Moderator: Community Team
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:We're gonna have to take baby-steps before I get to that resolution.
Why must the federal government be involved in public education?
i.e. What is the proper role of the federal government in public education?
Whatever the stated goals, does the federal government on net positively contribute to these goals or negatively contribute?
First, if the government is not involved in education, can the education be called "public education?"
Second, why are we starting with the proposition that the status quo must prevail when we are not certain what the change is?
But, in the interest of bypassing all the back and forth that could potentially occur over what issues we should discussion, I'll answer your questions on a very general basis.
(1) Why must the federal government be involved in education?
The federal government must be involved in education because, much like interstate commerce, the education of the citizens of a country affect each state individually and collectively. Additionally, there can be (and often are) minimum standards for education that are not state-specific and can be enforced by the federal government. Finally, the federal government has the ability to borrow and print money, which allows them to spend more, per capita, than any one state; therefore the federal government funding of education can be a greater boon to education than mere state or local funding.
(2) Why are we starting with the proposition that the status quo must prevail when we are not certain what the change is?
We are starting with that proposition precisely because we are not certain what the change is (at least for purposes of this debate). You have not indicated your position in this thread. I indicated what I believe your position to be, but you have not confirmed and have not denied my belief. Therefore, we must await your position before we can discuss. Otherwise, what we will do is discuss the problems with the status quo rather than discussing which option is better: status quo or change. That is not to say that I don't want change; it is to say that my opinion is that your change and my change are glaringly different.
Well, I'm being Mr. Economist right now, so it doesn't matter what my position is ATM. One role of the economist is to examine the ends and the means, see if the means most efficiently lead to the ends, and if not, provide advice. In other words, does the federal government fulfill its goals? If not, are there better means? And what are the current benefits and costs? Do the benefits currently offset the costs, or would a different means be more 'profitable'?
I don't expect anyone in here to be able to answer these sufficiently, but answering those questions would be how we can make convincing arguments.
How can an economist determine if the means most efficiently lead to the ends without a comparison? When you use the phrase "most efficiently" by specifically including the word "most" that seems to indicate that there are other choices. I cannot say something the means are most efficient for the ends unless I have another means to compare it to.
Let's craft an example:
A boy is selling apple cider in front of his house. In order to make the apple cider he must squeeze the apples by hand, spending approximately 2 hours per apply and generating only 1 ounce of cider. Is his current method of apple cider making the most efficient method to lead to making the cider? If you answer the question "no," then you must provide a different method for the boy to make his cider. If you answer the question "yes," then you must show that other methods are not as efficient.
Crazyirishman wrote:Our public education system as we have it now is designed to train soldiers IMO, which is why is is kinda slacking right now compared to other countries. But I've also worked in for Montessori for the past few years and realized that no education systems is perfect, no matter how you design it.
Funkyterrance wrote:I find this topic interesting because the public schools in my town have some of the highest budgets in the state while they have some of the lowest average test scores.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Crazyirishman wrote:Our public education system as we have it now is designed to train soldiers IMO, which is why is is kinda slacking right now compared to other countries. But I've also worked in for Montessori for the past few years and realized that no education systems is perfect, no matter how you design it.
Does the country really need a highly detailed design for education--which will be enforced by one central planner (Dept of Education)? Or should there be multiple central planners operating within the government realm (local/State governments)? Or would it be best to leave the planning to millions of buyers and sellers on the market for education?
Timminz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:with the United States paying more poor student than any other country (by far) without a return on the investment.
This is interesting. I recall hearing that this is true in health care as well.
Why is it that the American government is so much less effective in these areas (and probably others) than the governments of other countries?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
thegreekdog wrote:Let's craft an example:
A boy is selling apple cider in front of his house. In order to make the apple cider he must squeeze the apples by hand, spending approximately 2 hours per apply and generating only 1 ounce of cider. Is his current method of apple cider making the most efficient method to lead to making the cider? If you answer the question "no," then you must provide a different method for the boy to make his cider. If you answer the question "yes," then you must show that other methods are not as efficient.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Timminz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:with the United States paying more poor student than any other country (by far) without a return on the investment.
This is interesting. I recall hearing that this is true in health care as well.
Why is it that the American government is so much less effective in these areas (and probably others) than the governments of other countries?
john9blue wrote:Timminz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:with the United States paying more poor student than any other country (by far) without a return on the investment.
This is interesting. I recall hearing that this is true in health care as well.
Why is it that the American government is so much less effective in these areas (and probably others) than the governments of other countries?
because other countries are held somewhat accountable for their bullshit
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:We're gonna have to take baby-steps before I get to that resolution.
Why must the federal government be involved in public education?
i.e. What is the proper role of the federal government in public education?
Whatever the stated goals, does the federal government on net positively contribute to these goals or negatively contribute?
First, if the government is not involved in education, can the education be called "public education?"
Second, why are we starting with the proposition that the status quo must prevail when we are not certain what the change is?
But, in the interest of bypassing all the back and forth that could potentially occur over what issues we should discussion, I'll answer your questions on a very general basis.
(1) Why must the federal government be involved in education?
The federal government must be involved in education because, much like interstate commerce, the education of the citizens of a country affect each state individually and collectively. Additionally, there can be (and often are) minimum standards for education that are not state-specific and can be enforced by the federal government. Finally, the federal government has the ability to borrow and print money, which allows them to spend more, per capita, than any one state; therefore the federal government funding of education can be a greater boon to education than mere state or local funding.
(2) Why are we starting with the proposition that the status quo must prevail when we are not certain what the change is?
We are starting with that proposition precisely because we are not certain what the change is (at least for purposes of this debate). You have not indicated your position in this thread. I indicated what I believe your position to be, but you have not confirmed and have not denied my belief. Therefore, we must await your position before we can discuss. Otherwise, what we will do is discuss the problems with the status quo rather than discussing which option is better: status quo or change. That is not to say that I don't want change; it is to say that my opinion is that your change and my change are glaringly different.
Well, I'm being Mr. Economist right now, so it doesn't matter what my position is ATM. One role of the economist is to examine the ends and the means, see if the means most efficiently lead to the ends, and if not, provide advice. In other words, does the federal government fulfill its goals? If not, are there better means? And what are the current benefits and costs? Do the benefits currently offset the costs, or would a different means be more 'profitable'?
I don't expect anyone in here to be able to answer these sufficiently, but answering those questions would be how we can make convincing arguments.
How can an economist determine if the means most efficiently lead to the ends without a comparison? When you use the phrase "most efficiently" by specifically including the word "most" that seems to indicate that there are other choices. I cannot say something the means are most efficient for the ends unless I have another means to compare it to.
Let's craft an example:
A boy is selling apple cider in front of his house. In order to make the apple cider he must squeeze the apples by hand, spending approximately 2 hours per apply and generating only 1 ounce of cider. Is his current method of apple cider making the most efficient method to lead to making the cider? If you answer the question "no," then you must provide a different method for the boy to make his cider. If you answer the question "yes," then you must show that other methods are not as efficient.
Because efficiency depends on the goal, the end, which is why I'm asking you about the goal of the federal government's provision of public education. If the government intends to provide public education, but instead we get very expensive warehouses which basically hold a bunch of kids from 7AM to 3PM, then this was inefficient. If the government intended to bankroll many team-playing, public employees while marketing campaign promises about education in order to gain votes, then this was efficient.
re: underlined, in many cases, it's difficult (or perhaps impossible) to show the counter-factual--especially if the government prevents alternative avenues of discovery. Just sayin'.
Crazyirishman wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Crazyirishman wrote:Our public education system as we have it now is designed to train soldiers IMO, which is why is is kinda slacking right now compared to other countries. But I've also worked in for Montessori for the past few years and realized that no education systems is perfect, no matter how you design it.
Does the country really need a highly detailed design for education--which will be enforced by one central planner (Dept of Education)? Or should there be multiple central planners operating within the government realm (local/State governments)? Or would it be best to leave the planning to millions of buyers and sellers on the market for education?
[1]The only downside to having millions of buyers and sellers is that some would choose to abstain form paying to have there children in school because they don't want to pay for the education and "they children don't need fancy book learnin". [2]Also it might be tougher to set standards for what is an appropriate level of education because there would be so many people who want different things out of any system.
BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) Sure, that happens, but does making education compulsory change the incentives of such parents? (It doesn't seem to. Regardless of the federal regulations, many parents don't care about their kids' education). So what do?
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:
How can an economist determine if the means most efficiently lead to the ends without a comparison? When you use the phrase "most efficiently" by specifically including the word "most" that seems to indicate that there are other choices. I cannot say something the means are most efficient for the ends unless I have another means to compare it to.
Let's craft an example:
A boy is selling apple cider in front of his house. In order to make the apple cider he must squeeze the apples by hand, spending approximately 2 hours per apply and generating only 1 ounce of cider. Is his current method of apple cider making the most efficient method to lead to making the cider? If you answer the question "no," then you must provide a different method for the boy to make his cider. If you answer the question "yes," then you must show that other methods are not as efficient.
Because efficiency depends on the goal, the end, which is why I'm asking you about the goal of the federal government's provision of public education. If the government intends to provide public education, but instead we get very expensive warehouses which basically hold a bunch of kids from 7AM to 3PM, then this was inefficient. If the government intended to bankroll many team-playing, public employees while marketing campaign promises about education in order to gain votes, then this was efficient.
re: underlined, in many cases, it's difficult (or perhaps impossible) to show the counter-factual--especially if the government prevents alternative avenues of discovery. Just sayin'.
Again, I cannot indicate whether the method is efficient or not without deciding that there is an alternative. Further, your post is completely ludicrous because it is not about efficiency, it's about two different goals. Your stated goal in sentence 1 is public education. Your stated goal in sentence 2 is expensive warehouses.
Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
You need to tell me if there is a better way to provide education than the current system or federal, state, and local funding and regulation of education.
TGD wrote:Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
BigBallinStalin wrote:TGD wrote:Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking
Success? No, fail cuz:
unintended and actual end = New Jersey
Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:
How can an economist determine if the means most efficiently lead to the ends without a comparison? When you use the phrase "most efficiently" by specifically including the word "most" that seems to indicate that there are other choices. I cannot say something the means are most efficient for the ends unless I have another means to compare it to.
Let's craft an example:
A boy is selling apple cider in front of his house. In order to make the apple cider he must squeeze the apples by hand, spending approximately 2 hours per apply and generating only 1 ounce of cider. Is his current method of apple cider making the most efficient method to lead to making the cider? If you answer the question "no," then you must provide a different method for the boy to make his cider. If you answer the question "yes," then you must show that other methods are not as efficient.
Because efficiency depends on the goal, the end, which is why I'm asking you about the goal of the federal government's provision of public education. If the government intends to provide public education, but instead we get very expensive warehouses which basically hold a bunch of kids from 7AM to 3PM, then this was inefficient. If the government intended to bankroll many team-playing, public employees while marketing campaign promises about education in order to gain votes, then this was efficient.
re: underlined, in many cases, it's difficult (or perhaps impossible) to show the counter-factual--especially if the government prevents alternative avenues of discovery. Just sayin'.
Again, I cannot indicate whether the method is efficient or not without deciding that there is an alternative. Further, your post is completely ludicrous because it is not about efficiency, it's about two different goals. Your stated goal in sentence 1 is public education. Your stated goal in sentence 2 is expensive warehouses.
Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
You need to tell me if there is a better way to provide education than the current system or federal, state, and local funding and regulation of education.
The expensive warehouses are analogous to the ineffective schooling which many kids receive from public schools.
I keep mentioning this efficiency/effectiveness aspect because we make implicit assumptions about the goals of individuals within the various levels of government and the bureaucracies which oversee the many parts of public education. We assume that all of them (or most, or enough of them) strive to maximize the quality of education for the best of the nation, but I doubt this is the case.
I assume that those individuals are just as self-interested as you and me. Their best perceived self-interest will shape their goals and the means for attaining those goals. Therefore, since their goals will defer, then the efficiency of their production processes will be measured along different standards.
(By production processes, I mean, the black box through which inputs (students) enter and from which the outputs (kids with grammar/high school/whatever degrees) exit).
Why does this contention of mine matter?
Because the government is not this black box through which public education is efficiently maximized. We know this when stated clearly, but we tend to forget such nuances when we claim that public education is best for the nation and that the market would suck at it.*
*For example, it's the same issue I must address when people (like crazyirishman) discuss various problems about markets. They ask about all these intricate questions, yet they usually never level the same standard of criticism against government-provided and/or controlled/regulated education.
BigBallinStalin wrote:TGD wrote:Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking
Success? No, fail cuz:
unintended and actual end = New Jersey
Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:TGD wrote:Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking
Success? No, fail cuz:
unintended and actual end = New Jersey
Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.
Okay, now (or more accurately sometime two posts before) you made the discussion about success achieving a stated goal and not efficiency in achieving a stated goal. That is why I provided I different scenario/example.
If the stated purpose of public education is to provide education to children, if the goal is successful just one time then the stated goal has been achieved. Maybe the stated goal was not achieved efficiently, but then we have no barometer or alternative with which to compare. Since I was publicly educated and I am fairly successful, I can say that the goal of the federal government in providing public education was successful.
Now let's move on, again, to whether the federal government is efficient. I don't know the answer. But for the sake of this argument, let's say that public education is the only option; therefore it must be the most efficient. If you can come up with 20 other options, then we can discuss whether public education is less or more efficient than those other options.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:TGD wrote:Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking
Success? No, fail cuz:
unintended and actual end = New Jersey
Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.
How would you have accomplished the goal of getting to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? You have not provided any other option of how to get from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, never mind providing a more efficient way to get there. You say walking is inefficient and you say that walking to New Jersey is unsuccessful... but that's my position on the best way to reach my goal. What is your position?
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:
How can an economist determine if the means most efficiently lead to the ends without a comparison? When you use the phrase "most efficiently" by specifically including the word "most" that seems to indicate that there are other choices. I cannot say something the means are most efficient for the ends unless I have another means to compare it to.
Let's craft an example:
A boy is selling apple cider in front of his house. In order to make the apple cider he must squeeze the apples by hand, spending approximately 2 hours per apply and generating only 1 ounce of cider. Is his current method of apple cider making the most efficient method to lead to making the cider? If you answer the question "no," then you must provide a different method for the boy to make his cider. If you answer the question "yes," then you must show that other methods are not as efficient.
Because efficiency depends on the goal, the end, which is why I'm asking you about the goal of the federal government's provision of public education. If the government intends to provide public education, but instead we get very expensive warehouses which basically hold a bunch of kids from 7AM to 3PM, then this was inefficient. If the government intended to bankroll many team-playing, public employees while marketing campaign promises about education in order to gain votes, then this was efficient.
re: underlined, in many cases, it's difficult (or perhaps impossible) to show the counter-factual--especially if the government prevents alternative avenues of discovery. Just sayin'.
Again, I cannot indicate whether the method is efficient or not without deciding that there is an alternative. Further, your post is completely ludicrous because it is not about efficiency, it's about two different goals. Your stated goal in sentence 1 is public education. Your stated goal in sentence 2 is expensive warehouses.
Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
You need to tell me if there is a better way to provide education than the current system or federal, state, and local funding and regulation of education.
The expensive warehouses are analogous to the ineffective schooling which many kids receive from public schools.
I keep mentioning this efficiency/effectiveness aspect because we make implicit assumptions about the goals of individuals within the various levels of government and the bureaucracies which oversee the many parts of public education. We assume that all of them (or most, or enough of them) strive to maximize the quality of education for the best of the nation, but I doubt this is the case.
I assume that those individuals are just as self-interested as you and me. Their best perceived self-interest will shape their goals and the means for attaining those goals. Therefore, since their goals will defer, then the efficiency of their production processes will be measured along different standards.
(By production processes, I mean, the black box through which inputs (students) enter and from which the outputs (kids with grammar/high school/whatever degrees) exit).
Why does this contention of mine matter?
Because the government is not this black box through which public education is efficiently maximized. We know this when stated clearly, but we tend to forget such nuances when we claim that public education is best for the nation and that the market would suck at it.*
*For example, it's the same issue I must address when people (like crazyirishman) discuss various problems about markets. They ask about all these intricate questions, yet they usually never level the same standard of criticism against government-provided and/or controlled/regulated education.
I don't mean to disregard all this (okay, maybe I do), but this is largely irrelevant to the discussion. You are critiquing public education, which is fine, but you are not providing an alternative (nevermind a viable alternative). In fact, I would venture to say I don't disagree with anything you've typed thus far in terms of criticisms of public education. But, based on background information from other threads, I gathered that you had an alternative to public education that would prove better (more efficient and more successful) than public education. I have not yet seen that in this thread. You have my alternative (public education) but you have yet to provide your own which would allow me to compare and contrast.
You mentioned on my wall that you would like to discuss the first question, so let's start with that - Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated? We can make changes to this questions (for example, it may not be in my best interest for every child to be educated in tax concepts because that makes my job less relevant and/or in less demand, so maybe we remove that kind of thing from consideration). Really, the question is - do you want neighbors who are highly uneducated or do you want neighbors who have modicum (the level of education is subject to differentials obviously) of education?
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:TGD wrote:Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking
Success? No, fail cuz:
unintended and actual end = New Jersey
Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.
Okay, now (or more accurately sometime two posts before) you made the discussion about success achieving a stated goal and not efficiency in achieving a stated goal. That is why I provided I different scenario/example.
If the stated purpose of public education is to provide education to children, if the goal is successful just one time then the stated goal has been achieved. Maybe the stated goal was not achieved efficiently, but then we have no barometer or alternative with which to compare. Since I was publicly educated and I am fairly successful, I can say that the goal of the federal government in providing public education was successful.
Now let's move on, again, to whether the federal government is efficient. I don't know the answer. But for the sake of this argument, let's say that public education is the only option; therefore it must be the most efficient. If you can come up with 20 other options, then we can discuss whether public education is less or more efficient than those other options.
Okay, no federal government involved. Go.
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:TGD wrote:Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking
Success? No, fail cuz:
unintended and actual end = New Jersey
Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.
How would you have accomplished the goal of getting to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? You have not provided any other option of how to get from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, never mind providing a more efficient way to get there. You say walking is inefficient and you say that walking to New Jersey is unsuccessful... but that's my position on the best way to reach my goal. What is your position?
What? You intend on going to Pitts, PA, but instead you walk to New Jersey. The journey ended there.
If you believe that's your best way to reach your goal, then you're being irrational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency
DoomYoshi wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:TGD wrote:Let me use yet another example:
I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?
intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking
Success? No, fail cuz:
unintended and actual end = New Jersey
Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.
How would you have accomplished the goal of getting to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? You have not provided any other option of how to get from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, never mind providing a more efficient way to get there. You say walking is inefficient and you say that walking to New Jersey is unsuccessful... but that's my position on the best way to reach my goal. What is your position?
What? You intend on going to Pitts, PA, but instead you walk to New Jersey. The journey ended there.
If you believe that's your best way to reach your goal, then you're being irrational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency
Wrong. Location is a boolean variable. I can be in Pittsburg or New Jersey, not both.
Education is a continuous variable, like money.
If your goal is to make dollars, and you make two dollars, are you being inefficient?
The thing is, nobody knows the maximum amount of dollars you can make and nobody knows the highest attainable education.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users