I agree with this, but it was on both sides of the issues--
My history teacher was conservative, and he would lead discussion on current events.
My science teacher was liberal, and he would talk about fossil fuels, global warming, and how we were all going to die, heaping liberal blame on the Bush administration for doing nothing about it. I remember most people were pretty happy though since his discussions often took away from class time actually learning something (though he justified his teachings by saying this was "a class of life".)
To the person who said that school should introduce people to different viewpoints -- yes, but one viewpoint should not be taught as academic truth and endorsed by an authority figure. Also, WHEN in class should one discuss political views? While you're discussing themes of poetry? Free body diagrams in physics? Does how to solve differential equations relate to the superiority of the conservative (or whatever) viewpoint? The basic body of knowledge that one learns in high school is supposed to be politically neutral, based on rigorous proof and general agreement, etc. The only time political viewpoints should appear is in a logical reasoning class or something. Unfortunately this is often not the case.
Of course public schools are meant to educate. Of course some students would rather sit at home and play with blocks. Should we let them?
Fellow classmates awaken the lazy, engage the bright. Being the star of algebra class might make one feel better but won't be as productive towards creative thought and learning than say, being "average" in a more advanced course and learning from the excellence and ambition in one's classmates. With this in mind, singling out low performers for separate classes would Be Bad.
Regarding the decline of vocational training-- is probably due to the perception that intellectual creativity, brilliance, and high abstract thinking is superior to learning how to check if the wire's connected.
I'm commenting from an economist's point of view, not the POV of a disgruntled programmer. Your logic would work if every nation suddenly switched to free software and engineers would have nowhere better to go. But in this case programmers can easily get a higher-paying job somewhere else, and by switching to open source Croatia is giving the message that taxpayers don't like programmers and don't want to compensate them as much as [insert other country] and so maybe all the students who were going to major in engineering will switch to some other major with better career prospects. Kind of discouraging, you know?
They may cut operating costs by using free software, which is an admirable effort for taxpayers, but they might also inadvertently discourage software development, since there is a smaller customer base and profit motive for programmers. Programmers here in the US are making six-digit salaries; I don't know if they would be willing to give that up or go through the education again to design free software or innovate. Also, highly specialized programs designed for military or tax purposes and such may be more efficiently written by a company with a well-financed R&D department; in these cases, closed-source would be a better choice, or at least an edited (built-upon) open-source.
Also, I'm not sure how open-source encourages "transparency" in government, unless it's open-source as a general concept. I've always thought "transparency" = meeting minutes, financial reports, budgets, salaries, city plans, etc. open to public, and the programs used to achieve those ends are of limited significance.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with this, but it was on both sides of the issues-- My history teacher was conservative, and he would lead discussion on current events. My science teacher was liberal, and he would talk about fossil fuels, global warming, and how we were all going to die, heaping liberal blame on the Bush administration for doing nothing about it. I remember most people were pretty happy though since his discussions often took away from class time actually learning something (though he justified his teachings by saying this was "a class of life".) To the person who said that school should introduce people to different viewpoints -- yes, but one viewpoint should not be taught as academic truth and endorsed by an authority figure. Also, WHEN in class should one discuss political views? While you're discussing themes of poetry? Free body diagrams in physics? Does how to solve differential equations relate to the superiority of the conservative (or whatever) viewpoint? The basic body of knowledge that one learns in high school is supposed to be politically neutral, based on rigorous proof and general agreement, etc. The only time political viewpoints should appear is in a logical reasoning class or something. Unfortunately this is often not the case.
I think you overestimate the power of money.
Of course public schools are meant to educate. Of course some students would rather sit at home and play with blocks. Should we let them? Fellow classmates awaken the lazy, engage the bright. Being the star of algebra class might make one feel better but won't be as productive towards creative thought and learning than say, being "average" in a more advanced course and learning from the excellence and ambition in one's classmates. With this in mind, singling out low performers for separate classes would Be Bad. Regarding the decline of vocational training-- is probably due to the perception that intellectual creativity, brilliance, and high abstract thinking is superior to learning how to check if the wire's connected.
Colleges compete through scholarships and financial aid packages.
I'm commenting from an economist's point of view, not the POV of a disgruntled programmer. Your logic would work if every nation suddenly switched to free software and engineers would have nowhere better to go. But in this case programmers can easily get a higher-paying job somewhere else, and by switching to open source Croatia is giving the message that taxpayers don't like programmers and don't want to compensate them as much as [insert other country] and so maybe all the students who were going to major in engineering will switch to some other major with better career prospects. Kind of discouraging, you know?
They may cut operating costs by using free software, which is an admirable effort for taxpayers, but they might also inadvertently discourage software development, since there is a smaller customer base and profit motive for programmers. Programmers here in the US are making six-digit salaries; I don't know if they would be willing to give that up or go through the education again to design free software or innovate. Also, highly specialized programs designed for military or tax purposes and such may be more efficiently written by a company with a well-financed R&D department; in these cases, closed-source would be a better choice, or at least an edited (built-upon) open-source.
Also, I'm not sure how open-source encourages "transparency" in government, unless it's open-source as a general concept. I've always thought "transparency" = meeting minutes, financial reports, budgets, salaries, city plans, etc. open to public, and the programs used to achieve those ends are of limited significance.