|
| Thread: Should public education be illegal? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
posted November 14, 2013 05:37 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
Also, you must stop referring to competition as some kind of fairy dust. It doesn't solve every problem, even in simpler matters. We can all actually witness that living under capitalist countries. When education is on the table you are talking about indoctrination and social status. It's not just any product.
Evolution is basicly one big competition, and brought us.
So in a sense you could argue that competition is indeed good.
That only works if you 'believe' in the evolution.
Time for the paranoids.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 05:40 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:46, 14 Nov 2013.
|
@mvass
I didnt mean in a situation in which you are the suspect. In general, the trend is, in developed countries people speak skeptical and critical of the government but in daily encounters they trust and rely on its instuments such as the police, the health inspector, the tax collector or hospitals etc etc. Europe more than US as far as I can observe. In underdeveloped countries, it's the opposite, people speak very highly of the state when it's spoken of as an abstract value, but in daily encounters (since real life experience always surpasses propaganda) they dont trust the instruments and agents of the state.
@idontcare:
a) Civilisation does not always function same as the wilderness. Leaving the sick and the old behind to die is an evolutionary advantage in nature, we dont consider it a civil act though.
b) Looking out for group interest is an evolutionary trait as much as being competitive. Why do you think ants are so widespread and successful all over the world.
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 06:39 AM |
|
|
So you say the monopol by the state is better then a bunch of competeting private schools (or at least leaded by private men).
Monopol, because public schools dont have any need to compete.
Adding the fact that all have to pay for a below-average education (in comparison to the "facts" of this thread, which i doubt) one could argue that public schools are obsolete.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 07:17 AM |
|
|
No, I'm not against private schools completely. I just think a decent, public organized and funded education is a good thing as the basic foundation. All of us except you had discussed the details of that on other threads, so I dont give much detail.
And looking at the world as it is today, public schools are far, far, far away from obsolete.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 07:40 AM |
|
|
Let's talk about a couple of facts about private schools in the first world.
In Germany, around 8% of all students are visiting private schools, however, a sizable part of them is in part funded by the government. While the education would seem to be better, the reason for this is the elitist background of the students - there are no ethnic and language problems and so on, since everyone is coming from a wealthy home. This has been validated by investigations, mind you: the only country in which private schools are better, even if you consider the different socio-economic background is CANADA.
Now, what does private schooling COST? In Germany MONTHLY cost for a completely private operated school are between 300 and 800 € PER CHILD.
There are of course private boarding schools - you may live too far away from the school of your choice, so your child will be living there - that will cost an additional 600-1800 € PER MONTH and PER CHILD..
If it's a school operated by any Church, it's cheaper, since the Church is massively funding those (you may ask yourselves why; keep in mind, people that are part of a Church in Germany pay 10% of their taxes as an additional tax to the Churches!.
As a consequence you may get a place in a Catholic private school for 50 € per month, while a boarding school will cost between 400 and 1200 € per month.
The bottom line is - nothing would change; nothing at all. The really poor would get really poor education or none at all, their parents not letting them go, while the middle class would pay up to get their little princes and princesses a place in an [InterestGroup]funded school, hoping for a halfway decent education for the price of being indoctrinated, while for the rich there would be no change at all.
I mean - in a first world country, who would willingly operate a school for the POOR? For the ethnic minorities? You'd have to get public funding, and here we talk business, that's what it amounts to, and obviously only the worst teachers would want to work in those schools, except maybe a couple of idealists, but maybe they would make a law that you'd have to serve 5 years in such a school before you were allowed to work in a private school.
No, the situation is, as she should be (and should be in the health department as well): THE PUBLIC makes sure there is a standard, that everyone will be able to participate in FOR FREE. While everyone not satisfied with that is free to pay up and make use of private institutions.
Then there is this ridiculous claim of indoctrination in public schools. Now, I don't know what kind of schools there are in the US, but in schools in Germany, students learn to think for themselves and to know and resist propaganda.
Admittedly, in the social and historic sciences you will be taught a lot about how our society is the best there has ever been - but as much as I'm a leftist, as much I will admit that they have a point. That doesn't mean, it couldn't be better, that doesn't mean there are dangers - but strangely enough:
in Germany you learn that in school, and I suppose, in Scandimvia, the Benelux and most other European states you learn that as well. That is, if you watch, listen and work at school.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 08:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Admittedly, in the social and historic sciences you will be taught a lot about how our society is the best there has ever been - but as much as I'm a leftist, I will admit that they have a point.
Do you mean
a)The Western Culture
b)Europe
c)Europe's major countries
d)Germany
Even, if you're talking about Western world in general, that is a fair observation by many criteria but historically very limited. That is, you can only display that out as a fair point if you start the clock at 17th century.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 10:56 AM |
|
|
I don't think so.
Naturally it depends a lot on what you look at, but things like individual freedom, live expectancy, education, fun, individual wealth, individual rights, protection from arbitrariness and so on should not be left out, and the past simply can't compare, if you look at the masses, that is, the COMMON people.
But that's actually not what the propaganda is about, people talk about. The ACTUAL question isn't, whether democracy and capitalism have brought us comparatively good times and conditions, the actual question is, whether there might have been better solutions and whether those will really serve us well in the immediate and further future, because whatever has been in the past, it can't be changed, and whatever is in the present is the State of Play, leaving as the only question, how to continue in the future.
NATURALLY, the better the situation, the more conservative teachings are, aiming at conservation.
However, that's not what I would call propaganda; EVERY system has an interest in inner stability, the only question is what means the system is using to make sure about that.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 12:34 PM |
|
|
Let me explain it this way. I look into three things when I compare countries or regions in terms of life quality in general.
1- Where do people immigrate to or want to immigrate to. This is a simple but very practical way to measure if a place is desirable.
2- Level of freedom guaranteed by law (yet the law should be applied de facto and shouldn't be just on paper) and how untouchable your rights are. (If you push hard and test this part in extreme conditions, it's not completely untouchable anywhere).
3- Amount of intellectual creativity and production. Art, science, literature, philosophy, humanities... All of them.
Now, since 17th century the West had an increasing initiative in all of these, that gradually got better and better. Eventually one advantage caused the next and the civilizational gap between the West and the rest of the world turned out to be something indisputable during late 19th and early 20th century (hence the World Wars and the problem of distributing that wealth). The many reasons to this are interlinked and some of them are within the culture, while some of them are sheer luck, like the geographical location of Europe and discovery of the Americas. But that gap wasn't always there. In, say, 13th century, an English peasant and a Japanese one didn't have any specific advantage over each other. In 16th century, Jews from Spain used to flee to Istanbul for a better life and before secularization of the West the religious oppression was same as anywhere else.
There is reason to think that the West will always be the indisputable pioneer about the aforementioned. In fact, after the Cold War, people already started publishing theories about the rising China and India and this and that... Japan is already quite there. I'd say it's quite early to talk about such things but we have no reason to assume that nothing will change. A lot of civilizations had their golden time where they considered themselves the best and trusted that it will last forever (Arnold Toynbee has a great book on that, translated to Turkish as "Judgment on the Civilizations", I'm guessing the original title is one of these: Vol IV: The Breakdowns of Civilizations, Vol V: The Disintegrations of Civilizations, Vol VI: The Disintegrations of Civilizations).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 01:24 PM |
|
|
I fail to see the connection.
I was referring to the "propaganda" argument in public schools, and the only sensible way to interpret this is the point, that public school teaches that the system in which they exist in the West (because the points were made by Western citizens) is great, specifically DEMOCRACY as the political arm, and "SOCIAL" CAPITALISM as the economic arm, AND SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED (to whatever else).
It has nothing to do with THE WEST being great or will always be great - only with the political and economic structure.
SHOULD they mean, that schools teach the greatness of a country - for example the US -, well, that may be so in the US, I don't know, and it may be so in Germany, when the former FRG is compared with the former GDR - but that has to do with capitalism as well, and it would be utter folly to expect an even more capitalist system of PRIVATE schooling to be less biased, when it comes to capitalism, belittling of imperialistic moves and so on.
NO ONE bites the hand that feeds you, nowhere and in no system.
The only question is, whether school is teaching you the tools and means to view things from different angles - and that our schools do.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 01:30 PM |
|
|
Yes, I mostly agree with the above, I was referring to this part, maybe I took it too literally:
Quote:
Admittedly, in the social and historic sciences you will be taught a lot about how our society is the best there has ever been - but as much as I'm a leftist, I will admit that they have a point.
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted November 14, 2013 01:40 PM |
|
|
|
Xerox, the thing is, in those poor countries, everyone is more or less poor, so the private schools have to charge prices that they can afford. In developed countries, most of the people are middle class, so the prices will be higher since the people can afford (and will) pay more. There would have to be different tiers of private schools to make sure everyone got their education, and if that happened I'm not sure everyone would get the same quality of education.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted November 15, 2013 02:08 PM |
|
|
Yes, let's privatize everything! While we are at it, let's sell our souls to multi-national corporations! 
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2013 08:02 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:27, 16 Nov 2013.
|
I like good schools, I like social mobility and I like low taxes. If it's possible to combine all those things then that's a huge win-win situation for me.
artu said:
Also, you must stop referring to competition as some kind of fairy dust. It doesn't solve every problem, even in simpler matters. We can all actually witness that living under capitalist countries.
Please elabortate?
artu said:
No, I'm not against private schools completely. I just think a decent, public organized and funded education is a good thing as the basic foundation.
I don't see the point in having public schools when you can have vouchers instead. I think having only private schools with vouchers for the very poorest is a better policy. There are innate elements in public schools that generally make them perform worse at a higher cost than private schools.
Vindicator said:
Xerox, the thing is, in those poor countries, everyone is more or less poor, so the private schools have to charge prices that they can afford. In developed countries, most of the people are middle class, so the prices will be higher since the people can afford (and will) pay more. There would have to be different tiers of private schools to make sure everyone got their education, and if that happened I'm not sure everyone would get the same quality of education.
Of course prices have to be affordable, otherwise you have no customers. I don't see why costs relative to wages would be higher in a first world country than in a third world country. You're absolutely right that there would be different tiers of private schools. Some would be better than others leading to people choosing bad schools over good schools. That's not a bad thing, that's competition.
Quote:
Yes, let's privatize everything!
Why not?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted November 16, 2013 11:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, let's privatize everything!
Why not?
Why not indeed?! I would love to live in a society with mercenary armies, politicians for hire and no forced public infrastructure. Everyone would have to compete with each other and the strong would flourish. Of course, the weak will have to be stepped on but it would be better for everyone as the strong would pull humanity to new heights. Social evolution it is and it is perfectly natural and beneficial for humanity as a whole. Screw misfortunate people! It is their own weaknesses that brought them to their situations to begin with and nature must be allowed to remove their weaknesses from the species.
____________
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2013 11:17 PM |
|
|
only because everything gets privatisized, it doesnt mean it would be the equilibrium strategy for everyone to dont help eachother out.
without stephen hawking, surely he would have died long before he discovered anything, or other great minds, we wouldnt be where we are.
social behavior IS part of our evolution as a mammal.
how else could you explain elephants respecting their dead? it has no practical value, but still they do it.
It would just mean that everyone could choose what they donate to, me as a native(from any country) may only want to help other natives, while others might want to help people who have the same disease like them. or..or..or
btw do you really think the great inventions are financied by the public? i for one know exactly what i choose, between a bunch of sick people and the cure for their disease.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2013 11:25 PM |
|
|
Gunfred, that's such a strawman that I don't know if you're even interested in discussing this, or if you just want to insult pro-market views.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted November 16, 2013 11:43 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Gunfred, that's such a strawman that I don't know if you're even interested in discussing this, or if you just want to insult pro-market views.
Just being sarcastic and mvassilevly( ) exaggerating the far-pro-privatizing side. Although not my own views, it is not necessarily wrong even by my own words.
____________
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 09:56 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
Quote:
Yes, let's privatize everything!
Why not?
@xerox,you really need to read about the Great Depression from 1929 and the reasons the free market failed.
Then you can see the flaws the "free market" has.
And further you can learn about the problems of private sector providing public goods-it is about the "free rider" problem.
These are just my two cents about this side-topic from the main one.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 05:13 PM |
|
|
A lot of people have come to different conclusions than that the Great Depression was the "market's fault".
The free rider problem is insignficant in a non-coercive society.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 05:43 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
A lot of people have come to different conclusions than that the Great Depression was the "market's fault".
The free rider problem is insignficant in a non-coercive society.
"Blah-blah I'm parroting whatever ideological nonsense catches my imagination blah-blah". There's this guy who became incredibly popular after the Depression, even if you put aside... the entire history of the 20s. And he didn't actually advertise fairy-tale "market fixes itself" phantasmagoria. Now how did that happen?
As for the main point of the thread - you still haven't explained at all why the public schools should be "illegal". You've quoted some articles for third world countries (I may read that PDF when I have the time) and BANG - outlaw the public education, it's ineffective, it's filthy, it hurts me as a newly baptised libertarian with its... publicity. Anything else? Like actual arguments?
|
| |
|
|
