|
| |
LOki
Refusenik   SSHOLE |
Posts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 00:22 |
Mofo:
LOki:
I'm against the government monopoly on education. How do you propose to fix that? Who else would educate the public for free (from tax money)? First, let me say that I object to the presumption in this question that the education "the public" gets should be free. Forgive me if I've read too much into the question, or assumed too much based on our past converstaions.
Secondly, if you're only asking, "How might education be funded if not through tax dollars?", I'll answer by pointing out the model of higher education, where there are not only "public" or state institutions, but also private institutions competeing for both the best students, the best teachers, the best programs and ... the big gripe for the losers ... tuitions.
Oh, but I can just predict the response: [emosrc=crybby target=_hrtstrng]"Not everyone can afford tuition--what about the poor?"[/uhwah]
Student loans, grants, scholarships. That's what the poor do to pay for college. I especially like the scholarship notion. Example: Why wouldn't a local automotive concern not grant scholarships to aspiring, but needy, down on their luck, unfortunate, disadvantaged, single parented, homeless, got rickets future machinists? I can't imagine why not. It would certainly be to their advantage to do so.
Or how about this: Nursing schools will forgive tuition entirely if the student agrees to work for the hospital hosting the nursing school for 3 years or something like. Why wouldn't a local crane/rigging company gladly pay for someone's highschool math and physics program if they agreed to use that education on the job for them?
Really, the complaints, arguments and resistance to this type of proposal will most likely boil down to this: "What about the real losers--the real shiftless morons with no ambition, self respect, capacity or desire to improve--what about them?"
I say: "What about them? Fuk them." Those people aren't gaining by public education anyway--going private won't hurt them. In fact, those particular individuals are precisely the drain on our universal education system that is making the sucking sound we hear so much about today.
So I'll submit that we don't have to kill public education entirely; but let's make all public schools military academies. The military is where this particular flavor of loser will go to avoid prison anyway, and the discipline learned in military school might just keep said loser out of jail--he'll at least learn to bathe and brush his teeth.
On 2006-03-01 at 18:26:03, LOki enjoyed furrysex
____________________
|
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 01:13 |
I'm against public education as well. I think it's a gigantic tool for government propaganda. However, I'm not necessarily in favor of private schooling all the way. I think actually that the highest levels of education, college and grad school, should be a mix between public and private like they already are. I think the main problem with higher education is how everybody is already brainwashed by the time they get there. I could see a mix of public and private education working all the way down to 8th or 9th grade, when it starts becoming the student's responsibility to learn and open his or her mind.
Before that, I feel it's pretty much the parent's responsibility, so maybe schooling should be a community effort like in Germany, where local preschool and early grade school collectives seem to be doing pretty good, although the sample size is small enough to be statistically meaningless. I think this makes sense from a Loki point of view, where a business has no reason to invest in really basic education, because at that point it's too early in a child's education to expect any returns. Additionally, in the US there doesn't seem to be much of a market for child labor, in the sense that most jobs require more maturity than children possess, if not more intelligence.
So in my perfect world, there would be community collective schooling from when the kids are ages 0 - puberty, when they basically aren't learning anything anyway except reading, writing, and arithmetic, social skills, and responsibility, which doesn't require any specialilzed knowledge of the material to teach. Then after that the mix of public and private schools could take over.
Edited for grammar and because I love the feel of fur costumes against my skin
On 2006-03-01 at 19:15:38, dinozoa enjoyed furrysex
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit  SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 03:01 |
The ideas have merits, and they're better than anything else out there, but wouldn't having your education funded by the crane crew and working there pretty much seal your fate into that industry? Cause what use would the crane industry have in supply money for you to take english classes besides basic sentence writing?
From what you're describing, it almost seems as if when kids become of working age (14 and up or so), they basically enter trade school. So unless you have money, you're in your industry already.
Which, in itself, it's a bad thing. You supply people with education and employment, but you never know when that genius is going to be born in lower middle class, and not a wealthy family.
I'd support more public military school. A good ass whooping and lots of physical activity would ease crime, especially in gangs. I'd love to see some of the poorer schools in the ghetto become military run schools, even if they didn't have to be forced into the military there after.
Student loans, grants, scholarships.
Are most grants provided by the gov't anyways?
On 2006-03-01 at 21:03:03, Mofo enjoyed furrysex |
| |
DonQuixote
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 641 Registered: 4/22/2005 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 03:03 |
To a degree, I have to go with Loki on this. A centralized control on anything can lead to alot of bad things.
Public schools may suck (overcrowding etc etc), but the books are there, the library is there, the education is there for those that are willing to put in the work to get it. Also, the scholorships and grants and loans are there for college. One may have to do a little research, but that never hurt anyone.
Unfortuneately, life isn't fair. Some are priveleaged and some aren't. But, putting education in the hands of the government is not the answer. Just like censorship isn't the answer (bear with me on this I am not derailing the thread).
Those columbine kids went to a fine school and lived well. They never had to worry about a roof over their heads or if there would be food for the night. But look what they did!! Was it the guns fault? Nope. Was it them horrible video games? Nope. Was it sex on TV? Nope. Those children's parent's were to blame. Just like the kids I see running around LA trying to be pimps and hustlers instead of getting their education. If their parent's took an ounce of notice and spoke to their child about the importance of education or beat the living shit out of them till they sat down and read a book, they wouldn't be out about town causing all sorts of trouble and eventually getting shot. See the connection? Its the parents that need to take control of education, not the government or even society as a whole.
However, America as a whole seems to be losing grip on this idea the idea of family and responsibility. The TV is not a baby sitter. Having a kid to get extra wellfare money is not a good thing. Having more kids than you can feasibly support is just a bad idea in general. I say the problem isn't even with the schools, public or private, its with the parents. Americans need to stop trying to blame society or social norms and morays for their woes, and look to themselves.
Be Well
____________________
( . )( . ) <--- Boobs. |
| |
DonQuixote
DARTH MENSES Posts: 641 Registered: 4/22/2005 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 03:09 |
Mofo:
Student loans, grants, scholarships.
Are most grants provided by the gov't anyways?
The short answer is no. I got a grant from the Masons because my great-grandfather was a mason. There are several private organizations that provide grants for those who apply and also meet the requirements. Man if you are an American Indian, there are tons of private grants just waiting to be taken. David Letterman built a whole building at his Alma Mater for the "C" students. There are also grants for children of WWII and Vietnam vets. So I guess thats all I had to say.
bye
____________________
( . )( . ) <--- Boobs. |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard  SSHOLEPosts: 1636 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 03:17 |
let's make all public schools military academies == starship troopers
____________________
But the whole of modern so-called civilized existence is an attempt to deny reality insofar as it exists. When did Don last look at the stars, when did Norman last get soaked in a rainstorm? |
| |
middle_age_man
Mostly Harmless  SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 1/11/2005 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 03:34 |
We have our son enrolled in a “community” public elementary school. I find the system to be somewhat lacking. There is no control in the classrooms and very little consequences for horrible behavior. If there was a secular private elementary school in my city I would have my son enrolled in it in a heart beat.
____________________
" Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
George Carlin |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 03:51 |
Oh, then our college career guy at our school is a complete douchebag.
let's make all public schools military academies == starship troopers
co-ed showering with hawt chicks == sign me up
On 2006-03-01 at 21:52:16, Mofo enjoyed furrysex |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint  SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 04:52 |
We have our son enrolled in a “community” public elementary school. I find the system to be somewhat lacking. There is no control in the classrooms and very little consequences for horrible behavior. If there was a secular private elementary school in my city I would have my son enrolled in it in a heart beat.
Now here was the point in the other thread that I was making: accountability, responsibility, emphasis on achievement. Those things will make a better school. Money alone doesn't do shit if there's no solid plan behind it. Even if there is a solid plan, it might not be the right plan. Maybe schools ought to show improvement before they get more funding, so that rich areas arent rewarded disproportionately and poor areas can get better and better. |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 05:17 |
Yea, expect when inner schools perform badly on standerized testing because none of the students know anything about doubles in tenis and they get robbed of money.
You support additional money be granted being based on performance, but do you support money being taken away for the same reason?
Besides schools getting more money, do you support teachers themselves being paid more?
On 2006-03-01 at 23:18:40, Mofo enjoyed furrysex |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 05:54 |
Yea, expect when inner schools perform badly on standerized testing because none of the students know anything about doubles in tenis and they get robbed of money.
You support additional money be granted being based on performance, but do you support money being taken away for the same reason?
Besides schools getting more money, do you support teachers themselves being paid more?
I know all about biases in standardized testing; you're not suggesting some kind of culturally fair testing standard?
I never said performance, I said improvement. So shitty school starts doing slightly better, more money.
Would I support penalizing schools that show declining performance? Maybe then someone would feel accountable and wouldn't allow the school to slide down the tubes while buying a new computer lab every year. There's no accountability; who gets fired when a school does shitty? Nobody. Instead, the students suffer.
I'm all for teachers getting paid more. That is of course highly dependent on how they do. They should be monitored like their students: closely, constantly, with quick feedback. It makes no sense to me that all teachers should be paid lots of money. You can't honestly tell me that every teacher you've ever had deserves more money. I think Loki might agree with me in this sense; better work should mean more money. There should be no rewards for shitheels who don't do work and get the same wage as a far superior worker.
It seems to me that you care more about teachers than students. I think that's the wrong opinion. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 14:15 |
dinozoa:
I'm against public education as well. I think it's a gigantic tool for government propaganda. However, I'm not necessarily in favor of private schooling all the way. I think actually that the highest levels of education, college and grad school, should be a mix between public and private like they already are. I think the main problem with higher education is how everybody is already brainwashed by the time they get there. I could see a mix of public and private education working all the way down to 8th or 9th grade, when it starts becoming the student's responsibility to learn and open his or her mind. Schools certainly create alot of drones. I think we agree that the underlying governemt sanctioned hum that is programmed into these kids is not good for a free society. This is why I like the notion of all educational institutions having to compete aggressively in the both the realms of resources AND ideas.
I just don't know how prominent a role public school, whose lessons are determined by political policy, and funded without regard to the value of those politics should play.
That's why I suggested that they should all be military schools. If they're going to get paid regardless of what they teach, we should at least insure that there is some motivation for kids to NOT have to go there.
I'm frankly surprised that this whole place hasn't completely freaked out though. It wasn't an idea I'd thought through thoroughly--I threw it in for its controversy factor--but it seems to harbor some level of merit. Lucky me!
dinoza:
Before that, I feel it's pretty much the parent's responsibility, so maybe schooling should be a community effort like in Germany, where local preschool and early grade school collectives seem to be doing pretty good, although the sample size is small enough to be statistically meaningless. I think this makes sense from a Loki point of view, where a business has no reason to invest in really basic education, because at that point it's too early in a child's education to expect any returns. Additionally, in the US there doesn't seem to be much of a market for child labor, in the sense that most jobs require more maturity than children possess, if not more intelligence.
So in my perfect world, there would be community collective schooling from when the kids are ages 0 - puberty, when they basically aren't learning anything anyway except reading, writing, and arithmetic, social skills, and responsibility, which doesn't require any specialilzed knowledge of the material to teach. Then after that the mix of public and private schools could take over. You're on to something good here. I'd like to point out that the vast, vast majority of parents are capable of, and do, teach their children to talk, operate a toilet, walk, run, count, differentiate colors and understand some basic social interaction skills prior to enrolling their kids in school. Furthermore, these same parents are equally capable of teaching their children to count, add, subtract, read and write. Where they may be weak in an area, they should certainly know someone who is not. Parents and/or groups of parents should not be finacially penalized for competing with the government as they are now.
I would disagree with you that "a business has no reason to invest in really basic education, because at that point it's too early in a child's education to expect any returns." What business would not profit from people able to read their advertising? What business would not find a valuable return with people who could make change?
Mofo:
The ideas have merits, and they're better than anything else out there, but wouldn't having your education funded by the crane crew and working there pretty much seal your fate into that industry? Cause what use would the crane industry have in supply money for you to take english classes besides basic sentence writing? I think the assurance that a high school graduate can write a basic sentence is a step forward from where we are now.
And I don't believe that one's fate is neccessarily sealed bythe sponsor of one's education. If a student lacks the intellectual vision and capacity to apply his education across fields, then it doesn't matter where he starts, and it does a dis-service to him to place him in an educational environment without direction.
Mofo:
From what you're describing, it almost seems as if when kids become of working age (14 and up or so), they basically enter trade school. So unless you have money, you're in your industry already. I like the idea of trade schools. We need more, and more competent, tradesmen. I also belive that there is little value to the plumbing trade to teach 8-year-olds plumbing, but plenty of value in teaching them how to read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide competently so they might learn plumbing in the future.
And plumbers teaching future electricians to read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide competently is in their interest too; as is teaching future carpenters, boilermakers, steel workers, architects, engineers, accountants etc..., as all these trades are neccessary for installing plumbing in a building.
Mofo:
Which, in itself, it's a bad thing. You supply people with education and employment, but you never know when that genius is going to be born in lower middle class, and not a wealthy family. I guess I just don't conclude that trade schools are neccessarily limiting, nor that industry jobs are bad.
For instance, why couldn't a lower class genius qualify for a full scholarship if this "genius" were in fact a genius?
I think you're begining to fall into one of the previously predicted responses that essentially equate being born poor with being an unwavering loser.
Mofo:
I'd support more public military school. A good ass whooping and lots of physical activity would ease crime, especially in gangs. I'd love to see some of the poorer schools in the ghetto become military run schools, even if they didn't have to be forced into the military there after. Yeah. The thought is kind of appealing to me too. And getting more so as I think about it.
Mofo:
Are most grants provided by the gov't anyways? Maybe. That doesn't neccessitate that government must be the sole source of grants.
DonQuixote:
To a degree, I have to go with Loki on this. A centralized control on anything can lead to alot of bad things.
[and then some more werdz.] Ok. The love is back.
DonQuixote:
Be Well Hate.
DonQuixote:
Mofo:
Are most grants provided by the gov't anyways? LOki:
Student loans, grants, scholarships. The short answer is no. I got a grant from the Masons because my great-grandfather was a mason. There are several private organizations that provide grants for those who apply and also meet the requirements. Man if you are an American Indian, there are tons of private grants just waiting to be taken. David Letterman built a whole building at his Alma Mater for the "C" students. There are also grants for children of WWII and Vietnam vets. So I guess thats all I had to say. Ok. You're all good again.
DonQuixote:
bye Hate.
____________________
|
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 22:15 |
The only problem I have with military schools as the only public institution is that I don't approve of the military.
Also, in a true capitalist society, where private companies provide health care and police protection and firefighting services, why do we need a public sponsored military? The military could just be a straight up extension of the desire for new markets.
Anyway, you need a public sector to sponsor scientific research, which is a long term risky investment that no company is going to hit. Except... SCIENCE COMPANIES! I don't know. Whatever.
Also, I don't think making change and reading are really skills that any one company wants, but every company wants collectively. I guess maybe if you had a company that was solely responsible for getting kids to the point where they could be funnelled into vocational academies or whatever. I really don't see how that's different from the current system.
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
3/2/2006 at 23:03 |
And plumbers teaching future electricians to read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide competently is in their interest too; as is teaching future carpenters, boilermakers, steel workers, architects, engineers, accountants etc..., as all these trades are neccessary for installing plumbing in a building.
They're all necessary, but what stops them from just dumping their responsibilities off on the respected group of workers? Companies tend to take the lowest cost option available.
And I don't believe that one's fate is neccessarily sealed bythe sponsor of one's education. If a student lacks the intellectual vision and capacity to apply his education across fields, then it doesn't matter where he starts, and it does a dis-service to him to place him in an educational environment without direction
I have a feeling that if you were taught by crane operators, funded by crane operators, and made "to use that education on the job for them", it'll probably be where they end up staying. A lot of kids follow in their parents footsteps, don't they?
For instance, why couldn't a lower class genius qualify for a full scholarship if this "genius" were in fact a genius?
I think you're begining to fall into one of the previously predicted responses that essentially equate being born poor with being an unwavering loser.
People are naturally selective. Would a school rather sponser a poor genius of which they'd have to pay almost every cent (especially without the gov't), or a smart kid (but not as smart) who can pay at least part of his way in?
More so, since most colleges receive a significant amount of funds from the government, tuition fees would increase do to colleges having to make enough money to support themselves.
Anyway, you need a public sector to sponsor scientific research, which is a long term risky investment that no company is going to hit. Except... SCIENCE COMPANIES! I don't know. Whatever.
Which where we are now with medicine being so God awful expensive.
On 2006-03-02 at 17:04:46, Mofo enjoyed furrysex |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 00:02 |
Anyway, you need a public sector to sponsor scientific research, which is a long term risky investment that no company is going to hit. Except... SCIENCE COMPANIES! I don't know. Whatever.
No, you don't need sponsored scientific research. Now, I know that you're an academic, and you frown on this, but: applied research. Bane of the academic world, but really, who doesn't want science to serve a purpose?
I have a feeling that if you were taught by crane operators, funded by crane operators, and made "to use that education on the job for them", it'll probably be where they end up staying. A lot of kids follow in their parents footsteps, don't they?
Einstein worked as a patent office worker, Hitler was a painter, and on and on. Through twin studies, we know that genetics plays more of a role in personality and, in fact, job selection. So if you're trained as a crane operator but you're some kind of amazing genius, I think you'll be able to manage. Maybe you could end up owning the company, or serving the job for them for a time and doing something else, or doing something in your free time.
People are naturally selective. Would a school rather sponser a poor genius of which they'd have to pay almost every cent (especially without the gov't), or a smart kid (but not as smart) who can pay at least part of his way in?
More so, since most colleges receive a significant amount of funds from the government, tuition fees would increase do to colleges having to make enough money to support themselves.
A school would rather have a full-on genius, because those people make a shitload of money and give it back to the school. Alumni at a private college like mine pay a huge amount of money back, which leads to cheaper tuition for everyone.
Most private colleges don't receive federal funding, and they do ok. Tuition could only be raised so high, because colleges are trying to sell a product: a degree. People aren't buying? Lower the price. College is so expensive now because record numbers of people are enrolling (and Loki [and I] would argue, cheapening the worth of a degree).
Colleges make more than enough money to support themselves. Colleges are businesses. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 00:10 |
dinoza:
The only problem I have with military schools as the only public institution is that I don't approve of the military. What's to not approve of? The military kicks ass!
dinoza:
Also, in a true capitalist society, where private companies provide health care and police protection and firefighting services, why do we need a public sponsored military? The military could just be a straight up extension of the desire for new markets. You are describing an anarchy. A country of laws requires that the individual's recourse to violence be place in the unemotional, unbiased and objective hands of government--thus the police and military are legitimate government functions. Putting the military in the hands of the markets is precisely the sin that socialists commit, and accuse capitalists of excersizing.
dinoza:
Anyway, you need a public sector to sponsor scientific research, which is a long term risky investment that no company is going to hit. Except... SCIENCE COMPANIES! I don't know. Whatever. Outright ridiculous. Do you think that DaVinci, Darwin, Copernicus, DuPont, Edison and Franklin were governemnt researchers? That Corporations like DuPont, Carrier, Bristol Myers, ALCOA, and Ford were not advancing the sciences for no other reason than to obtain a competitive advantage and make a profit?
You want to know what government research really accomplishes? It ties up our best brains in figuring out how to improve the bottle rocket to more efficiently exterminate some folks from another country.
Government directed research is bullshit.
dinoza:
Also, I don't think making change and reading are really skills that any one company wants, but every company wants collectively. This statement is internally contradictory. You clearly don't mean what you said, and it make the werdz that followed meaningless.
Mofo:
LOki:
And plumbers teaching future electricians to read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide competently is in their interest too; as is teaching future carpenters, boilermakers, steel workers, architects, engineers, accountants etc..., as all these trades are neccessary for installing plumbing in a building. They're all necessary, but what stops them from just dumping their responsibilities off on the respected group of workers? Companies tend to take the lowest cost option available. What color is the sky where you live? Have we not had this coversation before, where I pointed out that many employers train their employees for free because it makes financial sense? Is it not patently obvious to you that if every company dumped their responsibilities (whatever they might be) that they'd suffer for that? That those companies know that, and that is precisely what stops them from dumping their responsibilities?
Please don't be the case study for exactly why dumbfuks can't possibly run profitable corporations without government assistance.
Mofo:
LOki:
And I don't believe that one's fate is neccessarily sealed bythe sponsor of one's education. If a student lacks the intellectual vision and capacity to apply his education across fields, then it doesn't matter where he starts, and it does a dis-service to him to place him in an educational environment without direction I have a feeling that if you were taught by crane operators, funded by crane operators, and made "to use that education on the job for them", it'll probably be where they end up staying. A lot of kids follow in their parents footsteps, don't they? No. First, most of us went to school funded by the government and taught by teachers and the vast, vast majoroty of us do not become politicians or teachers. Secondly, I don't know anyone outside of family owned business that followed in their parent's footsteps, I know I didn't--except one; who is a teacher (HAHA!).
Mofo:
LOki:
For instance, why couldn't a lower class genius qualify for a full scholarship if this "genius" were in fact a genius?
I think you're begining to fall into one of the previously predicted responses that essentially equate being born poor with being an unwavering loser. People are naturally selective. Would a school rather sponser a poor genius of which they'd have to pay almost every cent (especially without the gov't), or a smart kid (but not as smart) who can pay at least part of his way in?
More so, since most colleges receive a significant amount of funds from the government, tuition fees would increase do to colleges having to make enough money to support themselves. Why do universities offer merit based scholarships now? They'll bring in dirt poor geniuses, because those geniuses advance their programs, making them better institutions thus drawing in more tuitions.
And private universities do not get boatloads of funds from the government, the state schools get that--but more importantly, even the state schools get the majority of their operating budget from tuitions. And the bottom line is that those poor, needy, down on their luck, unfortunate, disadvantaged, single parented, homeless, got rickets, but yet smart, industriuos and ambitious candidates get an absolutely free education.
Yep. I'm pretty sure you've fallen squarely into that bullshit canned presumption that being born poor makes you neccessarily a loser.
Mofo:
dinoza:
Anyway, you need a public sector to sponsor scientific research, which is a long term risky investment that no company is going to hit. Except... SCIENCE COMPANIES! I don't know. Whatever. Which where we are now with medicine being so God awful expensive. Not the company's fault. Blame regulation, blame the government.
____________________
|
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 02:40 |
What color is the sky where you live? Have we not had this coversation before, where I pointed out that many employers train their employees for free because it makes financial sense? Is it not patently obvious to you that if every company dumped their responsibilities (whatever they might be) that they'd suffer for that? That those companies know that, and that is precisely what stops them from dumping their responsibilities?
Please don't be the case study for exactly why dumbfuks can't possibly run profitable corporations without government assistance.
Hey, when you go to randalls to be a cashier, and they train you to be a cashier, do they also train you on how to do plumbing? Or anything but be a cashier (or clean)? We had a conversation where buisness train employes to do what they were hired to do, not to do everything else related to their field of work. Thus, plumbers don't wire your house, and electrians don't install your plumbing.
No. First, most of us went to school funded by the government and taught by teachers and the vast, vast majoroty of us do not become politicians or teachers. Secondly, I don't know anyone outside of family owned business that followed in their parent's footsteps, I know I didn't--except one; who is a teacher (HAHA!).
Two of my brothers followed my dad into the buisness field, specifically in the field of managing state agencies. My friend plans to follow his dad into accounting, and my other friend plans to follow his dad into law (which is rather common.) I think/speculate quite a few doctors are following parents of some sort.
As for school, I was thinking of vocational school, because really, what would a school funded by crane operators really be?
A school would rather have a full-on genius, because those people make a shitload of money and give it back to the school. Alumni at a private college like mine pay a huge amount of money back, which leads to cheaper tuition for everyone.
Which would totally explain UT passing up on several really bright but poor kids to take the wealthy kids of out Tarrytown! (which I'm saying from experiencing this happening at my school). Even more so, getting already wealthy kids are a surer bet of getting more money back than waging your bets on a kid you hope makes it big. Because not all geniuses end up making a shitload of money.
all I know is that to get a merit based scholarship to UT based on education requires you to having something like a 4.5 GPA and make almost a perfect score on your SAT/ACT. Might as well go to Harvard than. If you had the statistics, chances are gov't finacial aid gets a lot more kids through school than merit based scholarships.
Yep. I'm pretty sure you've fallen squarely into that bullshit canned presumption that being born poor makes you neccessarily a loser.
How'd I fall into that? All I've said is that its harder for poor people to get the same as rich people, such as a college education.
Not the company's fault. Blame regulation, blame the government.
Nothing is the company's fault, is it?
On 2006-03-02 at 20:42:01, Mofo enjoyed furrysex |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent  SSHOLEPosts: 559 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 02:55 |
Please don't put me in forum titles, its unclassy and annoying.
It occurs to me that the gut defense of minimum wage has its origin in the labor theory of value--that it is the application of labor that makes raw materials more valuable.
To a certain degree I'm inclined to agree--but Acheron, I think you'd agree with me that there are a boatload of asshoelkles out there who can take the best coffee, the best adjuncts and put them through the best machinery (adding labor thus value according to the theory) and yet dispense what you or I might generously deem to be dirt water.
Do you think that it is appropriate that this jackass, whose labor manages to turn valuable raw materials into hot shit soup be rewarded with minimum (or other) wage because he worked hard? Or perhaps should he be instead fined for being a fuk-up?
It is occurring to me that minimum wage--being the government enforced mandate on any labor's value--also has the effect of making good work as worthy of rerward as shitty work, thereby devalueing good work. It's not surprising to me Acheron, that you'd feel that a barista ought to worth more than minimum wage (because I'm likely to agree), but I'm not surprised that they don't get paid more because minimum wage make gas station coffee pot attendants, by law, equal to baristas.
You have a point.
(hell freezes over)
On 2006-03-02 at 20:59:12, AcheronDCS enjoyed furrysex
____________________
I'm an INTJ. This explains why I'm alternating between silence and judging you. |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 04:14 |
LOki:
dinoza:
Anyway, you need a public sector to sponsor scientific research, which is a long term risky investment that no company is going to hit. Except... SCIENCE COMPANIES! I don't know. Whatever. Outright ridiculous. Do you think that DaVinci, Darwin, Copernicus, DuPont, Edison and Franklin were governemnt researchers? That Corporations like DuPont, Carrier, Bristol Myers, ALCOA, and Ford were not advancing the sciences for no other reason than to obtain a competitive advantage and make a profit?
You referred to mostly practical scientists, with the exception of Copernicus and Darwin. Also, Davinci was not a scientist at all, just an inventor/engineer. Most science research, not engineering science, not engineering, is sponsored by governments, in the US it'd be the NSF and the Department of Energy, and other branches of the government, and abroad it'd mostly be the governments.
The reason for that is the Theory of Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics can't benefit one company. It makes no sense to own quantum mechanics, or the theory of evolutiion, or whatever. The only benefit is to society as a whole.
You talk as if you are not familiar with real scientific research. My point stands.
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 04:37 |
The reason for that is the Theory of Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics can't benefit one company. It makes no sense to own quantum mechanics, or the theory of evolutiion, or whatever. The only benefit is to society as a whole.
You talk as if you are not familiar with real scientific research. My point stands.
Aren't you just making Loki's point? The theory of relativity wasn't discovered through government sponsorship. Neither was the theory of evolution. Most of the people who helped to found Quantum physics weren't either.
And why is it that with academics, "real" scientific research has to have no point and no real use? As though it couldn't possibly be "real" research if something is discovered by 3M that makes them money. |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 06:11 |
The theory of relativity was discovered by Albert Einstein. But thousands to tens of thousands of physicists worked on it and are still working on it, doing experiments, adding to it, fixing it, etc. Quantum mechanics wasn't even discovered by one person. And the majority of the people who develop these theories are state sponsored.
Do people make money from the theory of gravity, or do they make money from the applications of gravitational theory? The second one. The idea of owning a theory doesn't even make sense. That's like owning calculus. Or owning evolution. The best you can do is own a patent for a device you develop using an application of the theory.
I'm talking about basic scientific research, the stuff you need to make new technology, but stuff that can't benefit any company in the sense of giving it an advantage over another company.
Real scientific research isn't what you think it is, Nocal. My point stands.
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 07:06 |
Do people make money from the theory of gravity
No, but someone sure figured it out, and that person wasn't sponsored by a government. So when you say this:
The idea of owning a theory doesn't even make sense. That's like owning calculus. Or owning evolution. The best you can do is own a patent for a device you develop using an application of the theory.
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm saying that state sponsored research doesn't yield much in the way of usefulness. You keep bringing up examples of non-state sponsored research that has resulted in important scientific theories. Why don't you bring up state-sponsored research that has resulted in an important theoretical advancement, but one that has not yielded a "useful" (eg moneymaking) product. That might prove your point.
I'm talking about basic scientific research, the stuff you need to make new technology, but stuff that can't benefit any company in the sense of giving it an advantage over another company.
Stuff to make new technology that won't benefit any company. What new technology could not benefit a company in any way?
Real scientific research isn't what you think it is, Nocal. My point stands.
Then what is "real" scientific research? |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 07:50 |
Einstein was sponsored by the US government. They brought him over from Europe. I keep on saying that the vast majority of physics research is funded by the Dept of Energy, NASA, NSF, NSA, and so on. Even the private companies like IBM and Bell Labs, and the private universities they collaborate with, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, all the others, supplement private funds with grants from these agencies, and often do joint research with public universities, Berkeley, public research labs, Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, Los Alamos, and couldn't have done this work if at some point the government provided money to establish the line of research.
Did you know it was two biologists, Urey and Miller, working out of UC San Diego who first published results in the spontaneous creation of life from hydrogen, ammonia, water and electricity? The spontaneous generation of life is necessary for natural selection to describe the complete evolution of humans.
So one of my points, which you haven't contradicted, is that the large part of science research in the United States is government sponsored, funded, or influenced.
Also you sound very foolish when you say "that person wasn't sponsored by a government." No one person does science, science is a collaborative process. This doesn't make your point less valid, but it makes it frustrating to argue with you.
What is real science? In America we usually think of science as a process that returns an idea we can use to make something with. We think of nuclear physics as producing nuclear weapons, of electricity and magnetism making computers, of biology as producing medicine, and so on. The actual research that goes into producing weapons, electricity, and medicine is actually engineering science, or in the medicine case, medical science. It's a secondary stage of science process, when you use an idea to produce a product.
In theory, you don't actually need science to make an a-bomb. You could have a religion that tells you that a critical mass of Uranium 238 will start a chain reaction of nuclear decays that will release a tremendous amount of energy. If you then tried to make a bomb using this release of energy, you would be replicating Oppenheimer's Manhattan project, which wasn't to discover the principles behind nuclear decay and fusion, which had already been discovered, but to produce a working bomb. You wouldn't need science at any part of this process, just faith that when you slap two hunks of gray metal together, they'll destroy everything in sight.
Science is a self-proclaimed method of approximating the truth. The idea is you put time and resources in, and truth comes out. This truth doesn't necessarily have to be practically useful, unless you feel that truth is always practically useful. One branch of science is cosmology. This branch is very popular because it produces really cool ideas, like the big bang, dark matter, and so on. None of these ideas can forseeably be used to make a product. Back in the day, quantum mechanics was a branch of science that had no forseeable applications.
There is plenty of science that has immediate practical applications. It didn't take long from the time Maxwell finished the fundamental equations of electrodynamics for Edison to produce a lightbullb, although Edison's efforts were largely faith based and trial and error, not very scientific.
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent SSHOLEPosts: 559 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 08:08 |
I've noticed that about this far down on political threads the primary remaining conversation is a 1 on 1 duel and the only way they expand is if people start taking part in it. Just a thought.
____________________
I'm an INTJ. This explains why I'm alternating between silence and judging you. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
3/3/2006 at 14:03 |
Mofo:
Hey, when you go to randalls to be a cashier, and they train you to be a cashier, do they also train you on how to do plumbing? Or anything but be a cashier (or clean)? We had a conversation where buisness train employes to do what they were hired to do, not to do everything else related to their field of work. Thus, plumbers don't wire your house, and electrians don't install your plumbing. Ah yes! This is that moment I find to be most rewarding...here it goes:
We both agree that education is valuable, and educated people are more valuable than not educated peolple. Also, we both agree that businesses are just trying to make a buck, that profits are the bottom line.
Whereas my arguments remain consistent with these premises, that business recognizing the value, thus profitability of educated individuals working for them, working for others and buying their products, would certainly in the name of higher profits invest in that patently obvious value, yours are exactly opposite.
You are claiming that despite the patently obvious financial benefit the education of the public would bring to then, businesses would not snap up that opportunity. That insted, they would take measures to NOT make profits, and refuse opportunities to pursue "the almighty dollar"--for the sake of what Mofo? The joy of fuking over the little guy? What?
I suspect that the reality here is that you are not operating for the above agreed premises. Your assertions that profit oriented people would not persue value, means your actual premises are either you do not believe that business is about the pursuit of profits, or you don't believe that education is, and educated people are, as valuable as you claim.
AcheronDCS:
Please don't put me in forum titles, its unclassy and annoying. Since when have I been classy? or not annoying?
I did get your attention though, and I'm a whoer for that!
BTW: I have an extra toboggan down here in hell for you if you wish to continue your visit.
dinoza:
You referred to mostly practical scientists, with the exception of Copernicus and Darwin. Also, Davinci was not a scientist at all, just an inventor/engineer. Most science research, not engineering science, not engineering, is sponsored by governments, in the US it'd be the NSF and the Department of Energy, and other branches of the government, and abroad it'd mostly be the governments.
The reason for that is the Theory of Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics can't benefit one company. It makes no sense to own quantum mechanics, or the theory of evolutiion, or whatever. The only benefit is to society as a whole.
You talk as if you are not familiar with real scientific research. My point stands. I am familiar with "real" scientific research, I just don't assert the neccessity of government sponsorship. I might argue that government sposorship of scientific research takes resources away from "real" research and diverts it to politically useful, motivated and biased research.
And No. You point fails to stand, because you fail to validate your arbitrary distinction between "practical", or engineering scientists and whatever you deem to be the "real" scientists.
As for your assertion that Relativity, Evolution and Quantum Mechanics "only" benefits "society as a whole", I'll invite you to show me the "society" that benefits from that knowlege where none of the individuals in that society have, or benefit, from that knowledge.
nocal:
And why is it that with academics, "real" scientific research has to have no point and no real use? As though it couldn't possibly be "real" research if something is discovered by 3M that makes them money. Indeed. Why, exactly, is that?
dinoza:
Do people make money from the theory of gravity, or do they make money from the applications of gravitational theory? The second one. The idea of owning a theory doesn't even make sense. That's like owning calculus. Or owning evolution. The best you can do is own a patent for a device you develop using an application of the theory.
I'm talking about basic scientific research, the stuff you need to make new technology, but stuff that can't benefit any company in the sense of giving it an advantage over another company.
Real scientific research isn't what you think it is, Nocal. My point stands. dinoza, how can pursueing knowledge that leads to profitable applications NOT be considered profitable? How can not pursuing that knowledge be considered profitable?
Your point fails.
dinoza:
So one of my points, which you haven't contradicted, is that the large part of science research in the United States is government sponsored, funded, or influenced. That was not one of your points."...you need a public sector to sponsor scientific research, which is a long term risky investment that no company is going to hit." Your point actually was that government funded research was neccessary, and that private enterprise would not engage in it because it's not profitable due to the long term risks involved, and that point is being very nicely contradicted.
____________________
|
| |
|
Awesome, they had the one in there where the guy gets shot in the face and you can see his jawbone. I've been trying to find that. -- SexNinjaMcDeath
|
