<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Education... here we go again"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/54.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Education... here we go again UK is to bring over Chinese Mathematics teachers to give advise on teaching methods. I do wonder if there is such a thing as a magic bullet when it comes to education? My own feeling is that modern society and cultural differences are the reason why other countries appear to be ahead of us with regard to education.

A 50+ years ago education was hammered into you. Parents would support teachers and you were expected to do what you were told at school. There was no flexibility or worrying about if the child enjoyed the lesson. Did this actually make for a better education environment? Does the modern attitude to education work for a lot of subjects, but for all it's faults, do you have to rely on the old methods to teach some of the more perceived boring subjects?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624787.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624787.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624846.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624846.page GMT Education... here we go again
There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624854.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624854.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Captain Fantastic wrote:


There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.


There does appear to be a tendency toward super special snowflake-itiis. This without any apparent legislative push or gudilines being issued -much like political correctness and 'elf and safety.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624946.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624946.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624955.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624955.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Wolfstan wrote:
It's interesting that all parties appearing to be pandering to the general public over results when part of the problem is caused by parents. This is whether it's due to some fictional standard parents have in their head or that they aren't providing the support for the children themselves.


Bingo. In my 13 years in Education, this is something that's discussed in conference rooms and meetings but the closest you'll see it in legislation in the US is a requirement for schools to engage parents. The thing is, the kids are at school for about 6 hours per day, 180 days per year; compared to the time the kids spend with their peers and parents, that's not all that much. Teachers have an uphill battle to benefit the kids if good habits are not being reinforced at home/outisde the school.

You can throw all the money you like into Education. You legislate schools to do this or the other but at the end of the day home environment plays a large part in whether a child is successful or not in school.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624982.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624982.page GMT Education... here we go again
The countries that are particularly good at maths are the ones that do a lot of rote learning and multiple choice testing. (Japan, Korea.) Maybe this is the secret to basic maths education.

However while Shanghai got the top score, I bet Westminster School could get the best score in the UK if tested separately. The rest of China probably gets a much lower score.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624992.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6624992.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
Today, the goal is to push the kids into college, and let colleges deal with the whole "teach them what they need to know to function in the real world and get a job."

50+ years ago, that's what high school was for.

Somewhere, the real priorities of the K-12 system got lost as we moved from a country that produces, to a country that consumes. Trade skills, if they're even still taught at your local high school, are probably not emphasized at all anymore.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625144.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625144.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Captain Fantastic wrote:
I agree. There are proven, effective ways to teach children, and they probably work for the majority of them. The children who cannot learn (as opposed to just being lazy, or having some social stigma against education) should not be prioritized. They are outliers.

There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.


That has many many problems. First, it assumes that the basis of primary and secondary education is to produce an elite, not to teach all to a minimum standard. Amusing, as you do, that it is a choice between teaching all or teaching the best then in a publicly funded education system we should be aiming to ensure that all children leave school with at lease a basic level of education?

It sounds like what you are suggesting is a single way of teaching and leaving everyone who falls outside that. Many are left behind by that, including those with SPLDs and other disabilities. Not that long ago people with things like dyslexia were just labeled stupid and lazy, but the old fashioned systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

The countries that are particularly good at maths are the ones that do a lot of rote learning and multiple choice testing. (Japan, Korea.) Maybe this is the secret to basic maths education.


Kind of. The countries with rote learning tend to produce very high results at primary and secondary levels, but then leave people completely stuck when they need to use those skills in higher higher education or in real life. They are left with little understanding of the concepts and little flexibility. Korea is starting to find big problems with this, and anyone who has had to deal with outsourced programing to India or China will tell you the problems with lack of creative thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Wolfstan wrote:
It's interesting that all parties appearing to be pandering to the general public over results when part of the problem is caused by parents. This is whether it's due to some fictional standard parents have in their head or that they aren't providing the support for the children themselves.


This. I think parents are a big problem in the UK. The countries with high achievement also have a high regard for education. Everyone wants children to be a success (probably too much sometimes). In the UK poorer families often don't care and have a poor view of schooling and don't give the support. Middle class kids do better, partly because they are the ones makeing their kids sit down and do homework, going to parents evenings, sitting down and asking children "What did you do at school" and reading to them. In my opinion that is partly to do with schools historic problems. Of course children who did not do well at school 50 years ago would end up hating it, when some teachers response was what in any other area would be deemed bullying or assault. There are other reasons. You could make arguments about the welfare state, lack of role models in poor communities, lack of social mobility driving lack of ambition driving lack of social mobility in a vicious circle.

Or perhaps we just worry too much about what other people are doing and should start looking at what we do well.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625149.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625149.page GMT Education... here we go again
The same is not true in China, Korea, Japan; and much of the world. Essentially, we are trying to compare the whole country to the other countries top students.

It is like trying to compare private schools that only recruit the best to a public school that is required to take everyone. It makes no sense and isn't even a valid comparison.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625174.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625174.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the parents, if your parents are illiterate and innumerate and never read a book, they are pretty unlikely to give you support at school. Therefore if society wants you to be educated it should not rely on your parents.

The countries that are particularly good at maths are the ones that do a lot of rote learning and multiple choice testing. (Japan, Korea.) Maybe this is the secret to basic maths education.

However while Shanghai got the top score, I bet Westminster School could get the best score in the UK if tested separately. The rest of China probably gets a much lower score.


Most distrcts in the US offer free Adult Education classes and/or Family Literacy classes. I agree with the rote learning; that is what I witnessed in S. Korea and Japan. Another thing to consider is that most Asian countries do not have mandatory High School education and their scores may not include students from trade schools...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625226.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625226.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625318.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625318.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Easy E wrote:
I always love when we compare our education results to countries that use a completely different model. In the US, everyone has to take the basic testing because everyone is required to go to school. It doesn't matter if you are English as a second language, special education, or taking all accelerated courses. Everyone is tested like they are going to college/university.

The same is not true in China, Korea, Japan; and much of the world. Essentially, we are trying to compare the whole country to the other countries top students.

It is like trying to compare private schools that only recruit the best to a public school that is required to take everyone. It makes no sense and isn't even a valid comparison.


And its not just testing.

In the majority of the Scandanvian countries the US is compared to, they have multiple educational pathways, not just the single "acceptable" outcome of going to a university.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the stigma with trade schools and skilled labor jobs is killing this country in a ton of ways.

Everyone SHOULDN'T be going to a university. But in the US, everyone is a special snowflake that can do anything.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625322.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625322.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Captain Fantastic wrote:
I agree. There are proven, effective ways to teach children, and they probably work for the majority of them. The children who cannot learn (as opposed to just being lazy, or having some social stigma against education) should not be prioritized. They are outliers.

There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.

Where does that lead every Special education student? Every student with a disability. These are not numbers we are talking about, these are peopl y'know? People who get left behind because people think they are unteachable]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625414.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625414.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Where does that lead every Special education student? Every student with a disability. These are not numbers we are talking about, these are peopl y'know? People who get left behind because people think they are unteachable


You'll always need someone to stock at grocery stores, and I've seen people who can do that without being able to read.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625441.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625441.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625451.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625451.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 Captain Fantastic wrote:
I agree. There are proven, effective ways to teach children, and they probably work for the majority of them. The children who cannot learn (as opposed to just being lazy, or having some social stigma against education) should not be prioritized. They are outliers.

There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.

Where does that lead every Special education student? Every student with a disability. These are not numbers we are talking about, these are peopl y'know? People who get left behind because people think they are unteachable


Usually the Special education kids or kids with learning disabilities get accommodations because they are required to by law. It is more the kids with Emotionally Disturbances kids who are considered the 'unteachables' and are often neglected or ignored. While there is often overlap, as soon as a learning disabled kid becomes learning disabled kid with an attitude, that is when they get considered 'unteachable'. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625479.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625479.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try


How do you tell the difference? Serious question. The special ed classes in high school when I grew up were littered with people who got dropped in there because they seemed to have a problem, but just didn't care. I knew that because I was friends with some of them and knew them better. There were also the genuine cases who needed it too, of course. To a certain extent, the ones who didn't need to be there were doing a disservice to those who did.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have special ed classes or try to help people differently, but you can't reach everyone, and you hurt those who you might be able to reach otherwise by trying to get to everyone.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625498.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625498.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try



Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625526.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625526.page GMT Education... here we go again
There was also a few who genuinly scared us so we made damn sure we learned the material lol....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625542.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625542.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try



Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.

You should still try. They may be capable of it, you don't know yet.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625560.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625560.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try



Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.

You should still try. They may be capable of it, you don't know yet.


For how long? Assume they then start to grasp things, but at a much slower rate than everyone else. The amount of time and resources you have to teach are finite. Do you teach them higher level things that aren't applicable to real life, or do you focus on the basics, giving them the best chance of survival unaided in the real world?

I mean, calc and classical literature are great, but when someone is struggling to grasp how to balance a checkbook, I think you need to focus your priorities.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625575.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625575.page GMT Education... here we go again
There are a lot of ways to teach, test and stream people, some people will function well regardless of where they end up, but some people will need one to one teaching from a specialist teacher, coupled with extensive behaviour management... and sadly there isn't always that kind of resources available.

You can't teach some children in main stream education but unfortunately that is where they end up, and unfortunately these people can the bring down an entire class of other children.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625612.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625612.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625652.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625652.page GMT Education... here we go again UK are two of the richest societies in the world. If we "can't afford" an educated workforce it's because the wealth is too concentrated at the top end.

However I disagree with 50% or 70% of people having degrees. Germany does much better than us with fewer graduates (especially a lot fewer MBA graduates) and much better technical vocational education.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625700.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625700.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625713.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625713.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA and UK are two of the richest societies in the world. If we "can't afford" an educated workforce it's because the wealth is too concentrated at the top end.

However I disagree with 50% or 70% of people having degrees. Germany does much better than us with fewer graduates (especially a lot fewer MBA graduates) and much better technical vocational education.


I was very interested in what Germany is doing with Tech schools in place of/in addition to high school. Recently a bill was circulating (I think it passed but can't recall) that will diversify high-schools in Texas; it will create career tracks as far as student learning. They've finally realized that maybe someone who's going to work on cars might not need to take trig or geometry but instead focus on the skills that will apply to their chosen field of endeavor. I'm on the fence as to this being a good idea or not as I can see benefits to both sides.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625714.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625714.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again UK. It's all about Uni & degrees, but in saying that the increase in the fees has made school leavers look at apprenticeships as a viable option. To me it makes more sense for the work force. You get people trained in the skills that industry / business needs. I've always thought that it was shortsighted of industry / business to move away from apprenticeships in years past. They can't complain about the lack of skills if they couldn't be bothered to invest in them, but hat could just be me ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625720.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625720.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Wolfstan wrote:
I think that's one of the problems in the UK. It's all about Uni & degrees, but in saying that the increase in the fees has made school leavers look at apprenticeships as a viable option. To me it makes more sense for the work force. You get people trained in the skills that industry / business needs. I've always thought that it was shortsighted of industry / business to move away from apprenticeships in years past. They can't complain about the lack of skills if they couldn't be bothered to invest in them, but hat could just be me


Exactly. I can see a definite benefit in a program that lets a student study half a day and then work the other half under the guidance of professionals in their field; earn some money and learn the skills you'll need to be successful later on. In the US we have this type of thing to a limited extent with career-tech partnerships with public high schools.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625729.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625729.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try



Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.

Wait, which special Ed? Im talking about non-severe cases like mine. Where im capable of understand, just not that great at it without some help, but now I can study whole chapters and understand them without hel. Or the Severe, witch cases like down syndrome or things like that?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625835.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625835.page GMT Education... here we go again
sure she got 95%+ on very test she ever did... including math... but even she freely admits its just because she spent 12+ hours each day on school work for fear of under performing, and to this day, she has no idea what any of the calculi really means.


also, she is appalled that the west would want to adopt the chinese methods... there are far too many kids being burnt out, committing suicide, ect in that system.

our problem is that we keep trying to make every kid fit into the round hole,

we need to train people in mechanics, metal/wood working, IE TRADESKILLS or in what they have an aptitude for. Not everyone needs to learn calculus or advanced trigonometry ect.

so what we have right now, is a system that not only trys to force the slower kids to go faster, but forces the faster kids to slow down to the level of the slowest person in the class basically.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625850.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625850.page GMT Education... here we go again Hell, their was a math where they taught you life skills. Like buying a house, buying a car, balancing a checkbook(That may have been accounting im not sure) And other such things.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625864.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625864.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try



Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.

Wait, which special Ed? Im talking about non-severe cases like mine. Where im capable of understand, just not that great at it without some help, but now I can study whole chapters and understand them without hel. Or the Severe, witch cases like down syndrome or things like that?

That's a good point. You can be in special ed for all sorts of things, ADHD/ADD, anger problems, ect. not necisarily a severe mental illness.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625881.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625881.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um, in my Highschool Calc and stuff like that was a elective.
Hell, their was a math where they taught you life skills. Like buying a house, buying a car, balancing a checkbook(That may have been accounting im not sure) And other such things.


Ah yes, the "Math for Kids who really need a math credit" class. One of the many examples of schools trying to avoid producing the worst, rather than trying to create the best.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625882.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625882.page GMT Education... here we go again Second, you where required 4 math classes, on every year. The one I took after that? Accounting for businesses.
Calculus, Trigonometry, and other such math is not for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try



Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.

Wait, which special Ed? Im talking about non-severe cases like mine. Where im capable of understand, just not that great at it without some help, but now I can study whole chapters and understand them without hel. Or the Severe, witch cases like down syndrome or things like that?

That's a good point. You can be in special ed for all sorts of things, ADHD/ADD, anger problems, ect. not necisarily a severe mental illness.

Exactly, You want to know what happened? They found a way to teach me how to study by myself. My sophmore year? I was no longer in any classes, I still had someone to report to, but they didnt care much. They had other students who where still in special education. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625900.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625900.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
But in the US, everyone is a special snowflake that can do anything.


Short of physical and mental handicaps that is true if you're obsessed enough like I'm doing awesome in my film class because I love movies and enjoy spending hours of my time trying to figure out the meaning behind certain camera angles and shots.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625982.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625982.page GMT Education... here we go again

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625994.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625994.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625998.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6625998.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
study and practice to their fields not because they were born with brilliant minds.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626017.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626017.page GMT Education... here we go again
 easysauce wrote:
Not everyone needs to learn calculus or advanced trigonometry ect.


This, this and forever this. Something that's forgotten in the great panic over "STEM" education.

The education of our youth is a heavily politicized topic, and an industry that tends to leap from fad to fad. It's just how it is.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626019.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626019.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, but people just want to focus all their attention on those they consider special, and leave those who are slo and not as special, out in the wind and fixing toilets for a living.


So follow it out to its natural conclusion. You seem to be concerned that not having the advanced knowledge is a barrier to getting a better job. There's only a finite number of those jobs available. They're not going to people who struggle to get the basics down. They're going to the people who can present themselves as the "best" for that job. Do you spend resources trying to get people to a level where they can do a job that others do much better, preparing them to enter into a workforce where they're going to be outclassed by all of their peers?

Also, and this goes back to my comment about vocational careers, plumbing is, while not illustrious, generally a decent enough paying career. It's also not something you need to worry about getting outsourced to other countries where the "specials" have more resources dedicated to them than places where the "not specials" are being brought up to a level where they understand the same things (though less well) than the aforementioned "specials".]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626020.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626020.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626031.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626031.page GMT Education... here we go again UK for two years, so not that experienced with the system but reasonably so.

Before launching into the problems with education in the UK I feel I should point out that literacy rates climb every year, and the current A levels are pretty damn hard, too.

1. Government interference: The curriculum changes with each government, and there is a huge amount of micro-level interference with professional practice in UK classrooms. There is a whole slew of jargon terms that get used, and the kids are very good at parroting the system approved language back at you. This is further compounded by ambitious managerial types wanting to put their own stamp on things and trying to make everyone dance to the same tune.
2. League tables: These have the effect of making teachers and especially management far more concerned with statistics than they should be.
3. Cultural Problems: The UK has huge issues with antisocial behaviour in general in my experience. Added to this is a fairly hostile attitude towards the teaching profession from many people, a general lack of respect for the profession and definitely a "service" mentality when it comes to education. The kids pick up on this and also have little respect for teachers and expect everything to be done and provided for them.

The burnout rates for teachers in the UK are obscene. People always say "Guess he shouldn't have been a teacher if he couldn't hack it" but I think that betrays an ignorance of what the system is like. I've taught in three different countries in three different schools, and the UK was by far the most toxic and stressful environment. I really enjoy my job where I am now, and I get paid more to work in a more supportive environment with nicer students. There's a heavy expectation that I will get results, but being given the professional freedom to get those results means I can be successful and so can my students. I worked in a very challenging school in a poor area of inner city Dublin when I started, many of the parents of my students were heroin addicts etc. It was still a nicer place to work, despite being underfunded compared to UK schools, and once you got through the initial hazing the kids were alright, if a bit predictable. I always feel guilty for leaving them, but lack of posts for teachers meant I had to emigrate.
What the UK has going for it over my past and present schools is far better support in terms of logistics, equipment, support personnel with a great attitude and so on. But at the end of the day, if you can't rely on management for support when you've got issues, then you're SOL. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626033.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626033.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Wolfstan wrote:
I think that's one of the problems in the UK. It's all about Uni & degrees, but in saying that the increase in the fees has made school leavers look at apprenticeships as a viable option. To me it makes more sense for the work force. You get people trained in the skills that industry / business needs. I've always thought that it was shortsighted of industry / business to move away from apprenticeships in years past. They can't complain about the lack of skills if they couldn't be bothered to invest in them, but hat could just be me


I agree completely.

Part of the problem in the UK is that business doesn't want to pay the taxes needed to fund a good academic education system, and doesn't want to pay the apprenticeship costs needed to fund a good technical education system.

They expect somehow that suitably trained workers will emerge from schools and universities much like Venus sprang forth from the brow of Zeus fully formed.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626039.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626039.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But what if someone doesnt want to be a plumber? I certainly dont, I want to study sociolgy, but nope, I guess I should have been told in my freshmen year "Here is a plunger"


At least with a plunger you'll be less likely to be jobless.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626041.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626041.page GMT Education... here we go again
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626049.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626049.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626051.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626051.page GMT Education... here we go again
 agnosto wrote:

I was very interested in what Germany is doing with Tech schools in place of/in addition to high school. Recently a bill was circulating (I think it passed but can't recall) that will diversify high-schools in Texas; it will create career tracks as far as student learning. They've finally realized that maybe someone who's going to work on cars might not need to take trig or geometry but instead focus on the skills that will apply to their chosen field of endeavor. I'm on the fence as to this being a good idea or not as I can see benefits to both sides.


This is EXACTLY the system that all (might be an overreach with "all", I'll have to check) the countries that 'outperform' the US in test scores do, though. Kids are tracked by the time they're in like, 8th grade, to either go the university route, the vocational route, or in some of them, the art route. And then, in some of the countries, there are the athletic academies. And it works.

We refuse to do this in the US because the gov't has too much money invested (see: profit to be made) in the university system, so much so that we're pushing the "everyone should go to college" agenda.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626053.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626053.page GMT Education... here we go again
Edit: Even if you go to a vocational school or college in Germany, you can end up doing a pretty well paid job. My girlfriend is paid more than me by a significant amount working in a software company, and many of her equally well paid colleagues do not have a university education- they went to trade schools and so on. This makes them really useful in the work environment because they have piles of hands on experience with the software.

I quite like the German system, but I think the biggest difference between them and the UK is cultural. The German parents I deal with, despite paying me directly, are really reasonable and take criticism of their kids really well, by and large. Parents evenings are fairly frank discussions of how the kid is doing rather than an exercise in sugar coating a turd. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626055.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626055.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Da Boss wrote:
Not everyone can have what they want, either. The idea that you can is the most misleading thing in the world.


That is true there's certain jobs that don't pay well or is very hard to get into.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626060.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626060.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But what if someone doesnt want to be a plumber? I certainly dont, I want to study sociolgy, but nope, I guess I should have been told in my freshmen year "Here is a plunger"


I want to be a baker. I really do. I'm actually pretty decent at it, but it doesn't pay the bills and I have a natural knack for programming. Ergo, I do what I'm suited for even though I fething hate computers. A lot of people don't have jobs they like or want to do. They do them because it's what it takes.

You made it into college. I'm not sure you're the person we're talking about here. Or at least, not the person I'm talking about here. Again, I'm saying that we drop anyone who doesn't appear to get it from public view. I'm saying that we accept and understand that there are going to be people though who just don't have the capacity for higher levels of education, and we provide alternatives for those people.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626076.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626076.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626103.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626103.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um, in my Highschool Calc and stuff like that was a elective.
Hell, their was a math where they taught you life skills. Like buying a house, buying a car, balancing a checkbook(That may have been accounting im not sure) And other such things.


balancing chequebooks is elementary level math for some,

and grade 12+ level math for others, I still know some fully grown adults who just cannot fathom how compound interest works, or how cost of borrowing works.

let alone all the polynomial equations, and graphing calculator stuff in the jr high and high school curriculum... (none of this is elective around here, it is required to graduate that you have math 30 or 33, both of which involve "graphing calculator" math)

hell, Im an engineer, and I barely use the stuff, so why are people being forced to be trained on it instead of something they are naturally good at, and could utilize in a potential job?

I want to avoid things like

"sorry timmy, you might be the worlds best mechanic, but you are an idiot if you cant do this math here, so spend 3 years learning how to do somthing you cannot do, dont want to do, instead of learning how to be a mechanic and get that training for FREE right now, instead of shelling out $ for it and spending 2-4 years training for it outside of school"

my point isnt to remove the advanced math or any other courses,

its that we need to add PRACTICAL and diverse, but more importantly, more student driven/choosen/specific classes, so that if you want to do something other then take another 4-12 years of school after school is done (ie be in a trade, sales, ect) you should have some of that training already in high school...

we used to teach kids things like mechanics, wood/metal working, welding, ect so that when they graduated highschool they could realistically get a decent job if they applied themselves (or get a decent job to pay for post 2ndary)

instead what we have is a system that is a massive babysitter at worst, and usefull for the minority at best.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626107.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626107.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Completely agree.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626118.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626118.page GMT Education... here we go again
 easysauce wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um, in my Highschool Calc and stuff like that was a elective.
Hell, their was a math where they taught you life skills. Like buying a house, buying a car, balancing a checkbook(That may have been accounting im not sure) And other such things.


balancing chequebooks is elementary level math for some,

and grade 12+ level math for others, I still know some fully grown adults who just cannot fathom how compound interest works, or how cost of borrowing works.

let alone all the polynomial equations, and graphing calculator stuff in the jr high and high school curriculum... (none of this is elective around here, it is required to graduate that you have math 30 or 33, both of which involve "graphing calculator" math)

hell, Im an engineer, and I barely use the stuff, so why are people being trained on it instead of something they are naturally good at, and could utilize in a potential job?

my point isnt to remove the advanced math or any other courses,

its that we need to add PRACTICAL and diverse, but more importantly, more student driven/choosen/specific classes, so that if you want to do something other then take another 4-12 years of school after school is done (ie be in a trade, sales, ect) you should have some of that training already in high school...

we used to teach kids things like mechanics, wood/metal working, welding, ect so that when they graduated highschool they could realistically get a decent job if they applied themselves (or get a decent job to pay for post 2ndary)

instead what we have is a system that is a massive babysitter at worst, and usefull for the minority at best.



WORD nothing but the truth here]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626120.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626120.page GMT Education... here we go again
 daedalus wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Completely agree.


Same here.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626123.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626123.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626125.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626125.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626186.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626186.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626192.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626192.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


They lack the resources and time to improve themselves.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626198.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626198.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


Don't do it, Frazz!!!!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626201.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626201.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626209.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626209.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Da Boss wrote:
Well, if empathy isn't enough for you (here I was thinkin' you were a christian, Fraz), then social stability should be enough of a reason.


Plus, if everyone who had a job had a wage they could live off of, we could finally get rid of those damned socialist handout schemes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626221.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626221.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
IN australia we have the hilarious dichotomy of people who went to university looking down on tradesmen whilst the tradesmen are earning more than university graduates as the graduates have qualifications that there are no jobs for.

Hopefully the special snowflake attitude so prevalent in k-12 ends soon or in a few more years the work environment is going to be REALLY painful. "yes timmy , you can do anything you want, just not this job as you are gak at it"

Why frazz? Societies need people to do menial jobs, if the menial jobs cannot get done for a livable wage who will do them? Without menial jobs society literally falls apart, and importing all of your menial workforce is impractical and has it's own share of problems.





]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626229.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626229.page GMT Education... here we go again
 daedalus wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But what if someone doesnt want to be a plumber? I certainly dont, I want to study sociolgy, but nope, I guess I should have been told in my freshmen year "Here is a plunger"


I want to be a baker. I really do. I'm actually pretty decent at it, but it doesn't pay the bills and I have a natural knack for programming. Ergo, I do what I'm suited for even though I fething hate computers. A lot of people don't have jobs they like or want to do. They do them because it's what it takes.

You made it into college. I'm not sure you're the person we're talking about here. Or at least, not the person I'm talking about here. Again, I'm saying that we drop anyone who doesn't appear to get it from public view. I'm saying that we accept and understand that there are going to be people though who just don't have the capacity for higher levels of education, and we provide alternatives for those people.

That is me, but for the longest time I was one of those slow students who could not understand. Now Im in a community college, getting great grades up till this semester(Personal issues reared its ugly head) and poised to go to one of the best schools in the state. But for the longest time, I looked like a moron who could do nothing. I agree, vocational schools should be pushed more. But I hate the idea of someone else choosing my life for me. If I want to go to college, let me go. That is why I dislike the german method. Education is a way to a good voter base, sure math may not be applicable. But english, history, economics and political science or things like that. And I think that all of these things need to be mixed into. Not a few go this way, a few go that way. You can be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespear
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626271.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626271.page GMT Education... here we go again
 daedalus wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Well, if empathy isn't enough for you (here I was thinkin' you were a christian, Fraz), then social stability should be enough of a reason.


Plus, if everyone who had a job had a wage they could live off of, we could finally get rid of those damned socialist handout schemes.


The question from this line of commentary inevitably becomes "what should this notion of a 'living wage' provide you to live with?"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626285.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626285.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 daedalus wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Well, if empathy isn't enough for you (here I was thinkin' you were a christian, Fraz), then social stability should be enough of a reason.


Plus, if everyone who had a job had a wage they could live off of, we could finally get rid of those damned socialist handout schemes.


The question from this line of commentary inevitably becomes "what should this notion of a 'living wage' provide you to live with?"


Uh, I think I hear my mom calling. I gotta go home. Talk to you later dude.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626288.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626288.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626289.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626289.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If I want to go to college, let me go. That is why I dislike the german method. Education is a way to a good voter base, sure math may not be applicable. But english, history, economics and political science or things like that. And I think that all of these things need to be mixed into. Not a few go this way, a few go that way. You can be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespear


I'm sorry, but no one "stops" you from going. You should probably stop yourself if you're persuing a sociology degree.

"A good voter base?" You're kidding, right?

Sure, you can absolutely be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean you should have to take it to become a mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 daedalus wrote:

Uh, I think I hear my mom calling. I gotta go home. Talk to you later dude.



Oh, I have no interest in that either, which is why I said, "Don't do it, Frazz" and why I didn't initiate that line myself.

I don't disagree that people should be able to "live" off of a gakky, low to no skill, minimum wage job. I just fundamentally differ with some folks on what that "living" should entail and be entitled to.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626292.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626292.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If I want to go to college, let me go. That is why I dislike the german method. Education is a way to a good voter base, sure math may not be applicable. But english, history, economics and political science or things like that. And I think that all of these things need to be mixed into. Not a few go this way, a few go that way. You can be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespear


I'm sorry, but no one "stops" you from going. You should probably stop yourself if you're persuing a sociology degree.

"A good voter base?" You're kidding, right?

Sure, you can absolutely be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean you should have to take it to become a mechanic.


He is kind of right about a "good voter base" should be well educated since people who don't develop and practice critical thinking skills are more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion and other fallacies rather than what is most logical. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626325.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626325.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If I want to go to college, let me go. That is why I dislike the german method. Education is a way to a good voter base, sure math may not be applicable. But english, history, economics and political science or things like that. And I think that all of these things need to be mixed into. Not a few go this way, a few go that way. You can be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespear


I'm sorry, but no one "stops" you from going. You should probably stop yourself if you're persuing a sociology degree.

"A good voter base?" You're kidding, right?

Sure, you can absolutely be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean you should have to take it to become a mechanic.
.

I have defended my degree so many times, Im nt even going to bother anymore]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626328.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626328.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is why I dislike the german method. Education is a way to a good voter base, sure math may not be applicable. But english, history, economics and political science or things like that. And I think that all of these things need to be mixed into. Not a few go this way, a few go that way. You can be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespear

IMHO, maths is probably the most useful subject you can be taught at school. Sure, very few people ever use the complicated stuff, but if you can't do the basics, you're fethed.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626344.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626344.page GMT Education... here we go again
 -Shrike- wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is why I dislike the german method. Education is a way to a good voter base, sure math may not be applicable. But english, history, economics and political science or things like that. And I think that all of these things need to be mixed into. Not a few go this way, a few go that way. You can be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespear

IMHO, maths is probably the most useful subject you can be taught at school. Sure, very few people ever use the complicated stuff, but if you can't do the basics, you're fethed.


English (or whatever your native language) is the most important because you use reading and writing even more than math and it allows you to keep a record of ideas.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626365.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626365.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:
 -Shrike- wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is why I dislike the german method. Education is a way to a good voter base, sure math may not be applicable. But english, history, economics and political science or things like that. And I think that all of these things need to be mixed into. Not a few go this way, a few go that way. You can be a mechanic and still appreciate Shakespear

IMHO, maths is probably the most useful subject you can be taught at school. Sure, very few people ever use the complicated stuff, but if you can't do the basics, you're fethed.


English (or whatever your native language) is the most important because you use reading and writing even more than math and it allows you to keep a record of ideas.

True, but that really should be primary school level English. All I learned from the English lessons in secondary school was that the exam gave you more marks for the more bs inferences you could cram into your response. The more outlandish insightful your allegation was, the more marks you got. And if you used a semi-colon correctly at least three times, you would probably go up a grade.

History was far more useful, as it taught you analytical skills and helped you understand the history of your country.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626390.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626390.page GMT Education... here we go again
 daedalus wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.

So?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


They lack the resources and time to improve themselves.


Then why should we care?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cincydooley wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


Don't do it, Frazz!!!!

I'm going in! If you see my wife, tell her I love herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626407.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626407.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626409.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626409.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Da Boss wrote:
Well, if empathy isn't enough for you (here I was thinkin' you were a christian, Fraz), then social stability should be enough of a reason.

How does that provide stability?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 daedalus wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Well, if empathy isn't enough for you (here I was thinkin' you were a christian, Fraz), then social stability should be enough of a reason.


Plus, if everyone who had a job had a wage they could live off of, we could finally get rid of those damned socialist handout schemes.

That by its nature is a damned socialist handout scheme.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Why frazz? Societies need people to do menial jobs, if the menial jobs cannot get done for a livable wage who will do them? Without menial jobs society literally falls apart, and importing all of your menial workforce is impractical and has it's own share of problems.






If no one will do them then the wage will go up on its own or technology will adapt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
200$ an hour obviously.


I can't live unless my driver drives me to the bakery to get my gold leaf cake. I need at least $450 an hour. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626410.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626410.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


They lack the resources and time to improve themselves.


Then why should we care?


So they aren't out on the streets and so they don't starve and die.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626458.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626458.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


They lack the resources and time to improve themselves.


Then why should we care?


So they aren't out on the streets and so they don't starve and die.

So? Its their duty to improve their skills and capacity, not ours. If they are on the streets that improves the job picture as we hire better security.

PLus, again - define "living wage" One can survie on Top Ramen quite well. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626487.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626487.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


They lack the resources and time to improve themselves.


Then why should we care?


So they aren't out on the streets and so they don't starve and die.

So? Its their duty to improve their skills and capacity, not ours.


Well, if they lack the resources and time to do it then what you're say saying is impossible.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626497.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626497.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626513.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626513.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:

PLus, again - define "living wage" One can survie on Top Ramen quite well.


That a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, shelter, transport, health care, minimal recreation and childcare. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626522.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626522.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

PLus, again - define "living wage" One can survie on Top Ramen quite well.


That a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, shelter, transport, health care, minimal recreation and childcare.


So someone working at McDonalds running a register that has no numbers or words, just pretty pictures should get paid enough to have a car, a house, a steak, childcare and a free movie budget. Thats more than most people in the world.

Why?
Why should I pay for this loser's kid's?
Why should I now have to pay for his car?
Dear God why do I have to pay for his recreation now too?

Why?
Why?
Why?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626532.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626532.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

PLus, again - define "living wage" One can survie on Top Ramen quite well.


That a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, shelter, transport, health care, minimal recreation and childcare.


So someone working at McDonalds running a register that has no numbers or words, just pretty pictures should get paid enough to have a car, a house, a steak, childcare and a free movie budget. Thats more than most people in the world.


Obviously that's what I mean by "basic". ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626546.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626546.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

PLus, again - define "living wage" One can survie on Top Ramen quite well.


That a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, shelter, transport, health care, minimal recreation and childcare.


So someone working at McDonalds running a register that has no numbers or words, just pretty pictures should get paid enough to have a car, a house, a steak, childcare and a free movie budget. Thats more than most people in the world.

Why?
Why should I pay for this loser's kid's?
Why should I now have to pay for his car?
Dear God why do I have to pay for his recreation now too?

Why?
Why?
Why?


Why should I have to pay for a new Abrams tank?


Why?
Why?
Why?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626549.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626549.page GMT Education... here we go again
Then, the status quo that has helped you get to where you are no longer exists, and you are no the one who no one cares about anymore because the rules have changed. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626550.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626550.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626551.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626551.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626553.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626553.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Easy E wrote:
Here is how it provides stability Fraz. If the current rules of the society or system don't work for you and actually hinder you; you have no reason to play by those rules anymore.

Sounds like a job opportunity for the law enforcement industry, which helps the overall economy. PLus it drives up wages, which means everyone else's salary increases.



When you don't need to play by the rules anymore; you can do anything you want to get ahead.

Sounds like law school.

When a certain critical mass of people feel this way.... crime, terrorism, and revolution result.

Thats what the guns, SYG, and the law enforcement industry are for. Its more efficient too. It helps the economy and gets rid of the surplus population difficulties.


Then, the status quo that has helped you get to where you are no longer exists, and you are no the one who no one cares about anymore because the rules have changed.

People like me always thrive. Cochroaches have nothing on us. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626568.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626568.page GMT Education... here we go again
DutchWinsAll wrote:

Why should I have to pay for a new Abrams tank?


Why?
Why?
Why?


Because Congress never listens to the experts?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626573.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626573.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Da Boss wrote:
Cool, good to know how little you care about people Fraz. Nice.

Corrected your typo.

My questioning your basic assumptions has no relationship with how much I care or don't care. As an educator you should know that. As a fellow Irishman you should be drinking by now. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626574.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626574.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626576.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626576.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:


He is kind of right about a "good voter base" should be well educated since people who don't develop and practice critical thinking skills are more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion and other fallacies rather than what is most logical.


Yes. Colleges never have an impact on how people vote

You should visit Madison, Wisconsin ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626578.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626578.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:
You do realize that increasing social mobility for the poor helps the economy even more right?

Your assumption is false.
Mobility is increased via providing the means for that mobility, not providing motivation to remain in your current position. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626580.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626580.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
If you're buying an Abrams Tank: 1) I'm jealous; 2) you clearly have a lot of money and connections; and 3) it has nothign to do with the discussion.


Taxes spent on programs you don't like = relevant.

Taxes spent on programs you do like = not relevant.

Makes perfect sense.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626582.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626582.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:


He is kind of right about a "good voter base" should be well educated since people who don't develop and practice critical thinking skills are more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion and other fallacies rather than what is most logical.


Yes. Colleges never have an impact on how people vote

You should visit Madison, Wisconsin


Well, you don't technically have to go to school to be educated on something (although it makes it a lot easier). ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626583.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626583.page GMT Education... here we go again
DutchWinsAll wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
If you're buying an Abrams Tank: 1) I'm jealous; 2) you clearly have a lot of money and connections; and 3) it has nothign to do with the discussion.


Taxes spent on programs you don't like = relevant.

Taxes spent on programs you do like = not relevant.

Makes perfect sense.


You're talking about a person paying taxes - ok. No I'm talking about the policy, not whether or not I should have to pay for it. Thank you for letting me clarify.
I'm sad though. I was going to ask you if I could take it for a spin. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626592.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626592.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:


Well, you don't technically have to go to school to be educated on something (although it makes it a lot easier).


Touche'. Hell, one could make the argument that the university system creates the absolute opposite of an informed, unbiased voter base.

If it were up to me you'd have to be 25 or in the military to vote.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626596.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626596.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
You do realize that increasing social mobility for the poor helps the economy even more right?

Your assumption is false.
Mobility is increased via providing the means for that mobility, not providing motivation to remain in your current position.


And how you increase social mobility for the poor is by giving them more resources and time to improve themselves with.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626597.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626597.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
You do realize that increasing social mobility for the poor helps the economy even more right?

Your assumption is false.
Mobility is increased via providing the means for that mobility, not providing motivation to remain in your current position.


And how you increase social mobility for the poor is by giving them more resources and time to improve themselves with.


What resources do you propose that aren't already provided for them via the very free American education system?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626603.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626603.page GMT Education... here we go again
Apparently it's only inappropriate to question the remuneration of the top end of society, which I forgot.

If I say I'm really sorry, will the thread go back to discussing education?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626610.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626610.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Well, if empathy isn't enough for you (here I was thinkin' you were a christian, Fraz), then social stability should be enough of a reason.


Plus, if everyone who had a job had a wage they could live off of, we could finally get rid of those damned socialist handout schemes.

That by its nature is a damned socialist handout scheme.


But that's the beauty of it all. The current method has it coming out of your taxes. You're paying for them right now. If the services provided by those working these jobs under the 'living wage' method isn't anything you patronize, you personally SAVE money.

If you're not in favor of the system, you can opt out by not using the services provided, and then those FREE MARKET forces kick in to react.

I can't see how you wouldn't find that a win/win. I do. I certainly don't like my tax dollars going to sustain business practices of companies I don't personally wish to be a patron of. And best of all, if the system falls apart, you can scream from the rooftops "I TOLD YOU SO!"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626615.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626615.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
You do realize that increasing social mobility for the poor helps the economy even more right?

Your assumption is false.
Mobility is increased via providing the means for that mobility, not providing motivation to remain in your current position.


And how you increase social mobility for the poor is by giving them more resources and time to improve themselves with.


What resources do you propose that aren't already provided for them via the very free American education system?


I have no idea at least in terms of specifics as it would vary from area to area and the level of expertise but the resources required for 1 university course would probably be something like transportation to get to the class, money for the course, money for a textbook, pencils/pens, paper,

space to study, etc. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626622.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626622.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
You do realize that increasing social mobility for the poor helps the economy even more right?

Your assumption is false.
Mobility is increased via providing the means for that mobility, not providing motivation to remain in your current position.


And how you increase social mobility for the poor is by giving them more resources and time to improve themselves with.

Its like you repeated exactly what I just said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
Gawd damnit. I'm sorry thread, I mentioned the W word, and now everything is fubared.

Apparently it's only inappropriate to question the remuneration of the top end of society, which I forgot.

If I say I'm really sorry, will the thread go back to discussing education?


Que?

But to the topic. How about tasers. For every B you get a zap. For every C two zaps, etc. Lets get some motivation into those youngins!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 daedalus wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Well, if empathy isn't enough for you (here I was thinkin' you were a christian, Fraz), then social stability should be enough of a reason.


Plus, if everyone who had a job had a wage they could live off of, we could finally get rid of those damned socialist handout schemes.

That by its nature is a damned socialist handout scheme.


But that's the beauty of it all. The current method has it coming out of your taxes. You're paying for them right now. If the services provided by those working these jobs under the 'living wage' method isn't anything you patronize, you personally SAVE money.

If you're not in favor of the system, you can opt out by not using the services provided, and then those FREE MARKET forces kick in to react.

I can't see how you wouldn't find that a win/win. I do. I certainly don't like my tax dollars going to sustain business practices of companies I don't personally wish to be a patron of. And best of all, if the system falls apart, you can scream from the rooftops "I TOLD YOU SO!"


Minimum wage drives lower salary jobs and union jobs as a minmum scale multiplier. Thats why the unions are pushing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
You do realize that increasing social mobility for the poor helps the economy even more right?

Your assumption is false.
Mobility is increased via providing the means for that mobility, not providing motivation to remain in your current position.


And how you increase social mobility for the poor is by giving them more resources and time to improve themselves with.


What resources do you propose that aren't already provided for them via the very free American education system?


I have no idea at least in terms of specifics as it would vary from area to area and the level of expertise but the resources required for 1 university course would probably be something like transportation to get to the class, money for the course, money for a textbook, pencils/pens, paper,

space to study, etc.

University - you mean higher education correct?
We have that now. We have that so much there's a glut. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626628.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626628.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:


I have no idea at least in terms of specifics as it would vary from area to area and the level of expertise but the resources required for 1 university course would probably be something like transportation to get to the class, money for the course, money for a textbook, pencils/pens, paper,

space to study, etc.


That seems predicated on the notion that everyone is entitled to be able to go to college. I disagree with that. If my reading was wrong, I apologize.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626656.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626656.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
You do realize that increasing social mobility for the poor helps the economy even more right?

Your assumption is false.
Mobility is increased via providing the means for that mobility, not providing motivation to remain in your current position.


And how you increase social mobility for the poor is by giving them more resources and time to improve themselves with.

Its like you repeated exactly what I just said.


I thought you said you didn't care about giving more resources and time to the poor.

 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Aye. Which is why a minimum wage should be a liveable wage, because some people aren't really capable of acquiring the skills needed to progress beyond that.


Why?


They lack the resources and time to improve themselves.


Then why should we care?


So they aren't out on the streets and so they don't starve and die.

So? Its their duty to improve their skills and capacity, not ours.


Well, if they lack the resources and time to do it then what you're say saying is impossible.


Then how is that my problem?


Oh, it looks like I maybe right.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cincydooley wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:


I have no idea at least in terms of specifics as it would vary from area to area and the level of expertise but the resources required for 1 university course would probably be something like transportation to get to the class, money for the course, money for a textbook, pencils/pens, paper,

space to study, etc.


That seems predicated on the notion that everyone is entitled to be able to go to college. I disagree with that. If my reading was wrong, I apologize.


I was just thinking of an example of self-improvement that's the first thing that popped into my head I guess you could substitute it with something else like trades.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626659.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626659.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
You do realize that increasing social mobility for the poor helps the economy even more right?

Your assumption is false.
Mobility is increased via providing the means for that mobility, not providing motivation to remain in your current position.


And how you increase social mobility for the poor is by giving them more resources and time to improve themselves with.

Its like you repeated exactly what I just said.


I thought you said you didn't care about giving more resources and time to the poor.
Your argument was for social mobility. A living wage does nothing for that. You're conflating different issues.



Oh, it looks like I maybe right.


I'm only asking why? No one asks why any more, adnd then people get flustered because they aren't used to having to defend opposing positions. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626669.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626669.page GMT Education... here we go again
We have FREE vocational schools that run concurrent with our FREE public education system; they're simply stigmatized because the gov't is selling the "everyone should go to a university" lie.

I second guess going all the time. Had I not gone to school, I'd probably be making around the same money I am now at FedEx in their management system without the crippling debt.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626682.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626682.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626690.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626690.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626691.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626691.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
To me it all starts with the attitude in the US that everyone should go to college. They shouldn't.

We have FREE vocational schools that run concurrent with our FREE public education system; they're simply stigmatized because the gov't is selling the "everyone should go to a university" lie.

I second guess going all the time. Had I not gone to school, I'd probably be making around the same money I am now at FedEx in their management system without the crippling debt.


I read an article about the whole 'Everyone needs to go to college' thing and while it was a bit 'tinfoil hat' territory, it had some good points.

In the 70s, College was cheap and even free in some places. College-aged people (18-25) had ultimate freedom. They were able to 'question the establishment', protest, learn new stuff, and it was ok to go years before figuring it out.

Today, we have 18-year olds rushed into 20k+ a year in college loans, and are saddled with so much debt, they *IMMEDIATLY* have to begin working to an extreme during and after school.

What better way for the 'older' generation to keep cultural revolutions from happening, squash protesting and quell any form of resistance to the status quo then basically enslave the next generation in crippling debt before they even become full adults? Is it intentional? I dunno, I am starting to think it is. I am very close to recommending that people not go to college and rack up any debt in any way. You can work and take 300$ a credit community college, you can work at companies with tuition reimbursement.

I think we have seen a drastic decrease in student protests and people questioning and standing up against 'bad things' simply because if they take any time to do so they will bankrupt themselves and be destitute for a decade or more if they are not working and funneling all their money to college debts.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626760.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626760.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

PLus, again - define "living wage" One can survie on Top Ramen quite well.


That a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, shelter, transport, health care, minimal recreation and childcare.


So someone working at McDonalds running a register that has no numbers or words, just pretty pictures should get paid enough to have a car, a house, a steak, childcare and a free movie budget. Thats more than most people in the world.

Why?
Why should I pay for this loser's kid's?
Why should I now have to pay for his car?
Dear God why do I have to pay for his recreation now too?

Why?
Why?
Why?


I'm wondering how on earth your wallet is big enough to pay everyones' minimum wage? Are you the leader of this overarching secret society that runs the world i keep hearing wackos talk about? I'm thinking you confused minimum wage and social programs frazz. If not I'd like a a pay rise please oh master of the economy.

Remember frazzled, you need someone to clean the slime off the underside of your bridge sometimes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626764.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626764.page GMT Education... here we go again
I'm wondering how on earth your wallet is big enough to pay everyones' minimum wage?

Its fat because I'm, Phat Dawg.


Are you the leader of this overarching secret society that runs the world i keep hearing wackos talk about?

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to throw you into the Great Wienie's food bowl.

I'm thinking you confused minimum wage and social programs frazz.

Others used that as an argument, not me. Go bug them. I'm too Phat to hang with your illin yo.


If not I'd like a a pay rise please oh master of the economy.

Daddy need a new pair of everything!


Remember frazzled, you need someone to clean the slime off the underside of your bridge sometimes.

Thats true. Under my plan I can get that done more cheaply. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626786.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626786.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:


1.Its fat because I'm, Phat Dawg.


2.I'd tell you, but then I'd have to throw you into the Great Wienie's food bowl.


3.Others used that as an argument, not me. Go bug them. I'm too Phat to hang with your illin yo.



4.Daddy need a new pair of everything!


5.Thats true. Under my plan I can get that done more cheaply.


I have no idea how to multiquote as i haven't been in an extended multiquote dakka argument yet (on purpose - tip : don't argue with Sebster or Seaward), however I can totally get behind multiquote sense-making statements.

1. If you're fat you better make sure you have insurance otherwise in 10 years after that heart attack from eating 'soul food' (i still think the only place that has true 'soul food' is Korea) you will be the one collecting disability with yo dawgs.

2. Frazzs' solution to poverty : feed em to the dogs, makes sense, I always wondered where that weird brownish red colour in kibble came from.

3. illin? I am glad that you are a proud product of the US edukasion system and not some poorly educated loser. Also saying that just made you sound hell cool.

4.Daddy certainly needs a new set of empathy, maybe you'll get a some more after a heart transplant ( see point 1)

5. How frazzled? It seems this morning your bridge has a fairly large span I am surprised no one has bitten yet.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626858.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626858.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
Well, the US does need to SERIOUSLY revamp its vocational system. There's no reason it couldn't be made the best in the world.


It's a bit surprising that private enterprise and good old American know how, can-do and get up and go haven't already caused the rich to set up schools and the poor to attend them and made the US system the best in the world.

Probably the fault of Socialism. Look at Norway for the dismal state it will get a country in to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cincydooley wrote:
 daedalus wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Well, if empathy isn't enough for you (here I was thinkin' you were a christian, Fraz), then social stability should be enough of a reason.


Plus, if everyone who had a job had a wage they could live off of, we could finally get rid of those damned socialist handout schemes.


The question from this line of commentary inevitably becomes "what should this notion of a 'living wage' provide you to live with?"


Fortunately that has already been worked out by reference to standardised "baskets" of consumer goods and services, so you can refer to those.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626862.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626862.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Kilkrazy wrote:


It's a bit surprising that private enterprise and good old American know how, can-do and get up and go haven't already caused the rich to set up schools and the poor to attend them and made the US system the best in the world.

Probably the fault of Socialism. Look at Norway for the dismal state it will get a country in to.


Socialism in Scandinavian countries is evil and their standard of living, taxes and social programs are evil and tearing the social fabric of their country apart. I demand the US intervene militarily and get rid of these socially atrocious countries. Damn commies and stable societies...what are they thinking?????]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626873.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626873.page GMT Education... here we go again
nkelsch wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
To me it all starts with the attitude in the US that everyone should go to college. They shouldn't.

We have FREE vocational schools that run concurrent with our FREE public education system; they're simply stigmatized because the gov't is selling the "everyone should go to a university" lie.

I second guess going all the time. Had I not gone to school, I'd probably be making around the same money I am now at FedEx in their management system without the crippling debt.


I read an article about the whole 'Everyone needs to go to college' thing and while it was a bit 'tinfoil hat' territory, it had some good points.

In the 70s, College was cheap and even free in some places. College-aged people (18-25) had ultimate freedom. They were able to 'question the establishment', protest, learn new stuff, and it was ok to go years before figuring it out.

Today, we have 18-year olds rushed into 20k+ a year in college loans, and are saddled with so much debt, they *IMMEDIATLY* have to begin working to an extreme during and after school.

What better way for the 'older' generation to keep cultural revolutions from happening, squash protesting and quell any form of resistance to the status quo then basically enslave the next generation in crippling debt before they even become full adults? Is it intentional? I dunno, I am starting to think it is. I am very close to recommending that people not go to college and rack up any debt in any way. You can work and take 300$ a credit community college, you can work at companies with tuition reimbursement.

I think we have seen a drastic decrease in student protests and people questioning and standing up against 'bad things' simply because if they take any time to do so they will bankrupt themselves and be destitute for a decade or more if they are not working and funneling all their money to college debts.


Im not sure, I dont think debt is a reason. I know ALOT of people wh dont have debt, but dont protest. I think our generation is less active then our previous. We have seen what protests do, a whole lotta nothing. And the fact that college is no longer seen as just education, but partying an time to experiment with other girls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cincydooley wrote:
To me it all starts with the attitude in the US that everyone should go to college. They shouldn't.

We have FREE vocational schools that run concurrent with our FREE public education system; they're simply stigmatized because the gov't is selling the "everyone should go to a university" lie.

I second guess going all the time. Had I not gone to school, I'd probably be making around the same money I am now at FedEx in their management system without the crippling debt.

Cincy, I ask this, you seem to have a severe dislike of Colleges and Universities and anyone who goes for what you see as a "useless" degree. Why? Why do you dislike them so much? Just earlier in this thread, you said I have no hope of finding a job with a sociology degree, despite it being a great catch all degree. Whenever education is brought up, you Build up vocational school, and tear down colleges. Why?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626889.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626889.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Cincy, I ask this, you seem to have a severe dislike of Colleges and Universities and anyone who goes for what you see as a "useless" degree. Why? Why do you dislike them so much?


Without belaboring the point too much, you answered one of your questions there: "useless" degrees are "useless." I have a former student that was considering dropping out of her education program (not a useless degree, but a hard one to get into right now in most of the US due to the glut of unemployed teachers) to get into art history so she could be a museum curator. It's a simple matter of numbers. For as few art teaching jobs there are where we live, there are even fewer jobs in art history as a museum curator. In my opinion, it's incredibly foolish in this day and age to waste your money on a university education for a degree that doesn't have a job market. I'd go so far with that to say that people that want to pursue those 'fluff' degrees shouldn't be as eligible for federal loans as someone that is pursuing a degree in engineering or medicine. But that will never happen because there's literally no risk associated with giving out student loans from a lending institution's perspective, as they're guaranteed by the gov't.

Just earlier in this thread, you said I have no hope of finding a job with a sociology degree, despite it being a great catch all degree.


No I didn't. I said you had a better job finding a job as a plumber. I'll stick with that.

Whenever education is brought up, you Build up vocational school, and tear down colleges. Why?


I don't tear down colleges; I tear down the number of people being sold on the lie that they should go to college, especially when we have so many skilled labor jobs in the United States that aren't presently being filled. There are a LOT of people going to college now, getting junk degrees, that would be better served taking an apprenticeship or learning a trade.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626969.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6626969.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Cincy, I ask this, you seem to have a severe dislike of Colleges and Universities and anyone who goes for what you see as a "useless" degree. Why? Why do you dislike them so much?


Without belaboring the point too much, you answered one of your questions there: "useless" degrees are "useless." I have a former student that was considering dropping out of her education program (not a useless degree, but a hard one to get into right now in most of the US due to the glut of unemployed teachers) to get into art history so she could be a museum curator. It's a simple matter of numbers. For as few art teaching jobs there are where we live, there are even fewer jobs in art history as a museum curator. In my opinion, it's incredibly foolish in this day and age to waste your money on a university education for a degree that doesn't have a job market. I'd go so far with that to say that people that want to pursue those 'fluff' degrees shouldn't be as eligible for federal loans as someone that is pursuing a degree in engineering or medicine. But that will never happen because there's literally no risk associated with giving out student loans from a lending institution's perspective, as they're guaranteed by the gov't.

What do you consider a Fluff degree? I know some people would consider my friends degree in graphic design as "fluff" is it that is isnt as important as engineering or medicine? But it is what he wants to do with his life. but because he has no money he cant with your system.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627004.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627004.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:

What do you consider a Fluff degree? I know some people would consider my friends degree in graphic design as "fluff" is it that is isnt as important as engineering or medicine? But it is what he wants to do with his life. but because he has no money he cant with your system.


Sociology, Philosophy, Literature, Art History, (sadly now) Journalism, etc.

I think its incredibly irresponsible to take out loans for degrees like this that have very low job prospects. If student loans weren't guaranteed, and student loans were given out by banks on a risk-based model like, you know, any other loan, people pursuing degrees in areas like this would be denied loans.

Now, if you want to spend your own money on it, you're entirely free to do so. I mean, I waste tons of money on tiny plastic mens and womens. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627041.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627041.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627051.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627051.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Frazzled wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

PLus, again - define "living wage" One can survie on Top Ramen quite well.


That a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, shelter, transport, health care, minimal recreation and childcare.


So someone working at McDonalds running a register that has no numbers or words, just pretty pictures should get paid enough to have a car, a house, a steak, childcare and a free movie budget. Thats more than most people in the world.

Why?
Why should I pay for this loser's kid's?
Why should I now have to pay for his car?
Dear God why do I have to pay for his recreation now too?

Why?
Why?
Why?


Because wealth creates wealth, and a decent minimum wage keeps the money flowing. When he buys that car you mentioned, he supports the automotive industry. When he buys popcorn, the government takes a cut of the profit pie in sales tax. When he gets his mortgage, the banks get to milk him for regular payments for the rest of his life.

That's not to say that there isn't a natural point of diminishing returns for this, when those being supported by society end up draining more wealth than they generate, but generally? A penny apiece from the masses doth far exceed a pound apiece from the few. Keeping the money circulating through as many hands as possible is the most certain way to generate wealth and a healthy, stable society.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627160.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627160.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Ketara wrote:
A penny apiece from the masses doth far exceed a pound apiece from the few. Keeping the money circulating through as many hands as possible is the most certain way to generate wealth and a healthy, stable society.


I mean, that's a nice thought and all, you know, were it even remotely the case in the US.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627192.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627192.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
A penny apiece from the masses doth far exceed a pound apiece from the few. Keeping the money circulating through as many hands as possible is the most certain way to generate wealth and a healthy, stable society.


I mean, that's a nice thought and all, you know, were it even remotely the case in the US.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757


That's a wonderfully misleading summary of a survey that does nothing to contradict my point.

The top 40% might pay the most federal income tax as a group, but there are other taxes and wealth generated by the other 60%, from excise taxes, to local and state taxes.

Wealth begets wealth. It does that best when in circulation. Otherwise the best way of generating wealth would be to give all the money in the world to about five people. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627213.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627213.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Ketara wrote:


Wealth begets wealth. It does that best when in circulation. Otherwise the best way of generating wealth would be to give all the money in the world to about five people.


Sooo Russia? What is it ~200 people control 40% of the countries wealth?

Edit: http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-billionaire-wealth-inequality/25132471.html

Always funny that the commies became more capitalist than us to me.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627297.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627297.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
A penny apiece from the masses doth far exceed a pound apiece from the few. Keeping the money circulating through as many hands as possible is the most certain way to generate wealth and a healthy, stable society.


I mean, that's a nice thought and all, you know, were it even remotely the case in the US.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757


The funny thing is that Ketara can be correct without your apology for the elite being incorrect.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627315.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627315.page GMT Education... here we go again
DutchWinsAll wrote:
 Ketara wrote:


Wealth begets wealth. It does that best when in circulation. Otherwise the best way of generating wealth would be to give all the money in the world to about five people.


Sooo Russia? What is it ~200 people control 40% of the countries wealth?

Edit: http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-billionaire-wealth-inequality/25132471.html

Always funny that the commies became more capitalist than us to me.


And the funny thing about that is that despite having double the population of the UK and infinitely more in the way of natural resources, the UK still has a higher GDP than they do. Same again with France. There's a reason that the poorest countries in Africa and Asia tend to have a small clique of billionaires sitting at the top, and everyone else grubbing around making peanuts. It's because whilst those few guys count moolah hidden away in their swiss bank accounts, their money isn't moving. It's not helping to start new business, it's not being invested in infrastructure, it's not fueling consumer spending on goods, and because nobody is buying those goods, nobody is getting paid to make them.

The trick in creating wealth isn't giving poor people a bigger slice of the pie. The trick to making a wealthy country is to enlarge the pie. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627317.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627317.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Kilkrazy wrote:
The countries that are particularly good at maths are the ones that do a lot of rote learning and multiple choice testing. (Japan, Korea.) Maybe this is the secret to basic maths education.


It's the secret to making people who are good at rote learning. It's absolutely fething useless for making people who can figure out unusual problems for themselves.

They used to stick us with random classmates at uni for group assignments, and I absolutely dreaded getting any of the Asian international students in my group - they had absolutely no idea how to begin to approach an open ended question. I remember one assignment I was with two international students, we were doing a case study on a business, we read through the case study and all started working doing some prep work, each of us writing down what we needed to do. At least, I was writing down what we needed (cashflow adjusted for time value, industry risks etc), and when I looked up they were both just re-reading the question, and then looking through the textbook to see if they could find something that told them in exact, literal terms what they needed.

Not all kids coming out of Asian schooling systems are that bad (nor are all Asian schools purely rote learning), but there's a strong tendency, and it's one we should do our absolute best to avoid.

However while Shanghai got the top score, I bet Westminster School could get the best score in the UK if tested separately. The rest of China probably gets a much lower score.


That's exactly it. The phrase often used is Potemkin Village - the whole process exists just to convince everyone else that things are working much better than they really are. The Chinese report the results of only the most exceptional students (anyone less than exceptional is not allowed to take the test).

Seriously, rote learning is a terrible approach to education. It really can't be said often enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Steve steveson wrote:
It sounds like what you are suggesting is a single way of teaching and leaving everyone who falls outside that. Many are left behind by that, including those with SPLDs and other disabilities. Not that long ago people with things like dyslexia were just labeled stupid and lazy, but the old fashioned systems.


Yep. And the funny thing is, that's how schools used to teach - one method only, and kids that found that method didn't work for them got left out. One of the big reasons we began to move away from that was it put a cap on the number of kids with acceptable reading and writing levels - you hit say 90%, and if you wanted to reach 91%, 92% etc you had to find effective ways to teach that last 10%.

Whereas in other countries they just dropped that 10% of the system, and hey presto.

Kind of. The countries with rote learning tend to produce very high results at primary and secondary levels, but then leave people completely stuck when they need to use those skills in higher higher education or in real life. They are left with little understanding of the concepts and little flexibility. Korea is starting to find big problems with this, and anyone who has had to deal with outsourced programing to India or China will tell you the problems with lack of creative thinking.


Yep, what friends who've taught in Korea have told me about their system... well it lines up very well with my experiences at uni working with kids who came out of that system.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627372.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627372.page GMT Education... here we go again
 daedalus wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
A penny apiece from the masses doth far exceed a pound apiece from the few. Keeping the money circulating through as many hands as possible is the most certain way to generate wealth and a healthy, stable society.


I mean, that's a nice thought and all, you know, were it even remotely the case in the US.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757


The funny thing is that Ketara can be correct without your apology for the elite being incorrect.


40% of the population is elite?

Wowie zowie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, my real point, which I didn't make clearly, was that getting a penny a piece from every person in the US is, at least at this point, pretty unrealistic.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627388.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627388.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the stigma with trade schools and skilled labor jobs is killing this country in a ton of ways.

Everyone SHOULDN'T be going to a university. But in the US, everyone is a special snowflake that can do anything.


Absolutely agreed. There was this idea that in order to maintain high wages and remain competitive in the modern, international economy, then society had to give everyone high education... well it only works when there's a limitless demand for employees with high education.

The end result of this can be seen in the relative decline in pay for jobs requiring graduate level education.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Wolfstan wrote:
So what happens if you crack the education question and have 70% + of your school leavers moving on to Uni and leaving with degrees? I'm pretty certain that the job market place is pyramid shaped, with there being more lower paid jobs than high paid jobs. Who takes up those jobs? Is the reality that society can't afford too large an educated workforce?


Good education doesn't mean everyone ending up with degrees in physics and other high end stuff. It means everyone leaving with the basic fundamental (numeracy & literacy), an ability to think about the world, and a vocational skill.

One of the issues in modern education is that we've turned our institutions of higher learning in to vocational schools focussed on white collar careers, and left our trade schools teaching blue collar jobs... without every really thinking about how they work and if we should remove some of the other assumptions. Why is it that kids who take business or engineering at uni are expected to also take units in humanities and other higher learning, but a kid who does an electrical trade at vocational school is never given any liberal arts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cincydooley wrote:
Yes. Colleges never have an impact on how people vote


People often complain about colleges indoctrinating students... but repeated studies have found that people with a graduate education are more likely to vote right wing. So if the colleges are attempting indoctrination, they're not doing a very good job of it ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627406.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627406.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:


40% of the population is elite?

Wowie zowie.


Strictly speaking, they're above average.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627441.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627441.page GMT Education... here we go again
 sebster wrote:

People often complain about colleges indoctrinating students... but repeated studies have found that people with a graduate education are more likely to vote right wing. So if the colleges are attempting indoctrination, they're not doing a very good job of it


Like, graduate meaning after your initial BA/BS?

If that's the case, I have to admit it doesn't surprise me THAT much.

There's something that entering the workforce does to move many young folks from an unequivocal left vote to being more moderate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 daedalus wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:


40% of the population is elite?

Wowie zowie.


Strictly speaking, they're above average.


I mean, the median income in the US is floating around $50k, right?

You know the thing that blows my mind the most? That our median individual income sits around $50k, yet the average household income for a family in the US maxes out at like, $70k.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627443.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627443.page GMT Education... here we go again
 sebster wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
The countries that are particularly good at maths are the ones that do a lot of rote learning and multiple choice testing. (Japan, Korea.) Maybe this is the secret to basic maths education.


It's the secret to making people who are good at rote learning. It's absolutely fething useless for making people who can figure out unusual problems for themselves.

They used to stick us with random classmates at uni for group assignments, and I absolutely dreaded getting any of the Asian international students in my group - they had absolutely no idea how to begin to approach an open ended question. I remember one assignment I was with two international students, we were doing a case study on a business, we read through the case study and all started working doing some prep work, each of us writing down what we needed to do. At least, I was writing down what we needed (cashflow adjusted for time value, industry risks etc), and when I looked up they were both just re-reading the question, and then looking through the textbook to see if they could find something that told them in exact, literal terms what they needed.

That has been my experience as well. In my previous sociology class in which we where to design an entire experiment, the two girls from china where lost during half of it. No idea on how to approach a question. And when they went into the tests which asked you what proper experiments or research design for what you want to study, they where lost, not knowing the answer, despite being highly intelligent when I talked to them.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627486.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627486.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:
Like, graduate meaning after your initial BA/BS?


Yeah, people who leave with a bachelors.

If that's the case, I have to admit it doesn't surprise me THAT much.

There's something that entering the workforce does to move many young folks from an unequivocal left vote to being more moderate.


It isn't about being in the workforce - people without degrees still do get jobs, just not as many as graduates. It basically tracks with income - it isn't fashionable to say it but people who earn more are more likely to vote right wing... people who earn less are more likely to vote left wing. Lots of people have tried to conclude all sorts of nonsense from that, but the reality is that everyone is basically voting for self interest and then inventing a rationalisation for it afterwards.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627494.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627494.page GMT Education... here we go again
 cincydooley wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 daedalus wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:


40% of the population is elite?

Wowie zowie.


Strictly speaking, they're above average.


I mean, the median income in the US is floating around $50k, right?

You know the thing that blows my mind the most? That our median individual income sits around $50k, yet the average household income for a family in the US maxes out at like, $70k.


What exactly is mind-blowing about it? We'd expect the Median to be lower than the Average in this particular case.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627497.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627497.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 daedalus wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:


40% of the population is elite?

Wowie zowie.


Strictly speaking, they're above average.


I mean, the median income in the US is floating around $50k, right?

You know the thing that blows my mind the most? That our median individual income sits around $50k, yet the average household income for a family in the US maxes out at like, $70k.


What exactly is mind-blowing about it? We'd expect the Median to be lower than the Average in this particular case.


It depends if the skewness is positive, negative or symmetrical.



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627518.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627518.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627538.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627538.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627567.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627567.page GMT Education... here we go again
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That has been my experience as well. In my previous sociology class in which we where to design an entire experiment, the two girls from china where lost during half of it. No idea on how to approach a question. And when they went into the tests which asked you what proper experiments or research design for what you want to study, they where lost, not knowing the answer, despite being highly intelligent when I talked to them.


Yeah, definitely. They're not stupid (they're doing well in tests in their second language, so they're certainly smart), but when it comes to identifying a problem and figuring out an approach, it's something they've just never seen before in their coursework. And that is exactly what you need in the work environment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cincydooley wrote:
I'm surprised the household Average is so low considering the individual median is rather comfortable.


Average income is only among people with jobs, while household is among all households, even when no-one in the house is employed. Think not just about unemployed people, but also elderly people living off savings or a pension. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627640.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6627640.page GMT Education... here we go again
 sebster wrote:

Average income is only among people with jobs, while household is among all households, even when no-one in the house is employed. Think not just about unemployed people, but also elderly people living off savings or a pension.


Okay, that makes more sense then. Didn't consider that.

I think my opinion is colored because whenever I think of household income, I almost always think of mulitple incomes because thats the majority of my experience.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6628491.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6628491.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
Would ongoing "life" training be a better approach in some way? Would a 18 year old who has keen interest in History, but has no real qualification in it, be just as suitable for a job that requires an A level pass, as the 18 year old who has the qualification?

I'm useless at exams and didn't like having to learn about the Industrial Revolution, but as I got older my history interest continued to expand and in fact took on board some of the old "boring" stuff . I would of jumped at the chance of a job which took that interest and allowed me to develop it. Do exams really provide a true representation of persons "intelligence", or should they just be looked at as just another tool?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654469.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654469.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
It's easy to hate the poor if they are uneducated and socially broken. Our level of contempt for them doesn't elevate us to a level nearly comparable with how far the super rich are "above" ourselves.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654501.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654501.page GMT Education... here we go again
To touch on the previous query, the nature of "intelligence" is not properly defined, so it is impossible to say if exams measure it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654528.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654528.page GMT Education... here we go again
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Eat the rich.


Nibble them voraciously. It's the least the deserve.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654541.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654541.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Wolfstan wrote:
Something to throw into the mix based on a chat I had today with a mate. Now I don't know if it would work better alongside current thinking or be the trigger for a fundamental change in thinking.

Would ongoing "life" training be a better approach in some way? Would a 18 year old who has keen interest in History, but has no real qualification in it, be just as suitable for a job that requires an A level pass, as the 18 year old who has the qualification?

I'm useless at exams and didn't like having to learn about the Industrial Revolution, but as I got older my history interest continued to expand and in fact took on board some of the old "boring" stuff . I would of jumped at the chance of a job which took that interest and allowed me to develop it. Do exams really provide a true representation of persons "intelligence", or should they just be looked at as just another tool?


I wouldn't consider exams to be a total measure of intelligence like maybe it's a way to measure a certain type of intelligence but I think there's more than one way to be intelligent like the guy repairing your car maybe a gakky speller but he's brilliant when it comes to cars or a highly

respected astrophysicist may have no ability at explaining what makes a film good or bad. Our society tends to favour someone being special in a few things then being mediocre (or worse) with everything else probably because there's so much information sitting out there that there's not

enough time to master a large range of fields.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654554.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654554.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Medium of Death wrote:
I find it quite amazing that people attack the concept of a living wage, yet there are people with everything sitting at the top of our society that get tax breaks or simply avoid tax altogether. That's the dream though, people standing on each other to get to the top. Sitting in the gutter dreaming that one day you'll be as good as the people that spit on you.

It's easy to hate the poor if they are uneducated and socially broken. Our level of contempt for them doesn't elevate us to a level nearly comparable with how far the super rich are "above" ourselves.


Frankly, the concept of a living wage is very silly on its face.

The idea that you should pay someone a, economically unsustainable, high amount for even a job that requires zero actual skills simply because they have a pulse is just plain weird. You are suggesting you pay someone way beyond what their position is worth and what economic value they generate.

If you personally aren't making enough money to pay your bills working at a particular job, either cut down your expenses or find another job that does pay the bills.

If you can't get a better job because you don't have marketable skills, go to school to get them. its not your employers job to make sure you can pay your bills. He is purchasing your labor in exchange for a mutually agreed upon rate, if you don't like the rate look for a better one. If you are valuable enough to your employer he might pay you more for your labor, but if you aren't valuable enough(IE: easily replaceable) then he'll just take the next warm body who'll accept the job.

If you have no skills, that is on you. Get marketable skills or accept the fact that you'll get paid in relation to what your worth is to your employer. Make yourself valuable!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654731.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654731.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
I find it quite amazing that people attack the concept of a living wage, yet there are people with everything sitting at the top of our society that get tax breaks or simply avoid tax altogether. That's the dream though, people standing on each other to get to the top. Sitting in the gutter dreaming that one day you'll be as good as the people that spit on you.

It's easy to hate the poor if they are uneducated and socially broken. Our level of contempt for them doesn't elevate us to a level nearly comparable with how far the super rich are "above" ourselves.


Frankly, the concept of a living wage is very silly on its face.

The idea that you should pay someone a, economically unsustainable, high amount for even a job that requires zero actual skills simply because they have a pulse is just plain weird. You are suggesting you pay someone way beyond what their position is worth and what economic value they generate.

If you personally aren't making enough money to pay your bills working at a particular job, either cut down your expenses or find another job that does pay the bills.

If you can't get a better job because you don't have marketable skills, go to school to get them. its not your employers job to make sure you can pay your bills. He is purchasing your labor in exchange for a mutually agreed upon rate, if you don't like the rate look for a better one. If you are valuable enough to your employer he might pay you more for your labor, but if you aren't valuable enough(IE: easily replaceable) then he'll just take the next warm body who'll accept the job.


How do you define what a position is worth? How does management earning grotesque amounts of money equate into this?

It's fine to define the worth of the poor, but not somebody at the top?
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654742.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654742.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
If they were worth less they would be paid less, usually resolved by either firing an incompetent manager or the company going under, meaning that nice paycheck stops coming.

This is really business 101 here.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654756.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654756.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere near a halfway house to agree. I just find it odd that you're ok with people getting paid obscene amounts and have the workers live in squalor because of "the markets".]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654767.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654767.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
Besides, the majority of jobs are above minimum wage. Only 4.7% of hourly paid jobs actually pay minimum wage. So you are talking about a small segment of actual jobs. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654786.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654786.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
You do know that a "minimum wage" and a "living wage" are different things, right? Your data is minimum wage and below. It doesn't really tell me anything about the wages above the federal minimum wage or how that would relate to living costs on a state by state basis.

EDIT

It probably wouldn't even be as broad as a state by state basis. Here in the UK, the living wage is dependent on a city by city basis. London having a higher living wage than the rest of the UK.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654800.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654800.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
And they are not directly related, because if a company took the money away from executive pay they'd redistribute it among all expenses the company did. They'd spread it among company expansion, towards company debt, buying back stock, as well as maybe a salary raise. The increase in salary for those at the bottom would be minimal.


And even if you directly funneled it to increasing wages at the bottom, it still would be a very small increase.

Lets say you have a small company that employs 1 CEO, 5 managers, and 2000 grunts.

The CEO is paid 1 million a year, the managers each make 50k, and the grunts each get paid $7 an hour(14.5k a year)

the CEO takes a 50% paycut. And that 500k is split evenly across all the other employees. They each, including the managers, get another $250 a year. It works out to another $0.11 an hour for the grunts. An extra 88 cents a day.

Not a very big difference, even though the CEO was making almost 69 times what the grunts were and took a very very large paycut.


A simplistic example, but you can see that it really wouldn't make much of a difference in what the little people get paid if the CEOs took massive paycuts and it all got redistributed to the other workers.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654838.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654838.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654880.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654880.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654976.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654976.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:
Because rich people are the EVILZ!!!
Good. Shall we now start revolution?
Wait... no! we shouldn't! March is not a good month for revolutions! Nobody will ever talk about the glorious March Revolution. March Revolution doesn't sound right. We will have to wait until May. May is a very good month for revolutions.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654995.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6654995.page GMT Education... here we go again
Wednesday was my last day as an Ethics teacher where I worked. On Tuesday, I expelled a 16 year old kid from my classroom because he was being verbally abusive and told me repeatedly where I could shove my "project" Hint: it wasn't in the recycle bin.

His psych worker tried to convince me that he was at heart a good kid that had fallen in with bad people (said bad people are performing well in my class, understand the work to be done and show progress on a weekly basis) and that we should let him go through his drug phase before we judge him too harshly. Then at the end of the day the assistant principal asked me to come into her office and told me it was her duty to inform me that since the reasons I had expelled him were serious enough, he was suspended (for 2 days) from school, and he, when informed of this mild slap on the hand, flew off the handle and wanted to know which car was mine.

Aside from the fact that I find his technique laughable, I informed the principal that in my book, that amounted to threats. She asked me not to lay charges, as it would "ruin what is essentially a good boy." I told her to look for another Ethics teacher, as I was not signing the contract anymore, effective immediately (there is a grace period of 2 weeks before you sign) and nothing would make me sub in those classes anymore.

I'm just.... gahhhh.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6655102.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6655102.page GMT Education... here we go again
Another common one is "Oh, but when you get him on his own he's alright!"
Nah. You get zero credit from me for being nice one on one, because there is no BENEFIT to being an arse then. I give credit only for being nice in front of your peers, where the social benefit is the other way. Anything else is just trying to gain the most social benefit out of any situation, it doesn't make you a nice kid. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6655960.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6655960.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
I find it quite amazing that people attack the concept of a living wage, yet there are people with everything sitting at the top of our society that get tax breaks or simply avoid tax altogether. That's the dream though, people standing on each other to get to the top. Sitting in the gutter dreaming that one day you'll be as good as the people that spit on you.

It's easy to hate the poor if they are uneducated and socially broken. Our level of contempt for them doesn't elevate us to a level nearly comparable with how far the super rich are "above" ourselves.


Frankly, the concept of a living wage is very silly on its face.



Not it's not, you're just looking at it from a market perspective. If the objective is to increase the living standard of those who are paid the least for their work, it makes complete sense.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656198.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656198.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
I find it quite amazing that people attack the concept of a living wage, yet there are people with everything sitting at the top of our society that get tax breaks or simply avoid tax altogether. That's the dream though, people standing on each other to get to the top. Sitting in the gutter dreaming that one day you'll be as good as the people that spit on you.

It's easy to hate the poor if they are uneducated and socially broken. Our level of contempt for them doesn't elevate us to a level nearly comparable with how far the super rich are "above" ourselves.


Frankly, the concept of a living wage is very silly on its face.



Not it's not, you're just looking at it from a market perspective. If the objective is to increase the living standard of those who are paid the least for their work, it makes complete sense.


But why should people get paid more than what their job is worth?

If your job is flipping burgers at Micky Ds, you should only get paid what flipping burgers at Micky Ds is worth. Which is basically jack squat, because anybody can do it.

Why should being a burger flipper or Walmart checkout clerk pay enough to support you living in an apartment with cable, nice cell phone, internet, and a car? You get those things by actually doing a job that is worthwhile to society, not one a middle schooler could, and probably should, be doing.

All these low wage jobs are jobs that high school and middle school students could, and sometimes do, do part time. Why should the same job also allow an adult to live comfortably, possibly with a family of their own.

Expecting a job at the bottom dredges of employment to cover all the basic needs is silly. If you don't like the pay, find a better job one way or another. Its not societies responsibility to make sure all your basic needs are covered.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656245.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656245.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656318.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656318.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
You must work for what your worth is. Its not just that working alone justifies you getting to eat, its that your work must justify your compensation.

I suspect you are trying to tie charity into this and the command to help those who are in need. That's not a command to the government(which is what a mandated living wage would do) or to a company, its a command to individual people.

If someone is having trouble right now, that is what welfare and various private charities are for. It is my opinion that the government has no business in charity work, but that is a different argument.

Requiring overinflated paychecks is morally reprehensible because it would encourage lazyness. Why would someone better themselves when the rewards don't match the effort? If they are guaranteed to be able to live off of the wage of any job, they'll simply stagnate and never move on to a better job unless they feel a great desire to increase their standard of living.

And I think many things are being included in the so called "living wage" that really shouldn't. Things like a car(unless you live in a less densely populated area), anything more than a basic prepaid cell phone, and rent+water+heating+electricity. All the demanded living wages are way above what it would actually take to live if you cut out the unnecessary things.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656356.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656356.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
I find it quite amazing that people attack the concept of a living wage, yet there are people with everything sitting at the top of our society that get tax breaks or simply avoid tax altogether. That's the dream though, people standing on each other to get to the top. Sitting in the gutter dreaming that one day you'll be as good as the people that spit on you.

It's easy to hate the poor if they are uneducated and socially broken. Our level of contempt for them doesn't elevate us to a level nearly comparable with how far the super rich are "above" ourselves.


Frankly, the concept of a living wage is very silly on its face.



Not it's not, you're just looking at it from a market perspective. If the objective is to increase the living standard of those who are paid the least for their work, it makes complete sense.


But why should people get paid more than what their job is worth?


Because we're deciding that we're not going to let the market decide whether or not people get to have roof over their heads.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Expecting a job at the bottom dredges of employment to cover all the basic needs is silly. If you don't like the pay, find a better job one way or another. Its not societies responsibility to make sure all your basic needs are covered.


And that is where we disagree. Society is built on the work of everyone, there's no entirely self-made man.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656389.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656389.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 "...if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either"

You must work for what your worth is. Its not just that working alone justifies you getting to eat, its that your work must justify your compensation.

I suspect you are trying to tie charity into this and the command to help those who are in need. That's not a command to the government(which is what a mandated living wage would do) or to a company, its a command to individual people.

If someone is having trouble right now, that is what welfare and various private charities are for. It is my opinion that the government has no business in charity work, but that is a different argument.

Requiring overinflated paychecks is morally reprehensible because it would encourage lazyness. Why would someone better themselves when the rewards don't match the effort? If they are guaranteed to be able to live off of the wage of any job, they'll simply stagnate and never move on to a better job unless they feel a great desire to increase their standard of living.

And I think many things are being included in the so called "living wage" that really shouldn't. Things like a car(unless you live in a less densely populated area), anything more than a basic prepaid cell phone, and rent+water+heating+electricity. All the demanded living wages are way above what it would actually take to live if you cut out the unnecessary things.


Your vision of society is very dystopian, and seems to me to come from a position of privilege. Opportunity for betterment is not equally distributed in society- this will lead to some being trapped in these low wage jobs, regardless of their individual capacity to work.

I believe your ideology is flawed, and that deep inequality breeds social instability and ultimately weakens societies. On the other hand, I am opposed of course to pure "handouts", work is important for people's health as well as being good for society, but if someone works, their wages should be good enough to provide a living. What a living constitutes is debatable, but they should be able to eat healthily, afford to travel to their place of employment, and put a roof over their heads. Many low wage workers in the US require government support for that, and it seems backwards to me.

Your society, though, so work away. Germany has no centrally mandated minimum wage either. I believe it should, and will vote that way. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656406.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656406.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:
Expecting a job at the bottom dredges of employment to cover all the basic needs is silly. If you don't like the pay, find a better job one way or another. Its not societies responsibility to make sure all your basic needs are covered.


It is, actually, if for no other reason than necessity.

Societies that don't take it upon themselves to ensure the basic needs of their members usually don't last very long, especially when when they have high income inequality and low rates of upward mobility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:

You must work for what your worth is. Its not just that working alone justifies you getting to eat, its that your work must justify your compensation.


Why can't my compensation justify my work? There are far more stories of employers taking advantage of hard working people than hard working people trying to take advantage of employers.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Requiring overinflated paychecks is morally reprehensible because it would encourage lazyness. Why would someone better themselves when the rewards don't match the effort?


Possibly because they now have an incentive to do so? If you have very little chance of advancing within a given organization, or society as a whole, why would you bother working hard?

And, make no mistake, that's how it works at the bottom of the ladder.

 Grey Templar wrote:

If they are guaranteed to be able to live off of the wage of any job, they'll simply stagnate and never move on to a better job unless they feel a great desire to increase their standard of living.


Which many people do, quite frequently in fact.

Also, let us consider that there are fewer "better jobs" than people who seek to move onto them; what do we do with the one's who don't?

 Grey Templar wrote:

And I think many things are being included in the so called "living wage" that really shouldn't. Things like a car(unless you live in a less densely populated area), anything more than a basic prepaid cell phone, and rent+water+heating+electricity. All the demanded living wages are way above what it would actually take to live if you cut out the unnecessary things.


Ah, I see you're new to negotiation.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656562.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656562.page GMT Education... here we go again
Flipping burgers, from my point of view, has to be very repetitive and not very fulfilling. You ought to get a bit of compensation deriving from that alone.

How did Education segway into a purely economic discussion about wages?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656647.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656647.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656704.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6656704.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
Speaking of Education and the poor. We have some Brazilian exchange students over here and they were surprised and shocked that we don't need to pay our University fees. In Brazil you can get your fees paid for you only if you fit into certain grade categories and then sit a special test (from what I gather from their explanation). It makes me proud that anybody can go on to have a University Education up here given that they do well in school and that financial background has no predominant bearing on their success. It just shows us how lucky we are in Scotland. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6657375.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6657375.page GMT Education... here we go again
However, it seems there is a growing number of young people graduating and not finding work at all, or keeping on studying when job prospects are bad and end up being overqualified. Yet trade unions are struggling to find people to fill positions.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6657472.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6657472.page GMT Education... here we go again
The "market" does little to determine how much they get paid.

As has been mentioned in many threads, the top wages in several countries (I believe Germany is the one that springs to mind) are capped at a multiple of the median (or mean, I can't remember) wage. Now, I don't know if you are aware that Germany is the ecconomic driving force behind Europe... so clearly it has not done any harm by limiting the out of control spiral of top wages...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660303.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660303.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:
Management earns the wages they do because that is what the market has determined they are worth. The upper executives and managers of a company are worth that much because the decisions they make have huge impacts on the welfare of the business.

If they were worth less they would be paid less, usually resolved by either firing an incompetent manager or the company going under, meaning that nice paycheck stops coming.

This is really business 101 here.


No, it isn't. "Worth" never, ever comes up in economics or business. It doesn't come up in economics because it is a vague, subjective bit of nonsense, and it never comes up in business because it is irrelevant.

The only place "worth" comes up is in the political rhetoric of free marketeers, who are grabbing bits and pieces from various economic thought to invent a pseudo-philosophy that justify the growing income inequality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
A simplistic example, but you can see that it really wouldn't make much of a difference in what the little people get paid if the CEOs took massive paycuts and it all got redistributed to the other workers.


If companies with more than 2,000 employees had CEOs earning just a million bucks, then your example would be quite telling. But if you look at the market you don't see CEOs on that kind of money at companies that big. And a major part of the issue isn't with CEOs of operating companies. Did you see my post with with fund manager bringing in 5 billion in a single year? Spread that among 2,000 workers and you're talking about a serious pay raise


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Aside from the fact that I find his technique laughable, I informed the principal that in my book, that amounted to threats. She asked me not to lay charges, as it would "ruin what is essentially a good boy." I told her to look for another Ethics teacher, as I was not signing the contract anymore, effective immediately (there is a grace period of 2 weeks before you sign) and nothing would make me sub in those classes anymore.

I'm just.... gahhhh.


That sucks man, my sister used to tell me stories like that before she moved out of teaching. My teacher friends still tell me. It seems that it is too easy for schools to just fall in to a pattern of sweeping things along, letting teachers put up with stuff because that's easier than actually dealing with kids properly. And the system loses a lot of good teachers because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
But why should people get paid more than what their job is worth?

If your job is flipping burgers at Micky Ds, you should only get paid what flipping burgers at Micky Ds is worth. Which is basically jack squat, because anybody can do it.


But what the market deems a job will pay has nothing to do with 'worth'. That's a total myth.

Here's the thing - if there were no burger flippers, McDonald's would cease to exist. Doesn't matter how clever the CEO was, without that link in the chain the whole system comes apart.

Now, obviously that doesn't mean the burger flipper should be paid the same as the CEO, but it does mean you can't assign 'worth' to a role that is equal to what they're paid in a free market.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Expecting a job at the bottom dredges of employment to cover all the basic needs is silly. If you don't like the pay, find a better job one way or another. Its not societies responsibility to make sure all your basic needs are covered.


Unless, of course, a society chooses to take that responsibility on board. Which, if you'll around at any developed country, you'll find they have, by putting in place minimum wage laws, by developing rent support and all the rest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Requiring overinflated paychecks is morally reprehensible because it would encourage lazyness. Why would someone better themselves when the rewards don't match the effort? If they are guaranteed to be able to live off of the wage of any job, they'll simply stagnate and never move on to a better job unless they feel a great desire to increase their standard of living.


Factually speaking, you're completely wrong.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17042

As the above report details, the disincentive effect of social welfare programs is incredibly small. Instead, what you observe in countries with strong social welfare is an increase in people moving from the bottom rungs of society, as they have the resources to actually get themselves ahead. When 40 hours of work each week will give you enough to survive, then there's still time and energy to study, and enough left over to buy books and cover the other minor education expenses.

Simply put, people don't think 'hey, thanks to my minimum wage job of $13 an hour I can remain uneducated and still get to eat and have a roof, so I'm on easy street and there's no point trying harder'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Medium of Death wrote:
Speaking of Education and the poor. We have some Brazilian exchange students over here and they were surprised and shocked that we don't need to pay our University fees. In Brazil you can get your fees paid for you only if you fit into certain grade categories and then sit a special test (from what I gather from their explanation). It makes me proud that anybody can go on to have a University Education up here given that they do well in school and that financial background has no predominant bearing on their success. It just shows us how lucky we are in Scotland.


Well, I'm not in favour of students paying their full fees because society benefits from that person having skills as well, and nor should the student be required to pay those fees be upfront, but for most degrees the student should pay something towards their education. On receiving a law degree, that student will be able to command several million more in income over their lives than they would have, so they really should pay some of their education themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SilverMK2 wrote:
Upper management is "worth" what they are because upper management sits on the boards that review the wage packages that upper management gets, not because they are actually worth the money etc they are paid.


Sort of. There are certainly cases of people signing off on each other's pay increases that have been brought to light over the years, but they're not that common. The bigger issue is that the shareholders of too many companies are too passive in overseeing management remuneration, and when they are active it's really bloody difficult to figure out what a CEO is actually worth.

And that last point is a big one, because the market that Gray Templar believes in so much only really works when there's a lot of buyers and sellers. But when it comes to CEO remuneration, well CEOs are competing with other generic CEOs for a position at a generic company. Instead its Marissa Mayer taking on the position of CEO at Yahoo... and there's no market to decide exactly how much Marissa Mayer is worth. It's a completely subjective determination. Right now there's plenty of debate as to whether she's doing a good job (long story short Yahoo has had nice market cap growth, but you take out their two overseas passive investments and the rest of Yahoo might have a negative value) so how much is she worth as CEO? Would someone else have done a good job, is she actually doing a good job but simply inherited a mess that is hard to turn around? Who fething knows? And how much is who fething knows worth? Is it worth her yearly salary of about 25 million?

No-one really knows, so shareholders are gunshy about challenging it and causing instability, and so CEO salaries keep growing. And I should make the point again, CEO salaries aren't even the problem. The growth of the mega-rich, people who generate vast wealth from their investments... that's what has gotten incredible in the last few decades.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660382.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660382.page GMT Education... here we go again 40K (oooh ironic), which I will be repaying on a minimum wage job if I can't get more subing. (Notice I am posting at 8h48 local time, which is way past the time I get a call normally. It might just be a slow Monday) Although in all fairness, it is a salary of my own making, because it is my wife's business and I am trying to cut her some slack so we don't dramatically go under. Slow economy and winter won't end...

But generally, I would say regarding your comments on social welfare that it, anecdotally, drives the economy because people who are given a taste of the good life tend to want more and often self-motivate into being able to afford more. Even if it is only "trade school." ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660700.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660700.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 "...if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either"


What a load of... Anyone who calls themselves a Christian and says that ought to take a long hard look at what they believe.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660709.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660709.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
efarrer wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 "...if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either"


What a load of... Anyone who calls themselves a Christian and says that ought to take a long hard look at what they believe.


Not necessarily. If that is what it means to be a Christian, it might very well be at odds with other philosophies, such as humanism. It might not be something you as a Christian* might be comfortable with, but it might be much more in line with Christianity than some Christians think.



*If you are, I don't know. It doesn't matter to make the point.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660742.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660742.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Grey Templar wrote:


And I think many things are being included in the so called "living wage" that really shouldn't. Things like a car(unless you live in a less densely populated area), anything more than a basic prepaid cell phone, and rent+water+heating+electricity. All the demanded living wages are way above what it would actually take to live if you cut out the unnecessary things.


Apparently food is deemed unnecessary . I'd have to say having a bit of contact with one of the poorer suburbs in sydney anything that helps people get out of the situation they are born into is brilliant and a decent minimum wage is the very minimum starting point for that. Grey templar you talk about having a subsistence minimum wage, how does that let a person pay for some further education to better themselves without relying on government handouts to do it?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660751.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6660751.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
efarrer wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 "...if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either"


What a load of... Anyone who calls themselves a Christian and says that ought to take a long hard look at what they believe.


Speaking of that, Jesus fed how many people with some fish and bread again? Had they worked for that, or were they just accepting handouts from the God-verment? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6669922.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6669922.page GMT Re:Education... here we go again
 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
efarrer wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 "...if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either"


Does some working count as someone "Not willing to work" in your world?

If we are discussing wages, then the people impacted by default are "willing to work". They have jobs in order to have wages.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6673449.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6673449.page GMT Education... here we go again http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6676570.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/584372/6676570.page GMT