Slashdot Mirror

The fee charged for Subsidized and Unsubsidized Loans was 4 percent of the amount borrowed before July 1, 2006. Beginning with loans for which the first disbursement of principal is made on or after February 8, 2006, and before July 1, 2007, the origination fee charged to Direct Stafford Loan borrowers is 3 percent. The loan fee is subtracted proportionately from each loan disbursement.

Hmm, it seems that you, too, are a fine product of the US education.

See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005003.pdf or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_Interna tional_Student_Assessment for example.

Here's the real scoop on degrees. Currently about 29% of adults in America over 25 years of age hold a baccalaureate, but only 6% hold an advanced degree. Compare, and contrast this to the situation 45 years ago. "By 1960, 42 percent of males, 25 years old and over, still had completed no more than the eighth grade, but 40 percent had completed high school and 10 percent had completed 4 years of college"-- http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/index.asp?file=OtherResour ces/ResourcePublications.asp&PageId=146

So today the percentage of adult Americans that hold a baccalaureate is about 29%, whereas in 1960 it was 10%. IOTW, today about 1 in 3 adult americans holds a baccalaureate, but in 1960 less than 1 in 10 did. (Note that the 1960 statistics were for men, whereas the figures for today are for both men and women.) It is reasonable to assume then that in 1960 the percentage of adult American that held a baccalaureate was comparable to the percentage of adult Americans that hold and advanced degree today.

As for H.S. diplomas given that only about 40% of adult males held H.S. diplomas in 1960 then it would be reasonable hold that the percentage of adult Americans that hold a baccalaureate today is at least roughly equivalent to the percentage of adult American that held H.S. diplomas in 1960.

ESPECIALLY at the local levels at which school district decisions are made.

And you explain the existance of a federal "Department of Education"... how, exactly? What about that monstrosity called, "No Child Left Behind"? How does that fit into your pretty little world view?

You, good sir, are confused. Very confused. Probably, no, certainly because you went to a government school.

Pick up a Gatto book, or find a copy of his "Seven Lesson Schoolteacher" essay. Confusion is, iirc, lesson #1. :) Then you can move on to his Underground History of American Education. Or, alternatively, John Holt's How Children Fail.

The fancy term for this phenomenon is metacognitive miscalibration - which basically means thinking that you know more than you do.

Apropos in an amazing array of situations - this being an outstanding example.

School violence has not been increasing, it's just the media sensationalizing the death of suburban white kids (I used to be one myself)

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/Indica tors.asp?PubPageNumber=1&ShowTablePage=TablesHTML/ table_1.1.asp

Violent Deaths at School and Away From School:

Years School Away

1992-93 34 3,584
1993-94 29 3,804
1994-95 28 3,552
1995-96 32 3,305
1996-97 28 2,952
1997-98 34 2,728
1998-99 33 2,366
1999-00 14 2,126
2000-01 12 2,047
2001-02 17 2,036

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_violence

The percentage of students who reported being afraid of being attacked at school or on the way to and from school decreased from 12 % in 1995 to 6 % in 2001.

Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property within the previous 30 days declined--from 12 % to 6 %

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/23_School_Viole nce.htm

Fewer than 1% of all homicides among school-age children occur on or around school grounds or on the way to and from school. ...the total number of events has decreased steadily since 1992-1993 school year...

The article states there were only 2.9 million vacancies for a country of 1.3 billion people. That's crazy! This is after 10 minutes of googling: In the US it's estimated that there are over 15 million people in US schools (National Center for Education Studies - http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005063.pdf -pdf, see page 27). If 1/4 of those are freshmen spots that would be about 3.75 million or so spots a year - for a country of almost 300 million. You can do the rest of the math, but maybe the answer is yes - maybe they should build one or two more universities.

Most people live within walking distance of one,

If by "most people" you mean "people living within two miles of a public library", sure.

The United States had 9074 public libraries" as of 2001. It also has 3,537,441 square miles in total. Assuming no overlap in public libraries, (9074*3.14159*2^2) = 114027 square miles of "walkable" library coverage, or 3.2% of the total land area.

Only about 6% of the land of the United States is actually used for residence.

The absolute upper limit of "percentage of people living in the United States who can walk to a public library" is thus 3.2 / 5.5 = 58% .

Dude, federal loans alone will cover up to 47,000 of an independent undergraduate's student loans over the course of four years. The remainder is quite doable with some other kinds of aid and a part time job.

http://studentaid.ed.gov/students/publications/stu dent_guide/2004_2005/english/types-stafford.htm

Anybody who can get in can afford to go to college. If she has kids it'd be tougher, she'd probably have to spread it way out over the course of more years so she could work nearly full time too, but it's still doable for anyone.

Man, I'm with you on the topic of pushing the social bounds that a video game can touch. Why is it ok to write books, plays, film movies and TV shows about horrible events - but you depict it in a video game and suddenly your an amoral asshat?

For some of use, we would like to see video games mature into interactive media that conveys a message with more clarity and depth than any of the current one dimensional media vehicles available. This game is a step in that direction. Hell, some people call it art.

Anyone see that film Capote? Critical acclaim everywhere. The movie was about a self indulgent asshole who basically wrote a "true Crime" novel. Whoop de dooo. I don't see anyone flipping out over that.

Lets take a look at the book now. In Cold Blood. Read the reviews on that page, they're ridiculous. Capote's writing is boring, typical, and worshipped by those who couldn't handle Tolstoy. The subject of a book, a murder. A REAL murder.

Where is the outcry there? Hell, where is the outcry on the "pulp true crime" novels written about serial killer after serial killer? It's pretty damn small and has NO face.

People can't handle media if they haven't been ingesting it for 20 years or more. This "kiddie" media is mostly being purchased by people over 18. This is knee jerk reaction to an overhyped statistical anomonoly.

This is not an attack on those who still might have very deep pain over this event, I feel for you. But this game is NOT demeaning you. This game is NOT trying to foster this behavior in others. The very people who are demeaning this game should take a look at it, see how it makes you feel. My guess is repulsed. And every time you re-enact a slaying you should be asking yourself "what kind of monster can do this?" That, ladies and gentlemen, is the point. What does it take to make two confused youth transform into heartless killers? What is the aftermath? How much pain does not understanding or ignoring the early warning signs cause after all is said and done?

No, who cares about those things. Sweep that shit under the rug and turn on the tube - I wanna see who's gonna be the next American Idol. As long as I'm not starving or suffering - I try not to worry too much abouth the specifics. If this stuff didn't exist the problem might just go away.

From the Dept of Education's webiste:

"Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance."

The law seems mostly to be about releasing transcripts and such and making sure parents have the right to access them and get things corrected when they're wrong. Sorta a Fair Credit Reporting Act for your grades.

Question

Is No Child Left Behind adequately funded?

            Answer

Federal funding for K-12 education has actually increased dramatically since the passage of No Child Left Behind, with the funds targeted to communities with the largest concentrations of low-achieving and low-income students. For more information on K-12 education funding and the budget, including summaries of budgets, budget proposals and projected state tables, please see:

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index .html
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html ?src=gu
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src =ln

Question

Is No Child Left Behind adequately funded?

            Answer

Federal funding for K-12 education has actually increased dramatically since the passage of No Child Left Behind, with the funds targeted to communities with the largest concentrations of low-achieving and low-income students. For more information on K-12 education funding and the budget, including summaries of budgets, budget proposals and projected state tables, please see:

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index .html
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html ?src=gu
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src =ln

Question

Is No Child Left Behind adequately funded?

            Answer

Federal funding for K-12 education has actually increased dramatically since the passage of No Child Left Behind, with the funds targeted to communities with the largest concentrations of low-achieving and low-income students. For more information on K-12 education funding and the budget, including summaries of budgets, budget proposals and projected state tables, please see:

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index .html
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html ?src=gu
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src =ln

Question

Is No Child Left Behind adequately funded?

            Answer

Federal funding for K-12 education has actually increased dramatically since the passage of No Child Left Behind, with the funds targeted to communities with the largest concentrations of low-achieving and low-income students. For more information on K-12 education funding and the budget, including summaries of budgets, budget proposals and projected state tables, please see:

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index .html
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html ?src=gu
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src =ln

Studies showing correlations between violent video games and hostility:

One by the University of Oklahoma Medical School:
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 1.pdf

One by the University of Minnesota Institute of Child Development:
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content _storage_01/0000000b/80/0d/ba/44.pdf

Here is an interesting study that challenges the correlation vs. causation argument. It basically states violent video games induce violent tendencies (not necessarily behavior).
http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/672%20Bushman%20&%20A nderson%202002.pdf

If literacy rates seem to be falling, as the Wired commentary notes, it's likely because:

• A significant segment of the population now has access to e-mail and instant messaging.
• Fluency in written communications is now required in many non-clerical professions.
• Our information diet is now much heavier.

All these makes illiteracy, which has always been present in American society, much more conspicuous and difficult to hide.

Well, that depends on what you consider small. From a relevant article:

"In 1999, 8.5 million women enrolled in U.S. colleges, versus 6.4 million men, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. Last year women made up 57 percent of those entering college. That percentage is expected to rise to 61 percent by 2009, according to the NCES." http://www.virtuallyadvising.com/content/wic/11gen dergap.shtml

Or from the NCES directly:

"Since 1984, the number of women in graduate schools has exceeded the number of men. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of male full-time graduate students increased by 14 percent, compared to 52 percent for full-time women. Among part-time graduate students, the number of men decreased by 3 percent compared to a 13 percent increase for women."
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

Given the current trends, and the public comments from officials in various higher-education oragnizations, I know this:

When my daughters are ready for college, there will be an abundance of opportunities for them.

When my sons want to go, there will be no place open to them. Non-minority, non-athlete, middle-class males will all but disappear from the post-secondary system.

Err no. So far as I know, even with crap like 'No child left behind' it is still just as difficult to read modern english as it ever has been.

http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/index.asp?file=KeyFindings /Demographics/Overall.asp&PageId=16

-Rick

I'm against all public education systems. I don't believe they've worked.

Yes, and the emergence of the U.S. as a global superpower over the past century is a stunning counter-example to your claim.

Public education in the U.S. has huge problems, but public education is what made this country (the U.S) great.

Do you think that people in the countries that crush the U.S. in standardized tests (like, say, Singapore) are home-schooling their kids? No, they generally have federally-run school systems, which is the opposite (compared to locally-run U.S. public schools) of what you advocate (fully centralized vs. fully decentralized).

Now, if people want to homeschool their kids, or send their kids to private school, fine. Maybe vouchers make sense, I don't know. But blithely claiming that public education is a fundamental failure ignores, well, facts.

College costs about the same as a new car, but much less than a TV.

I've found that the US system for doing things has little to no provision for those that are capable, but are in temporary need vs those that are simply incapable and in chronic need.

Millions of people every year get student loans like from these guys.

Now, if your only skilled at watching TV...

They won't be online because they cannot read.

Shameless plagarism courtesy of wikipedia:

"In the United States alone, one in seven persons (i.e., over 40 million people) can barely read a job offer or utility bill..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy

Read this report for more: about 14% of US adults have a below Basic literacy level for prose/documents (can't read a TV program or jury instructions), another fifth have only a "Basic" literacy level for prose/documents (cannot consult documents to find what foods contain certain vitamins.).

A quarter of adults are quantitatively illiterate (have a below basic skill in reading numbers). These people cannot even compare prices of two event tickets.

http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/

I agree. According to the latest National Adult Literacy Survey which was released last week, less than half of all PhD's in the US are able to read proficiently. You would do well to ensure that the authorities you would surrender your power to are really as authoritative as they claim.

And if you wanted medical journals for example, wikipedia doesn't do those, these guys do: Medical Journals So sure, there are many sites offering you ways of posting/sharing information, but they are definetely not the one and only and as soon as people start realizing that and looking for themselves independent of those sites, they'll see that there are many ways of finding info, not just Wikipedia, or this. Digital Universe though is an alternative, so what?

Ummm - that would be because such programs aren't needed at the university level. I want you to think about how many of your teachers - real live tenured ones here, not GAs and what not - during your post-high school education were male, now do the same excercise and think of the number were female. Now compare the two numbers. (Sorry for making the assumption that you went to University, I apologize if I am wrong.)

Need more proof, in a National Study of Postsecondary Faculty: "There were several differences between male and female faculty members in the levels of faculty outcomes such as salary, tenure, and rank. Female full-time faculty averaged lower salaries than male faculty by about $10,000 [...] They were also less likely to be tenured (42 vs. 66 percent) or to be full professors (15 vs. 39 percent)." http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_2/2_2/q4 -4.asp#H1

I don't know about the master's statistic, but statistics on bachelor's degrees were pretty easy to find. The US census page on education has this table that says 23.8% of americans have one.

The census doesn't have data on degrees higher than that. The NCES probably does somewhere, if you really care enough to find it. But really, why bother? This is a not-very-relevant side topic of a side topic already.

"The same morons that helped the fucking taliban people with weapons in the 80's to fight against teh russians in afghanistan, or did you forget? The same bastards that trainned a guy so well it turns out to crush New York WTC in 2001."

"Consequences of your democracy. Any way, your country is not a real democracy, since in your voting systems people's vote don't count at all. All the elections are based in the electoral college system and thus you don't get any real democracy in that system."

The only position where direct voting does not hold a one-to-one result is that of the Presidency. Why? So one state cannot dominate an election; all other elections (Congress, and local/state level) are tallied and the majority wins. Instead, for the Presidential election, we have an Electoral College, which tallies its votes by state, which are given out by population. Most states require that the electoral college 'voters' follow the state's majority decision (i.e., if Bush gets 51% of the vote, and Kerry gets 49%, then Bush gets all of the electoral votes). It's pretty clear in our Constitution for the reasoning of this.

So you guys have a direct election of your leader, and the guy not in power won? Great, we had a turn-over of power similar to that when Thomas Jefferson was elected. Thanks for playing. So our election is still done on paper? Oh, well, we're cautiously moving towards electronic voting systems. The only people that complained about vote counting were people against the winner in VERY narrowly won areas. It's a legitimate practice and the fact that they CAN voice their concerns and be HEARD is an example of democracy, not a slap in its face.

As for the comment on Bush. That's just a shot (and you misspelled 'dumb'). To be honest, I'm more concerned with domestic problems than international issues. That's a side effect of living in the most powerful country in the world, and I realize that it comes off as selfish, but I don't regret feeling that way. I'm being honest. I care about Americans a lot more than Brazilians, or any other nation. Unless you guys send your military to attack us (futilely), then you don't effect me. The last big news I saw about Brazil was that you guys were pro-open source. I do not agree with everything Bush does, especially in terms of his spending (not so much on the military, but the general trend in high spending on other bloated areas of the government). I'm not against deficit spending, but I am against stupid deficit spending. I'm also against the recently proposed (and since rejected) to cut the budget in some areas that are ironically what you have been talking about (Medicare, student loans, etc); there are better areas to cut.

Anyway, you need to wake up and realize you don't know half as much about this country as you think you do. Everyone in America goes to K-12 public schools, OR BETTER, on tax payer money, until they are old enough to drop out, at which point it is their legal decision. Everyone that wants to go to college CAN through loans from private institutions (e.g., banks), extremely large amounts of scholarships (many with maximum income limits, to ensure they go to poor students rather than less-poor, or even rich students), and federal school loans. Also, it's illegal for hospitals to turn away people from getting medical care because they cannot afford it, or do not have insurance.

The idea that you won't interact with other students is completely false. I have two advanced degrees, an M.S. in mathematics from the University of Florida earned at the school and an MBA from Baker College earned through their online program. I had just as much interaction with my fellow students in both programs.

The only criteria that really matters in terms of acceptance (other than general quality of the program which you have to consider with a brick-and-mortar program also) is whether or not the school is accredited by a recognized regional accrediting authority such as the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (You can find a list of them at http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.asp.) If you're really concerned about general acceptance then you should also ask whether or not your degree will mention that it was earned online. My MBA, for example, is exactly the same as the ones that the college gives the students who physically attend one of their campuses.

"150 years ago, practically every city-dwelling 14-year-old in the U.S. was obliged to read and understand literature that is beyond today's typical college graduate."

Complete and utter bullshit.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/historicaldata/illiteracy. asp

"In 1870, 20 percent of the entire adult population was illiterate..."

Actually if you're going to talk about youth violent crime rates and speculate a connection to the availability of violent videogames, then you should be arguing to make violent video games MANDATORY for kids.

The youth violent crime rate has been in absolute FREEFALL for over a decade. It has pretty much fallen by a factor of 5 since such videogames became available.

I can pretty much sum up your post, and the current political nonsense, with the following FortuneCookie I have saved:
Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; and the end of the world is evidently approaching. -- "Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C"

-

SSN is required for financial aid.

SSN is also strongly requested (read: required) by federal and state entities for reporting to get funding, etc... See:

• IPEDS
• Ohio Board of Regents Higher Education Information

Also many legacy systems have been in place for years (decades) keyed by SSN via decisions made in the 1970's, 1980's etc. when ID theft wasn't as prevalent nor easy as it is today. Also many colleges are getting their budgets cut either directly or indirectly by state and federal government and usually the first to go is administrative support. Actually, the college I work for gave me three weeks notice yesterday on my contract because of recent Ohio legislation. Yay...

Besides concerns about cheating, that practice is likely a violation of the student's right to privacy. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act prohibits the release of any information from a student's education record. Because test scores make up a large part of any final grade, sharing these results with other students is probably a no-no.

This happened all the time in my high school.

Yeah, high school is a good place to stomp all over kid's rights. Somebody has to put them in their place...

People coming out of the 1920's education system were far smarter than what the system is producing now.

While you may be more well read than I am on the subject, I still tend to disagree, so I'll expound a bit on each of my points.

1. Roads - It is certainly possible to build a private road, but it ceases to be practical as soon as we want to build roads that go somewhere other than between Boston and DC in 1875. In order to build a (new) road in anything resembling a cost-effective manner today you have to leverage eminent domain, and to break even it needs to be a high traffic route. The interstate system flatly could not have been built privately. Rural routes and county roads would remain muddy wagon ruts without taxes. As far as city roads go, maybe they could be nice and well built, but do you really want to have to pay a toll every time you turn? Do you want to have to research the cheapest way to work if we let competition dictate toll prices?

2. Medical/Scientific research - You must have never seen real research done. It take years, and costs millions, and switching to private funding won't change that. There are also ethical issues and safety issues at play. If we rush every drug to clinical trials the death rate under experimental drugs will balloon, and its hard to argue that that is a good thing, even if we get drugs out faster. If we don't have enough doctors, (and I'm not sure that this is the case) the reason isn't a government conspiracy, but rather one involving malpractice insurance decreasing the salary of doctors to the point where interest in the profession is waning.

3. Have you ever seen a mall security guard do police work? If the police force of a major city were privatized who would pay for it. Would you pay every time you wanted a crime solved? Could you pay per man-hour? How could we ever clean up a blighted urban area if no one there could pay for police service?

4. National defense - Without getting too political, most reasonable people would agree that in modern warfare a centrally commanded military is the only way to succeed in any type of armed conflict. The only practical way to have a united military with a single command is to make sure that all pay checks come from the same place, and to have a uniform system of punishment for soldiers transgressions.. Furthermore, there are reasons why we should pre-emotively become involved in a conflict, e.g. see how well appeasement worked in WWII. I have my own issues with the cost, effectiveness, and appropriate use of the military, but I am sure that the United States would not exist today were it not for military paid for with taxes.

5. Civil Rights - Yes the government abused civil rights, and yes there are independent groups that fight for civil rights. However, no private group could enforce equal housing, equal lending, affirmative action, and fair hiring processes. I think the state of civil rights would be much worse today without active government intervention.

6. Universally available public education - Sure there are fantastic private schools, and private education is better in many places, but it can never be universally available because we have a class system. As far as your literacy claim see http://nces.ed.gov/naal/historicaldata/illiteracy. asp
I'm going to assume that there wasn't a step change in literacy prior to the department of education being established in 1867.

7. Let me add one more - JUSTICE - Its not even conceivable to me how a privately run justice system could be run, and where it could collect fees, and how it could remain impartial. Now lets factor in prison. How is any private company going to raise funds to keep the bad guys locked up? Either we have summary executions for minor crimes, or draconian speeding tickets, or maybe we can dump them in a penal colony and let them fend for themselves.

In summary, there are things that are good for society as a whole, but people don't want to pay for on there own. These are the things that are best suited to government subsidy through taxes. We could conceivably privatize most of the above government functions, but they would still have to be subsidized through taxes, in essence still making them government works.

The phone infrastructure, they did get into and, at least in the USA, it took legal action to break that monopoly.

They were given a legal monopoly to do it, i.e. it wasn't a competitive venture at all.

I also believe that most of the history of the railway system development was in fact a case of private companies at work.

Robber barons. Massive federal grants for the transcontinental railroad. Federal soldiers to break strikes.

Electricity production and distribution, again, was a case of private enterprise. (Including such trivia as Edison selling light bulbs under the production cost, to create a market for them and demand for electricity.)

Private utility companies, granted monopoly power and guaranteed pricing markups. In some areas (Tennessee Valley for example) no corporations wanted to open up shop at all.

Education too. I believe there are a ton of private schools, high schools, and universities which are basically run as private companies or foundations. Plus, companies routinely pay to educate/specialize their workers.

Right, but the point is that in 1870 the literacy rate of the country was at most 80%, with only 20% of blacks able to read in any language. Where was the private system, that could be easily justified by the increase in productivity? One would think that industrial company A would subsidize a school run by company B to improve their workforce, but they didn't.

Nowadays public universities do the lion's share of basic research using a mix of government and corporate money and corporates turn that into salable products.

In a lot of those cases government intervention was needed to make the owner play fair (break a monopoly, nationalize a vital resource, etc) but they weren't really built by the government or anything.

They were mostly funded by the government, reaped the benefits of government-sponsored research, were given legal monopolies to prevent competition, and didn't have to share their institutional expertise after the systems were established. Oh yeah, and real people who paid for their homes with their own labor were eminent-domained from their land to make room for the corporate-owned infrastructure.

Where it gets fuzzier are things which are basically for the good of society as a whole, rather than for a clear-cut ROI.

Not really. When 911 happened, the major airlines begged for money and got it, even though several smaller carriers (like Southwest Airlines) ran a profit despite the attack.

Basically I'm not saying you're wrong as a whole. Quite the opposite. Companies do invest in things which look like they'll bring a guaranteed profit, and generally stay away from funding the common good of society.

I think we disagree a bit more than it seems at first glance. I think most corporates will only fund things that guarantee profit in the short and medium term at the expense of the long term, that such action is irrational with respect to Economics 101, AND that even those investments wouldn't happen without market-distorting money from the public treasury.

Or to use another example. I can't recall which sci-fi author coined the idea (books are at home), but basically they said "the one sure way to guarantee a new moon landing would be to offer a multi-billion-dollar prize for the first private company to get there". I think that if even such a prize was offered, no company would rise to the occasion on their own. Offer the prize in baby steps along the way, with a DoD-style contract and guaranteed minimum profits (regardless of outcome), and they would do it for sure.

Call me odd if you wish. I've worked for both municipal government (engineering and negotiating contracts with PUCs) and Fortune-100 corporation, and in both cases short-sighted is the order of the day.

The school is only entitled to release basic information such as name, address, phone no. and major unless the student has instructed the records to be private.

FERPA requires permission from the student to release any information such as grades or GPA.

For starters:

-implement uniform dresscode
-ban cellphones/video games/calculators
-improve student:teacher ratio

That should set the tone... and once you have their attention, start improving core curriculum.

Focus most on math, science and english. Make algebra a prerequisite for highschool. Give more importance to good penmanship. Stop handing out letter grades - use percentages instead.. they're simple, standard and precise.

The US educational system is so far behind, most people would consider just the aforementioned changes 'too rigid'. For those people, please take note: on a global scale, we're getting our asses kicked.

• Teach things in an inventive way that graps people's attention rather than just deluging them with facts.
• Offer a wide selection of courses so that hopefully everyone can find something that appeals to their interests (Secondary school only)

Now only if the entire United States High School Curriculum was similar to Arizona's

This has got to be the first time I've ever heard someone say they wish the whole country would model themselves to Arizona academically, and I've been here since 1982. See department of education Seriously, I went to 2 different relatively rural schools for high school, and didn't know students could learn a language other than spanish or english, had computer programming in school, and could have classes like psycology, or philosophy in secondary school.

Arizona is NO gold standard.

The concentration of wealth and power since the inception of public corporations has seen trully unremarkable individuals profit from the work of wage slaves and karoshi scientists. I think that so long as a society we have more executives than engineers we will suffer. Look how pathetic we look when we compare our scientist and engineer population with Japan. I have become bitter from living in America and do not consider myself an American because of the general decreptitude of Society here. Being almost done with a Robotics degree I have many nations willing to take me as a citizen. If you are in the field you know one of the major projects will be the research and development leading up to the fielding of a robotic military force from ground to air to space. I will not give my talent to such an ethically perverse nation as the "USA".

The prototypical consumer that was created through advertising and apathy is a monster we as engineers, designers and programmers cannot hide from at the liability of our professional status. Our job is to make life easier through intellectual and imho ethical rigor. The only solutions is to be found through the ability within our expertise to sate the most abject desires without engaging in any form of dehumanization like slavery or war. The responsibility for world peace is not a political or social question but very much a technological one. The world needs a 'New Deal'.

Many of the educational problems of the masses today are, IMHO, largely the result of poorly performing public schools. This is certainly partially the fault of the teacher's unions who have opposed objective measurements of performance and opposed all attempts to pay/promote/fire teachers based on performance rather than seniority. Fortunately, there has been some action in this area recently and I'm hopeful that it will continue. Although the teacher's unions generally still oppose such measurements, fear of market forces and the exasperation by their employers (that would be the taxpayers) have tempered their rhetoric.

I agree with you about americans needing to expect more, but market forces and less job security for teachers is not what our education system needs. How would you measure the perfomance of a teacher? My wife is a teach so I know this subject well. Have you thought this through at all. I can't even imagine how a market system would work. What about the kids that live in the country where there is one school for the whole county. I grew up in the suburbs of VA and I can't even imagine how it would work there. I remember being at the bus stop with all the kids in my neighborhood. How would these kids get to school if they were all going to different schools many of which are half way across the county? Also, there is probably a very easy way to tell whether market forces are good for eduction. Lets look at the math scores of the top scoring countries and see what kind of education system they have. http://nces.ed.gov/timss/TIMSS03Tables.asp?Quest=3 &Figure=5 "There are many ingredients in the success of Singapore's education system. First and foremost is the efficiency, dedication and work of our education ministry in Singapore. They are the ones who produced the framework for our education system and our syllabi." Doesn't sound like a market system to me. I'm sure the story is the same for almost all of those other countries like hungary, russia, australia, belgium, etc.

Personal Data Assistant (PDA): A PDA is a handheld device (e.g. Palm Pilot®, PocketPC®, etc.) that may combine many computing activities. PDAs that are more powerful may function as cellular phones, fax transmitters, web browsers, and personal organizers. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/secureweb/glossary.asp #pda

And let's not forget: those stats are by degrees awarded. That doesn't mean they were rewarded to Americans. Honestly...how many people do you think came here from overseas to study History and Social Sciences. Let's be honest; maybe 1% at most. How many of those awarded CIS degrees went to people who will be going back home and using them? It's tough to say...but at Ohio State, where I went, the percentage of foreign students in that program was EASILY 30% - 40%.

So let's take a look at some real numbers and see what that means:

History/Social S = 132,874
CIS = 47,299 (about 65% of the total)

But hey, at least if we go crazy we'll have 76,671 psychologists to talk us down.

These people don't seem to agree with your figures:

ALL SCIENCE DEGREES:
US: 13%
Japan: 51%

In 1998, the average per student expenditure for U.S. elementary and high schools was roughly the same as the per student expenditure at Harvard (NOT the tuition, but Harvard's expenditure).

I find that doubtful.

This page shows that in 1991, the publicly funded portion of education expenditure per primary and secondary students in the United States was $4,605.

This page show's that Harvards's library and information resources expenditure alone per student in 1999 was $3,904.

In 1998, with expenses of $1.6 billion and a student population of 18,500, Harvard's expense per student was...almost $88,000. We probably shouldn't count research expenses toward that, so take away the 23% for that and it's still $68,000 per student for instruction and related support.

I doubt that private expenditures were high enough to make up that $60,000+ difference, or that education spending rose enough during the 90s to catch up.

More importantly, "average" hides many things. Average a kid at an expensive private school with a $16,000 yearly expenditure with a kid at a near-bankrupt inner city school with a $2,000 yearly expenditure, and you've got an average of $9,000 per student year.

Again in 1991, public U.S. expenditures per student ranged from $2,600 in Mississippi to $7,900 in Alaska.

The idea that "American public schools are failing" is false because there is no American public school system - each county can be a radically different case.

That's well illustrated in my area, where within the space of a few miles the Baltimore City school system is on the verge of failing, Baltimore County schools are generally adequate (though that varies significantly in different parts of the county), and Howard County schools are doing well. The pass rates on the High School Assessment tests are 33%, 50%, and 74% respectively - more than a factor of 2 between Howard County and Baltimore City.

In 1998, the average per student expenditure for U.S. elementary and high schools was roughly the same as the per student expenditure at Harvard (NOT the tuition, but Harvard's expenditure).

I find that doubtful.

This page shows that in 1991, the publicly funded portion of education expenditure per primary and secondary students in the United States was $4,605.

This page show's that Harvards's library and information resources expenditure alone per student in 1999 was $3,904.

In 1998, with expenses of $1.6 billion and a student population of 18,500, Harvard's expense per student was...almost $88,000. We probably shouldn't count research expenses toward that, so take away the 23% for that and it's still $68,000 per student for instruction and related support.

I doubt that private expenditures were high enough to make up that $60,000+ difference, or that education spending rose enough during the 90s to catch up.

More importantly, "average" hides many things. Average a kid at an expensive private school with a $16,000 yearly expenditure with a kid at a near-bankrupt inner city school with a $2,000 yearly expenditure, and you've got an average of $9,000 per student year.

Again in 1991, public U.S. expenditures per student ranged from $2,600 in Mississippi to $7,900 in Alaska.

The idea that "American public schools are failing" is false because there is no American public school system - each county can be a radically different case.

That's well illustrated in my area, where within the space of a few miles the Baltimore City school system is on the verge of failing, Baltimore County schools are generally adequate (though that varies significantly in different parts of the county), and Howard County schools are doing well. The pass rates on the High School Assessment tests are 33%, 50%, and 74% respectively - more than a factor of 2 between Howard County and Baltimore City.

This issue is really quite simple, but clearly most posters in this thread have no clue of the actual facts. The DMCA permits expedited subpeonas (those that require only a clerk signature, instead of judicial review) only in certain situations. The judge decided that these subpeonas were invalid because the school was acting as a conduit only. Just like the case that Verizon won over a year ago, the ISP was not storing any of the material on their network and thus the subpeona did not meet the guidelines of the DMCA. The RIAA attempted to argue that legislative intent was to include those who act as conduits, but the judge (just as in the Verizon case) did not buy it. If it turned out that the materials were actually stored on a University file server, the situation would be different.

Also important in this is FERPA. If a school revealed a student's person information in response to an invalid subpeona, they could be sued by the student for a clear FERPA violation. This university said that they do not support these kids' actions. I believe that like most every other institution of higher education served thus far, North Carolina State University will honor a valid subpeona. Boston College and a few other schools successfully fought ealier RIAA subpeonas based upon filing jurisdictions. Once the technicality was resolved and a valid subpeona issued, they complied.

One other FERPA-related concern is that schools must notify students before releasing their personal information. The RIAA subpeonas dictate such compressed timelines that compliance with them could cause a FERPA violation because the students couldn't be notified in time.

Once the RIAA's lawyers pull their heads out of their collective butts and issue legally solid subpeonas, colleges and universities will comply. We can only hope that a few will refuse on grounds of DMCA protests and force the courts to (again) examine the expedited subpeonas, or the RIAA will eventually give up on their shotgun subpeona approach.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.
...
Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR 99.31):

School officials with legitimate educational interest;

Other schools to which a student is transferring;

Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;

Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;

Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;

Accrediting organizations;

To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;

Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and

State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

I think it's important to note that, whereas basic math, vocabulary, and reading skills can be taught and tested in a bias-free environment, offering a test on computer literacy on anything but a professional level is discriminatory against the poor. I find it very telling that Slashdot's user base of mostly middle-class white guys hasn't touched on this issue yet.

Reports show that schools in areas of high poverty offer significantly less Internet usage in classes than other schools. Reports also show that students at high poverty schools are more likely to have never used the Internet. The digital divide is real.

In that regard, tests like this (which, if anyone actually made it through the demo, requires idiosyncratic knowledge about Web searching, drop-down menus, and following links) will only provide a larger gap between the "computer-fluent" and those who have the aptitude to be computer-fluent but not the necessary tools.

In short, the recent sub-$100 PC schemes being thrown around Slashdot will hopefully become more relevant to America's inner city schools as much as Third World Countries such as India and China. At its base level, equality must be measured as equality of opportunity.

Maybe get your facts first dude.

Total Defense spending is at about $400 Billion a 7% increase over last year. A far cry from $500 billion increase. The full budget is $2.3 Tril. We spend alsost $9000 per student is Federal funds redirected to the State and Local Govt. this does not include State and Local taxes. One would expect that educating costs less than running a military. Books, teachers and computers cost less than bombers. Education spending has increased at a higher percentage than military spending on avg. the last five years. Blame your state and local govts. in my state the School must spend in fat years or lose the money. So the constant need for money exists rather than saving to deal with revenue cycles.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/budget/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/browse.html
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlit e-chart.html#4