Attempts to use objective measures, like identical math tests targeted to identical age groups sorta suggests that, yeah. Even discounting countries with the usual things like "they let their students drop out sooner"(as if we don't have incredible drop out rates here).
No, that's not a straw man. That's what you said. You said every education system was abysmal, implying the lack of a system was better.
Take responsibility for your own bad argument and don't blame me for pointing out how incredibly stupid it was. You can say "I didn't really mean that"
But no. You gotta go "I didn't say the stupid shit I said, here's me saying something much more reasonable as if it were what I said originally, idiot".
Right, so education never did anything for anyone.
I mean, I'm not sure what you're comparing it to if "every education system" sucks. I hate to point out the obvious, but universal education was a transition point for society at large from some really terrible conditions. I'm sorry the real world is abysmal, but we don't live in a fictional universe where everyone is super-intelligent and knows everything.
That's an argument for why it's bad, not for why it stops universal literacy. Those two aren't the same, and you're projecting an opinion ("Common core is good") that I haven't presented. Is it okay that I want people to defend their bare assertions? I see no inherent reason why it's wrong, but that's different from seeing any reason why it's right.
Well, yeah, politics and school administrations only makes things worse. If we could find a way to do without both, while still keeping universal education, no one would complain.
Yes, we fall further behind other first world countries, that's true, but we're ahead of where we were, (pretty) consistently, year-to-year. There's this imagined problem of the education system "going to shit" and requiring immediate and intensive treatment. To continue the medical analogy, we're more like an obese patient who is not currently suffering from any life-threatening conditions. The solution isn't (necessarily, that is. Evidence would help) cardiac surgery, but finding where we have the worst problems and working on them consistently.
But, seriously, we've only solved the universal literacy problem over about the last 50-150 years(depending on when you consider it "solved"), and it's made a huge difference for how well society functions. You can hand almost any American a book about how to do a well-paying job, and they could actually try and tackle it if they wanted. That didn't used to be true, at all. You can count on someone being able to heed a warning label on a product. The US highway system is easily navigable with just reading skills.
The difference between a literate and illiterate population is so huge that we can't even imagine trying to transition back. Most of our problems now hinge on how we go above and beyond basic literacy and math skills, not whether we do.
The problem isn't that they have ideas and they spend money on getting those ideas to work. It's that the Gates foundation uses their "leveraging" plans for charity on everything, including more political stuff like education. So they give large gifts with the caveat that both that money, and an even larger chunk of public money be spent on doing things the way the foundation envisions.
This is great when it comes to eradicating diseases or building infrastructure, because once that's done, areas stay healthy and stable. When it's used on the already pretty-functional US education system, it turns into a "my way or the highway" situation and the plans being advocated by the Gates foundation aren't nearly as evidence based.
You understand what "white man's burden" means, right? It's not a synonym of "charity". It's "deeming other cultures unable to properly rule themselves as an excuse".
I don't disagree. We have a duty as a democracy to reign in our abuses, and we do a poor job of it. But pretending a black market that enables the bad just to allow the morally ambiguous isn't a panacea.
Yeah, I know just how tyrannical it is that you can't buy custom-shot child porn, or stolen human livers. (some things are illegal for a reason, beyond just sticking it to the little guy)
Slashdot Mirror
Attempts to use objective measures, like identical math tests targeted to identical age groups sorta suggests that, yeah. Even discounting countries with the usual things like "they let their students drop out sooner"(as if we don't have incredible drop out rates here).
... to prove we're not abusing it. Yeah, that's the ticket.
(No, this seems like a possibly reasonable decision, for normal courtish type reasons)
But that strikes me as "Paying for the right to continue using your own property as you wish".
No, that's not a straw man. That's what you said. You said every education system was abysmal, implying the lack of a system was better.
Take responsibility for your own bad argument and don't blame me for pointing out how incredibly stupid it was. You can say "I didn't really mean that"
But no. You gotta go "I didn't say the stupid shit I said, here's me saying something much more reasonable as if it were what I said originally, idiot".
Thank you for your argument. I'm not sure how much I agree with its premises or data, but it's at least useful to reflect on.
Right, so education never did anything for anyone.
I mean, I'm not sure what you're comparing it to if "every education system" sucks. I hate to point out the obvious, but universal education was a transition point for society at large from some really terrible conditions. I'm sorry the real world is abysmal, but we don't live in a fictional universe where everyone is super-intelligent and knows everything.
You're not wrong, but I think you're disagreeing with a different point than I was making.
That's an argument for why it's bad, not for why it stops universal literacy. Those two aren't the same, and you're projecting an opinion ("Common core is good") that I haven't presented. Is it okay that I want people to defend their bare assertions? I see no inherent reason why it's wrong, but that's different from seeing any reason why it's right.
Yeah, but maybe investors ought to be aware of that.
Oh man, I always thought it was "Please, run Bill Gates over."
Well, yeah, politics and school administrations only makes things worse. If we could find a way to do without both, while still keeping universal education, no one would complain.
See that last period in your post. There's something you forgot there, like an explanation of why you see your point as true.
Yes, we fall further behind other first world countries, that's true, but we're ahead of where we were, (pretty) consistently, year-to-year. There's this imagined problem of the education system "going to shit" and requiring immediate and intensive treatment. To continue the medical analogy, we're more like an obese patient who is not currently suffering from any life-threatening conditions. The solution isn't (necessarily, that is. Evidence would help) cardiac surgery, but finding where we have the worst problems and working on them consistently.
But, seriously, we've only solved the universal literacy problem over about the last 50-150 years(depending on when you consider it "solved"), and it's made a huge difference for how well society functions. You can hand almost any American a book about how to do a well-paying job, and they could actually try and tackle it if they wanted. That didn't used to be true, at all. You can count on someone being able to heed a warning label on a product. The US highway system is easily navigable with just reading skills.
The difference between a literate and illiterate population is so huge that we can't even imagine trying to transition back. Most of our problems now hinge on how we go above and beyond basic literacy and math skills, not whether we do.
The problem isn't that they have ideas and they spend money on getting those ideas to work. It's that the Gates foundation uses their "leveraging" plans for charity on everything, including more political stuff like education. So they give large gifts with the caveat that both that money, and an even larger chunk of public money be spent on doing things the way the foundation envisions.
This is great when it comes to eradicating diseases or building infrastructure, because once that's done, areas stay healthy and stable. When it's used on the already pretty-functional US education system, it turns into a "my way or the highway" situation and the plans being advocated by the Gates foundation aren't nearly as evidence based.
It's problematic.
And also ones that breathe.
Yeah, 10 years is pushing it too far.
You understand what "white man's burden" means, right? It's not a synonym of "charity". It's "deeming other cultures unable to properly rule themselves as an excuse".
I don't disagree. We have a duty as a democracy to reign in our abuses, and we do a poor job of it. But pretending a black market that enables the bad just to allow the morally ambiguous isn't a panacea.
Yes, but some illegal things are bad. Is this a hard proposition? Like slaves. Slavery should never ever be tolerated.
Operating systems are a bit different than websites. All it takes to migrate a website is typing in a different URL.
No, I do think it's a problem there. But contrary to common assertion, people love the devil they don't know far more than the one they do.
Indoctrination happens either way. Just look at how many people end up with the religion of the dominant culture of their region.
On a side note, "The is/should fallacy of free marketism" is a strawman.
I entirely disagree. It's a serious problem, if you're concerned about human beings.
Yeah, I know just how tyrannical it is that you can't buy custom-shot child porn, or stolen human livers. (some things are illegal for a reason, beyond just sticking it to the little guy)