Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.

Disagree.

DoomYoshi wrote:In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.

Agree.

Hence, my insisting TGD to define the goal.

Insisting schmisisting. I asked the question of what the goal is many posts ago. We need to agree on the goal first before we can debate on the best ways to get to the goal.

The question, for your reference: Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?

If the answer to that question is yes, then we can move on to determining the best way to educate all children. If the answer to that question is no, then we need to redefine what our goal is so we can best determine the way to reach the goal.

Answer: NO!!!!!!! (cuz mostly what Timminz said).


Okay, let's pretend we're the Bureaucratic Big Shots of the National Education Program for the Embettermenteration of the American People. HOO! HOO! HOO! HOO! <waves fist in circular motion>


What is our goal?
What are our means?

DoomYoshi wrote:No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.

#1. So, if your intended goal is "walk to the nearest store," and you unintentionally walk to Shanghai, China, then you have no way of knowing if your rational decision-making was inefficient?

#2. Suppose I establish a high school, but since "education is a continuous variable" and "nobody knows the highest attainable education," then it is impossible for me determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the high school?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For you, #1 does matter because the intended end and the unintended end matter--in terms of efficiency. If you intend to create cars, but oops instead make bicycles, then ... was this efficient. No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.

Was it effective? No, cuz intended end was not at all accomplished. Zero Effectiveness.

So, intended and unintended goals matter. You don't even need to consider alternative production process (routes for walking) in order to comment about the efficiency and effectiveness--as I've clearly shown.




Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Sure I can! I just did. Makes sense to me. You're talking about something else.


#2. Suppose I establish a high school, but since "education is a continuous variable" and "nobody knows the highest attainable education," then it is impossible for me determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the high school?

Yes, it is, BBS--according to DY's previous position, but if so, DY finds himself with a contradiction. Why? Contrary to his position, "education is not a continuous variable"--in this circumstance, as clearly outlined, and "knowledge of the the highest attainable education" is irrelevant. What matters is attaining the intended "education level/quality."

Goal: to uniformly deliver the curriculum to all American children between the age of 5 and 18.

Means: Delivery and curriculum be optimised based on academic research.

Lootifer wrote:Goal: to uniformly deliver the curriculum to all American children between the age of 5 and 18.

Means: Delivery and curriculum be optimised based on academic research.

Not bad. So, we're gonna conduct some research, and then mail a bunch the curriculum to those kids?

(har har har)

Funnily enough in a optimised education system I'd say you'd actually do that for a portion of the school population (kids identified as self learners).

Obviously I skimped out on the means question. It would require a lot of work to establish a robust centrally run education system that matches a free market solution in terms of efficiency. But I believe its possible, and due to the nature of children and their education (we have a responsibility as a society to ensure every child has a fair and equal start to their life) the extra effort is worth it.

But BBS, you haven't declared an intended level/qulaity of education. So there is no way to know if we have reached that level until you define the intended level. Secondly, because the level is undefined, we could assume it to be impossible. If my goal is to cease material existence and will myself into mathematical reality, and I end up walking to shanghai, have I been inefficient? There is no contradiction. You are saying the same thing I am saying but denying it.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.

Disagree.

DoomYoshi wrote:In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.

Agree.

Hence, my insisting TGD to define the goal.

Insisting schmisisting. I asked the question of what the goal is many posts ago. We need to agree on the goal first before we can debate on the best ways to get to the goal.

The question, for your reference: Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?

If the answer to that question is yes, then we can move on to determining the best way to educate all children. If the answer to that question is no, then we need to redefine what our goal is so we can best determine the way to reach the goal.

What is our goal?
What are our means?

You tell me mon frere. Let's start with your goal.

My goal is to provide education to all the children living in the United States at some minimum level (as yet to be determined). But let's put that aside for now... what is your goal?

DoomYoshi wrote:But BBS, you haven't declared an intended level/qulaity of education. So there is no way to know if we have reached that level until you define the intended level. Secondly, because the level is undefined, we could assume it to be impossible. If my goal is to cease material existence and will myself into mathematical reality, and I end up walking to shanghai, have I been inefficient? There is no contradiction. You are saying the same thing I am saying but denying it.

"but but but but but but but but, as Founder of this High School my goal is to create cars."
(I agree that I didn't declare exactly what the goal was. It could've been "X-amount of students must get a HS degree by undergoing our rigorous process. Quality will be measured by grade letters per course, which will then be magically compiled into a GPA---MAGIC!! Other measurements will be used to test our performance like SAT scores, placement in particular colleges, etc." Therefore, education isn't a continuous variable--as you stated earlier, but so far in this thread, we have yet to narrow down what the goal of public education is, so we'll be here for the next few weeks spinning our wheels.

Hmm... I think I spotted an arbitrage opportunity. I'ma roll up mah sleeves and see if we can figure this out...



--------------->> Okay, Gangstas. Let's get some terms straight, so we can stop this back-and-forth. <<--------------------------------




Yesterday we were an army with no efficiency, tomorrow, we have to decide which efficiency we want to use!



Numero Uno

Definition of 'Efficiency'
A level of performance that describes a process that uses the lowest amount of inputs to create the greatest amount of outputs. Efficiency relates to the use of all inputs in producing any given output, including personal time and energy.

Investopedia explains 'Efficiency'
Efficiency is an important attribute because all inputs are scarce. Time, money and raw materials are limited, so it makes sense to try to conserve them while maintaining an acceptable level of output or a general production level.

Being efficient simply means reducing the amount of wasted inputs.

So, we got inputs ----> [production process]-----> outputs.

Efficiency = (outputs/inputs)

Numero Dos:

Economic efficiency:

wiki wrote:"In economics, the term economic efficiency refers to the use of resources so as to maximize the production of goods and services"
"Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost."

(KINDA LIKE the efficiency used in business, but not exactly what I'm talking about). (inb4 LOOTIFER: "Pareto-efficiency FTW!!!")

Numero Tres:

EconLib.org wrote:To economists, efficiency is a relationship between ends and means. When we call a situation inefficient, we are claiming that we could achieve the desired ends with less means, or that the means employed could produce more of the ends desired. “Less” and “more” in this context necessarily refer to less and more value. Thus, economic efficiency is measured not by the relationship between the physical quantities of ends and means, but by the relationship between the value of the ends and the value of the means.

The inescapably evaluative nature of the concept raises a fundamental question for every attempt to talk about the efficiency of any process or institution: Whose valuations do we use, and how shall they be weighted? Economic efficiency makes use of monetary evaluations.

From this perspective a parcel of land is used with maximum economic efficiency when it comes under the control of the party who is willing (which implies able) to pay the largest amount of money to obtain that control. The proof that a particular resource is being used efficiently is that no one is willing to pay more in order to divert it to some other use.

Since public education is not based on voluntary exchange, thus free pricing, free competition, etc., then Numero Tres and its use of monetary values will present problems. Numero Dos o Uno may be best.

Wait a minute, G! What about effectiveness?



BBS Definition:
Never really distinguished efficiency (#3) from effectiveness. This is probably why our fingers are cramping at this point, so let's peruse the following definitions and see which effectiveness we want to use!


Numero A:

wiki wrote:Effectiveness is the capability of producing a desired result. When something is deemed effective, it means it has an intended or expected outcome,

Can you do it?
Yup, I can and I did it.
SUPER EFFECTIVE HIGH FIVE!!!

Numero B:

wiki wrote:In medicine, effectiveness relates to how well a treatment works in practice

Was that medicine effective?
Yes, doctor, it obliterated the disease, but it killed 95% of the patients.
Good work...
SUPER EFFECTIVE HIGH FIVE!!!

Numero C:

wiki wrote:In management, effectiveness relates to getting the right things done. Peter Drucker reminds us that “effectiveness can and must be learned.”

Yeah, thanks Drucker. "Getting shit done. QED."
(Note, this sounds somewhat like Numero Tres).

------> Okay, this next one is gonna make this more complicated. YAY!

Numero D:

wiki wrote:Efficacy, efficiency, and effectivity are terms that can, in some cases, be interchangeable with the term effectiveness. The word effective is sometimes used in a quantitative way, "being very effective or not very effective". However, neither effectiveness, nor effectively, inform about the direction (positive or negative) and the comparison to a standard of the given effect. Efficacy, on the other hand, is the extent to which a desired affect is achieved; the ability to produce a desired amount of the desired effect, or the success in achieving a given goal. Contrary to the term efficiency, the focus of efficacy is the achievement as such, not the resources spent in achieving the desired effect. Therefore, what is effective is not necessarily efficacious, and what is efficacious is not necessarily efficient[5]

[5] Longman, Pearson. "Effective - Definition from Longman English Dictionary Online." Longman English Dictionary Online. 2011

Longman, Pearson ain't no economist.

At this point, we're gonna have to state the means, goals, and the standards of measure.


ORRRR, we can have a great time shouting and throwing out our opinions---buff that rhetoric reeaall good into our posts.

You decide.

thegreekdog wrote:You tell me mon frere. Let's start with your goal.

My goal is to provide education to all the children living in the United States at some minimum level (as yet to be determined). But let's put that aside for now... what is your goal?

My goal is to pursue the upper echelons of higher education! To scale the "Ivory Tower", reach the summit, turn around casually, and scream at the masses:

PPPTTTTTTT!!!!! SUCK IT!!!!!


(I haven't decided how many middle fingers I wish to extend. A dilemma, I know).


Then I get paid to give lectures and teach kids, teenagers, and these older kids called "young adults." So, I'd end up educating some small fraction of people through the relatively free market.

That's free markets, babe, "not your central plan." OHHH!!!!

Lootifer wrote:Funnily enough in a optimised education system I'd say you'd actually do that for a portion of the school population (kids identified as self learners).

I know, right?

Lootifer wrote:Obviously I skimped out on the means question. It would require a lot of work to establish a robust centrally run education system that matches a free market solution in terms of efficiency. But I believe its possible, and due to the nature of children and their education (we have a responsibility as a society to ensure every child has a fair and equal start to their life) the extra effort is worth it.

It would be if you could centrally plan it within a charter city--where people have that freedom of association, voluntary and explicit 'social' contracts, and all that jazz.
(But then again, if there were many charter cities, or many central planners within a charter city, then we'd be in a market of 'public' education).

With government as is, technocracy or streamlined central planning is impossible. The incentive structure for producers and consumers is a mess, (e.g. the consumers can't 'vote with their feet'--regarding public schools, and producers like government employees generally are very difficult to lay off).

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:You tell me mon frere. Let's start with your goal.

My goal is to provide education to all the children living in the United States at some minimum level (as yet to be determined). But let's put that aside for now... what is your goal?

My goal is to pursue the upper echelons of higher education! To scale the "Ivory Tower", reach the summit, turn around casually, and scream at the masses:

PPPTTTTTTT!!!!! SUCK IT!!!!!


(I haven't decided how many middle fingers I wish to extend. A dilemma, I know).


Then I get paid to give lectures and teach kids, teenagers, and these older kids called "young adults." So, I'd end up educating some small fraction of people through the relatively free market.

That's free markets, babe, "not your central plan." OHHH!!!!

I would say two middle fingers.

Free markets: 1
Government education: 0

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Funnily enough in a optimised education system I'd say you'd actually do that for a portion of the school population (kids identified as self learners).

I know, right?

Lootifer wrote:Obviously I skimped out on the means question. It would require a lot of work to establish a robust centrally run education system that matches a free market solution in terms of efficiency. But I believe its possible, and due to the nature of children and their education (we have a responsibility as a society to ensure every child has a fair and equal start to their life) the extra effort is worth it.

It would be if you could centrally plan it within a charter city--where people have that freedom of association, voluntary and explicit 'social' contracts, and all that jazz.
(But then again, if there were many charter cities, or many central planners within a charter city, then we'd be in a market of 'public' education).

With government as is, technocracy or streamlined central planning is impossible. The incentive structure for producers and consumers is a mess, (e.g. the consumers can't 'vote with their feet'--regarding public schools, and producers like government employees generally are very difficult to lay off).

Impasse. Now argue ur coupons sucker!

(I centrally planned that super duper efficient post... yeeeahhhh)

[TGD cracks knuckles and steals liberally from third party sources]

- For profit education replaces student achievement (the ostensible goal of education) with profit pressures.
- For profit education replaces individual student needs with profit pressures.
- For profit managers can be as inefficient as public managers.

For points (1) and (2), the response may be "who cares," but if student achievement and needs are not met, such children are more likely to be wards of the state and supported by taxpayer money into their adult years, which may be more costly than providing public education.

Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of evidence that private or charter schools, with all of their alleged efficiencies, do a better job of educating than publicschools.

For example, Minnesota is the state with the oldest charter school law (i.e. providing for competitive schools). Minnesota's national test scores in math have increased by less than 7% in 20 years (since the introduction of the competitive system). The state's national test scores in reading has increased by less than 1% in 20 years.

But let's look at the NAEP's study (albeit from 2006):

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pu ... 006461.asp

In grades 4 and 8 for both reading and mathematics, students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools. The average difference in school means ranged from almost 8 points for grade 4 mathematics, to about 18 points for grade 8 reading. The average differences were all statistically significant. Adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics resulted in reductions in all four average differences of approximately 11 to 14 points. Based on adjusted school means, the average for public schools was significantly higher than the average for private schools for grade 4 mathematics, while the average for private schools was significantly higher than the average for public schools for grade 8 reading. The average differences in adjusted school means for both grade 4 reading and grade 8 mathematics were not significantly different from zero.

Comparisons were also carried out with subsets of private schools categorized by sectarian affiliation. After adjusting for student characteristics, raw score average differences were reduced by about 11 to 15 points. In grade 4, Catholic and Lutheran schools were each compared to public schools. For both reading and mathematics, the results were generally similar to those based on all private schools. In grade 8, Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools were each compared to public schools. For Catholic and Lutheran schools for both reading and mathematics, the results were again similar to those based on all private schools. For Conservative Christian schools, the average adjusted school mean in reading was not significantly different from that of public schools. In mathematics, the average adjusted school mean for Conservative Christian schools was significantly lower than that of public schools.

Let us also consider the following: Billy, Suzie and Joe attend a public school (Ronald Reagan Regional Elementary). Billy is an excellent student. Suzie is average at best. Joe is below average. They have been in the same clases from kindergarten through eighth grade, so the relative education they receive has been the same. Billy, Suzie, and Joe take the same standardized tests. Out of a possible score of 100, Billy scores 100, Suzie scores 75, and Joe scores 50. The average score, and what is reported to the state, is 75.

Billy, Suzie, and Joe attend high school. Billy goes to a private school because his parents can afford it or he gets an academic scholarship or he gets a sports scholarship or he wins a lottery. Suzie and Joe attend public school school because their parents can't afford private school or don't get scholarships or don't win the lottery. In 12th grade, they take a standardized test. Billy scores 100. Suzie scores 75. Joe scores 50. The private school that Billy goes to reports an average score of 100. The public school that Suzie and Joe attend reports an average score of 62.5. Is private school better? Or are the students at private school better? Clearly it's the latter.

Non-profit education is not excluded from free markets.

And, the line between non-profit and for-profit is vague because both maximize profit--albeit through different means. Both must deal with their price of tuition in competitive markets, so regardless of the non-profit v. for-profit means, let's address the most important issue of education.

The main concern is the price. If it's too high, then potential students get excluded from a higher quality education. And although scholarships for filtering out potential may not sufficiently cover ALL or most students who deserve by merit that lower price, then we must consider another aspect which raises the price of education: costs of business--e.g. brick-and-mortar business models, uncertainty of future reputation mechanisms, and government regulation.

So the next step in my arguments would address:

(1) lowering the price by eschewing--on the margin--the costs of brick-and-mortar models. (By 'on the margin', I mean the optimal business model may be "10 tons of brick-and-mortar per student" or 5 tons, or 0 tons--i.e. brick-and-mortar might not be necessary at all).

(2) "But, BBS, online education or some mix may be disreputable!!!" Many universities offer online classes--but do require some % of on-site classes, so a mix is acceptable in today's world. In tomorrow's world, perhaps 100% online degrees from reputable professors plus a particular certificate and "proof of learning" (e.g. example of one's writing) would be sufficient. This would require news means of production and would involve overcoming many obstacles/uncertainties (reputation problems to name one), but given a free market, the possibilities expand.

(3) Government regulation can unintentionally narrow that scope of discovery. (Also, some reputation mechanisms, e.g. from various organizations which exchange their 'stamp of approval' upon meeting their (un)necessary standards, originate within the market and can produce unintended consequences). Although that may be the case, markets in general are much more flexible than government bureaucracies, the 'give-and-take' of politics, voting markets, etc.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Non-profit education is not excluded from free markets.

And, the line between non-profit and for-profit is vague because both maximize profit--albeit through different means. Both must deal with their price of tuition in competitive markets, so regardless of the non-profit v. for-profit means, let's address the most important issue of education.

The main concern is the price. If it's too high, then potential students get excluded from a higher quality education. And although scholarships for filtering out potential may not sufficiently cover ALL or most students who deserve by merit that lower price, then we must consider another aspect which raises the price of education: costs of business--e.g. brick-and-mortar business models, uncertainty of future reputation mechanisms, and government regulation.

So the next step in my arguments would address:

(1) lowering the price by eschewing--on the margin--the costs of brick-and-mortar models. (By 'on the margin', I mean the optimal business model may be "10 tons of brick-and-mortar per student" or 5 tons, or 0 tons--i.e. brick-and-mortar might not be necessary at all).

(2) "But, BBS, online education or some mix may be disreputable!!!" Many universities offer online classes--but do require some % of on-site classes, so a mix is acceptable in today's world. In tomorrow's world, perhaps 100% online degrees from reputable professors plus a particular certificate and "proof of learning" (e.g. example of one's writing) would be sufficient. This would require news means of production and would involve overcoming many obstacles/uncertainties (reputation problems to name one), but given a free market, the possibilities expand.

(3) Government regulation can unintentionally narrow that scope of discovery. (Also, some reputation mechanisms, e.g. from various organizations which exchange their 'stamp of approval' upon meeting their (un)necessary standards, originate within the market and can produce unintended consequences). Although that may be the case, markets in general are much more flexible than government bureaucracies, the 'give-and-take' of politics, voting markets, etc.

Dammit. An unforeseen shift... online classrooms. So many wondrous things can happen - reduction in numbers of teachers; increased teacher salaries as demand for the highest quality teachers becomes the norm... damn you BBS! DAMN YOU!

Why do I feel like this is a trap thread?

Lootifer wrote:Why do I feel like this is a trap thread?

For too long you have been trapped by the ease of political promises. Now is the time to move onward!

Lootifer wrote:Why do I feel like this is a trap thread?

Can you imagine the possibilities of online-only classrooms? Seriously. That should fill you with excitement.

Imagine your high school (or whatever they have in NZ) computer science class was taught by Bill Gates. Media studies was taught by Anderson Cooper. Writing and literature was taught by Neil Gaiman.

thegreekdog wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Why do I feel like this is a trap thread?

Can you imagine the possibilities of online-only classrooms? Seriously. That should fill you with excitement.

Imagine your high school (or whatever they have in NZ) computer science class was taught by Bill Gates. Media studies was taught by Anderson Cooper. Writing and literature was taught by Neil Gaiman.

If they weren't hit with a roughly 50% marginal tax rate, then they'd have either twice as much profit to invest/save/consume for whatever, or more time to dedicate to leisure (which can include teaching online classes, giving lectures, whatever.

People forget how much the government can take from them, and they forget that this money could've been spent however within a free market.

thegreekdog wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Why do I feel like this is a trap thread?

Can you imagine the possibilities of online-only classrooms? Seriously. That should fill you with excitement.

Imagine your high school (or whatever they have in NZ) computer science class was taught by Bill Gates. Media studies was taught by Anderson Cooper. Writing and literature was taught by Neil Gaiman.

Only problem with online classrooms, is that school in rea life has a second (close to first) funstion other than learning, and that is learning how to interact with people in real life, aka, to socialize with people in person.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Why do I feel like this is a trap thread?

Can you imagine the possibilities of online-only classrooms? Seriously. That should fill you with excitement.

Imagine your high school (or whatever they have in NZ) computer science class was taught by Bill Gates. Media studies was taught by Anderson Cooper. Writing and literature was taught by Neil Gaiman.

If they weren't hit with a roughly 50% marginal tax rate, then they'd have either twice as much profit to invest/save/consume for whatever, or more time to dedicate to leisure (which can include teaching online classes, giving lectures, whatever.

People forget how much the government can take from them, and they forget that this money could've been spent however within a free market.

obviously the money would have just been hoarded by the greedy money-grubbing CEO's of online learning companies

Which is why a mix of online and some brick-and-mortar may be best, but then again there's always outside--which IIRC is not far away from the average computer. I figure the time saved from online learning would yield the user more time for leisurely activities. It's not like schools are the only places that offer outdoor activities.

BigBallinStalin wrote:but then again there's always outside

you lost me right here

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Why do I feel like this is a trap thread?

Can you imagine the possibilities of online-only classrooms? Seriously. That should fill you with excitement.

Imagine your high school (or whatever they have in NZ) computer science class was taught by Bill Gates. Media studies was taught by Anderson Cooper. Writing and literature was taught by Neil Gaiman.

If they weren't hit with a roughly 50% marginal tax rate, then they'd have either twice as much profit to invest/save/consume for whatever, or more time to dedicate to leisure (which can include teaching online classes, giving lectures, whatever.

People forget how much the government can take from them, and they forget that this money could've been spent however within a free market.

obviously the money would have just been hoarded by the greedy money-grubbing CEO's of online learning companies

Of course, investment in Scrooge Vaults full of gold will skyrocket. After the first wave of litigation, the producers will somehow manage to make the gold coins part like water, so that all CEOs can safely dive into their hoards of gold. EVIL EVIL EVIL.