|
Posted by Amy Blankenship on November 16, 2007, 4:00 pm
>
>>
>>> "Amy Blankenship"> wrote
>>>> I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what we
>>>> would have if we had NO public education system. Again I say look to
>>>> countries that do not offer public education and ask if that is what we
>>>> want for this country.
>>>
>>> Why look to other countries?
>>> Just look at your own country and how it was BEFORE public
>>> education.....
>>
>> Yes, lets. Most people didn't live far past 40.
>
> Oh please.
> THINK Amy, THINK!
> Every one of the framers of this country lived well into their 60's, 70's
> and eighties as did many other people.
Yes, the framers were uniquely priveleged men. If you look at all peopl,
you had children dying before reaching adulthood, women dying in childbirth,
slaves dying in the field, etc. However, you've asked for proof. So lets
assume that public education started in 1850. http://tinyurl.com/2mndk9
Let's look at life expectancy for 1850:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
You can see that if you were a white male and you lived to be 40, you had a
pretty good shot at living to be 70. This is a surprise to me: if white
women lived to be 40, they were also quite likely to live to 70. But the
average lifespan for all whites in 1850 was around 40. Lifespans for people
of other races were quite a bit shorter.
> All you're doing is passing on some silly media rumors and have not taken
> the time to even think it through.
Yeah, and you're a brainchild, obviously.
> People were short due to
>> poor nutrition.
>
> There's still short people.
> They're called dwarfs.
> Maybe the gov't should steal more of your earnings and force feed them.
>
>
>> Children worked in coal mines. Utopia!
>
> Cite?
> Another silly assed rumor.
http://tinyurl.com/ywz2me
Obviously, whatever education you got wasn't adequate to teach you about
history. You've consistently refused to answer whether your education was
public or not. I can only assume you'd be proud to stand up and say it
wasn't if that is the case, so apparently it was.
>>> Its sort of unbelieveable that you are defending public education so
>>> ardently considering how wasteful and inefficient it is not to mention
>>> damaging to society as a whole as well as the multitudes of individuals
>>> mulched up in the machine.
No one is denying the current system is not the most efficient. But we as
Americans tend to be very inefficient, because we have a lot of resources
and because we're not much on looking to places that ARE working and
borrowing their ideas.
>>> ....and contrast that with today where untold billions of dollars are
>>> spent each year and the students keep coming out the other side even
>>> more stupid than the year before.
>>>
>>> More money = more stupid students, more waste, more bureacracy.
>>>
>>> And thats what you're in favor of?
>>
>> I haven't suggested more money. I HAVE suggested that if we had no
>> public education, no matter how ineffectual, we'd be even more of a third
>> world country than we are.
>
> I wonder how this country developed, and flourished like no other place on
> the planet thoughout history, without public education.
Er, we haven't developed throughout history, but only throughout the past
350 years or so, about half of which has had public education.
> Take note that during the past 100 years that education hijacked by the
> gov't the dismal decline of just about everything in the US.
> Do you think there's a connection?
> Or is it simply coincidence.
> Stupid people = stupid country.
I am trying to figure out where you see a decline. The vast majority of our
population has enough to eat every day. People are healthy and living
longer. Most people are gainfully employed. Crime rates are relatively
low. What decline are you talking about?
>>> The public schools are very expensive daycare centers for kids from 5 to
>>> 18 or more years old (at Estero High in FL last year they found out some
>>> of the students were in their late 20 and this fact was hidden because
>>> the football coach wanted to keep them on the team indefinitely) and
>>> haven't been even remotely involved with education for 30+ years and
>>> this is proven by the fact that the colleges routinely spend the first 2
>>> years giving new students remedial education - that is, they have to
>>> teach them the 3 R's before they can move on to the more intensive
>>> things.
>>
>> That's not all students, or even most.
>
> Yes it is most.
> You need to get up to speed on these things if you expect to engage in
> meaningful debate.
It's 36% in Community Colleges http://tinyurl.com/2e5e9d, which is where the
remedial type people tend to go, more so than full-fledged Colleges and
Universities. I suspect it is lower there, but really I'm tired of doing
web searches because you're ignorant.
> And at least they go to college and
>> eventually succeed.
>
> There is no correlation at all between college and success and its
> appalling that you don't know/understand this.
I couldn't find any hard data supporting your claim. I found one guy who
listed a lot of successful people who never went to college and succeeded,
but nothing on whether or not there was a correlation between attending
college and a productive work life. I guess it is your turn to provide a
cite.
-Amy
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
