User Tag List

First 101819202122 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 257

  1. #191
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    What a loaded and irrelevant question. Most funding for public schools comes from property taxes and no one has suggested that property taxes be abolished. How about you try to stay reasonable rather than hyperbolic.
    A libertarian calling me hyperbolic. The definition of tu quoque. You still didn't answer the question - tell me a situation where the wealthy freely divested their access to educational resources with0ut the bounds of government requirement. Hint: it'll be pretty damn difficult.

    Bullshit. That's the rationalization you use to justify your belief. I have first-hand knowledge of many people where this is not the case. In fact, I have never met a single person where this was the reason they wanted their children out of public school. Should I assume you have studies that prove your point?

    As for parental involvement being the greatest variable, that's true, but the current system has failed to be a positive influence in that respect. Perhaps if parents had a choice on where to send their children to school, they might feel more invested in it.
    Yeah - the study's called common sense. Ask anyone - if it costs exactly the same (i.e. via scholarships), and you get exactly the same benefit from attending a public school and a private school - most people would take the private school, because of the status increase it provides.

    Let's also not forget that private schools are as successful as they are because of their ability to be selective in the academic ability of their students. What happens to those students who are smart, but don't test well, in a voucher system?

    Different era/not applicable
    Not really. Middle class parents want to get their kids away from the "undesirables". They just aren't as blatantly signified by race this time.

    People don't change. Circumstances do. You'd be wise to remember that.

  2. #192
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    What makes you think that your average upper class person has more time than a middle class worker. Often they have less time. To your average Dr. or lawyer the 60 hr work week is a pipe dream.
    Doctor or lawyer != upper class. Upper middle class at best.

    Upper class = $100k surplus post-taxes post-expenses (or you happen to be in a position of high social regard, like a politician or judge). Most of us don't even come close, no matter how many hours we work.

    The only portion of the upper class that has more time than those of the middle class are people that either, a) worked insanely hard to rise high enough in upper management that they are making discretionary choices on company policy and don't need to be in the office all the time to fulfill the requirements of their position, or b) have inherited wealth and are a general drain on society.
    Which means that no matter what, they still aren't working as hard as the rest of us. Even if they did work hard long ago, that has no bearing on the policy decisions of today. It still doesn't change the fact there is less time being spent working.

    People act like working fast food isn't exhausting. Working a rush period is as psychologically taxing a job as is currently legal. Nothing but constant stress and pressure for two hours straight.

    Situation b) is the only legit justification I have ever seen for the demonization of the upper class. The thing about those in the upper class is that there is usually a reason they are making so much. This answer is most often that they work harder than others. While there is a portion of the upper class that was born into wealth, this portion is small enough that it is statistically insubstantial.
    No, usually the reason is that they're willing to take the steps other people are not willing to - either sacrificing time with the family or acting in an unethical fashion. Hell, if you are constantly working, you have no time to network, which is how you actually rise up - not performance. Likewise, I think we're still talking upper-middle class here - upper class generally has secretaries to take care of that business.

    While that portion is small, it accounts for an enormous chunk of national wealth. It's not unsubstantial in the least bit. Remember, only 1.5% of people make over $250,000/yr... and yet, every single person in Washington, not to mention most people we see on TV, fall into this category.

    My dad gets up at 5am every morning and doesn't get home till about 7pm. He works occasionally on saturdays, and has flown home from family vacations to deal emergencies involving his patients. He's been doing this sense he finished school at 28, he is now 54.
    Congrats to him. That's laudable.

    Sorry to get sidetracked.

    What in the history of humanity makes you think that the wealthy will hoard educational resources? Considered logically, the wealthy keeping the poor from having access to quality education makes no sense. Where are all the skilled professionals going to come from that I will someday want to hire? A rising tide lifts all ships, and education (the great equalizer) is one of the most important common denominators the American public has.
    Pretty much the entirety of human history. That there's never been a society in history that hasn't had wealth concentrated in the hands of exceedingly few (except for the social democracies of Scandinavia). That the Ivy League gets its pick of professors.

    You'll never get rich thinking that way. Skilled professionals are merely a drain on resources - you make your money from the scrubs at the bottom of the ladder that you pay nothing. In the oil business, who makes the wealth - the landman who negotiates contracts, or the roughneck who actually pulls oil out of the ground? The landman facilitates the process, but there's no denying that the wealth is the oil, and the roughneck is the one that brings it to you.

    That's how capitalism works. You convince someone with material wealth to give it to you in exchange for economic utility while paying as little as possible for it. Not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer - otherwise, who's going to pick up the trash or maintain the sewers, the two most important jobs in a city?

    I went to an academic magnate public high school where I was an IB student (International Baccalaureate). The only things that made the public HS experience bearable were my friends, the great teachers within the IB program, and the fact that my HS was a magnate school with an IB program which received a larger portion of state funding than other lesser public schools.
    Look where IB schools tend to congregate. You ever see them in the inner city? You think that the program might have been a upper middle class response to unfair benefits kids in private schools which they can't afford receive?

    That's basic public policy. An interest group gets the government to throw cash in areas it sees as desirable.

    However, we never had money, new books, enough teachers, qualified teachers (in the honors program), enough class rooms (went to many classes in double wide trailers), enough security (had wallet stolen from the lockeroom by ghetto neighborhood kids while in gym class, got in fights [generally for own protection or protection of my smaller friends] with neighborhood kids), and the list goes on and on. If this sounds like an ideal learning situation I've got property rights to the moon that I'd like to sell you.
    Sorry you didn't receive the optimal learning experience. That makes you like 99% of everyone who ever went through school. At least you had a loving family that gave a shit about your education to come home to, rather than a Mom who was working a third shift to afford the rent so she's never there, while your brother and his hoodlum friends are watching TV way too loud, shouting, drinking and getting into fights.

    The funny thing is that when I graduated from HS, my school was the #3 public HS in the nation according to NewsWeek. If this is what happens at the #3 public school in the country, I'd hate to see whats going on at other schools.
    The same. And it will be the same as long as you assemble hundreds to thousands of kids in one spot and give them constrained resources to deal with them. That's not changing any time soon. Private schools circumvent this because their selective nature allows a higher spending amount per student.

    Personally, I think vouchers could introduce legitimate competition into our school system. As it stands now, there are rich schools and poor schools. We need to fill the gap between the two, and end public educational policies that inhibit any of these from performing to the utmost of their capacity. Until we have legitimate competition for public schools (ie functional competitively priced alternative options), we will continue to operate a system where public schools have no incentive to really improve the quality of education they provide. It's only when competitors threaten to drive public schools out of business, that public schools will be forced to increase the quality of their product.
    Education is a public good. Competition introduces huge market failures, like the drastically reduced economic performance of the students in "loser" schools, not to mention the decreased resources as more money goes toward the "winner" schools, increasingly strained as the number of enrolled students begins to overload the endowment (oh yeah, I forgot, it's funny how many people think that tuition is how people pay for their private schooling).

    Vouchers kill current public schools and turn private schools into public schools again, leading to a huge amount of social stratification in the beginning.

  3. #193
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post


    Yeah - the study's called common sense. Ask anyone - if it costs exactly the same (i.e. via scholarships), and you get exactly the same benefit from attending a public school and a private school - most people would take the private school, because of the status increase it provides.

    Let's also not forget that private schools are as successful as they are because of their ability to be selective in the academic ability of their students. What happens to those students who are smart, but don't test well, in a voucher system?
    I don't think this is true, parents want to send their kids to private schools because they think it gives them an advantage and the upper hand in comparison. They think they'll be able to get into a better college. I think there is a minority who primarily do it because it confers status, and even then private schools gain desirable status by attempting to prove they offer an advantage in the first place.

    Whether what they think and what actually is the case is another matter entirely. I still think academic success depends MOSTLY on the kid.

    Not really. Middle class parents want to get their kids away from the "undesirables". They just aren't as blatantly signified by race this time.
    Explain what you mean. I don't think parents wanting to shield their kids from bad influences who make education harder than it already is is a bad thing.



  4. #194
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I don't think this is true, parents want to send their kids to private schools because they think it gives them an advantage and the upper hand in comparison. They think they'll be able to get into a better college. I think there is a minority who primarily do it because it confers status, and even then private schools gain desirable status by attempting to prove they offer an advantage in the first place.
    Why do they give students an upper hand? Universities generally look at graduating school when it comes to acceptance - if two people have high SAT/ACT scores, and one came from a prestigious private school and the other a crappy inner-city public school, usually the latter gets greater consideration since it's that much more difficult in that context. College can't be the only factor - if your kid is smart and you are willing to commit to their ability to go to college, the kid will get there no matter what school they come from.

    Private schools do gain status from that effort, but I'd argue that primarily, it comes from the fact that it's where the wealthier kids from an area tend to go to. Social class considerations, and the whatnot.

    Whether what they think and what actually is the case is another matter entirely. I still think academic success depends MOSTLY on the kid.
    I'll disagree. Often, the only difference between a powerful drug dealer and a powerful CEO is the circumstances surrounding them. The former will neglect their studies because their social surroundings devalue education, while the latter will persevere due to the necessity of a high education level to achieve wealth and power amongst peers.

    Explain what you mean. I don't think parents wanting to shield their kids from bad influences who make education harder than it already is is a bad thing.
    How do people define "bad influences"? Is a bully from the wrong side of the tracks any different than one from the Upper East Side?

  5. #195
    Senior Member miked277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    How do people define "bad influences"? Is a bully from the wrong side of the tracks any different than one from the Upper East Side?
    you just defined bad influences: the drug culture vs. the school culture.

    most parents, i'd imagine, wouldn't want their children growing up in a culture where school is viewed as unimportant and drugs are the way up/out.
    I'm feeling rough, I'm feeling raw, I'm in the prime of my life.

  6. #196
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    This:
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Why do they give students an upper hand? Universities generally look at graduating school when it comes to acceptance - if two people have high SAT/ACT scores, and one came from a prestigious private school and the other a crappy inner-city public school, usually the latter gets greater consideration since it's that much more difficult in that context. College can't be the only factor - if your kid is smart and you are willing to commit to their ability to go to college, the kid will get there no matter what school they come from.

    Private schools do gain status from that effort, but I'd argue that primarily, it comes from the fact that it's where the wealthier kids from an area tend to go to. Social class considerations, and the whatnot.
    Is basically in agreement with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Whether what they think and what actually is the case is another matter entirely. I still think academic success depends MOSTLY on the kid.
    If the kid does the work, gets the grades, does the extra curriculars required, and he'll be able to go where he wants to go. Private schools, with generally more money spent per student, make achieving these things a bit easier. I was merely describing that I do not think status is the motivating factor in private school enrollment, but that of achievement, success, and providing your kid with a better learning environment, whether those benefits actually exist or not. The perception that they do is key.

    I'll disagree. Often, the only difference between a powerful drug dealer and a powerful CEO is the circumstances surrounding them. The former will neglect their studies because their social surroundings devalue education, while the latter will persevere due to the necessity of a high education level to achieve wealth and power amongst peers.
    I suppose. Still up to the kid and parents to accept or reject that social influence of values.

    How do people define "bad influences"? Is a bully from the wrong side of the tracks any different than one from the Upper East Side?
    Not really, I just didn't know if you were insinuating anything racial/classist and I was walking myself into a trap.



  7. #197
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by miked277 View Post
    you just defined bad influences: the drug culture vs. the school culture.

    most parents, i'd imagine, wouldn't want their children growing up in a culture where school is viewed as unimportant and drugs are the way up/out.
    Why does that culture come about?

  8. #198
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    A libertarian calling me hyperbolic. The definition of tu quoque. You still didn't answer the question - tell me a situation where the wealthy freely divested their access to educational resources with0ut the bounds of government requirement. Hint: it'll be pretty damn difficult.
    It's irrelevant because that's not what is being discussed here. Your attempt at a straw man argument has failed.


    Yeah - the study's called common sense. Ask anyone - if it costs exactly the same (i.e. via scholarships), and you get exactly the same benefit from attending a public school and a private school - most people would take the private school, because of the status increase it provides.
    This is flawed since this is never the situation parents face.

    Let's also not forget that private schools are as successful as they are because of their ability to be selective in the academic ability of their students. What happens to those students who are smart, but don't test well, in a voucher system?
    More bullshit. All I see is you making up hypothetical situations to try to prove your point.


    Not really. Middle class parents want to get their kids away from the "undesirables". They just aren't as blatantly signified by race this time.

    People don't change. Circumstances do. You'd be wise to remember that.
    Race bait, I won't bite.

    Individuals don't change, but generations, as a whole, have different perspectives than previous generations.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #199
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    More bullshit. All I see is you making up hypothetical situations to try to prove your point.

    It isn't bullshit. It's highly probable. I find that Libertarians often view the world in terms of black-and-white numbers and statistics, when the reality of real human experience is in shades of gray. Most Libertarians shy away from those shades of gray arguments because human reality isn't their strong suit.



    Race bait, I won't bite.

    Individuals don't change, but generations, as a whole, have different perspectives than previous generations.
    This isn't just about race. It's also about class. I think he's right and you have an overly optimistic view of the current state of humanity.

  10. #200
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    This:


    Is basically in agreement with this:
    I can see how one could interpret it that way.

    If the kid does the work, gets the grades, does the extra curriculars required, and he'll be able to go where he wants to go. Private schools, with generally more money spent per student, make achieving these things a bit easier. I was merely describing that I do not think status is the motivating factor in private school enrollment, but that of achievement, success, and providing your kid with a better learning environment, whether those benefits actually exist or not. The perception that they do is key.
    Yeah, my argument is that this perception is entirely correlated with social class concerns. That private schools are associated with those benefits because the upper-middle and upper class students that attend them have those qualities engendered by those benefits.

    I don't think we disagree at all materially - I'm just trying to look at the implications, that's all. Looking "behind the veil" of American convention of not talking about class.

    I suppose. Still up to the kid and parents to accept or reject that social influence of values.
    Which as you know, is really damn hard to do. People want to be liked by their peers, no matter who those peers are. This is especially true in extraverted people.

    Not really, I just didn't know if you were insinuating anything racial/classist and I was walking myself into a trap.
    I wasn't trying to insinuate anything about you, so sorry if it came across that way. I was trying to insinuate something about the United States in general - that things common to the poor and working classes are generally seen as "bad influences", and that things common to the upper-middle and upper classes are "good influences". Why driving an old beater is killing the environment, while a private jet is an unavoidable, acceptable expense of business, even though the latter spews exponentially more pollution into the atmosphere.

Similar Threads

  1. Are you a nice user or are you gonna get banned?
    By hommefatal in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 08-03-2016, 08:28 PM
  2. Things you just don't get
    By EcK in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-10-2011, 09:38 AM
  3. [MBTItm] NFs: Do you have problems with getting to know _NTPs in relationships?
    By Halfjillhalfjack in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-02-2010, 03:15 AM
  4. I am gonna get some beer from the gas station
    By entropie in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 10:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO