Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "Why Aren't We Preparing Young People for The Real World?" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
technatezin There's no need to 'give out' grades at all. As a matter of fact, formative assessment is only required by the student, the instructor doesn't require this information. Summative assessment can be performed by private organizations along with their particular certificate. This is effectively what the AMA does, and I'm sure you have little to no problem with MD's being qualified by the AMA.
I'm not sure why you think grades are all that important. If a child wants to be an artist, and they learn graphic design, what do they care if they are given a low grade? What's important to them, is if they learned the skills needed to provide a good or service to the free market / others in society.
It may be true in the short term that kids with genetics that select for scholastic activity are chosen to attend specific schools, but this is okay, if there is a demand, then others will similarly offer educational services. "The Poor" certainly do not lack smart phones as good as "The Rich". Why? Because companies make a lot more profit selling to the poor. And when they are in competition, the poor get as good as the rich. Compare this to highly regulated (by Government) markets like Medicine. Thanks to Government regulation, market players (like the AMA) are given a regulatory monopoly and use this to enforce rent-seeking on their part and that of their members. What happens is the quality of education goes down (and it has) while the cost goes up (and it has). Thus, places into medical school have wait-lists miles long, while at the same time, medical error is the number 2 killers of Americans (after heart disease).
1
-
technatezin as for profits, there's many examples of Chartered School out performing Government Schools using 2/3rds the resources.
However, I think we need to use two differnt words. Profit should be used to refer to virtuous activity (efficient use of limited resources to ensure good education) whereas Spoils can refer to making money through cheating (example: rent-seeking). In this way, we can see Private Schools are often Profitable (even when run as non-profits) and act virtuously whereas Government Schools are sometimes Profitable, but do so through vice and rent-seeking, and therefor are actually Spoilable. They make Spoils.
The best way to ensure kids are given access to good education is free-markets, sound money, and laws that protect private property and uphold contract.
Let"s remember, the DoED itself publishes statistics showing ZERO improvement since it's inception (late 1970s) and if anything, things might be getting worse! They also publish statistics showing 1 in 5 of their "High" school graduates cannot competently read and write. The only other place where you see this level of stagnation and regression are the industries found in the old Socialistic Republics of USSR and China. And, I promise, for the same reasons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheSpiritOfTheTimes Actually, I Japan and Korea both outperform Finland. Therefor, according to your logic, we should actually adopt their pedagogical standards. Incidentally, Japan spends less per student in terms of GDP. Therefor, again, according to your reasoning, we should also spend less. Koreans attend school 7 days a week. Japanese usually attend cram-school for 4 hours after normal school. I know, I've lived in Japan. Therefor, according to your reasoning, we should too. Oh, and no summer's off. As a matter of fact, the US Government would be legally bound to choose the best performing pedagogy - which is not the Finish one. Sound good to you? Probably not. Because you prefer the Finish program. You probably want the SCHOOL CHOICE don't you? You probably think it's a bad idea to send kids to school year around, 7 days a week including evenings. Isn't it nice HAVING THAT CHOICE? Or would you prefer someone in Government make that choice for you?
1
-
1
-
TheSpiritOfTheTimes I just posted two recent ranking showing Korea out performs Finland. As a matter of fact, Finland will probably continue to drop as Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai surpass them. But, I do find it interesting you still would like to utilize the Finish system. Well, sorry, that's not how Government agencies work. They would be legally obligated to use the Korea model. That's the way Government bureaucracy works. If Korea is better, then it will be chosen. If Japan can do more with a smaller budget, then that will be chosen.
It'd be nice to have School CHOICE wouldn't it be? That way you can pick the pedagogy you think works best for your children.
Of course, no thanks to people like you.
Incidentally, Japan has a thriving private school system. But hey, I've only lived there, so what would I know.
Regardless, and one more time for good measure, it's nice knowing you have the CHOICE of pedagogy. That way, if YOU want the Finish model, then YOU can take your tax-credits and pay for it from a private provider of that pedagogy. See how nice it works? If more and more people do likewise, then that becomes the norm.
Good, then we can agree to that much :)
1
-
1
-
TheSpiritOfTheTimes A decent civil society doesn't need the State to force people to pay for education. Therefor a decent civilized society will by default use Private Schools. The goal is to privatize all education. This will ensure the poor have access to good education in the same way they can easily afford a good super computer that fits in their pocket / smart phone.
The truth is, you prefer the Finish model and if given the choice you would choose the Finish model. And you would not be happy to be forced to instead put your children through the hell that is the Japan/Korean model.
You want choice.
Your choice.
Which is why you continue to push the Finish model even when evidence shows the Finish will be lucky to remain in the top 10 and will soon be superseded by other Asian countries. Why? Because the Asian model works better in our current system. Now, that said, I would personally choose the Finish model. Why? Because I like that pedagogy.
I lived in Japan, part of my family is Japanese, and I may move there again. In Japan, if you do not choose the Japanese system, you will NOT be attending high school and University. Sure, you can attend a private school (even alternative schools like Montessori or Democratic) in Japan, but you will fail in their higher educational system. Which requires 12 hours a day 7 days a week dedication to study. This means many many many Japanese children will buckle under the mental stress of studying so hard they end up developing all sorts of stress related problems - but that's okay to the Japanese AND people like YOU. Because what is NOT important is the individual and their personal choices. No, what is important is the "Social Good'. You know "Society" (whatever that is). Thank the GODS you people are in the minority in the USA. And you're losing the battle. Government schools will compete with Public Charter Schools and eventually all education will become Private. Then we will reach that 'decent' "society" you want to live in.
1
-
1
-
technatezin "With a government run school operation the left side of the equation can be at zero since the government can run the school as a break even non-profit operation indefinitely with no problems." This is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Have you ever run anything? Anything at all? I've worked in both private industry and public institutions and this, again, is literally laughable.
(A) The world has limits, thus there are budgets. As an example, see the mass starvation of Government run Communist China. About 30 - 50 million humans statrved to death - the Government couldn't even provide the basics / food, let alone education.
(B) Government isn't something 'magical' that poof provides education by pulling it in out of the ether. Government redistributes the goods and services of the private sector. Thus is buys educational products and then provides that service after levying a tax to pay for it. Of course, levying a tax is LESS efficient than paying directly becuase you also have to pay for the IRS and prisons to hold tax evadors as well as agencies to write tax code and etc... etc... etc... vs just paying directly for private education. Thus, Government School costs more / wastes more Earth limited resources.
(C) "Government" is a collection of humans. Many humans in Government work in education AND could NOT give two shits about if children are educated. Because Government doesn't go bankrupt, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of these people - and they are in the MAJORITY. Most of the people I have worked at in Government - don't care much about education and focus instead on their public 'career'. Whereas, when I work in the Private Sector, they do care. Why? Because in the Private Sector they will lose their jobs if they do not provide VALUE (which again, is subjective). A person working in Government on the other hand, has NO NEED to provide value - and most don't or very very very little compared to those in Private Industry.
Again, this seems to be a case you missing a key point, that being subjective value, as well as presenting an argument in the Platonic Perfect Forms which frankly cannot and will never be able to measure our subjective experiences AND ALSO cannot ever know the true supply of goods and services available. The only known means of measuring both subjective value and supply is the price mechanism. These aren't 'side issues' they are CORE issues. There's also a good Ehtical argument for why private school is moral and Government school is immoral, but I have to leave it here.
1
-
technatezin The most important thing is to satisfy your customers. If you don't do that, you won't be making a profit. However, making a profit in a FREE competitive market is virtuous and signals a couple of things to society
(a) you are indeed providing a good or service of value to society, we know this because people are paying for it and
(b) you are doing so in a manner that is efficient and thus are able to make a profit - IOWs, you are not wasting the Earth's limited resources. One of the worse things about Government, is how inefficient and wasteful it is. The US Government, for example, wastes more energy than any other institution (in history) and likewise creates the most pollution (in history). Go start a business with your own money, see if you don't want to make some of it back - if anything, just to live on.
Most companies are small and do not have investors outside of the people who start the business and bank who lent them the money.
Also, most people start a business because they WANT to provide something of value. Almost no one starts a business just to make a profit - that's asinine. If you're not the type of person who likes people and thinks about their needs, you won't make a good entrepreneur (but would probably make a good public servant).
Again, I doubt you've ever had any real experience opening a business. Everything you suggest sounds like a talking point from some political hacks memo. So, my advice is, do it. Go offer a great pedagogy and see if people are willing to pay you for it.
See how far you go with an attitude of only trying to make profit. I promise, with that attitude you will be bankrupt in a month. People aren't idiots, they can see value and most can smell a bullshitter when they have to part with money. Not to mention contract and fraud laws will ensure you live up to your end of the deal or go to jail. So, again, do it. Start a business with your own money. Put some skin in the game. Then talk to me. I promise, you'll have a completely different attitude. One based on Empirical reality as opposed to belly button lint and counting the number of angles on the head of a pin.
1
-
1
-
technatezin RE: "You can still sell for a profit by selling goods of dubious quality and still remain in business by selling something of expected average quality to the customer."
And?
Microsoft was one of the largest companies in the world, they marketed Zune, it was of 'dubious value', some people bought it, most decided they wanted an iPod. That's competition in a free market (or at least close to one). They we have Apple and a thriving smart phone market.
If the Government was "selling" Zune (providing a 'free' MP3 player as a public service) then we'd still have Zune. Apple probably would have went out of business and there'd be no iPhone and possibly no smart phone market.
See the difference? This is why Government school monopolies are bad for society. Which is why our Government Schools are being replaced by Charter and Private Schools. Which is GOOD for society.
Sadly, thanks to Government School monopolies, for 100 years, we have no idea of all the great pedagogical ideas that just never happened due to unfair Government monopolization of this market. However, in a free market, good Government Schools (of which there must be some) can compete and if they truly provide value, then people will pay for those services.
Hypothetical aside, I've personally worked in a Medical School that removed human anatomy laboratories. Why? Because they said the MD's didn't need that training. Because Government regulatory capture ensures AMA rent-seeking status, only Government approved medical schools can issue licences. Thus, without competition, students just think getting an MD and having no anatomy is fair value. Not that they care, they just want the MD. This is some serious 'dubious value' here. You do understand medical error is the #2 killer of Americans? You'll likely die of it. You can thank Government School monopoly and Government enforced regulatory capture and rent-seeking. The fact is, in the REAL world, the objective world, this is happening.
1
-
1
-
@celestialmorpho I sent my daughter to an extremely small private school. K to 6 was a total of 32 students.
The pros: teachers know students attributes extremely well, all the kids know one another, music teacher was very good, kids naturally took in leadership roles, most kids were quite engaged.
The Cons: Small number of kids could lead to some sense of bullying as there are only so many "best friends" to go around. Although the school did have some strategies in place, if a bully was dominating, that is an issue. Sports teams was not a thing, instead kids did swimming at a university pool, played tennis, and had competitions with other small schools.
Overall: Graduating kids have a very good reputation for taking initiative, being better at music (being able to play and read sheet music for multiple instruments), and generally being good natured. The biggest drawbacks were if you wanted team sports and some bullying around having a best friend.
Compared with better funded public schools, small private schools (which also get some public funding incidentally), are probably better in many ways. But, I can see that it also comes down to the teachers. Probably small schools attract and keep good teachers and don't have the resources to put up with bad teachers – and get rid of them. So, that's also worth thinking about.
1
-
@celestialmorpho
In addition: private vs public
My feeling is, having 8 years more experience, that is not necessary for public institutions to be horrible and it's not natural for private institutions to be superior. What I think is that both are so-so, and that over time private institutions that are so-so often go bankrupt. Where as public institutions don't. This means that the people who work in public institutions can engage is "politics" and get promoted while not providing value. Hence the term: "Institutionalised". But, this probably happens at very large companies too. Because they're nearly too big to fail (many secure government contracts – Amazon for example).
Thus, one factor that probably helps society is having poorly run private institutions go bankrupt.
However, there's another issue at play, and that's the fact that private, public, and society are not separate and overlap in both positive and negative ways. Sometimes public money goes to competent people at public institutions. And sometimes private institutions get the inside track or act devious or just get lucky. Also, people themselves are a player. People are supposed to act as a check on poorly functioning public institutions. But they don't seem to care. I recently volunteered at a new private school (that gets a lot of public money) and it seemed that ONLY me and two other people where there. No one comes to these meetings. But "society" requires that members of society get involved and do these things. Yet they don't want to.
Any thoughts or questions?
1