Capitalism/Socialism Wars: Episode I

[downtown]

100 grand would be the total cost for4 years of a good univeristy, without ANY monertary aid.
without getting up and checking my Yale application, I think Yale has something like a 37 grand a year tution...but they are super well endowed, so almost nobody ever actually pays that much.

 

[10Seven]

$65,000 difference is covered by the school. This cost would likely be a fully burdened cost that includes non academic costs.

Scholarships are not available to all though...


To Federal funding, the US government is well able to provide very much better education, and could probably lower taxes at the same time.

Key areas of redistribution of Federal spending would be:
1. Curbing beauracratic waste.
2. reduced military spending.

Consider, that last year alone the US spent in excess of 1 trillion dollars on defence and armaments - this is in excess of social support spending, if I recall correctly...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Public Education works best when:
1. The community is educated and values education
2. The school system is small
3. The community participates in the schools
4. The schools are well financed
5. Parents value education and pass that value on to their children
6. Principals have greater control of what goes on and who is hired in their schools than administrators

The further youget from these the worse the schools will be. Public school systems in the US are broken and adding more money won't fix them.
For example, adding $50,000 worth of computers to elementary classrooms is a useless step if you aren't teaching students to read and write, let alone think. yet many people believe that this is progress because it lets poor kids learn to use technology. They can't read write or think, but they can surf the internet.

Success will come at the local level when citizens begin to care and force changes in the way things are run. I'm not sure coming to a common vision in a single public HS is even a reasonable expectation, unless you are in a pretty homogenous community. Big government solutions are doomed to failure. Success will begin in individual schools. Give money and power to principals if you want to see things improve.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Scholarships are not available to all though...

No but few pay the full cost. The politics of who gets accepted and pays what is a whole other discussion.

To Federal funding, the US government is well able to provide very much better education, and could probably lower taxes at the same time.

Key areas of redistribution of Federal spending would be:
1. Curbing beauracratic waste.
2. reduced military spending.

Consider, that last year alone the US spent in excess of 1 trillion dollars on defence and armaments - this is in excess of social support spending, if I recall correctly...

Nobody says we couldn't afford to provide a quality education for all. But whose ox are you going to gore to do it? Cutting defense spending will put many highly paid people out of work. It will take a major shift in US government/cultural thinking to change the spending emphasis from guns to butter, let alone to education. Paying good teachers $75-100,000 a year would have a profound impact on our nation and its future. How many scientists at los Alamos or Sandia National labs would take a 50% pay cut to finance teacher pay. Would you?

 

[10Seven]

Public Education works best when:
1. The community is educated and values education
2. The school system is small
3. The community participates in the schools
4. The schools are well financed
5. Parents value education and pass that value on to their children
6. Principals have greater control of what goes on and who is hired in their schools than administrators

Success will come at the local level when citizens begin to care and force changes in the way things are run. I'm not sure coming to a common vision in a single public HS is even a reasonable expectation, unless you are in a pretty homogenous community. Big government solutions are doomed to failure. Success will begin in individual schools. Give money and power to principals if you want to see things improve.

Good points, I think.

But money is PART of the problem.

EDIT: TEACHERS servicing lower socio-economic areas tend to be paid very little by comparison to other areas. This tends encourage decent teachers away from the system.

It also sees such schools forced to spend far less on equipment and facilities - which goes toward encouraging an environment of disrespect - something of a vicious circle - students see no one cares about their environment, so they don't care, and around.

I think a good way to go about improving the situation is to increase funding considerably, and a massive revamp of most state education systems.

Ultimately, it appears that the schools with the most problems, tend to be those with the lowest funding/student rations - that is, least funding per student.

There seems to be little interest in actually reforming such schools, and more interest in complaining about them.

Apathy is our biggest problem, probably, and not budget or system...

 

[10Seven]

Nobody says we couldn't afford to provide a quality education for all. But whose ox are you going to gore to do it? Cutting defense spending will put many highly paid people out of work. It will take a major shift in US government/cultural thinking to change the spending emphasis from guns to butter, let alone to education. Paying good teachers $75-100,000 a year would have a profound impact on our nation and its future. How many scientists at los Alamos or Sandia National labs would take a 50% pay cut to finance teacher pay. Would you?

many people - especially politicians - DO say we cannot afford it.

I would happily cut pay to military institutions - considering the degree of waste in the US - the military establishments must be the fattest pig in the country - possibly in front, even, of the senate...

Too many chiefs, too many toys.

Not enough efficiency.

 

[downtown]

Hmm...in this day and age, it would be awfully difficult to cut parts of the military. The project that sticks out in my mind is whatever money is going into the SETI program, if its still around.
Prehaps its time to have another full goverment audit, see where the money has slipped thru the cracks?

 

[Birdjaguar]

many people - especially politicians - DO say we cannot afford it.

Because they would have to make hard choices and stop funding somebody who is currently getting money.

I would happily cut pay to military institutions - considering the degree of waste in the US - the military establishments must be the fattest pig in the country - possibly in front, even, of the senate

You would happily cut pay to the military, but how does the military feel about it? You cannot legislate efficiency, so congress just cuts programs. Cutting programs means cutting jobs (and toys ). Unless you plan on printing money and running deficits, its a zero sum game.

Military bases are very popular because they funnel $ from the Fed directly into local communities. The Federal Government is all about moving money around as it tries to fulfill its obligations.

How much of your income or your family's income (if you don't work) are you willing to give up to improve public education?

 

[10Seven]

Because they would have to make hard choices and stop funding somebody who is currently getting money.


You would happily cut pay to the military, but how does the military feel about it? You cannot legislate efficiency, so congress just cuts programs. Cutting programs means cutting jobs (and toys ). Unless you plan on printing money and running deficits, its a zero sum game.

Military bases are very popular because they funnel $ from the Fed directly into local communities. The Federal Government is all about moving money around as it tries to fulfill its obligations.

How much of your income or your family's income (if you don't work) are you willing to give up to improve public education?

It's entirely besides the point whether the military might 'like' cuts, because it's my money that's paying for it - and very much more of my money pays for military fat than education fat.

Also besides the point:

There is also a direct correlation between military spending and economic growth - or, more pointedly, lack.

Whereas education has a direct correlation to growth.

Those communities benefiting from military bases also benefit from education institutions - to what degree is indicated of the wide difference in funding.

 

[10Seven]

"You cannot legislate efficiency, so congress just cuts programs. "

We can legislate, to a degree.

And a real threat of cuts due to waste can encourage efficiency also.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's entirely besides the point whether the military might 'like' cuts, because it's my money that's paying for it - and very much more of my money pays for military fat than education fat.

Get out and vote!

There is also a direct correlation between military spending and economic growth - or, more pointedly, lack.
Whereas education has a direct correlation to growth.

I question both of these statements. Are you saying that increased defense spending does not fuel economic growth, but spending on education does?

 

[Sanaz]

I meant that if the money given to private schools was instead given to the public schools in the local area, surely those local schools would be just as good as the private schools, since they now receive money directly from the parents, as well as from the government.

Since we already pay taxes even if our children go to private school, this won't add up. I can afford to give my children the best education, and am committed to doing just that. I am not committed to giving your children the best education, even if it were possible. I want your children to be educated enough so that yuou don't leach off society, but I am not overly concerned with the opportunities they may have for their future. I have no feeling of obligation to give everyone an equal start in life, and I certainly don't want to fund this. If people aren't committed to their own children and their own communities, that's unforgivable. Education starts and ends at home, not in school.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And Boulder has a pretty good public school system to boot!

 

[10Seven]

Get out and vote!

I question both of these statements. Are you saying that increased defense spending does not fuel economic growth, but spending on education does?

1. No kidding.

2. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Military spending sinks huge sums of money into transitory assets. Refit, re-arm, obsolete. It also pays for hundreds of thousands of people to go jogging and not much else.
- pro-military spending cite benefits to local communities of weapons production facilites, and bases - these benefits are no more than those presented by education facilities.

Education actually invests in something lasting, and those it employs are constantly investing into society.


Military spending has shown direct and evident correlation to economic growth in the USA.

High spending, lower growth, lower spending, higher growth.

This has shown throughout the world.

This is all obvious, unless you subscribe to the 'draft 'em and arm em' approach to reducing unemployment and stimulating growth. The affect at first appears positive, but impacts negatively latter.

The money has to come from somewhere, and military does not invest in society.

I don't think there is a point in history where high military spending did not negatively affect an economy - the few apparent exceptions are only thus due to other factors - consider the US economy post WW2, it's positive condition due to other factors, such as favourable import/export and the dollar/gold system. Also contrast USSR with USA - each with apparently high military spending, but one investing more in other, more developmental areas.

 

[aneeshm]

To Mise :-

It is not the government's job to give a good education to everyone . It is not their job to give an education at all . If , however , a government does choose to give its own citizens an education , then the basic minimum is decided by an independent body (like the Central Board of Secondary Education in India) and all schools confirm to that basic mimimum , and tries to raise standards if possible . This must not be done at the expense of those who may choose not to support that education . In India , it is not only the rich who can afford to send their children to private schools . Private schools are all that exist , so there is a private school with a price range for everyone .

As for my parents' income , the school fees amount to about 5 % to 7 % of their income .

 

[10Seven]

To Mise :-
so there is a private school with a price range for everyone.

And this is why at least a third of all Indian children either receive no schooling, or that amount negligable?

Is there a private school in the price range of people who can afford nothing?

 

[Birdjaguar]

2. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Military spending sinks huge sums of money into transitory assets. Refit, re-arm, obsolete. It also pays for hundreds of thousands of people to go jogging and not much else.
- pro-military spending cite benefits to local communities of weapons production facilites, and bases - these benefits are no more than those presented by education facilities.

Education actually invests in something lasting, and those it employs are constantly investing into society.

Military spending has shown direct and evident correlation to economic growth in the USA.

High spending, lower growth, lower spending, higher growth.

This is all obvious, unless you subscribe to the 'draft 'em and arm em' approach to reducing unemployment and stimulating growth. The affect at first appears positive, but impacts negatively latter.

The money has to come from somewhere, and military does not invest in society.

I don't think there is a point in history where high military spending did not negatively affect an economy - the few apparent exceptions are only thus due to other factors - consider the US economy post WW2, it's positive condition due to other factors, such as favourable import/export and the dollar/gold system. Also contrast USSR with USA - each with apparently high military spending, but one investing more in other, more developmental areas.

I'm not sure we are in agreement on what is economic growth. I subscribe to this one: Increase in the actual value of all final goods and services produced by an economy over time.

By this definition, you are completely wrong about both military and education spending and their impact on growth. For starters, it was the military spending of WW2 that finally brought about the economic growth that ended the depression of the 1930s.

 

[aneeshm]

If quality education for all is your aim , then you have to let the private schools be and try to raise your own standard , not try to burden private schools with your responsibilities or drag them down to your level .

And the discussion seems to have veered a little off course .

TO 10seven :-

. The govt. , being by its very nature corrupt , has never succeeded in creating even one good institution of primary and secondary education . That is why they are proposing that private schools shoulder their(the govt.'s) responsibility , if they want to keep their affiliation with the CBSE . Plus , that figure is grossly exaggerated . They do not recieve schooling because there are no schools in their area (a lot of children live in rural areas , with almost nothing) . And for those who can pay nothing , there is always charity . Why should the money of someone opposed to free schooling go to free schooling ? Is that not a violation of their rights ?

And befory you say anything , let me make it clear that education is not , whatever nonsense may be said to the contrary , a fundamental right . The right to life is the right to live at your own expense , not by leeching off others . You do not have a right to life if it infringes on someone else's right to property . You have a right to life only if you can support it yourself , as an adult , and by taking full responsibility , and not at anyone's expense whatsoever .