggle their entire lives to eliminate self-censoring. They work to expose, to themselves, their humanity. Because of that, they tend to work for freedom in the public sphere as well, and tend to support causes that help other people's humanity and dignity. They tend to be very strong advocates of ethics.
Historians are the memory of our actions in the past, and the analysts of those action's consequences. They help remind us if we are repeating mistakes.
Philosophers study ethics directly, and transmit their researches to society.
Writers, journalists and novelists alike, spend their lives looking at and commenting on human experience, individual, societal and cultural., They articulate our understanding of ourselves, and often show us where we need to do some work.
Lawyers battle each other to defend rights. And judges help prioritize competing rights.
The list goes on. It is a list of those who act as the conscience of the community. Engineers work on making and building things. But they don't work on the questions of whether or not something in particular should be made or built. It's not their job to do so. That job is one people in the humanities and arts do. It is artists and scholars and social workers and labor attorneys who inform our ethics and vivify our democracy.
Withholding support for education in those fields ensures that our values as a society are not discussed or thought about.. We are left with a world in which it is possible to become wealthy and powerful at other's expense without ever asking if it is wrong to do so, of waging war efficiently without considering the victims. It seems to me that right now it is more important than ever for us to be able to raise such issues, and train those people whose job it is to articulate them in meaningful ways.
I would love for government to make all of those investments. But, you have to begin, in politics, with what you know will be palatable.
A good attorney never asks a question for which he doesn't already know the answer.
In politics, you begin with what you know will pass.
I agree with that in principle. But doing what I am advocating is NEVER palatable. That's why I'm on a bit of a soap box about it.
The humanities get people to think and feel independently. That is the very LAST thing the power elite wants to encourage. It would be like republicans gerrymandering a district to maximize a democratic vote.
They find a teensy bit of investment in technology palatable (not so much science which insists on things like global warming and evolution) because technology generates money. They will NEVER support education for helping make an electorate better informed.
I have no illusions that this will change in my lifetime. But at a certain point, I just need to vent about it.
The GI bill led to increased funding for universities everywhere across this nation. I think that starting with an educational program that would pass would, similarly, open the floodgates for more governmental investments in secondary education.
I'm with you on the ends, but I am being ferociously practical about how it may come about.
Overstep is the deadly mistake of all new movements.
I'm not really disagreeing, just venting frustration.
I hope you are right about those floodgates. It would be wonderful. But I have never seen it, and don't expect to.
Look at how spending on education was increased following WWII and Sputnik. These things move in spurts.
The sad thing is that it takes a crisis the get the wallets out.
I would love to agree, but I think those were somewhat different circumstances. There was a sense of unity against a common enemy in both cases. I'm not sure that perception exist today. Certainly OWS is raising the common enemy awareness today, but we are still a divided nation. More people respond to what they believe is an existential threat than to complex issues of economic disparity, and government capture by corporations. It is harder to raise passions about the things one thinks about (such as "concentration of wealth undermines democracy") rather than what one feels in their gut (as in, "they're coming to kill us").
And this country seems to be fundamentally suspicious of artists and scholars. They are seen as an elite, and often a narcissistic one to boot. They don't serve the God of utility.
I also think that a kind of efficiency in compartmentalization has taken hold. Moneys are more easily spent in a much more targeted way now.
Again, I hope you are right. But what i have noticed over the span of my lifetime, is a greater institutionalization of all spheres, including education. Arts and humanities education tends to resist it, and is the last to get funded and the first to get cut during budget crunches.
Yes. They are seen as a luxury rather than a necessity. I learned more from my classes in Philosophy than I did getting a M.D.
Writing is thinking and good writing is great thinking.
Sorry, but we live in hard times and investments must be made prudently. If someone wants to study the humanities while also completing a degree in science or engineering......I think that would be fantastic.
But, if you overreach, you will get nothing out of our current Congress. Support is there for a program that supports our long term economic and defense structure.....it is not there to pay for someone to study Art History.
I'm afraid the current congress supports no investment of any kind whatsoever.
And I'm frankly tired of seeing arts and humanities programs consistently eviscerated for the last 50 years. And the excuse every single time is "we live in hard times".
I happen to think that the humanities, not the sciences and technology, inform citizenship, as Dewey did.
We need both make a strong country. We need industry, but we also needs the capacity to use that industry ethically, and to intelligently participate in the polity of the nation.. Both hands are needed to open the jar.
I realize I'm getting up on a bit of a soapbox here, but think about the last time there was this level of scarcity, the Great Depression. The government created the WPA as one response to it. But there were divisions in that program that actually paid artists to make art: there was a mural division, and easel painting division,a restoration division, and so on. What was the result? Not only did artists get to eat, too, but cities and subways were beautified, and more important from an economic point of view, the USA became the center of the art world. Many of those artists who worked in the program became the Abstract Expressionists, and they, in turn acted as a magnet for people all around the world to become artists here, and dealers, and collectors.
It is now an industry that contributes hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy every year.
So, my apologies about the soap-box, but I'm sick to death of the distortions everyone seems to believe that the arts and humanities are poor economic drivers compared to technology, or are less valuable in terms of making for productive citizens.
Finally, without historians and artists, et al, who is left to remind the scientists that making bombs is bad?
Sadly, I think both your suggestion and mine are moot at the moment. The right wing has convinced everyone that austerity, not investment in the future, is in their best interest. That they are shilling for the banks gets missed in the discussion.
Whether you think you can or cannot, you are right.
History teaches us that you can sell anything as long as it is a national security issue.
Too true.
[Deleted]
Dude, put the joint down while you're typing.
They sent those jobs overseas. There is no shortage. There isn't anything wrong with the kids today. The only people that profit with standardized testing are testing companies that do not pay taxes because they are "education". And at least one of those testing companies also sells textbooks. Those tests do not compare state to state and there is no real comparison between this countries testing and others.
And you know what happens? Money gets siphoned off into charter schools that are failing and closing. They aren't even held up to standards that the public education is. But, I'm sure that if people keeping throwing money at it, something will stick.
You have kids that are mainstreamed into classes that shouldn't be. You have kids that have English as a second language. You have parents and teachers at each others throats. For what? To give a bunch of corporations (or non profits) cash. This is crazy.The kids get told over and over again that they are stupid. They aren't.
I came to a similar conclusion after my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-students-choose-poor-majors/ . We have a shortage of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) graduates and that's causing us to grant work visas to foreign graduates. I also learned folks seek different degrees for a variety of reasons, but concluded that perhaps the taxpayer should only be funding degrees in areas where we know we have a national need.
I also think we could perhaps have great impact by expanding the number of grants we provide for people in the medical professions. If we were to flood the market with service minded young people who don't have excessive debt loads, we should be able to lower the expectation of wages in those professions. A little tort reform would help as well.
In either case, it seems to me we would be better served spending our dollars on training and education to fill jobs where we have shortages rather than pay folks to sit at home on unemployment.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-us-produce-too-m
There is no shortage. FIRMS in India are sending the students over on HB-1 visas so that they can return and the jobs can be outsourced. THAT is where they are going. Bill Gates knew this in 2008 when he threatened to move his company overseas. Two studies that were conducted at the time also showed otherwise. He is a member of NASSCOM. He had already sent his business overseas.
You know what? Legal is also being shipped overseas.
I am a very senior staff engineer, and we can't get enough STEM graduates. The government even promotes STEM careers and the NSF is offering grants.
Rico, I know that the government is promoting it-which makes it a three ring circus.
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/Su09Brown.pdf
Hunger is a powerful motivator.
we are not short science degrees
the market is not geared towards efficient methods
it's methods are of profit
We need good scientists getting some of that profit.
more likely company scientist to lie for the sake of profit
The exception is not always the rule.
Again, I am a senior staff level engineer, and my company can't get enough STEM majors.
I know a programmer out of work
Where does he/she live ? Is he/she willing to relocate if necessary ?
should that be necessary in San Diego ?
if he needs to locate, there isn't a shortage here
I ask because I know where he might find a job, but he'd have to relocate. My employer does not operate in San Diego. Now that I think of it, I'm not willing to divulge my employer here in any case. There ARE plenty of STEM jobs, but the candidate may have to relocate to find a good one. I know from recent research that most of the American video game shops are hiring, for example, but I don't think they're in San Diego.
STEM doesn't mean anything to me
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields
not sure how tech isn't engineering
perhaps tech extends into the field of resources available
Tech.....computer programming, electrical engineering, etc.....should be included.
falls under engineering
Technocracy is a form of government where technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. Economists, engineers, scientists, health professionals, and those who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body. In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
Technocracy sounds like it rhymes with Ayn Rand.
I like the notion of government being advised by experts and representatives being selected by a very well informed citizenry.
Greece's new government is called a Technocracy after the bank taker over
Have you ever been to Greece? It is the most bizarre "modern" economy that I have seen. People can legally evade their taxes, government employees don't really serve the people, business does what it wants, and the country is in chaos.......wait a minute, that's also the U.S.
But, seriously, Greece is not the example of any government I would use.
It doesn't matter, the denial is incredible and people are going to continue the three ring circus. They aren't going to stop until it is a complete feudal society.
You lost me. I didn't follow the leap from STEM jobs to a feudal society.
I promise 40 hour a week jobs for every man, woman and child.
Child?
jobs is a right
Kids is people too.
IT'S PEOPLE!
CUNY was founded in 1874 as a free institution of higher learning for the City of New York and it remained tuition-free until the 1970s.
Jonas Salk, who developed the polio vaccine, attended tuition-free CUNY and then medical school and gifted the world with his discovery, saying patenting the vaccine "would be like patenting the sun".
That alone is ROI enough, but there is a long list of distinguished Americans who benefited from attending the tuition-free City College of New York and who also gave much back to their communities and to the world.
Lists of these distinguished CUNY alumni can be found here:
http://occupywallst.org/article/cuny-attacks-protest/#comment-433529
http://occupywallst.org/article/cuny-attacks-protest/#comment-433520
From Wikipedia:
The City College of New York was originally founded as the Free Academy of the City of New York in 1847 by wealthy businessman and president of the Board of Education Townsend Harris.
A combination prep school and college, it would provide children of immigrants and the poor access to free higher education based on academic merit alone.
The Free Academy was the first of what would become a system of municipally-supported colleges.
Hunter College, the second, was founded as a women's institution in 1870. Brooklyn College, the third, was established as a coeducational institution in 1930.
In 1847, New York State Governor John Young had given permission to the Board of Education to found the Free Academy, which was ratified in a statewide referendum. Founder Townsend Harris proclaimed:
"Open the doors to all… Let the children of the rich and the poor take their seats together and know of no distinction save that of industry, good conduct and intellect."
Dr. Horace Webster, a West Point graduate, was the first president of the Free Academy. On the occasion of The Free Academy's formal opening, January 21, 1849, Webster said:
The experiment is to be tried, whether the children of the people, the children of the whole people, can be educated; and whether an institution of the highest grade, can be successfully controlled by the popular will, not by the privileged few.
(I am reposting this from another thread for the benefit of all the know nothings who will holler when they see the word "free")
Yes....there are countless examples of a relatively small investments in education reaping enormous rewards.
You can still get benefits from the military, but it requires service. It isn't simply a handout.
One man's handout is another man's investment in the future.
As a nation we need two things.....engineers and engineers who know how to run a business.
The two are so important, that I consider their promotion to be a national security issue.
Our country has enough communications majors. We need people who know how to build things.
True, but I'd like the investment to be as safe as possible though. The years spent in the military give the individual a certain maturity that the typical 18 year old lacks. I suppose the government has an interest and a right to offer tuition for certain degrees based on the needs of the nation. It is after all making the financial contribution.
It is a national security issue. Economics are the new form of warfare. Technological superiority is the new imperialism.
In a separate initiative, I have proposed the renewal of the draft and the requirement of one to two years of "national service" for all of our youth.
Hell, I'll just copy and paste it now:
A military draft should be reinstated, but should require equal numbers of draftees from each 10 percent increments pf income levels in our population. This would provide a military that is a crossection of our population, but would mean that those who had parents in the top 10 and 20% would be more likely asked to serve. I think that alone would place a damper on any more stupid wars (I could be wrong). But, the powerful don't usually send to kids to war. Also, it would revive some semblance service by all to our country and shared sacrifice. It's simply disgusting that many GI's have rotated 4 tours through Iraq or Afghanistan, or have been "stopped out." This can simply never happen again.
Some form of national service is a good idea that's been around for a while. It never seems to gain much traction in the US. Help with certain majors in college can be a good reward for either military or non military service. Like every other idea on here though, it doesn't go beyond a few people and won't until this movement gets directly involved with electing people that can push those ideas.
First Power, Then Change.
The other idea that builds upon this framework of decreasing the effective labor pool during this recession.....is providing special incentives for companies to offer early retirement.
When is Madmen coming back?
[Removed]
No use of money would be better than PSA campaigns, ran through the TV (because its the only thing that gets through this dumb ass country's head) reminding parents to be parents.
Similar to the Read to your kid campaign. But more. Unfortunately, pertty much the entire nation needs a reminder of how to act right.
PSA campaigns?
This is not a "bitch about education" thread. It is a very simple initiative that will cost a pittance in comparison to it's long term benefits.
Again, increasing the number of scientists and engineers in this country has become a national security issue.
Sadly, these two girls won't get a chance to further their education.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/enterprise-rent-a-car-murders-children/
The KTC supports Enterprise's demise.
The Revolution starts here!
Please, I know you're short the stock. But, Toshiba is not where the revolution starts or ends. It is the little fly buzzing around you while you're storming the beaches of Normandy.
Focus on getting big money out of politics.....that is the only issue.
Learn how to read before dishing out criticism you fucking asshole.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/enterprise-rent-a-car-murders-children/
Does this link say anything about Toshiba. I copied it from the link above. Take another look!
The Revolution starts here!
I'm afraid of hitting these links. But, the revolution begins where I said.
If you want the money out of politics, you target the bad companies that put it in politics. Toshiba and Enterprise Rent a Car.
The Revolution starts here!
You're short enterprise rent a car as well?
You have to be getting paid to post this stuff. You're always posting the same stuff. Every thread I look at, you're there.
No. I haven't received one penny. The same day I learned about Toshiba's involvement with the nuclear accident in Japan was the same day I heard about Enterprise. I had always planned on doing something about it, and since I was here, I figured I would take some time away from Toshiba and focus on them.
The Revolution starts here! :P
There is no monetary solution to a cultural problem. We are culture of lazy hacks, spoiled and overly self centered.
The kids reflect the parents who reflect the overall society.
Throw all the money you want at it, the results are going to continue to get worse.
Yes. I am not being sarcastic when I suggest that we should require uniforms in our schools or that putting down that I-phone and picking up a book has become a national security issue.
By the time people enter college they are who they are. Their thought patterns, their reactions, their personalities and their behaviors are already set.
We are raising entire generations of lazy, spoiled brats, whose thinking skills are horrible.
The parents are to blame for 90% of it. The other 10% is the dumb ass standardized tests that require next to zero application.
Grandpa, come down. Hee Haw is on.
I am sad to say that I agree with some of this.
There is a great book by Malcolm Gladwell called, "Outliers." In it, Gladwell examines "genius" and exceptional people.
One of the things he highlights is that is takes around 10,000 hours to master a subject, skill, or profession.
So, every time I see a child on a video game, texting, or watching television (rather than reading, playing music, a hobby, or actually speaking to someone), I am saddened.
Turning off the electronics may be the single most important factor in predicting the future of this nation.
Number one problem towards education is the piss poor parenting of this country. No amounts of money can solve this, funding has grown incredibly the last 30 years, and the results are horrendous.
The parents are the key. Hopefully OWS will do a better job in the future.
I believe that property tax levies towards education, and private school tuition, should be tied to good behavior while in class and to some measure of performance and effort.
If you want to change the world, you change the incentives.
I agree with this, except I would argue that ALL post secondary education should be FREE. Yes, even Fine arts and Humanities. I see only positive benefits from a person creating art all day or getting a PhD in Medieval history.
In fact, I would argue not only that school should be FREE, but students should get PAID to be in school. This is the way it was in the Soviet Union. Not a fortune, just a 'stipend'.
The reason the government would be opposed to such a thing, is because it would create a well educated population that would be well informed, skeptical, and critically thinking. This would make it difficult for the government or corporation to 'pull the wool over someone's eyes'. An uninformed, uneducated population is much easier to control than an educated, skeptical one.
I think this is one of the reasons why so many Americans rejected the Vietnam war in the 1960s, they were well-educated and encouraged to speak freely. The hippies were the children of the WW2 vets after all. Also, I think the state of California had the best public education in the USA at the time, and also happened to be the epicenter of the Hippie movement.
We are in the 21st century now. It's entirely possible to have fully automated factories where unskilled labour is done by robots. We don't really need zombies on the assembly line anymore, we need well educated people to oversee the machines.
Today, robots could be doing most of the dangerous, dirty and demeaning work, humans could be completely free to spend time with their families, or learning about everything and anything in FREE universities.
This wouldn't work with our current economic model of corporate Capitalism, but COULD be made to work. Isn't this the way that you always pictured life in the 21st century to be like?
The first law of robotics is that a robot may not harm a human being or, through inaction, cause a human to come to harm.
So, I don't think the robots will be taking over any time soon.
There is only so much that a modern robot can do. It is vastly cheaper to hire a 9 year old Chinese peasant anyway.
In the 21st century, there will be a re-examination of globalization as older economies watch their accumulated wealth be depleted to pay for these cheap products.
All education should not be free. It should, however, be affordable. Make something free and you take away the personal stake in the process. My lord, look at high school. If student's parents had to pay for public education directly, and if disorderly students were charged a higher rate based upon the level of personnel they diverted from their purpose.....don't you think there would be a little more learning and a little less texting?
Move to Canada....
That is a single-wide outlook upon the world. The best way to live life is to learn from mistakes.....particularly those of others. And it doesn't hurt to look at what other countries do very right and see if they can work here. Move to Canada?
To answer your question, publicly, a "single-wide" outlook refers to the pejorative beliefs of white trash living in a single-wide trailer. Now, this is to be distinguished from the beliefs of a "double-wide" dweller who has a slightly more sophisticated manner of expressing their detritus. Move to Canada or stay here and be bitchslapped.
Eh, well I am not worried about robots taking over. The only reason it is cheaper to hire a 9 year old Chinese peasant is because the peasants don't need maintenance and repair, like robots do.
Also, I don't think the current situation of 'get cheap Chinese slave labour to make it' will last much longer. All it would take would be an embargo by China, or a disaster in China, or enough of a spike in fuel costs, and the days of North America importing it's goods is abruptly ended.
If and when that happens,it will be a tremendous shock too. Have you seen the crowds at 'Black Friday' at Wal-Mart? People are already trampling each other to death just for a $2 waffle iron. Imagine the situation when the shelves are empty, except for say a few cans of tuna.
The reason I bring up robots is because the manufacturing base in the USA has been completely ravaged. There is a bright side to this though, it means that when the manufacturing facilities are replaced, they -could be- the most modern in the world.
A lot of robots can do enough to replace assembly line workers, at least in the automotive department. Even if robots 'aren't there yet', it's a technology that is rapidly developing. In Japan, they now have robot -nurses- for the elderly.
It's conceivable that robots could do most of the repetitive, dangerous and dirty work, even if it would be cheaper to hire child labour to do it. We have to imagine -outside- of the profit model to see the advantage of this though. There are better things a child could be doing rather than stitching Nike shoes together.
The downside to having robots replace the jobs of Chinese children? Well, what would all the people that would have spent all day working at the factory do with all their spare time? This is why I think education should be free, even at post secondary level. In a true democracy, everyone should be as educated as possible to make an informed decision on everything.
Oh, BTW, post-secondary education in Canada is NOT free. It is much cheaper than in the U.S., and Canadian Universities score as well or better than the U.S., but they still aren't free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-3hZsXrxaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power let us hear no more of trust in men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."
"A politician cannot spend one dime on any spending project without first taking that dime from the person who earned it. So, when a politician votes for a spending bill he is saying that he believes the government should spend that particular dollar rather than the individual who worked for it." Neal Boortz.
"There is no such thing as government money - only taxpayer money." William Weld, quoted in Readers Digest.
Yes, but governments have performed roles that allow an exponential gain in the velocity of money. The capital freed by such assurances as social security and medicare mean that our consumer driven economy can consume.
You would not, could not, imagine a world without these programs, highways, standardized financial reporting, etc.
Or, perhaps you could.
By the way, Jefferson died dead broke. He was a man who existed outside of his ideals.....in every manner. So, nice referencing. It probably applies to you as well.
I'll make sure that I never reply to one of your post again. Teachers are on the streets out of work. We're trillions of dollars in debt. Broke that's what our country is just like Thomas Jefferson was and your children are in debt too. There's no money for you to use for this idea of yours if you want the tax payers to fund it.
"It's the deficit, stupid."
Follow the money and your questions will be answered.
Who has the money? The 1%.
Why do they have the money? Because they own the electoral and political process.
Now do you understand where your taxes go?
XaiverBuchsIV, It is the national debt that's the problem
The National Debt is the total amount that the government currently owes from all of its past borrowing. I guess that we could safely say that it is the mortgage that our governments, past and present, have borrowed on the United States of America.
A budget deficit, on the other hand, is the amount by which expenditures exceed receipts in a single year. Today there is a simple way for the lay person to distinguish between these two things - the deficit is tabulated in Billions and the National Debt is now tabulated in Trillions.
You should also beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme collecting funds with a Payroll Tax, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.
Wrong. The national debt is a symptom of the problem.
The problem is the failure of congress to collect sufficient tax revenue in combination with profligate spending on non-productive things that creates the debt.
example:
Bush tax cuts ($400 billion a year less revenue), plus Iraq War ($400 billion a year cost) = $800 billion annual shortfall.
Just like there was no money for World War II.....
You probably believe that the Bush tax breaks paid for themselves, don't you.
You probably voted for the little chimp twice. You probably self soothe yourself by rubbing up against people, too. Damn monkeys.
Hey there you freak, what kind of shit have you been smoking? I can smell you from 100 yards away you pig.
You probably trow feces at yourself too, don't you Seymore?
I must be tough going through life knowing that you're only a parrot saying a prayer....try to sound smart somewhere else assdouche.
Here's you a little lesson just in case your like XaiverBuchsIV,
It is the national debt that's the problem
The National Debt is the total amount that the government currently owes from all of its past borrowing. I guess that we could safely say that it is the mortgage that our governments, past and present, have borrowed on the United States of America.
A budget deficit, on the other hand, is the amount by which expenditures exceed receipts in a single year. Today there is a simple way for the lay person to distinguish between these two things - the deficit is tabulated in Billions and the National Debt is now tabulated in Trillions.
You should also beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme collecting funds with a Payroll Tax, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.
If social security is a ponzi scheme, it is the longest lasting fraud in the history of mankind.
Can you anticipate how long you will live? How much you will have to save? How long you'll be able to work? Whether your investments will be safe when you're 75? Will you be able to manage your investments when you're elderly?
The America of 1935 was not socialistic, communistic, or deluded. The America of 1935 knew what it was like to work when you were 73, and be glad of it, because the alternative was "the poor house."
Go read about the poor houses of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The problem with America is not excessive social spending, the problem with America is Americans. We want the five course meal while only paying for the appetizers.
The present American people are nothing compared to the generation that fought the war.
Perhaps, but desperate situations either breed anarchy or greatness. I would like to pursue the later.
Throwing money at a cultural problem has already proven not to work. You could double the amount of cash going into education, the results are going ot conitune to get worse...
How can you not see this?
But starving schools of money is not the answer, either. Although there are no guarantees, in education (as one example) most of the time more money is better than less money. It takes money to pay for teachers, keep class sizes down, maintain a library, keep science labs equipped, keep school roofs from leaking, heat school adequately. provide school lunches, and so on.
Many, many schools don't have these things. No libraries, no heat, no science labs, no books for the students, not enough chairs for them to sit in, not enough teachers to teach them. They don't have them, not because they are too well funded, but because they are grossly underfunded.
Since public K-12 education is mostly funded by local property taxes, poor communities, who actually need much more to overcome generations of poverty and lack of education and the problems that stem from them, nearly always wind up with less. And that despite the fact that they regularly tax themselves at higher rates than their better off neighbors.
The argument "Just throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it" while reasonable in an of itself, is generally only applied to those schoosl that need more, that are underfunded. Nobody ever talks about reducing budgets for well funded (mostly suburban and white) schools that are doing well. When such proposals are made, parents rise up in outrage. But it's par for the course when talking about schools in poor. mostly minority districts. The pattern is absolutely racist, not via individual bigotry, but institutional structure.
For a thorough analysis of the relationship between funding and education results, Jonathan Kozol's book "Savage Inequalities" is the best I have seen. I think it should be required reading for every student, parent, and especially politician in the country.
As to throwing money at the problem not working in other areas, fewer people are starving due to food stamps. fewer kids are chronically hungry because of school lunches. Fewer infants are dying due to funding for community infant care facilities.
Money is not the sole answer, but without it, there is hardly any answer at all.
Who said cut everything?
I realize you weren't talking about cutting anything, but education in this country is GROSSLY underfunded, and I'm really tired of hearing the "throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it" argument. It is never a phrase applied to well-funded programs, successful largely because of being generously funded, but almost always to underfunded ones.
Throwing money at the problem is absolutely necessary. Doubling the money at problems has indeed positively changed results in many programs, and doubling it in schools in poor neighborhoods would go a long way to solving problems. Good management is critical, but NOT throwing money at it dooms any school to failure.
Im just saying that the best teachers in the world cannot teach kids who dont have the basic fundementals down.
You cant change behavior that has been formed since birth.
Give me well behaved kids, and I can teach them a freakin ton with just notepads and pencils. Dont even need books, if its in my area of expertise.
You can triple the amount of money in poor schools, it wont matter. I work in the communities, its really messed up. And the folks there agree with me. We talk constantly how no one there has a shot.
As someone who taught for 15 years in New York and New Jersey, I couldn't disagree with you more. The worse the behavior, the more intervention is needed. And that costs money.
Virtually no one is irredeemable. Giving up on them is not an option.
Im not saying anything close to giving up. Im talking about the hordes of teachers I talk to that candidly say there isnt anything they can do for kids that dont understand basic social norms.
I would like to see SOMEONE start to call out the parents. They are the key.
do you agree that parents are the difference between the gap in grades of private vs public schools?
The average teen spends over 6 hours per day on electronic devices.
You just cannot become expert, or proficient, in anything....you can't learn to think....if you are wasting that kind of time.
very good point
Absolutely.
Parental involvement can't be overestimated. But the problem is, schools rarely have a mandate to intervene in a failed home, with apathetic parents, or parents who are convinced that education is capitulation to the White man.
That leaves only intervening with the kids themselves. I agree" it is TOUGH, and much of the time it's a losing battle. But kids CAN be reached. Perhaps not all of them, perhaps only a few, but it's better than nothing. And to maximize whatever chances the education system has on turning these lost young souls around means class sizes that nobody wants to pay for. 40 kids in a class absolutely insures failure. Even half that number is more than all research shows is effective. How do you reduce class size to below 20 kids (and for troubled kids, 8) per teacher?
Money. Gobs of it. Maybe even almost as much as it would cost to lock these kids up when (no if) they go to jail.
Ask your teacher friends if they would be as hobbled with really small class sizes in terms of getting through to these kids. Also ask them what would happen if everyone throughout the county, rich and poor alike, were bussed to other schools, so that the minority of "bad" kids were always in the company, indeed outnumbered by, normally and higher performing kids.
Even without parental support, that would go a long way toward helping.
The truth is, when it comes to education, there is no panacea. Considering the extremely complex interactions of history, poverty, social heredity,, and more, no one simple solution can work. Multiple, coordinated strategies need to be employed. Money is not the single solution, but is a critical factor among many factors, and its importance cannot be overstated.
In terms of the differences in achievement between public and private schools, certainly parental involvement is one key. But so is student involvement. Both come into private schools aware of the personal investment they are making. Because public schools have been framed on terms of merely a municipal service, and teachers merely hired hands (and demonized as greedy unionists to boot) there is little sense of that investment by many public school kids and their parents. In fact, teachers have been presented as the enemy, for historical reasons by poor minority families, for anti_union ideological reasons by the right wing of the middle class. And how does one have a sense of investment in one's enemy?
I appreciate your candid answer, and I think you have many very good points. Would you consider forming some sort of group that focuses on parents roles in schools?
I taught for 15 years, and worked tirelessly to engage parents (and in some cases worked to get them to back the f**k off!). Right now, I'm very tired. I'll get back to teaching when I catch my breath.
Frankly, I think it's a losing proposition. Parents minds are pretty well set, and for many of them, as I said, the teacher is the enemy to begin with. "Don't you dare tell me how to raise my child" is a common refrain.
I think focussing on the kids is far more important and effective. Sometimes, when their pain is intense enough from their own cognitive dissonance, their own failure, often their abusive families, a teacher can get through. Kids are still pliant, still resilient, still flexible. That is far more rare in parents. If they wanted to get involved in the first place, they would have.
(PS; I added a paragraph to my previous reply, apparently while you were typing. i hope you read it.)
Anyway, thank you for your kind words about my views. It is especially generous considering I opposed your central point pretty strongly.
Have you yourself thought about teaching?
Yes, Ive thought about it alot. The gov has made it very hard to get it going.
I spend some of my time now going to OccupyTampa and trying to get people to think, peel the layers off of everything they are thinking about. Sometimes its good, other times I get looked at weird. Interesting nevertheless.
Yes, very interesting. (Sometimes frustrating as hell, too, I imagine.)
Keep on plugging away though. The worst that can happen is that you'll grow from the experience.
The best of luck, and be well.
translation: gimme gimme gimme!!!
See, this is why Puff's plan needs to be considered soberly: it could lead one day to enabling you to learn to read.
Putting a dollar price on education translates to -- 'I don't give a damn about this Country or anybody else; I got mine, to hell with the rest'.
puff's plan is absurd.
you get 13 years of free education. do well enough there and the pay schools will let you go for free.
Yes, you're proof. We gave you 13 years to get through the 9th grade.
Ask me how much financial aid I got to attend an Ivy league school......and I graduated with a 3.98.
a 3.98 in special ed doesn't really cut it, scro.