You haven't been keeping up with contemporary trends in 'higher' education. Certainly, a BS should only take four years, but the proportion of students able to accomplish that feat has been dropping for years -- doubtless because way too many people are going to college these days.
That's another issue, of course: in this election, both Obama and McCain favor higher-ed handouts. Really, though, most kids need vocational training (auto mechanics, BASIC programmers, dental hygienists, accountants, &c). They don't need (or want) to be exposed to 'the best that has been thought or said'.
History, science, Latin, philosophy, algebra, theology, literature, Italian, French, music, art, computer science. We basically tried for a full braindump.
Yes, evolution -- the proportion of homeschoolers who are fundies has been diminishing steadily: in sync, as one might expect, with the quality of the schools.
After years of unsatisfactory experiences in the government schools, we took our kids out to teach them ourselves. We learned there's a thriving and successful community of home-schoolers, who could teach the various school systems a thing or two about pedagogy.
When others her age were getting a (worthless) high-school diploma, our eldest daughter was getting her first associates degree. She earned her second the next year, and will have a bachelors at the age of 20 -- a half-decade or more ahead of her peers. And, while bright, she is not one of those prodigies one occasionally reads about: just a normal student with the advantage of a sensible education.
Of course, home-schoolers are hated by those who perpetuate the regime of government schooling, and, since Obama is firmly in the pocket of the most ardent defenders of the unearned privileges of those who profit from the status quo, we can expect to see home-schooling outlawed in the next few months. After all, children educated by their parents are less likely to be indoctrinated to be ardent followers of The One.
As is usual in totalitarian states, there are different health-care systems for the nomenklatura and the unprivileged. The former get state-of-the-art care; the latter are lucky to get aspirin.
You should have seen the cardiology institute in Moscow during the last years of the USSR. It was gorgeous!
Of course, the State also controls both the gathering of data and the dissemination of statistics; anyone who tells the truth about the Cuban system from inside Cuba is likely to have his life expectancy significantly reduced.
Everyone in Cuba can read, too -- if you believe their government's statistics -- but all they're allowed to read is Castro, Marx, and Lenin. (Yes, I exaggerate, but not by much.)
The phenomenon of Western liberals sucking up to totalitarian dictatorships has long been noted, despite volumes and volumes of revelations of the actual deeds of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, &c.
Perhaps someday they'll learn -- or perhaps we can, as was done with the Nazi case, relabel left-wing dictatorships as right-wing. Then it would be safe even for liberals to disparage them and we will no longer hear that it is possible to have excellent <whatever> if only we relinquish our bourgeois affection for individual liberty.
But the NHS _is_ filthy. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/mrsa
There's an epidemic of iatrogenic infections in NHS hospitals because of lax hygiene standards.
Sure, you may be fine with it (you may find rotting teeth sexually attractive, too), but we're a bit more obsessed with avoiding infections here in the US (also with perfect teeth).
Currently, the US health-care system rations health care somewhat arbitrarily, based on personal wealth and, failing that, photogenicity.
Under any nation-wide system, rationing will be handled by government functionaries of one kind or another. Often (see UK, Canada) this will be accompanied by rigid rules that brook of no exception -- except that rich folks can go to the US for their care.
Neither McCain nor Obama ever mention rationing, though it is clear that everyone cannot receive every medical procedure or drug available. Until there is some realistic discussion of the economics of full-scale care for the entire population, it's foolish even to consider any large-scale reform.
Moreover, it is hard to see what country will be capable of filling the role the US currently plays in the world's health-care system once the US adopts a government-based health-care program. Where will one go for high-end care? Where will new drugs be developed?
We can be sure of one thing, though: members of Congress will never use the same health-care system that hoi polloi do.
Slashdot Mirror
This is really old news -- see the 1961 (!) short story by Hal Draper: MS Fnd in a Lbry
Fortunately (or not), the problem is only with information. Knowledge and wisdom do not seem to increase at the same exponential rate. Or at all ....
You haven't been keeping up with contemporary trends in 'higher' education. Certainly, a BS should only take four years, but the proportion of students able to accomplish that feat has been dropping for years -- doubtless because way too many people are going to college these days.
That's another issue, of course: in this election, both Obama and McCain favor higher-ed handouts. Really, though, most kids need vocational training (auto mechanics, BASIC programmers, dental hygienists, accountants, &c). They don't need (or want) to be exposed to 'the best that has been thought or said'.
History, science, Latin, philosophy, algebra, theology, literature, Italian, French, music, art, computer science. We basically tried for a full braindump.
Yes, evolution -- the proportion of homeschoolers who are fundies has been diminishing steadily: in sync, as one might expect, with the quality of the schools.
After years of unsatisfactory experiences in the government schools, we took our kids out to teach them ourselves. We learned there's a thriving and successful community of home-schoolers, who could teach the various school systems a thing or two about pedagogy.
When others her age were getting a (worthless) high-school diploma, our eldest daughter was getting her first associates degree. She earned her second the next year, and will have a bachelors at the age of 20 -- a half-decade or more ahead of her peers. And, while bright, she is not one of those prodigies one occasionally reads about: just a normal student with the advantage of a sensible education.
Of course, home-schoolers are hated by those who perpetuate the regime of government schooling, and, since Obama is firmly in the pocket of the most ardent defenders of the unearned privileges of those who profit from the status quo, we can expect to see home-schooling outlawed in the next few months. After all, children educated by their parents are less likely to be indoctrinated to be ardent followers of The One.
As is usual in totalitarian states, there are different health-care systems for the nomenklatura and the unprivileged. The former get state-of-the-art care; the latter are lucky to get aspirin.
You should have seen the cardiology institute in Moscow during the last years of the USSR. It was gorgeous!
Of course, the State also controls both the gathering of data and the dissemination of statistics; anyone who tells the truth about the Cuban system from inside Cuba is likely to have his life expectancy significantly reduced.
Everyone in Cuba can read, too -- if you believe their government's statistics -- but all they're allowed to read is Castro, Marx, and Lenin. (Yes, I exaggerate, but not by much.)
The phenomenon of Western liberals sucking up to totalitarian dictatorships has long been noted, despite volumes and volumes of revelations of the actual deeds of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, &c.
Perhaps someday they'll learn -- or perhaps we can, as was done with the Nazi case, relabel left-wing dictatorships as right-wing. Then it would be safe even for liberals to disparage them and we will no longer hear that it is possible to have excellent <whatever> if only we relinquish our bourgeois affection for individual liberty.
But the NHS _is_ filthy. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/mrsa
There's an epidemic of iatrogenic infections in NHS hospitals because of lax hygiene standards.
Sure, you may be fine with it (you may find rotting teeth sexually attractive, too), but we're a bit more obsessed with avoiding infections here in the US (also with perfect teeth).
Currently, the US health-care system rations health care somewhat arbitrarily, based on personal wealth and, failing that, photogenicity.
Under any nation-wide system, rationing will be handled by government functionaries of one kind or another. Often (see UK, Canada) this will be accompanied by rigid rules that brook of no exception -- except that rich folks can go to the US for their care.
Neither McCain nor Obama ever mention rationing, though it is clear that everyone cannot receive every medical procedure or drug available. Until there is some realistic discussion of the economics of full-scale care for the entire population, it's foolish even to consider any large-scale reform.
Moreover, it is hard to see what country will be capable of filling the role the US currently plays in the world's health-care system once the US adopts a government-based health-care program. Where will one go for high-end care? Where will new drugs be developed?
We can be sure of one thing, though: members of Congress will never use the same health-care system that hoi polloi do.
Just a correction ...