Van Dam

[epeemike81]

How about a response to my prior post directed at you, Edew? I would be very interested in reading your response to those thoughts....

And, btw, I would say that the belief that taxation is stealing is, in fact, a reflection of just how idealistic you are: you cling to the belief that the government should be small despite the real world impracticality of that view. THAT is the HEIGHT of idealism.

-m

[edew]

Originally posted by epeemike81
How about a response to my prior post directed at you, Edew? I would be very interested in reading your response to those thoughts....

And, btw, I would say that the belief that taxation is stealing is, in fact, a reflection of just how idealistic you are: you cling to the belief that the government should be small despite the real world impracticality of that view. THAT is the HEIGHT of idealism.

-m

I quite aware that shrinking the government isn't going ot be easy. There are too many Linda Tripps in the government's payroll who make way too much money, and they know they can stay there for almost ever.

As for your other points. Let's see. I once taught at a private college. The students there paid $20,000/year in tuition. Or so. So, that's $10,000 per semester. They take 4 classes, so it's $2,500/class (effectively). I had about 20 students in that class (it was a small private college), and thought, "Hmmm...I taught just one class. How about giving me just $800/student for the 12 weeks of study? That's $16,000. If I taught four classes like that instead of one, I would make $64,000 every twelve BLEEPING weeks. Where does that other $1,700/student go? Property taxes? Administrative costs? Gardener for the front lawn? Building upkeep? S**t, I can rent a damned 2000 sqft storefront for $60,000 a year and still make money."

Ok, that's for college. I don't think the numbers are that much different for public schools. There's a lot of fat that can be trimmed. Lots of lazy-*** teachers who should be canned (my wife tells me of a couple: they'll be in at 9AM for the kindergarten class, out by noon, go rollerskating for the rest of the day, and think they have a tough life).

Libertarian party line: Ok, maybe I do follow their line. I don't know. I do read the www.lp.org page once in a while, but most of my views are created on my own, not by reading what they have and then agreeing with them. Maybe I'm a true-blue libertarian in that I truly do feel that way. I still think my feelings on gun-control are more pro-gun-control than the LP stance.

Privatizing education: first off, my idea is not for those interested in get-rich-quick. There are people who do fervently believe in helping others. As much as I dislike the Windows OS, I do admire Bill Gates for his humanitarian work. He puts his money where it counts. People like him will be investing in such an educational plan. People who see the benefits of having a VC model to get poor people out of the rut. People who see the benefits of pragmatic education over standardized-testing-regimen-in-place-of-education. Those people will be the main investors. Your Kenny Boy Lay folks aren't going to like the business model because there is nothing for 15-20 years, and then the amounts will only go up incrementally until another 10 or 15 years (the typical time when a person earns the most).

So, it won't be people who think they can live off the benefits, but maybe institutions who think their long-term investors will be able to benefit from such a plan.

As for "trade-school" education, a friend of my brother, who graduated from a prestigeous west coast "Ivy-league" like university, whose name starts with "S-T-A-N-F" has a nice sheepskin degree. He's now burned out and living in Tahoe, surfing porn on the web and playing the ski-bum. He lives off of whatever he makes teaching skiing.

On the other hand, I know many "trade-school" contractors, builders, plumbers, electricians, et al., who make $200K a year, enjoy their work, have huge cars and homes, a boat they drive to Lake Berryessa for a weekend fun, and such. There may be zero need now for dot-com engineers, but there will always be a need for plumbers. (My one anecdote on this concerns an incident at our home: the toilet was stuck for several days and we couldn't seem to get it unstuck. We finally decided to call a plumber, A-1 plumbing or something like that...figuring they would be cheaper than Roto-Rooter. He came in, took a plunger, wham-wham-wham. Toilet is unstuck. $120. Do I wish I can trade my precious PhD for a job like that? In a second!)

We had a neighbor who worked as a self-employed computer fixer. He goes to people's home, help them set up a new disk drive, or install an upgrade to the OS, maybe add a peripheral (really, it's that simple, and in the Bay Area, too -- middle of silicon valley). He made six-figures, and spends a good amount of his day practicing his golf swing in the back yard.

It's not that everyone who does such things is successful, but for one thing, there is and will always be a demand for plumbers and electricians and computer specialists. You can learn C++ and then JAVA comes in. You learn that and they want PERL. You learn that and they now want C# or XML or whatever. And that's in a "trade-like" area of study, engineering.

If you get a history or other liberal arts major, good luck getting a job. Most go back to school and get a law degree, which is why we have so many friggin' lawyers (and a good percentage of them suck the big one).

Suppose you have a kid who is naturally gifted as a baseball player. Why not work with him to make that his goal. Teach him (or her) the necessary skills in business sense so that he (or she) can survive out there, and let him or her be that great baseball player? Is there some benefit to reading Othello to baseball? How about 1 Henry IV? 2 Henry IV? Henry V? Titus Andronicus? Merchant of Venice? Twelfth Night?

Don't get me wrong, I've read a number of those plays, enjoyed them immensely. But I certainly enjoyed them more after I had the luxury of having a job and a reading pace that's more to my liking (than a 2-week reading pace or whatever).

Kids should be taught how to survive and do well in the world. That's not innate to them. The conventions society has developed over time is not natural conventions. However, kids have different innate abilities. They can all benefit by having those abilities recognized and nurtured and made profitable. The kid can draw well...so how can that be made to help the kid become self-supporting through arts? The kid reads well...so how can that be made to help the kid become self-supporting? Testing and getting A's or 800s in SATs aren't the answer. They're the problem.

Can't make cogent arguments? Lots of people who went through nothing in education make awfully good, cogent arguments. One of the most persuasive personalities in this country, if not the world, never got a college degree. Heck the four most powerful people in the computer industry never got a college degree: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell. Cogent arguments? You think they can't make a good argument for some cause or another? You think they need a college degree to make cogent arguments?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by edew
Privatizing education: first off, my idea is not for those interested in get-rich-quick. There are people who do fervently believe in helping others. As much as I dislike the Windows OS, I do admire Bill Gates for his humanitarian work. He puts his money where it counts. People like him will be investing in such an educational plan. People who see the benefits of having a VC model to get poor people out of the rut. People who see the benefits of pragmatic education over standardized-testing-regimen-in-place-of-education. Those people will be the main investors. Your Kenny Boy Lay folks aren't going to like the business model because there is nothing for 15-20 years, and then the amounts will only go up incrementally until another 10 or 15 years (the typical time when a person earns the most).

Well, you seem to be slightly conflicted here: do you mean that people like gates would make it an investment, or a charitable contribution? If you mean an investment, see above. he may be willing to wait for ROI, but when the ROI is well below market average, and even below savings acct interest, he will not make the investment. If you mean charitable, then you may be right that he would (though I have significantly less faith in Gates than you apparently do). Even if he did, though, you would have to be incredibly naive to think that you can get enough philanthropists to cover all education in this nation.

So, it won't be people who think they can live off the benefits, but maybe institutions who think their long-term investors will be able to benefit from such a plan.

well, there is one institution which DOES think education will benefit them.... it is called the government. again, I suggest you read up on public goods.

As for "trade-school" education, a friend of my brother, who graduated from a prestigeous west coast "Ivy-league" like university, whose name starts with "S-T-A-N-F" has a nice sheepskin degree. He's now burned out and living in Tahoe, surfing porn on the web and playing the ski-bum. He lives off of whatever he makes teaching skiing.

On the other hand, I know many "trade-school" contractors, builders, plumbers, electricians, et al., who make $200K a year, enjoy their work, have huge cars and homes, a boat they drive to Lake Berryessa for a weekend fun, and such. There may be zero need now for dot-com engineers, but there will always be a need for plumbers. (My one anecdote on this concerns an incident at our home: the toilet was stuck for several days and we couldn't seem to get it unstuck. We finally decided to call a plumber, A-1 plumbing or something like that...figuring they would be cheaper than Roto-Rooter. He came in, took a plunger, wham-wham-wham. Toilet is unstuck. $120. Do I wish I can trade my precious PhD for a job like that? In a second!)

I guess this fundamentally comes down to a philosophical issue.... you seem to believe that the purpose of education is to get a job. I think that the purpose of education is to better oneself and learn to think critically. Now let me tell you about some of the people I know: I know a person who went to what basically amounted to a trade school for network administration. I know another person who wasted his time getting degrees from universities in liberal arts subjects (not because it would get him a job, but because he was interested in it) and taught himself some network management skills. guess who makes the big bucks? even if you want to look at education as a means to an end (which I don't, as I see it as an end unto itself), you still fail to recognize that the big bucks aren't paid for trade skills, but for critical thinking ability. In addition, education is a good policy for a society since a lack of education tends to allow for perpetuation of destructive societal trends such as racism and racial stereotyping. That is just one example of the benefits education has BEYOND teaching a trade.

If you get a history or other liberal arts major, good luck getting a job. Most go back to school and get a law degree, which is why we have so many friggin' lawyers (and a good percentage of them suck the big one).

This is quite simply not true. Most graduates get hired in fields which are not their own, though they may be related. example: my sister graduated with a BS in Neuroscience. She was hired by a group in Washington called the Advisory Board, which conducts statistical surveys for the healthcare industry. NOTHING she did was connected to her major. much of her work was internet research and writing. Her time in the educational system (both public and private) had taught her how to do research and think critically. It is these important skills which your trade school would fail to teach. It is true that a lack of formal education worked in this country for much of its history. however, the world was a very different place then, and the rise of public education in this country was one of the contributing factors to the accelerating progress in this country.

Suppose you have a kid who is naturally gifted as a baseball player. Why not work with him to make that his goal. Teach him (or her) the necessary skills in business sense so that he (or she) can survive out there, and let him or her be that great baseball player? Is there some benefit to reading Othello to baseball? How about 1 Henry IV? 2 Henry IV? Henry V? Titus Andronicus? Merchant of Venice? Twelfth Night?

Yes, there is an advantage: the advantage is turning him into a knowledgable person. i.e. he would become like Jason Varitek, Greg Maddux, or Tony Clark, as opposed to Carl Everett, John Rocker, or Manny Ramirez. THAT is to the benefit of ALL of society.

I certainly enjoyed them more after I had the luxury of having a job and a reading pace that's more to my liking (than a 2-week reading pace or whatever).

As did I. In High School, my English classes only studied four or five books a year. but, the need for reform in English curricula is NOT a good reason to get rid of it entirely.

Kids should be taught how to survive and do well in the world.

yes, they should, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taught other things.

kids have different innate abilities. They can all benefit by having those abilities recognized and nurtured and made profitable.

First of all, just because a child has great ability in one area does not mean his INTERESTS should be ignored, or in this case never discovered. again, I submit that life is not about becoming "profitable". I don't suppose it would do much good to point out that what you are proposing is one of the developments in most Science Fiction dystopias. What you are proposing is to basically eliminate the child's free will to do what they want.

Can't make cogent arguments? Lots of people who went through nothing in education make awfully good, cogent arguments. One of the most persuasive personalities in this country, if not the world, never got a college degree. Heck the four most powerful people in the computer industry never got a college degree: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell. Cogent arguments? You think they can't make a good argument for some cause or another? You think they need a college degree to make cogent arguments?

First of all, clearly there ARE people with quite good education who can't make cogent arguments (our president comes to mind). Second, what makes you think that just because those people are successful that they could make cogent arguments? that is what their high priced lawyers are for. also, they DID have formal education, just not collegiate education (which, btw, all of your tradesman have had as well). it is your "trade school from the start" attitude which neglects to teach the important thing: critical thinking, which is usually taught through discussions of a wide variety of subjects.

-m

[135711]

fee fie fo fum, linda trip, linda trip, oh that terrible horrible woman!! impale her, tar and feather her, but first!!!! let's interview vlad the impaler for our tv program, he's a more interesting character; like you know, he does stuff, presses his nose delicately, rubs his skin loveingly, it's it's so intoxicating, we want to watch more, and more and listen to the.....stuff,, anyway, have you read John Stuart Mill? I think you should go back to it and read it again, and this time with a sorta open mind, you have a sort of closed mind.

sorry, you can rub your skin, a little, it all depends though, how much do you rub your skin? there's something very roman about this.........

sounds gross, but i wasn't trying to be gross here, i meant it somewhat differently....... difficult to explain.

[edew]

Mike,

The term, "Education" is a grab-bag term. Different people have different ideas of what that constitutes. And what "education" is today is hardly the "education" conducted fifty or one-hundred years ago.

So, I agree that we should "educate" our children. No doubt about that. What I specifically describe is what I consider as "useful" education during that moment in their lives when they need that type of education. Education is lifelong. You can now go to a community college and take courses on Shakespeare, Marlowe, Homer, or whatever floats your boat. I certainly advocate that in people. And I think there is a commercial, marketable industry in adult education (and there is one now, at least in the Bay Area: UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, Stanford, et al., all have adult education courses, and not all of them are just for job training or career enrichment).

So, education is great. And having that education doesn't mean that the person is educated, as you rightfully exemplified with our wonderful prez (who still can't pronounce that simple word, NUCLEAR: every time I hear him say, "NUCULER" I just want to set off one right under his butt).

Your description of your sister and others who get an education in one field and employment in another just underscores my point. What is the "efficiency" of learning X to do Y, even if X has some tangential relation to Y? Why not learn Y to do Y? And learn Y because you love Y, so you can do Y better and thus (with some business acumen that should be taught to all people) parlay that to more income?

Well, for the most part, people don't know what they love to do. That is a shame, not because they didn't know, but because the education system we have here thinks that algebra-English-history-science-foreign language is the be-all and end-all to all possible curricula available. If you're interested in art and can't do algebra well, well, you're screwed in most cases. Or, you might even do algebra well, and like it. But, say you have test anxiety or just don't like taking tests. You're screwed big time. When was the last time you had to use a quadratic formula? How about a cubic formula?

Schools should start looking for learning deficiencies early, should look at what the person is interested in, and track and move that person in that direction. Like to be a writer? Move in that direction. At the same time, there are some core material that should be learned to make it in the world. Those are primarily business related: how to present yourself, how to break into a field, how to balance a check-book, how to open an account. (For example, when asked for your mother's maiden name, do you actually give them your mother's maiden name? Why? Learn this: give them your favorite color or street name where you previously lived. It's not because they have to call your mom to verify your good standing. They use it as a password. Why give people a way to get into your account by knowing your mother's maiden name, which can probably be gotten from the internet quite easily.) There are lots of very important things to teach kids: how to avoid being kidnapped, for example, how to recognize trouble, fraud, con-men, how to carry money in a way that pickpockets won't get to it easily.

Instead, during the crucial development years, we teach them Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet to those who haven't even experienced love for the first time is, unfortunately, a waste. It really is much better with some experience under one's belt (won't you say?). It's about as useful as teaching wine tasting to teenagers.

You seem to think that aside from the standard college (or college-bound high school), there's religious schools and trade school. I'm afraid that there's a WHOLE world of possibilities in education. Open your mind to the possibilities of what you can teach people.

Current education has stagnated for the past forty or so years (just after WWII, I would surmise). It worked then, but it's not working now.

Note that a lot of those who benefitted from more education were the soldiers who came back and used the veterans education freebies. But, they had life experiences under their belts. They can do things. They can appreciate and take advantage of just reading books like Shakespeare. They've gone to hell and back. They knew what they wanted to do. Kids coming out of school nowadays generally have little idea of what they want to do. Why? Because they're not given the opportunity to explore things they like. Instead, they're compartmentalized into algebra from 7:30-8:20, English from 8:30-9:20, and so on. They're burdened with SATs, ACTs, ACHs, PSAT, STAR, and all sorts of other stupid tests. (More stupidity from that edukashun president we have.)

I see lots of kids because I have two and because I see them everyday at fencing. I know what some of them like to do, what they don't like to do. But, they know they have to allot X hours to this, Y hours to that, and so on. The outcome is a mediocre person who really doesn't understand any of those things in truly deep detail. And we call them well-rounded.

The "renaissance" idea of being well-rounded made lots of sense in the 1400s through the 1700s. You can definitely be well-rounded (a renaissance man) person then and have an impact on society and self. I wished I was well-rounded when I was younger, and did take all sorts of courses in different fields. Unfortunately, modern society cannot utilize "well-rounded" people very well. Modern society looks for laser-sharp focused people who have a keen eye on one thing and one thing only.

I read this article about the chef at "French Laundry", a trendy tres fashionable restaurant in Napa Valley in CA. He started as a cook in a family restaurant when the actual cook was sick (or something like that). He did what he had to do, loved it, continued with his culinary education, and now is one of the most famous chefs in the world. He charges $750 a day for people to learn how to cook from his sous chefs. He might show up to tell you a thing or two. He owns a home in the Cayman Islands.

And I'll bet if he wants to learn about Shakespeare, he'll have the time and enjoyment to learn as much as he wants.

Summarizing, my main point is educational efficiency. Teach what is needed, teach what is desired. Education isn't cheap. It's hardly free. (If anything, it costs you time.) If you don't know, and really don't know, what you like to do, go the liberal arts route. I certainly recommend that. But if you have a passion, your teachers should identify it as soon as possible and help you nurture it, make it grow, encourage your continuation in it despite setbacks. But we don't see that in our education system. Do you?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by edew
Your description of your sister and others who get an education in one field and employment in another just underscores my point. What is the "efficiency" of learning X to do Y, even if X has some tangential relation to Y? Why not learn Y to do Y? And learn Y because you love Y, so you can do Y better and thus (with some business acumen that should be taught to all people) parlay that to more income?

Why learn X is that she was INTERESTED in X. again: this is a simple philosophical difference between us that will probably never be resolved: The point of education is to broaden horizons, not get a job. The fact that her major had no bearing on the type of job she got was exactly my point.

Well, for the most part, people don't know what they love to do. That is a shame, not because they didn't know, but because the education system we have here thinks that algebra-English-history-science-foreign language is the be-all and end-all to all possible curricula available. If you're interested in art and can't do algebra well, well, you're screwed in most cases.

And you want to further prevent them from finding out what they love by guiding them into a track based on what they have a talent for (to be determined, presumably, by one of those tests you hate so much).

When was the last time you had to use a quadratic formula? How about a cubic formula?

hehe..... you asked the WRONG person. I used it yesterday! Thats what happens when you major in something which is not a simple trade (Physics/Math).

Schools should start looking for learning deficiencies early, should look at what the person is interested in, and track and move that person in that direction.

See above.

At the same time, there are some core material that should be learned to make it in the world. Those are primarily business related: how to present yourself, how to break into a field, how to balance a check-book, how to open an account. (For example, when asked for your mother's maiden name, do you actually give them your mother's maiden name? Why? Learn this: give them your favorite color or street name where you previously lived. It's not because they have to call your mom to verify your good standing. They use it as a password. Why give people a way to get into your account by knowing your mother's maiden name, which can probably be gotten from the internet quite easily.)

See, now, THOSE are the type of things which parents should be teaching their kids.

Instead, during the crucial velopment years, we teach them Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet to those who haven't even experienced love for the first time is, unfortunately, a waste. It really is much better with some experience under one's belt (won't you say?). It's about as useful as teaching wine tasting to teenagers.

I suppose if you think that Romeo and Juliet can only be appreciated as a love story, and then only by one with experience, then no it wouldn't make sense. if, instead, you see that it is a story about the stupidity and futility of feuds and traditional violence, then it is quite educational for students. It is lessons like these which can be learned from English and History, as well as giving a convenient topic matter for essays, so that students can learn to write as well. Also, if only to broaden vocabulary such things should be read. Also, what is wrong with teenagers tasting wine? I've been tasting various wines (with my parents supervision, of course) for longer than I care to remember.

You seem to think that aside from the standard college (or college-bound high school), there's religious schools and trade school. I'm afraid that there's a WHOLE world of possibilities in education. Open your mind to the possibilities of what you can teach people.

I understand how many options there are. however, what you describe is, essentially, a trade school in whatever field is determined to be best for each student. I can tell you that I didn't know WHAT I wanted to do til at least my senior year of high school. and lets be clear here: I am talking about k-12 public schools. Thus, trying to seperate tracks early removes the students desire from the equation.

Current education has stagnated for the past forty or so years (just after WWII, I would surmise). It worked then, but it's not working now.

Again, note that changing the system is neither necessary for or tantamount to changing the curricula.

Note that a lot of those who benefitted from more education were the soldiers who came back and used the veterans education freebies. But, they had life experiences under their belts. They can do things. They can appreciate and take advantage of just reading books like Shakespeare. They've gone to hell and back. They knew what they wanted to do. Kids coming out of school nowadays generally have little idea of what they want to do. Why? Because they're not given the opportunity to explore things they like. Instead, they're compartmentalized into algebra from 7:30-8:20, English from 8:30-9:20, and so on. They're burdened with SATs, ACTs, ACHs, PSAT, STAR, and all sorts of other stupid tests. (More stupidity from that edukashun president we have.)

again, note my prior point. You do NOT need experience to appreciate Shakespeare, though you may appreciate it in new ways once you have that experience.

I see lots of kids because I have two and because I see them everyday at fencing. I know what some of them like to do, what they don't like to do. But, they know they have to allot X hours to this, Y hours to that, and so on. The outcome is a mediocre person who really doesn't understand any of those things in truly deep detail. And we call them well-rounded.

So your solution is to create a world of people who know everything about carpentry, or plumbing, or networking, but know absolutely nothing about history? Is not historical perspective a useful tool in judging politicians and political issues? do not those carpenters and plumbers elect our government?

The "renaissance" idea of being well-rounded made lots of sense in the 1400s through the 1700s. You can definitely be well-rounded (a renaissance man) person then and have an impact on society and self. I wished I was well-rounded when I was younger, and did take all sorts of courses in different fields.

So, apparently education for the sake of education DOES hold merit for you....

Unfortunately, modern society cannot utilize "well-rounded" people very well. Modern society looks for laser-sharp focused people who have a keen eye on one thing and one thing only.

I don't know what very limited part of society you are operating in. As I pointed out, my sister was able to work for the Advisory Board, and later as a contract specialist (again, a completely unrelated position) due simply to the fact that she IS well rounded, and can think critically. THAT is the important part. Another person I know makes, I suspect, far more than your tradesmen (mid 200's per hour) for "consulting". This consulting is done on many topics, and she is basically paid for her intelligence and problem solving ability. That ability was gained from majoring in Psychology in college. she has NEVER directly used that major. She got an education in a topic she was interested in, and using that topic as a medium, she was taught to think, write, and problem solve. THAT is well rounded. at that point, it doesn't matter what trade skills one has, because trade skills can be learned quickly if you know HOW to learn and HOW to think.

I read this article about the chef at "French Laundry", a trendy tres fashionable restaurant in Napa Valley in CA. He started as a cook in a family restaurant when the actual cook was sick (or something like that). He did what he had to do, loved it, continued with his culinary education, and now is one of the most famous chefs in the world. He charges $750 a day for people to learn how to cook from his sous chefs. He might show up to tell you a thing or two. He owns a home in the Cayman Islands.

Which is a very good point if I agreed to your premise that the purpose of education is to prepare one to turn a profit. It IS good that he found that he loved cooking, but my guess is that if you looked into his background further, you will find he has an extensive general education, and if you asked him, he would probably tell you he is glad he had it.

Summarizing, my main point is educational efficiency. Teach what is needed, teach what is desired. Education isn't cheap. It's hardly free. (If anything, it costs you time.) If you don't know, and really don't know, what you like to do, go the liberal arts route. I certainly recommend that. But if you have a passion, your teachers should identify it as soon as possible and help you nurture it, make it grow, encourage your continuation in it despite setbacks. But we don't see that in our education system. Do you?

How old were you when you KNEW what you wanted to do/learn??? I rest my case. general education is needed before the student knows what he wants to learn. Also, once you reach that level where you know what you want (generally college) you CAN take as few or as many electives as you want generally.

-m

[JEC]

Great points, ... but I missed the how the students learned what they need to learn, or how the educators know what to teach each of them?

The truly best education is in graduate school, specially, if one had the opportunity to be out there ("in the real world"), and with more common sense pick the subjects to improve your knowledge base or skills within the narrow area of expertise of your field.

[edew]

Mike. I have a ****ing PhD in math. The only time I use a quadratic formula now is when I tutor or teach someone algebra. It has zero practical use for 99% of the people in this country (probably higher than that). So why do 100% of the high school students have to go through that trial and tribulation? They're not interested in that X, I can tell you that. If your sister studied X because she was interested in X, why didn't she get a job in X? People who work in things they enjoy ultimately live better lives. The point I was making is that if she wanted to do X, she should study it. And there should be core courses to teach her how to make that love of hers into an income stream as well.

If you love to paint, you shouldn't have to be a starving artist. That you are is a testament of the bad education, not that your painting skills are deficient or you really ought to look into that sales position with Macy's. My point is, if you love X, study X. And learn how to benefit from that.

I'm from a typical asian family. Engineers, doctors, (not lawyers), or some such profession. That was our destiny. If we loved something else, forget about it. It wouldn't put bread (or rice) on the table. Well, you know what? That's such a piece of bull****. The reality is, go for what you love. And learn how to make that into a profitable venture. And believe me, that trip, a trip you are so eager to take because it is for something you love, will broaden your horizons far more than any four or five or six years studying in a school room.

JEC, there are certain things I think all people need to know to assimilate in this society. You need to know how to read and write. Actually, you need to know how to communicate. Whether that's writing with flowery prose or 133t style writing is not so important. You need to be aware of the current hazards. That includes financial hazards like fraud and theft as well as "natural" hazards like bad hygiene or thunderstorms. You need to know the legal system. You need to know how to use the government to your advantage. Those are core subjects that should be taught and taught and taught until the person gets it. There should be not test or grades for such courses. There should be no exception to not knowing it (unless you can get a written permission from some daddy warbucks that says you'll be well taken care of).

Aside from that, there should be activities for kids to "play" in. Play is basically work that one enjoys. Teachers will offer activities ranging from singing and painting to computers to whatever. There are no grades and not testing involved. Teachers are there to recognize potential and suggest to parents directions the kids should take. Give the kid the low-down on what is involved. Assign the kid to a mentor, perhaps. Let them develop. We should, of course, anticipate that what they like now isn't what they might like two years from now. So, there are contingencies. While they're doing what they like, allow them to experience other ideas and disciplines. Let them make the connections between the different disciplines.

As for graduate school, it used to be, if you didn't know what to do after college, you go to graduate school, preferably in something that tickled your fancy in college. Now, with some wisdom under my belt, I would suggest to anyone with no idea what they want to do to go out into the workforce. Meet people and learn about life. That's a much broader horizon and much more complex and interesting than cocooning in some study hall. Only if you are sure you have a passion for a particular subject should you go to graduate school. More schooling isn't cheap. It's quite expensive, even if you get a tuition waiver and a stipend. There is opportunity cost to account for.

If you are a gifted mathematician who's got several papers under his belt. Go directly to grad school. Get that PhD and continue in that track. If you're just interested and want to dabble. Don't bother your time. It's too precious.

And Mike, you really ought to dream bigger and open your mind to wider possibilities. I suggested tracking. But it doesn't have to be thee old East German method of taking the kid out of the home and placed in some project X incubator farm. There are many ways to track and guide a person that does not require the heavy iron fist. And doesn't require testing.

As for who will do this? There are lots of people who would want to help out just for the charitable benefit it gives. But, if you add the VC concept angle, and suggest that if they help out, they get something quantifiable in return. There is a return in their investment. But, their initial reason to do so is not for the money. It's because they want to give back to the community and the children. Who are these people? They are almost every one of us. All of us would want to help out. But many don't because we don't have time (and there are bureaucratic reasons otherwise). If there is also a tangible benefit kicker, many people might consider doing it.

How many millions of people donated blood after 9/11 last year? They did it because of some innate sense of wanting to do something. (After hearing that the blood banks can't deal with the inflow, I didn't bother. I used to give blood, but I can't anymore. Can't find a vein, they say.) Those millions are always looking for a way to help. What is needed is an instrument to focus their desire to help with actual beneficial help, and offer some tangible return for the help. That's all.

[135711]

that was good, you sound an awful lot like someone i know, who is also an asian machine. you should take a little break. i enjoyed reading your post though. i almost went into an f of x mode, then i suddenly snapped out of it. mathematics is sort of interesting, i almost went into it myself, but i snapped out of it. you should go to hawaii and marry some nice hawaii girl, there's a zillion of them, have a few little kids, and relax or something.
I've always wanted to be a match maker, I can do it, I know there's a little chinese blood in me somewhere.

[135711]

p.s. what does painting have to do with this. is it because i suggesting painting as a creative outlet for people? if so, i stand by my suggestion, i think it's a good one. and you don't have to be hanging in a museum to consider yourself a good artist or painter. for example van gough couldn't sell any of his paintings except to his brother in law. and is is considered to be a world class genius artist. so, it is entirely possible to study something with a great master and starve.

[135711]

[135711]

[135711]

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew

Which is why I responded with: "The state rapes and steals?"

OK, I see whence your response now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I hope you realized nevertheless that I wasn't trying to make a case for the legitimacy of state theft, rape, and so on. Only for state killing, under certain circumstances. The logic being that every society of which I can think, throughout history, has recognized the right of the individual to exercise force, up to and including deadly force, in defense of self or a third party. This makes it as close to a universal "natural" law as it is possible to get. Whereas although there may have been societies which permit individuals to rape or rob without sanction, I cannot call any to mind, so in any case they will have been rare. Inasmuch as the state, then, is the legal embodiment of the collective of individuals, whatever rights the individual enjoys can be extended to that collective as well---including the right to use force, including deadly force, to protect its members, whether from criminal mayhem or from that of another state under conditions of war...

I hope that's clearer. Sorry again for the previous loose wording.

As for stealing, taxation is stealing. Ok, maybe not local taxation where the money is agreed upon by many of the local citizens. But it's definitely stealing when the government capriciously decide which particular group to go after

I have to disagree. Taking the individual as the template again, if I provide you with a good or service I have the right to charge a payment for them. If you receive the service and refuse to pay, I take you to court and you will be forced to pay. This is in a sense what taxation is: payment by the citizenry for services rendered, whether in the form of national defense, the National Park System, the courts, roads, bridges, or what have you. Now, you may argue that exacting payment a service which all citizens have not recognized as necessary is wrong, but the way our government is set up we elect representatives to make those decisions for us, true democracy being too unwieldy for large-scale governance and having several fatal drawbacks. Inasmuch as this is our system, to which our social contract binds us, taxation even in those circumstances cannot be legally defined as "stealing". Personal opinions may of course vary, but it is not personal opinions which rule on the issue...

smoking is bad and unpopular. So, let's add an extra $2.00 tax per pack. If you don't think that's stealing, hidden under the guise of legislative mumbo-jumbo, then you really are more idealistic than I am.

Understand, I agree that the government ought not be picking and choosing which personal habits should be forbidden or encouraged. However, technically, it is not stealing, it is regulation. The state is empowered to regulate a broad variety of things. Is requiring you to "buy" a driving license and insurance, to wear glasses if needed, to refrain from intoxication, and so on in order to pilot a hurtling mass of steel at high speeds around other people "stealing"? Is requiring safety standards for automobiles---which add to the price you must pay for it---"stealing"?

The potential harm to others from smoking must be weighed against the harm to personal liberty, and in this case I think perhaps the scales have tipped too far toward nanny-statism; but it is still regulation, not theft as defined by the law of the land.

If you look at all the pork-barrels, all the little taxes here and there, and ways the government can get their money, the basic fact is, it's stealing.

It is a dysfunction of the system, to be sure. Nevertheless, again, it is not stealing under strict legal standards.

Taken to the logical extreme, the government has no right to take resources from its citizens in order to provide them with ANYTHING, since that requires a decision by the representatives of the COLLECTIVE people which may be at variance with the INDIVIDUAL decisions of many of them. Extreme pacifists for instance strongly protest their taxes being used to support the military. If this protest is recognized as just and followed by the state the society will have no military and will survive only until another state takes it over and makes slaves of its citizens. After which there will be little use in complaining about "rights" of any sort.

And if you don't pay, they have the muscle to make you pay. The bottom line is that it's no different than your typical organized crime shake-down. Many of those "laws" are passed in the dead of night, without the scrutiny of the media, and certainly without any consensus of the populace.

And yet, under our system of government it is legally and properly done. If it is not, the courts will overturn the government action, a feature signally lacking under "organized crime". And again, it is still ultimately "We the People" who choose the agents we empower to make the rules. It is not a perfect system, but it beats hellout of most alternatives...

And even if there is consensus of the populace, it's still stealing. Just done with more finesse. If a psychic or some con-man makes you willingly give up money, it's still stealing. If the legislature voted to pass some large tax measure, or a state proposition passes, it's still stealing, but the window dressing makes it look good.

No, it is simply the excation of payment for services rendered. Perhaps you would like to home-school your own children using charcoal on the wall of a cave, and fend off your neighbors with your flint spear---I rather like things like roads, and standards of food quality, and a legal framework ( complete with coercive enforcement system ) which permits goods and services to be exchanged in a rational, organized manner, for production decisions to be made with some expectation of stability and continuity, and the fact that my neighbor isn't permitted the "personal liberty" to cut my throat in the middle of the night because I looked at him wrong...

I don't see any particular improvements in the environment from those bonds. I don't see any particular improvements in schools from those bonds. They just go to line the pockets of those who drafted the propositions.

There is corruption, no question about it. However,just because you "don't see" an effect from some particular financing package doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may in fact be measurable primarily in the fact that some situation or other didn't get any worse---that a forest wasn't opened to logging, or a school didn't close entirely, or what have you...

[135711]

[Catlady]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edew
[B I can tell you that. If your sister studied X because she was interested in X, why didn't she get a job in X? People who work in things they enjoy ultimately live better lives. The point I was making is that if she wanted to do X, she should study it. And there should be core courses to teach her how to make that love of hers into an income stream as well.[quote]

Perhaps because society no longer values X? Under your proposed reforms there will apparently be even less use for what equals X in my case.

[quote]If you love to paint, you shouldn't have to be a starving artist. That you are is a testament of the bad education, not that your painting skills are deficient or you really ought to look into that sales position with Macy's. My point is, if you love X, study X. And learn how to benefit from that.[quote]
What about me? My X actually is stuff like Marlowe and Romeo and Juliet. Yes, maybe I'd be a writer anyway, but I think I had to learn what was out there to understand that I wanted to make a contribution to the conversation, if you will, if I didn't all ready know about the conversation that had gone before.

[quote]If we loved something else, forget about it. It wouldn't put bread (or rice) on the table. Well, you know what? That's such a piece of bull****. The reality is, go for what you love.[quote]

But, aren't you doing the same thing. You are stating that what really has value is the hands on trade school kind of thing. I've fought the same battle you have in a way. Every time I complain to my family about some of the less fun bits of being an English major/wanting to write I get "You know, you could have majored in business". This from some one who did, and slowly grew to hate it. I do not want a job that I will loathe every day until I can retire, if I even get to retire.
Yes, to some extent, you don't need any school at all to be writer beyond the basics, but my writing, I believe has been improved by formalized study of what has gone before and having a formalized group with whom to share what I've written.

[quote]JEC, there are certain things I think all people need to know to assimilate in this society. You need to know how to read and write. Actually, you need to know how to communicate. Whether that's writing with flowery prose or 133t style writing is not so important. You need to be aware of the current hazards. That includes financial hazards like fraud and theft as well as "natural" hazards like bad hygiene or thunderstorms. You need to know the legal system. You need to know how to use the government to your advantage. Those are core subjects that should be taught and taught and taught until the person gets it. There should be not test or grades for such courses. There should be no exception to not knowing it (unless you can get a written permission from some daddy warbucks that says you'll be well taken care of).[quote]

I agree. However, and I would think someone who espouses so much of the Libertarian hands-off-but-out-of-my-business-philosophy would realize this, isn't a lot of that the responsibility of the parents? Isn't it your job to teach them how to cook, and make a budget and etc?

[quote]As for graduate school, it used to be, if you didn't know what to do after college, you go to graduate school, preferably in something that tickled your fancy in college. Now, with some wisdom under my belt, I would suggest to anyone with no idea what they want to do to go out into the workforce. Meet people and learn about life. That's a much broader horizon and much more complex and interesting than cocooning in some study hall. Only if you are sure you have a passion for a particular subject should you go to graduate school. More schooling isn't cheap. It's quite expensive, even if you get a tuition waiver and a stipend. [quote]
Agreed. However, going out into the world is what made me decide I needed to go to grad. school. I was planning on it anyway, although in a different discipline. As I said I majored in English. I complain about how badly writers and other artistic types are treated and even sometimes call it a useless degree, but I couldn't have done anything different. This is truth for me with a capital T, Socratic Truth, to get Zen, it is my dharma. I was going to become an English professor. Maybe, someday I still will. I cannot imagine anything in the world better than getting paid for talking literature and language, and writing and actually getting paid for it. My original grad. school plans didn't work out. I had a few dead end jobs. For the most part I didn't care abou them. The last one, was frankly making me into a person I didn't like much. I doubt others like me much either. As I matter of fact, I know. I've had many people tell me that I'm so much better to be around since I don't have that job anymore. I realized I needed to find something I could be passionate about. By a somewhat round about track I wound up in grad. school. Yes, it cost plenty, and I worry about what else I could spend my money on. What with starving children in the world and all. However, I think the Bible says it best in posing the question, "What profit it a man to gain the world if he loses his soul?". If I did something that you would deem more useful I would make a better living, but hate every minute of it. I wonder about the usefulness too, of studying something "useless" to teach the same "uselessness" to others and repeat the whole cycle ad naseum, but I've come to the conclusion that some things are not quantifiable by money, or anything entirely tangible. From your system I see the result of useful, practical people, but people with virtually no soul and no ability to appreciate what it is so wonderful about life, yet cannot have its value measured. I agree for most people writing is what's highly important. I hated the endless obsessing about grammar and learning to diagram sentences as much if not moreso than others, but the teaching of the abitlity to read, and understand and write cannot be lost.

[/B

]As for who will do this? There are lots of people who would want to help out just for the charitable benefit it gives. Who are these people? l. [/B]

Actually, I'd say those people are teachers. Maybe, the answer rather than venture capital, is to actually pay teachers decently. Yes a lot of money gets put into public schools, but not much gets to the teachers. Teachers get paid very little, and then everyone wonders why only bleeding hearts like yours truly want to teach? Hmm? I agree the school system needs fixing.. HOwever, I believe it's the administrators, not the teachers themselves who need to be chastized and have their roles more critically valued. I don't know that you can pay teachers enough. I've had bad teachers, but I've had a few who have given such an immense part of themselves to their schools and students that I remain in awe. One reason why I doubt I'm suited to teach in public schools is because I'm not sure I want to lose myself so deeply in anything and ignore my own needs to such an extent, but I also don't know that it's fair to give any less to ones students.

[edew]

It's not stealing in the strict legal sense. Well, of course. Who made those "legal" sense? My god, do you just give everything to the government? Do you just believe everything they say and do? Of course it's not stealing. Enron wasn't stealing either. They just moved money around, and told people that they have a large revenue.

That, folks, is called a con job. It's a con job whether it's the government doing it, by passing laws that let them do it, or by some slimeball playing a pyramid scheme.

If you like, we can have the government legalize rape (and for domestic cases, it was legal until just recently), legalize murder, slavery (you know about this), and whatever else.

Saying that the government isn't stealing because they wrote the laws that let them do it is kinda, uh, naive.

Read today's Salon.com headline article about how the Pentagon loses billions more dollars than Enron or WorldCom ever lost. If that's not stealing (and giving the money to the connected), I don't know what is.

I mean, that is, in the most fundamental sense of the word, stealing. When you forcibly take money from someone and give it undeservedly to someone else. That's stealing. Sure, you can write a bill that gives it a stamp of some governmental acceptance. But the nuts and bolts of it is out and out stealing.

[edew]

Catlady,

Gary Larson, the cartoonist who drew the Far Side cartoons once drew a panel where a kid loved playing video games. The parents had the thoughts (in thought bubbles) of "game players needed. $50,000 starting salary. Ferraris after two years...."

Well, you know what? The top Doom player makes much more than that in endorsements and gaming prize winnings.

Two hundred years ago, if you weren't a farmer, you're pretty much stuck for a job. You could be an academician, maybe one of the standard professional jobs, like lawyer or doctor, or a journalist.

Even then, there were lots of niche jobs. But really, now is where niche jobs are most important and most lucrative. Consider the clothing industry. The clothing industry is pretty much relegated to New York (in the US, Rome and Paris in Europe). Because of the complexity and layers and layers of evolutionary changes to the industry, you can make a very good living doing nothing other than selling buttons. Or zippers. A friend of mine tried to get into the clothing industry. She failed, but she told me all sorts of stories about the New York clothing industry. There is a lucrative job in every possible niche work available. There are people who do nothing but supply the hangers for department stores. There are the mannequin designers, the display organizers, people who buy and sell off-season clothing, just tons and tons of little niche jobs.

Currently in the West Coast, the high-tech area, I see the same thing. Fifteen or twenty years ago, you had software engineers, a marketing person, a sales person, and the finance people. Now, the marketing area is broken down to three, four, five different areas of specialization. Sales? There's corporate sales, channel sales, direct sales, you name it. Each one requires a person with that expertise. Engineering? There's QA, development, system development, system engineers, release and build engineers, ECO manager, bug-tracking administrator, program manager, project manager, integration engineer, features engineer, and so on. Each one is a niche area.

The world continues to grow in complexity (the reverse of entropy). With complexity is specialization. Generalists have no place in the modern world. Specialization, specialization, specialization.

Thus, if you love X, find a business case for doing X. You love X. Maybe 10,000 others love X. Now, you have a business that you love and can make money on.

[It]

FISRT OFF ----> EDEW<---- PLEASE DON"T REPLY TO THIS, PLEASE DON"T EVEN THINK ABOUT A REPLY, WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT YOUR THINKING!!!! (you posted so many times on this thread already)







The jury for the Van Dame case has came back from deliberations and recommended the death penalty for David Westerfield. The ( as we know ) man who was convicted of Kidnapping and the Murder of Danile Van Dame. Now it's up to the judge. Wheather this is a good thing or not, it still brings me a little sadness. What are so of your feelings?


------> EDEW please reframe from saying anything, a moment of your silence on this thread, please! <------



I may have a mean streak...... but at least I have a heart.

[edew]

Ok. Fingers are tired anyway.