The document the partial quote came from was purely about rural education - making better farmers.
Absolutely. But what does 'better' mean? Again, the argument of the document is as much about 'morality' (see above) as anything else. Now, consider again the context in which I quoted the document.
The intent to make the populace manageable [...] In the terms of the era, public education sought the 'moral improvement' of pupils. That is, they were to learn the manners and behaviors which the industrialists and their hired experts thought most fitting. Again, this is same kind of paternalism (arguably, cultural imperialism) that motivated many of the philanthropic industrialists of the age, as we see also manifested in Ford's famous Social Department.
I was moving from the specific case of industrial workers under supervision (which I reckoned Nasaw adequately addresses in the quote passage and those neighboring it) to the broader cultural efforts of the industrialists. Hence the reference to "populace", not workers, to paternalism and cultural imperialism, and to some of Ford's projects. It is important to do so because it helps us recognize the sources of the industrialists' behavior, which are not conspiratorial but cultural.
Perhaps I can put it this way: the American industrialists and the European imperialists of the era were cut from the same cloth. Both fancied themselves as enlightened, progressive rulers over the great unwashed masses who, without a strong hand to guide them, would suffer every conceivable moral failing. The morality of the subject could be judged in terms of his subjection to the beneficent efforts of the imperialist or the industrialist. Just as the English would teach India to surrender its heathen ways, so too the industrialists would teach Irish immigrants to give up drink and act like proper, puritanical Americans. Just as Ford would indulge in a bit of theater, famously having immigrants come to a ceremony dressed in traditional, ethnic garb from the old country and leave with a shirt, tie and jacket, so too Rockefeller's philanthropy would rescue the ignorant rural Southerner from his degradation (you should see some of the things these folks had to say about African Americans).
Such paternalism is the context in which the philanthropic efforts of the industrialists must be understood. But the morality they teach will inevitably be conditioned by prior power relations between the industrialist and the worker, or the imperialist and the subject. If you run a factory you will necessarily judge those who show up for work on time and do as their told more favorably than those who do not. When you run a colony you will always hold a subordinate subject more virtuous than a rebellious one. When the industrialist finds that education tends to produce more of the former than the latter he will, just as we see in the letter above, support education policies which tend to improve the morals of citizens.
The quote was from Nasaw's book and was therefore his selection. If you'll read on, numerous other examples are also--certainly enough to demonstrate this simple point: that public education was promoted and accepted by the industrial class, at least in part (which is all I have been claiming), because it makes workers more manageable.
As for the quote (not from Mann, but an agent of a manufacturing company--Nasaw was mistaken in this), you're quite right that he's saying they've a more accurate perspective. But bear in mind the context here. The accurate perspective for a worker is that of his superiors, for it is in his best interests to comply with their wishes. This is the point the contrast with the uneducated coworkers of the educated worker: the educated worker can be "reasoned" with and may even get his coworkers to comply with the supervisor's wishes (whose requirements are, of course, 'reasonable'). The thrust of the whole passage--indeed the whole letter--is that the educated workers are more virtuous and hygienic and, in sum, that they do what they're told. This contrasts with the uneducated who are a bunch of ignorant, insubordinate, malcontents. Allow me to quote generously to this effect from the same letter, lest you think me cherry picking his words [emphasis mine]:
Yours fifth interrogatory refers to difference of moral character in the two classes, and the dangers which society or men of property have to apprehend from the one or the other. I do not know that I can better answer your inquiries under this head than to give you my views of the value, in the pecuniary point of view, of education and morality, to the stockholders of our manufacturing establishment. If they have no danger to apprehend form a general diffusion of knowledge among those in their employ; if it is a fact that that class of help which has enjoyed a good common-school education are the most tractable, yielding most readily to reasonable requirements, exerting a salutary and conservative influence in times of excitement, while the most ignorant are the most refractory; then it appears to me that the public at large ought to be satisfied that they have more danger to apprehend from the ignorant than form the well educated. I am aware that there is a feeling to a certain, but I hope limited extent, that knowledge among the great mass is dangerous; that it creates discontent, and tends to insubordination. But I believe the fear to be groundless, and that our danger will come from an opposite source. In my view, there is a connection between education and morals; and I believe that our common schools have been nurseries, not only of learning, but of sound morality; and I trust they will always be surrounded by such influences as will strengthen and confirm the moral principles of our youth; and I am confident, that, so long as that shall be the case, society is safe.
Notice how the discussion is framed in terms of morals as is typical of the period. But the morality we're talking about here isn't that the worker is nice to his neighbor and helps old women across the street--private matters which such a man would not address here. The morality is quite specific. The moral worker is the one who comes to work, does as he's told, works hard, is notably productive, and induces his coworkers to behave likewise. If you do not like the word docile, perhaps 'manageable' would meet your tastes better (for I shouldn't like to waste our time with mere semantics). The contrast is with the uneducated worker who's filthy, troublesome, refractory, and insubordinate.
In so many words, therefore, the document advocates public education because it makes for more manageable workers. If this is a conspiracy (since you suggest I'm engaging in such theorizing) then these gentlemen are poor conspirators. They openly advocate for public education for the benefits it supplies the industrialist, not the least of which is a more subordinate (moral) working c
See my reply to you above. Sorry for the delay, I've had other things to attend to and, besides, I had to dig it up since I haven't looked at some of these sources since u-grad.
No, absolutely NOT like FWD.us - thats a PAC that has absolutely no redeeming public value. They are 100% self-interest and 0% public interest. Public education is a literal public good - as in a rising tide lifts all boats.
I think we're arguing past one another here. I do not deny that public education is a public good. My own livelihood depends on that good, so I am certainly able to recognize it. Indeed, if they made me king of my home state for a day, my first act would be to make community and technical colleges free or very nearly so. My purpose, rather, is to argue that one reason education (not the only reason) has received support from industrialists because it makes workers more manageable. This derives in part from the same impulse in the Progressive era that saw many capitalists support temperance movements, but its roots go back earlier, at least to the Whigs. Claiming that it is a public good does not negate the private benefits it yields to proponents. In this way, it is quite parallel to FWD.us. Regardless of how you feel about immigration policies, you must recognize that many who support the comprehensive reform billed proposed by the so-called Gang of Eight would reckon it a public good (citing, doubtless, humanitarian reasons or the general increase in GDP that comes with immigration). Therefore, FWD.us, which publicly supports this and like policies, would by the same token be acting in support of a public good. Of course they're doing it for their own interests--but that's just the point.
The rest of your explanation is, as the AC pointed out, working backwards from (some) results to divine intent. That is the stuff of conspiracy theory.
I began with the present state of things and explained them with reference to Whig politics and the efforts of Mann, et al. Since this slipped your view (or since I didn't emphasize it sufficiently as I was more focused on enjoying some bourbon when I wrote the above), I'll emphasize it now. From historian David Nasaw's social history of public schooling:
Even Mann, among the most self-righteous and morally committed of the reformers, did not desist from descending to crude economism in his attempt to persuade the manufacturers to support his campaign. His entire Fifth Annual Report was in fact "a direct and plausible appeal to industrialists to support public education.“
After sending out questionnaires to several prominent manufacturers, Mann selectively published their conclusions on the "difference in the productive ability . . . between the educated and uneducated." As might have been expected, the employers agreed with Mann that schooled workers were worth more than unschooled.
Neither Mann nor the manufacturers spent much time emphasizing the effects of schooling on specific work skills or general intelligence. The common schools were not going to be sold to manufacturers and taxpayers as intellectual or job training centers. Their contribution to the public welfare was their provision of moral education and character training for the poor. The real advantages of schooled over unschooled workers were, as Mann suggested to the manufacturers, the schooled workers’ “docility and quickness in applying themselves to work"; their "domestic and social habits"; their "personal cleanliness”; their "dress and their households"; their "deportment and conversation"; their “economies of housekeeping"; their "standing and respectability among co-laborers, neighbors, and fellow-citizens generally"; and their "punctuality and delity in the performance of duties"
The manufacturers were unanimous in proclaiming that those workers with schooling were, as Mann had suggested they might be, "more orderly and respectful in their deportment, and more ready to comply with the wholesome and necessary regulations of an establishment.”
Mann's intellectual successors were more blatant and as A
Public education leads to more workers [...] that's why industrialists promoted public education.
These things are not mutually exclusive. I think you have mistaken my meaning and that we have more in common than you might guess. I hold to know "brainwashing" or "pod-people" theory. Indeed, the only snarky comments you'll find me make on/. is in response to people who reckon others "sheeple". Neither did I indicate that manageability was the only interest industrialists would have is in publicly educated workers. I only focused on this because it pertained to GP's comment. Just because the powerful secure one set of interests does not mean they do not simultaneously secure others. Nor is this "conspiracy theory", much less conspiracy theory gone wild.
From your statement quoted above, I'll take for granted that you agree with me that the industrialist/philanthropists who supported public education did so at least in part to serve their own interests (much like the modern parallel FWD.us has an interest in promoting certain kinds of immigration policies). Indeed, having a worker who can at least read is an enormous advantage to the industrialist, to say nothing of the worker. Even so, there are aspects of public schooling that lend themselves quite well to promoting what I described as "docile" behavior. The first is the unnatural hours for a child. No one who has spent any amount of time with children can hold that maintaining an 8-4:00 schedule is natural for them (or, arguably, any human being). It's not. But it's perfectly fitted for the needs of an industrial economy where laborers working in shifts make the system more efficient.
Second, the grouping of children in the institutionalized environment inevitably requires that they maintain a certain kind of regular discipline which would be unnecessary for other economic structures, but is essential when you've an industrial economy. In school you learn you must work precisely when you're told and rest only during allotted breaks. You have a lunch hour (which you must walk in a line to attend). You must request trips to relieve yourself. You are always answerable to supervisors, indeed for every word that comes from your mouth. You learn to apply peer pressure to others on the line (I mean classroom), knowing you're often evaluated based upon group projects. You're encouraged by those in power to rat your peers out. All these things are necessary in the setting of the modern classroom but they're also perfect motivations for support from industrialists. Little wonder, in light of this, that the pro-industrialist Whigs would be so pro-public schooling. Thus we find so important figures as Horace Mann promoting public education as a means of "moral" improvement and disciplining the rabble. The discipline here is the discipline of the industrial age, governed by the clock and not by the natural rhythms of the adult (much less the juvenile) person.
But I also say this from personal experience. My own wife was home-schooled and I've had numerous friends who were as well. Of the home-schooled, I've noticed a common pattern: they've a much lower tolerance for institutional, bureaucratic nonsense than I and my other public-schooled friends have. For the latter (myself included) it seems perfectly, even comforting, to pull a 9-5, deal with irrational BS from coworkers, and blow it off at the end of the day. For the former, at least in my experience, have some trouble adjusting to the rather absurd work schedule and, above all, to the basic irrationality of human behavior in institutionalized life. They're just as bright and often better educated (again, in my experience) than their public school peers. But they frequently lack that cynicism one manages to develop as a survival mechanism in public school. I remain uncertain whether such a survival mechanism is a blessing or curse.
The fact is that the modern educational system works on
This brings up an interesting point: think of the accessibility issues this raises. You can reach a card reader from a wheel chair. Will everyone have to bend down to wheel chair height to use the scanner or will those in wheel chairs be asked to stand?
This is why industrialists have promoted public education systems since their inception in this country (and, incidentally, why they promoted prohibition last century). It's not just philanthropy. Institutionalization leads to a more docile worker.
Sure. Those have problems too. But why would you pay for a new (read: more expensive) version of a system that will have those same problems, plus new as yet undiscovered ones? Unless, of course, it has more to do with the business and office politics of the thing (the former being a salesperson willing to promise you a solution to a problem you didn't know you had; the latter being an administrator who will subsequently seek a promotion based on how effectively he increased campus security [theater]).
Besides, we still have human beings driving the buses, do we not? These same humans are charged with remembering the route to and location of each student's home. I should hope they'd also be able to recognize the student at sight.
You're right. It was kind of him/her to give an example of someone thoughtfully questioning a rather confused, groundless, and scurrilous attack. It's a credit to those defending the EFF if he/she exemplifies the type. But, I must ask, concerning the use of ad hominem attacks such as you've appended to your words of thanks: Of what mindset is this exemplary?
Don't get me wrong; worthless imbeciles need to be 'persuaded' with emotional arguments and led like the inferior cattle they are. So I don't think we should give up, but we just have to manipulate the cattle like the filthy pieces of trash they are.
By the Dog Gorgias (for Gorgias is what I shall call you, AC), you must be on to something! And clearly, you're the 'persuasive' fellow to do it, with your emotionally 'appealing' arguments and clear 'thinking'. But tell me, if people are 'worthless', as you say, why must they be persuaded? What is it worth to worthies such as yourself to convince the 'worthless' of anything?
You do know it's possible for an interest group to focus on an interest, don't you? I'm pro-2nd amendment and pro-freedom on the internet (and elsewhere). I do not, however, expect the NRA to expend a large amount of its resources defending the 4th amendment, the ACLU to devote itself to the 2nd amendment, and the EFF to be crying "State's rights!" at every violation of the 10th amendment. There're simply too many violations of the Bill of Rights for any one of these organizations with their limited resources and dependence on donations to focus on them all.
Besides, you make a significant category error when you equate the actions of Google to those of the government. Google may be a monopolistic pain in the ass from time to time, but they haven't the monopoly on force the government has. If you can't distinguish between the two, then you don't understand what we civil libertarians are worked up about (and this is coming from a guy who won't be shopping with Cheaper-Than-Dirt in the future on account of their cowardice in the wake of this gun business).
Their failure is also the failure of the pro-freedom community. As a pro-2nd amendment guy, I'm glad that I've groups like the GOA and NRA in my corner. I hope the EFF will receive similar support from those whose rights it defends.
This is certainly true. I actually had in mind one of those random fires when I mentioned "fired" tablets. Specifically the tablets from Pylos which preserved Linear B. Were it not for the fires, and the accidental firing of the tablets thereby, its doubtful whether the tablets would have survived so well. As any archaeologist can attest, ceramics tend to stick around even as civilizations collapse about them.
The criminal activity requests average 15,000 to 20,000 per year, said law enforcement officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the requests.
Hopefully the officials didn't send a letter, an email, or make a phone call. If they did, their anonymity wasn't good for much. But, hey, that's just metadata and isn't an invasion of privacy that can be used to political ends.
I also occurs to me to note that a similarly vestigial system also remains in place in the form of the three-tier system of alcohol distribution. Major producers of alcoholic beverages cannot sell directly to retailers or to the public in the U.S. (brew pubs and the like excluded, and there are many other state-level exceptions). Rather producers sell to wholesale distributors who, in turn, are allowed to sell to retailers. I needn't add, I am sure, that this makes for many taxation opportunities and this may well be the chief reason the absurd old system continues.
In any case, if you've ever been to a grocery store in much of the U.S. you may notice an odd pattern to the beer aisle. The major brewery conglomerates will typically vary in order, but invariably their particular products remain in clusters. This is because in practice the breweries tend to stick with a single distributor and the distributors negotiate with the retailers for the best shelf-space. Likewise, smaller brews tend to be clustered together because they tend to work together with an amenable distributor to secure shelf-space. Frequently, however, you won't find that new microbrew on your grocery shelf at all because it takes time, money, and volume to work through the distributors and the microbrews aren't allowed to go straight to retailers to sell their products.
There once was a reason for laws such as this to exist on the local level. Whether one thinks it a good reason, I leave to the individual judgement. Here's an excerpt from an article that explains succinctly:
While auto-dealership laws go back to the ’20s and ’30s, the dealers’ nationwide legal grip on selling cars was established by state legislatures in the postwar era out of concern that the Big Three would establish networks of their own dealers. It was a time haunted by bigness, as Americans stared at the giant corporations that had swelled to dominate the economic landscape and feared that consumers would soon become subject to whatever whims the companies cared to impose on them. Smaller businesses feared General Motors, General Electric, and the rest of corporate America for the same reason those companies could promise a lifetime of employment followed by a generous pension: they seemed immortal. As Kenneth Elzinga of UVA explained recently at an ISI Faculty Seminar, there was a palpable fear that big companies would slash their prices below cost until all their smaller competitors were driven out, and then, having the market to themselves, they would dramatically raise prices.
For the auto industry this was particularly feared, as 1950s cars were, compared to today, terribly unreliable. The state antitrust laws that prohibited manufacturers from selling direct also set limits on entry and exit in order to ensure that a car company could not decide a region to be undesirable and just pull up stakes, leaving the customers they had sold long-term products to without a source of spare parts or service. Legislators feared that allowing manufacturers to set up their own dealerships would make the communities subject to the whims of the latest Detroit strategy document, so they sought to break up the process. With independent dealers, states hoped to insulate themselves from concentrated corporate power and force it to serve their communities if it wanted to sell to them.
Thus the laws were originally intended to protect consumers on the local level. Now, especially in the face of subversive business models like Tesla's, matters have changed. Local dealers are in closer league with manufacturers, the latter often even providing financing for purchases. The arrangement is mutually beneficial: manufacturers can prevent upstarts like Tesla from getting a foothold in the market; dealers, acting as middle-men, can reap the rich benefits of rentseeking through powerful lobbies targeted toward state governments. N.b., however, this arrangement does not prevail in all states.
Many engineers I know like to joke about enGineerz being semi-literate Neanderthals, but it's not the case in my experience.
Mind, when I say "rarely come naturally", I do not mean to indicate that they are necessarily below average. I have had a few students who met the taciturn, poorly-adjusted, scarcely literate, basement-dwelling, mathematical genius stereotype, but they've been few and far between. Instead, in my limited experience and necessarily small sample size, most have had an average aptitude in reading and writing. But these skills rarely come naturally to any but the most exceptional students.
To read and interpret texts is a skill which must be learned like any other. The ability to distinguish between subjects and themes, to give but one example, eludes most students until they've been instructed, but it is essential to analysis. A very few students will pick up this skill quickly and naturally. Yet, most seem to come to class assuming all you have to do is talk about a text, summarizing its contents in a literal fashion, using 'big words', because that worked for them in high school.
The engineering students (and, I should add, the pre-med students) I've had impress me in their willingness to learn such skills systematically. They aren't intimidated by that one student in class who just 'gets it'. Perhaps this is because they have confidence in other skills they've learned and so they aren't apt to denigrate themselves on account of the strengths of others. Neither do they commonly give up when faced with hard work, as is so often the case with students who are harder to reach. Rather, they accept that a reasonable amount of work must be done regularly, throughout the semester, since skills are cumulative. I suspect they recognize from their experience in mathematics that the challenges to come at the end of the semester will require knowledge gained from the beginning.
I admit I haven't researched the question, but I do not think I'm the first to discover this. Since abstract reasoning is key to his philosophical approach, Plato insisted his students have firm grasp of mathematics before attempting philosophy. As I grow older, I begin to suspect that Plato also wanted to weed out students who were unwilling to work and think hard.
But my motivations aren't entirely selfless. The fact is, some of my best students have been engineering students. Any humanities course I teach focuses on interpretive and argumentative skills, i.e. on reading and writing. While I admit that these skills rarely come naturally to engineering students, this doesn't bother me. My job, after all, is to teach. Compared to students pursuing most other disciplines, many engineering students seem to have a better understanding of the importance of keeping up with homework. I'm sure this is a consequence of the level of work they're expected to complete in their core courses. Since they're willing to do the homework, and both the homework and class are designed to teach them the skills I'd have them learn, the engineering students often show far more progress than many humanities students. The latter, I'm sad to say, seem rather to assume that reading and writing well aren't skills acquired through hard work but should come naturally if you sleep through enough courses.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. But what does 'better' mean? Again, the argument of the document is as much about 'morality' (see above) as anything else. Now, consider again the context in which I quoted the document.
I was moving from the specific case of industrial workers under supervision (which I reckoned Nasaw adequately addresses in the quote passage and those neighboring it) to the broader cultural efforts of the industrialists. Hence the reference to "populace", not workers, to paternalism and cultural imperialism, and to some of Ford's projects. It is important to do so because it helps us recognize the sources of the industrialists' behavior, which are not conspiratorial but cultural.
Perhaps I can put it this way: the American industrialists and the European imperialists of the era were cut from the same cloth. Both fancied themselves as enlightened, progressive rulers over the great unwashed masses who, without a strong hand to guide them, would suffer every conceivable moral failing. The morality of the subject could be judged in terms of his subjection to the beneficent efforts of the imperialist or the industrialist. Just as the English would teach India to surrender its heathen ways, so too the industrialists would teach Irish immigrants to give up drink and act like proper, puritanical Americans. Just as Ford would indulge in a bit of theater, famously having immigrants come to a ceremony dressed in traditional, ethnic garb from the old country and leave with a shirt, tie and jacket, so too Rockefeller's philanthropy would rescue the ignorant rural Southerner from his degradation (you should see some of the things these folks had to say about African Americans).
Such paternalism is the context in which the philanthropic efforts of the industrialists must be understood. But the morality they teach will inevitably be conditioned by prior power relations between the industrialist and the worker, or the imperialist and the subject. If you run a factory you will necessarily judge those who show up for work on time and do as their told more favorably than those who do not. When you run a colony you will always hold a subordinate subject more virtuous than a rebellious one. When the industrialist finds that education tends to produce more of the former than the latter he will, just as we see in the letter above, support education policies which tend to improve the morals of citizens.
The quote was from Nasaw's book and was therefore his selection. If you'll read on, numerous other examples are also--certainly enough to demonstrate this simple point: that public education was promoted and accepted by the industrial class, at least in part (which is all I have been claiming), because it makes workers more manageable.
As for the quote (not from Mann, but an agent of a manufacturing company--Nasaw was mistaken in this), you're quite right that he's saying they've a more accurate perspective. But bear in mind the context here. The accurate perspective for a worker is that of his superiors, for it is in his best interests to comply with their wishes. This is the point the contrast with the uneducated coworkers of the educated worker: the educated worker can be "reasoned" with and may even get his coworkers to comply with the supervisor's wishes (whose requirements are, of course, 'reasonable'). The thrust of the whole passage--indeed the whole letter--is that the educated workers are more virtuous and hygienic and, in sum, that they do what they're told. This contrasts with the uneducated who are a bunch of ignorant, insubordinate, malcontents. Allow me to quote generously to this effect from the same letter, lest you think me cherry picking his words [emphasis mine]:
Notice how the discussion is framed in terms of morals as is typical of the period. But the morality we're talking about here isn't that the worker is nice to his neighbor and helps old women across the street--private matters which such a man would not address here. The morality is quite specific. The moral worker is the one who comes to work, does as he's told, works hard, is notably productive, and induces his coworkers to behave likewise. If you do not like the word docile, perhaps 'manageable' would meet your tastes better (for I shouldn't like to waste our time with mere semantics). The contrast is with the uneducated worker who's filthy, troublesome, refractory, and insubordinate.
In so many words, therefore, the document advocates public education because it makes for more manageable workers. If this is a conspiracy (since you suggest I'm engaging in such theorizing) then these gentlemen are poor conspirators. They openly advocate for public education for the benefits it supplies the industrialist, not the least of which is a more subordinate (moral) working c
See my reply to you above. Sorry for the delay, I've had other things to attend to and, besides, I had to dig it up since I haven't looked at some of these sources since u-grad.
I think we're arguing past one another here. I do not deny that public education is a public good. My own livelihood depends on that good, so I am certainly able to recognize it. Indeed, if they made me king of my home state for a day, my first act would be to make community and technical colleges free or very nearly so. My purpose, rather, is to argue that one reason education (not the only reason) has received support from industrialists because it makes workers more manageable. This derives in part from the same impulse in the Progressive era that saw many capitalists support temperance movements, but its roots go back earlier, at least to the Whigs. Claiming that it is a public good does not negate the private benefits it yields to proponents. In this way, it is quite parallel to FWD.us. Regardless of how you feel about immigration policies, you must recognize that many who support the comprehensive reform billed proposed by the so-called Gang of Eight would reckon it a public good (citing, doubtless, humanitarian reasons or the general increase in GDP that comes with immigration). Therefore, FWD.us, which publicly supports this and like policies, would by the same token be acting in support of a public good. Of course they're doing it for their own interests--but that's just the point.
I began with the present state of things and explained them with reference to Whig politics and the efforts of Mann, et al. Since this slipped your view (or since I didn't emphasize it sufficiently as I was more focused on enjoying some bourbon when I wrote the above), I'll emphasize it now. From historian David Nasaw's social history of public schooling:
Mann's intellectual successors were more blatant and as A
WOW! I've never met anyone who communicates like I do!
These things are not mutually exclusive. I think you have mistaken my meaning and that we have more in common than you might guess. I hold to know "brainwashing" or "pod-people" theory. Indeed, the only snarky comments you'll find me make on /. is in response to people who reckon others "sheeple". Neither did I indicate that manageability was the only interest industrialists would have is in publicly educated workers. I only focused on this because it pertained to GP's comment. Just because the powerful secure one set of interests does not mean they do not simultaneously secure others. Nor is this "conspiracy theory", much less conspiracy theory gone wild.
From your statement quoted above, I'll take for granted that you agree with me that the industrialist/philanthropists who supported public education did so at least in part to serve their own interests (much like the modern parallel FWD.us has an interest in promoting certain kinds of immigration policies). Indeed, having a worker who can at least read is an enormous advantage to the industrialist, to say nothing of the worker. Even so, there are aspects of public schooling that lend themselves quite well to promoting what I described as "docile" behavior. The first is the unnatural hours for a child. No one who has spent any amount of time with children can hold that maintaining an 8-4:00 schedule is natural for them (or, arguably, any human being). It's not. But it's perfectly fitted for the needs of an industrial economy where laborers working in shifts make the system more efficient.
Second, the grouping of children in the institutionalized environment inevitably requires that they maintain a certain kind of regular discipline which would be unnecessary for other economic structures, but is essential when you've an industrial economy. In school you learn you must work precisely when you're told and rest only during allotted breaks. You have a lunch hour (which you must walk in a line to attend). You must request trips to relieve yourself. You are always answerable to supervisors, indeed for every word that comes from your mouth. You learn to apply peer pressure to others on the line (I mean classroom), knowing you're often evaluated based upon group projects. You're encouraged by those in power to rat your peers out. All these things are necessary in the setting of the modern classroom but they're also perfect motivations for support from industrialists. Little wonder, in light of this, that the pro-industrialist Whigs would be so pro-public schooling. Thus we find so important figures as Horace Mann promoting public education as a means of "moral" improvement and disciplining the rabble. The discipline here is the discipline of the industrial age, governed by the clock and not by the natural rhythms of the adult (much less the juvenile) person.
But I also say this from personal experience. My own wife was home-schooled and I've had numerous friends who were as well. Of the home-schooled, I've noticed a common pattern: they've a much lower tolerance for institutional, bureaucratic nonsense than I and my other public-schooled friends have. For the latter (myself included) it seems perfectly, even comforting, to pull a 9-5, deal with irrational BS from coworkers, and blow it off at the end of the day. For the former, at least in my experience, have some trouble adjusting to the rather absurd work schedule and, above all, to the basic irrationality of human behavior in institutionalized life. They're just as bright and often better educated (again, in my experience) than their public school peers. But they frequently lack that cynicism one manages to develop as a survival mechanism in public school. I remain uncertain whether such a survival mechanism is a blessing or curse.
The fact is that the modern educational system works on
My first reaction to the 'kids lose their school IDs line' was the same as yours here though.
This brings up an interesting point: think of the accessibility issues this raises. You can reach a card reader from a wheel chair. Will everyone have to bend down to wheel chair height to use the scanner or will those in wheel chairs be asked to stand?
This is why industrialists have promoted public education systems since their inception in this country (and, incidentally, why they promoted prohibition last century). It's not just philanthropy. Institutionalization leads to a more docile worker.
Sure. Those have problems too. But why would you pay for a new (read: more expensive) version of a system that will have those same problems, plus new as yet undiscovered ones? Unless, of course, it has more to do with the business and office politics of the thing (the former being a salesperson willing to promise you a solution to a problem you didn't know you had; the latter being an administrator who will subsequently seek a promotion based on how effectively he increased campus security [theater]).
Besides, we still have human beings driving the buses, do we not? These same humans are charged with remembering the route to and location of each student's home. I should hope they'd also be able to recognize the student at sight.
"I'm sorry Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all." "Oh. What's it called now?" "Urectum."
You're right. It was kind of him/her to give an example of someone thoughtfully questioning a rather confused, groundless, and scurrilous attack. It's a credit to those defending the EFF if he/she exemplifies the type. But, I must ask, concerning the use of ad hominem attacks such as you've appended to your words of thanks: Of what mindset is this exemplary?
By the Dog Gorgias (for Gorgias is what I shall call you, AC), you must be on to something! And clearly, you're the 'persuasive' fellow to do it, with your emotionally 'appealing' arguments and clear 'thinking'. But tell me, if people are 'worthless', as you say, why must they be persuaded? What is it worth to worthies such as yourself to convince the 'worthless' of anything?
You do know it's possible for an interest group to focus on an interest, don't you? I'm pro-2nd amendment and pro-freedom on the internet (and elsewhere). I do not, however, expect the NRA to expend a large amount of its resources defending the 4th amendment, the ACLU to devote itself to the 2nd amendment, and the EFF to be crying "State's rights!" at every violation of the 10th amendment. There're simply too many violations of the Bill of Rights for any one of these organizations with their limited resources and dependence on donations to focus on them all.
Besides, you make a significant category error when you equate the actions of Google to those of the government. Google may be a monopolistic pain in the ass from time to time, but they haven't the monopoly on force the government has. If you can't distinguish between the two, then you don't understand what we civil libertarians are worked up about (and this is coming from a guy who won't be shopping with Cheaper-Than-Dirt in the future on account of their cowardice in the wake of this gun business).
Their failure is also the failure of the pro-freedom community. As a pro-2nd amendment guy, I'm glad that I've groups like the GOA and NRA in my corner. I hope the EFF will receive similar support from those whose rights it defends.
Donate Here!
Oh, please call the software Fakeblock.
This is certainly true. I actually had in mind one of those random fires when I mentioned "fired" tablets. Specifically the tablets from Pylos which preserved Linear B. Were it not for the fires, and the accidental firing of the tablets thereby, its doubtful whether the tablets would have survived so well. As any archaeologist can attest, ceramics tend to stick around even as civilizations collapse about them.
Low storage capacity but you can't beat their lifespan.
Hopefully the officials didn't send a letter, an email, or make a phone call. If they did, their anonymity wasn't good for much. But, hey, that's just metadata and isn't an invasion of privacy that can be used to political ends.
I also occurs to me to note that a similarly vestigial system also remains in place in the form of the three-tier system of alcohol distribution. Major producers of alcoholic beverages cannot sell directly to retailers or to the public in the U.S. (brew pubs and the like excluded, and there are many other state-level exceptions). Rather producers sell to wholesale distributors who, in turn, are allowed to sell to retailers. I needn't add, I am sure, that this makes for many taxation opportunities and this may well be the chief reason the absurd old system continues.
In any case, if you've ever been to a grocery store in much of the U.S. you may notice an odd pattern to the beer aisle. The major brewery conglomerates will typically vary in order, but invariably their particular products remain in clusters. This is because in practice the breweries tend to stick with a single distributor and the distributors negotiate with the retailers for the best shelf-space. Likewise, smaller brews tend to be clustered together because they tend to work together with an amenable distributor to secure shelf-space. Frequently, however, you won't find that new microbrew on your grocery shelf at all because it takes time, money, and volume to work through the distributors and the microbrews aren't allowed to go straight to retailers to sell their products.
The lobbying efforts of groups like the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America to protect this odd system are likewise a form of rentseeking.
Thus the laws were originally intended to protect consumers on the local level. Now, especially in the face of subversive business models like Tesla's, matters have changed. Local dealers are in closer league with manufacturers, the latter often even providing financing for purchases. The arrangement is mutually beneficial: manufacturers can prevent upstarts like Tesla from getting a foothold in the market; dealers, acting as middle-men, can reap the rich benefits of rentseeking through powerful lobbies targeted toward state governments. N.b., however, this arrangement does not prevail in all states.
Mind, when I say "rarely come naturally", I do not mean to indicate that they are necessarily below average. I have had a few students who met the taciturn, poorly-adjusted, scarcely literate, basement-dwelling, mathematical genius stereotype, but they've been few and far between. Instead, in my limited experience and necessarily small sample size, most have had an average aptitude in reading and writing. But these skills rarely come naturally to any but the most exceptional students.
To read and interpret texts is a skill which must be learned like any other. The ability to distinguish between subjects and themes, to give but one example, eludes most students until they've been instructed, but it is essential to analysis. A very few students will pick up this skill quickly and naturally. Yet, most seem to come to class assuming all you have to do is talk about a text, summarizing its contents in a literal fashion, using 'big words', because that worked for them in high school.
The engineering students (and, I should add, the pre-med students) I've had impress me in their willingness to learn such skills systematically. They aren't intimidated by that one student in class who just 'gets it'. Perhaps this is because they have confidence in other skills they've learned and so they aren't apt to denigrate themselves on account of the strengths of others. Neither do they commonly give up when faced with hard work, as is so often the case with students who are harder to reach. Rather, they accept that a reasonable amount of work must be done regularly, throughout the semester, since skills are cumulative. I suspect they recognize from their experience in mathematics that the challenges to come at the end of the semester will require knowledge gained from the beginning.
I admit I haven't researched the question, but I do not think I'm the first to discover this. Since abstract reasoning is key to his philosophical approach, Plato insisted his students have firm grasp of mathematics before attempting philosophy. As I grow older, I begin to suspect that Plato also wanted to weed out students who were unwilling to work and think hard.
But my motivations aren't entirely selfless. The fact is, some of my best students have been engineering students. Any humanities course I teach focuses on interpretive and argumentative skills, i.e. on reading and writing. While I admit that these skills rarely come naturally to engineering students, this doesn't bother me. My job, after all, is to teach. Compared to students pursuing most other disciplines, many engineering students seem to have a better understanding of the importance of keeping up with homework. I'm sure this is a consequence of the level of work they're expected to complete in their core courses. Since they're willing to do the homework, and both the homework and class are designed to teach them the skills I'd have them learn, the engineering students often show far more progress than many humanities students. The latter, I'm sad to say, seem rather to assume that reading and writing well aren't skills acquired through hard work but should come naturally if you sleep through enough courses.