American education vs. European Education
I am American and I was educated through our public school system. I am humbled by the sophistication on this website and it seems there are several European members. I’m curious to hear what members perceive as differences in our educational systems. American public education vs private education is also welcome.
Comments (114)
For what ever reason I believe students in the US perform poorly in mathematics.
Higher ed is a different thing altogether.
On a personal note the propaganda pumped out in the US seems much higher. By this I mean that I’ve met a number of people from the US who seemed to believe everything they were taught in history class ... but that said it does appear that in the US people are much more wary about their countries darker history (I’m from the UK and early on we were indoctrinated with the vile circumstances of WWI and the mistakes made).
I’m curious about what is taught in high school regarding the war that was lost in Vietnam? My understanding is that it wasn’t dwelled on in the past, but now?
I'm from the UK too, where my schooling taught me that the British Empire was us spreading our civilisation to the rest of the world. It was us doing the world a favour, uncivilised savages as they were before we brought them salvation.
...
No mention of invasion, occupation, theft and murder on a grand scale. Where do we think the Victorians got the money to build all that amazing stuff?
I was in the some time at 1st grade and the 2nd grade in Elementary School in the US (public school, View Ridge) in Seattle in the early 1980's and otherwise I've gone through the Finnish education system. I visited some of my old schoolfriends in Seattle in High School.
Some points: In the US elementary school after school hobbies and courses where arrangened extremely well and that part I (and my parents) enjoyed very much. In the Finnish system the school hadn't anything to offer after school for even the youngest children. Only later Finland has copied the US model and has put emphasis on this issue.
Now the obvious truth: the American school was far more easy and lax. 3rd grade in Finland was way more difficult when coming from the US 2nd grade. And when visiting my best friend's high school as a 16-year old and participating with him on the education just for a day, I noticed really big differences. When coming to the High School waited to meet the principle and there was a model of the SAT tests laying in the secretaries offices. I immediately noticed that "Hey, these are easy!" and I could do the majority of them without any kind of studying beforehand. (The principle was actually a very educated man and greeted me in Finnish. When I responded in Finnish he was so delighted, that he said something in Russian. I had to tell him that even if we have been a Grand Dutchy of Russia for nearly 100 years, hardly any Finn talks Russian). During that day it became evident that Math was way more easier,the history lessons was very superficial and in the French class, the whole class seemed to be totally or at least partly clueless on what was been taught. I also noticed that at this stage the pupils were divided racially. In the 2nd grade everybody played together and it didn't matter if you were white, latin or black. With 16 year olds the divide into groups was quite evident (something that I never experienced in Finland as there simply here there were then no minorities to speak of).
What was strikingly different was physical excersize. At that time, especially gymnastiks in Finland was, I don't know but I presume, copied from East Germany and I hated it in the 3rd grade after being in the US school were physical education was intended to be fun. In Finland, not so. And while in the US at such early stage (2nd grade) boys and girls excersized in mixed groups, in Finland right from the start girls and boys were separated and never excersized together (until dance lessons in final year, if that is considered gymnastics).
Finland at that time came to be some kind of a poster child for education systems and for Finns to become such a model was totally unintensional and surpising. The teachers just wanted a "good system" and nothing else and were totally blown away that by some standards the Finnish system was top notch. Today Finland has fallen in the rankings as many countries have made it policy to improve their systems in the rankings.
I would say that as noted earlier here, US education simply doesn't ask so much from it's pupils as in other countries they do. In the US they have simply tackled the problem of poor results by lowering the standards. That I think isn't the way to do it.
The first thing Americans should understand that being a teacher should be a very respected job and teachers should be very well educated and well trained. And that the educative system has to be challenging. You cannot simply rely on foreigners coming to your country to make your higher education the best in the World. Sure, the Ivy League universities can prosper, but how about the hundreds of other universities and colleges?
Compared to European history. America is just a child. though one can argue we are an extension of Europe therefore share the same history.
Of course. in terms of levels of education, I’m not trying to lump a whole continent together , but generally it seems Europeans are more astute in philosophy. Though I’ve come to discover America is rich in philosophy (Paine, Hume, Jefferson) and some consider us the ‘great experiment’, I can tell you very few people , in any circle, are familiar with these people let alone their views.
It isn't until grad school that you more exclusively concentrate on your chosen field.
I am American, but have spent went too much time comparing educational systems. The MAJOR difference between highly rated systems like say, Finland, and the USA, is consistency. Our best schools (at all levels of education) are just as good as any country's (often better). However, our worst schools seem to be from another planet, whereas Finland's worst schools are almost as good as their best.
When we read that America is 24th in the world in Math (possibly worse by now), it does not mean that we don't train some of the best mathematicians on earth. We just let most get by with crap.
Your question on philosophy may be on to something though. It is normal to learn philosophy in Europe at lower grade levels. As someone else in this thread mentioned, our general ed in college, has a lot of material that they are introduced to at an earlier age. We are starting to see the IB curriculum (an international program similar to AP classes in the US) becoming more popular at high performing schools in the US, but don't expect changes to happen too quickly in our current environment of STEM at all costs.
Yes, this is the case. If you live in a poor neighborhood, you go to a poor school.
Just as important, this creates a massive selection bias of where people live, as anyone planning a family will move to a neighborhood with as good a school as possible (and people with more money use private schools to avoid interactions with the "exceptions"; i.e., poor kids that happened to get into a better school for whatever reason).
What this means is that the poor are (much more likely than in Europe) to be segregated from wealthier people right from birth. Your family (again, more likely than in Europe) is poor and uneducated and has poor and uneducated friends.
Having richer and educated friends is not simply a big advantage in life, it also has a large effect on your world view, as a poor person, but also a large effect on the world view of the rich person.
If classes mix, you get learning both ways. A poor person with rich friends is going to learn what habits and strategies the rich use to get richer and what the world looks like from a manager / executive / bureaucrat perspective; maybe they implement those learnings, maybe not, but on average it's a big benefit to the poor.
Likewise, a manager / executive / bureaucrat that actually knows poor people in their network of family and friends, is going have better insight into what the world looks like to a poor person, and is going to be able to much better discern what are actually helpful policies to society (that when a poor person complains that something is simply not fair -- like secondary education or healthcare costs or lack of maternity leave and childcare services or too small vacation time are all things the rich can simply afford but are major obstacles to being poor -- maybe it really is simply not fair and should be changed).
And of course, the US proves the alternative hypothesis, that if the classes don't mix, not only is it easy for the rich to just assign blame for being poor to the poor, the poor are so clueless that they will happily internalize this blame. There's a really interesting studies, I think recently a good article in the Guardian about them, that shows that after Reaganomics in the US and UK, the perception that "it's primarily hard work and talent that results in wealth" actually increased significantly while social mobility decreased significantly. The explanation for this is that when conditions get much harder to deal with (and one can only rely on oneself), it's an important coping strategy to believe this is fair to stay motivated.
The municipality funded education in combination with largely private higher education is a double whammy in terms of social segregation, which we should predict (just as many did) will result in a dysfunctional democracy as general knowledge and critical thinking falls below what even Bernays style social engineering by well meaning media talking heads are able to corral into a somewhat coherent direction.
It's been a long time since I was in grade school/jr high/high school, but at the time, busing was big in the name of integration. You often went to schools 15 or so miles away from home rather than schools close to home.
That may have changed though.
Ah yes, the time tested rule of using micro-level exceptions as the basis to infer macro-level trends.
Not sure what that means, boethius. So is busing not common any longer?
I took some effort to indicate effects are on the aggregate and to not phrase my points in a way that opens up to "micro exception criticism" such as "aha, some people get scholarships" or "what about buses" or "one poor kid was at a rich school, riddle me that!".
Was busing effective at avoiding economic segregation at the time in the aggregate? If you don't have any evidence of that, why would it matter if busing is still a thing now? It's pure deflection.
???
When I went to school, busing was common. You didn't go to the school in your neighborhood just because it was the school in your neighborhood. Therefore, it wasn't the case that if you were in a poor neighborhood, with a poorly-funded school, you went to that school. (And vice versa.)
The only way it would be the case that you tend to go to the school in your neighborhood (poor neighborhood/"poor school" etc.) is if busing isn't a big thing any longer. I don't know if that's the case. Is it?
That was the point. An intelligent response would be one from someone who knows for sure that busing isn't a big thing any longer.
He who hath ability to type things into search engines, let him type things into search engines.
He who hath not, let boethius doeth foreth him and pasteth the firstest resultith.
[quote=Researchers of this topic]
[...]
The trends we documented in this paper indicate an increasingly polarised pattern of school enrolment. US schools – both public and private – are increasingly segregated by income. High-income families increasingly live either in suburbs with expensive housing or enrol their children in private schools. The private schools their children attend are more likely to be expensive non-sectarian schools than was the case four decades ago. Meanwhile, low-income students remain disproportionately concentrated in high-poverty public schools, and even those low-income students in private schools are generally not in expensive, non-sectarian private schools.
Given how difficult it is to build and sustain high quality educational programs in schools serving high concentrations of children from low-income families (Duncan and Murnane 2014), the increasing income segregation of US schools is likely to strengthen the intergenerational transmission of economic inequality, and reduce the potential for upward economic mobility.
References
Cooper, B S (1984), “The changing demography of private schools: Trends and implications”, Education and Urban Society 16(4): 429-442.
Duncan, G J and R J Murnane (2014), Restoring opportunity: The crisis of inequality and the challenge for American education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press and the Russell Sage Foundation.
Murnane, R J and S F Reardon (2017), “Long-term trends in private school enrollments by family income”, NBER Working Paper No. 23571.
Owens, A (2016), “Inequality in children's contexts: Trends and correlations of economic segregation between school districts, 1990 to 2010”, American Sociological Review 81(3): 549-574.
Owens, A, S F Reardon and C Jencks (2016), “Income segregation between schools and school districts”, American Educational Research Journal 53(4): 1159-1197.
Phi Delta Kappa (1992), "Gallup/phi delta kappa poll # 1992-PDK92: 24th annual survey of the public's attitudes toward the public schools", Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Cornell University.
Stone, C, D Trisi, A Sherman and E Horton (2016), A guide to statistics on historical trends in income inequality, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
[/quote]
Please show your evidence about buses impacting these large trends.
Jesus you're a moron. I'm not saying anything about buses impacting anything (aside from whether folks go to their neighborhood schools). Either it's still common to bus students or it isn't. You have no idea if it is, yet you want to respond like a jerk anyway. I don't know if it is still common or not. It used to be. Someone must know if it's still common, but you sure don't have any idea. Respond again with your "expert" hat on anyway. It's the Internet, after all.
Darn, I guess I can't just move to Canada if I get tired of the American system of education :smile:
Quoting Grre
Should be an interesting comparison. Certainly let me know of any stark differences.
The 80% who are not among elite students are not one big undifferentiated lump, of course. Their performance ranges between abysmal and excellent, with the distribution skewed toward the 'average' and 'below average'.
But then one has to ask, "What good does 'education' do?" I value education quite highly, but the fact is that its utility is not guaranteed. There is a significant difference between the life-outcomes of students with no social advantages (or significant disadvantages) and those who are loaded with social advantage. Social background matters. White students from low-income working class families will usually not achieve at the same high level that white students from high-income middle class families, everything else being equal.
If education is worthwhile for its own sake, (the "life of the mind" and all that) then it is always worthwhile. As a ticket to upward mobility, it has less utility. Less utility because family background is a critical factor.
I am not sure if this will help your discussion, but no, busing is no longer common. Brown vs Board over-ruled segregation in 1954, and then, throughout America, nothing changed aside from a few highly televised cases. In 1971 the supreme court suggested busing might be a useful way to enforce segregation. By 1974 busing was so unpopular that new laws reduced the implementation of busing. It continued through the 1980s but "white flight" made busing largely pointless (busing was used to integrate schools that were 15-30 minutes apart). If all the white people live in Orange County, then no amount of busing will integrate Los Angeles County. So, busing has largely faded away.
Thanks for identifying me as the saviour of mankind, but I think it's a bit over-exaggerated compliment even for your usual dedication of precision.
However, was Jesus, who you purport is me, a moron to care about mankind? It would be off topic here, but I recommend this new theistic theory in the philosophy of religion. It would be an interesting discussion, as well as your thesis that I am Jesus; like, we haven't proved otherwise as far as I know.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Though I agree education is worthwhile for it's own sake as well as important for democracy, for the Nordic welfare state model, of which high investments in education and very equal educational quality (as @ssu notes) is a key part, also have the lowest correlation between poor parents income and their children's income.
Though other social policies also play a roll (and roll of parents isn't removed), I would argue high-quality and free education is the largest.
The formal racial segregating parts of the law were ruled unconstitutional and then removed by law, but by the time those changes took effect the demographic die was cast. The financial benefit to the white population of the FHA and VA housing programs was huge and has endured. Public housing developments were designated for black populations. These were rental properties in which no equity could be accumulated.
Importing poor black students into middle class suburban schools was hotly resisted, and as ZhouBoTong noted, has been abandoned.
I didn't realize it was abandoned . . . what did they do with all of those school buses? Haha.
I was actually glad that I was bused to the schools I was bused to. It gave me exposure to wide cultural variety, it led to life-long friendships, and it even led to career opportunities in a broader range of contexts than I would have easily had otherwise. My schools were mostly comprised of an unusual mixture of inner-city ghetto kids (and the schools were in the middle of those ghettos), middle-class suburban kids, rednecks, and uber-rich kids.
Do you know when busing stopped being the norm?
Yes, I'm aware this history, though it is not directly relevant to economic segregation; you could have rich largely black communities due to this history if inter-generational social mobility was high. But social mobility is low for poor people of all colours in the US.
In other words, higher investments in education, free higher education, universal healthcare, more aggressive progressive taxation, and other social welfare policies, under the thesis that the Nordic model increases social mobility, would benefit also these communities of which the "die was cast" as you say. If a community has close to average education of the general population, then you can setup businesses in that community without a competitive disadvantage. So, under other policy conditions, these racially segregated districts can decouple from economic segregation, and some time later you may find architect, engineering and law firms, media studios, art galleries and other signs of economic vibrancy that the zoning permits, and perhaps whites moving to these historically black districts for good work (and vice-versa).
The die was cast that they would be black, the die was not and is not cast that they would remain poor.
Quoting boethius
I disagree that school segregation Is anything less than directly relevant to economic segregation. The slaves were freed, but once free they ran into high impenetrable walls, and not just in the south. The great migration of blacks during the WWI and WWII out of the south brought large numbers of them to places like Cleveland, Chicago, and Detroit. They generally found that the only housing available to them was in already ghettoed black neighbourhoods, which became much more crowded and much more dilapidated. When they attempted to move out of the ghetto, they ran into intense resistance or outright violence.
The FHA program was intended to benefit gentile whites, pretty much exclusively. Blacks, Asians, Jews, and Hispanics were all excluded. Roosevelt couldn't get the enabling legislation for the FHA past the southern block in congress without those restrictions.
Once the program began, millions of white homebuyers had the opportunity to purchase first-time homes which were well built in new communities--all of which would appreciate in value quite steeply. Homes that had a current value of $100,000 in 1950 were worth twice as much by 1970, and today are worth a little over 4 times as much. Appreciated housing value gave the white owners equity that could be used to finance their children's college educations, and give their children an enduring boost upwards.
The southern congressional intention was to keep poor blacks poor--poorer if at all possible. Northern whites, while perhaps not as rabidly anti-black as the KKK, were not interested in the future prospects of the black population. The blacks were out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Blacks did, for the most part, stay poor -- or got poorer.
None of this is to say that all whites benefitted from the FHA. In order to qualify for an FHA loan, one had to be adequately employed (or for a VA loan, be an employed veteran). FHA loan programs did very little for small-town America (until quite a bit later). Rural America didn't benefit much at all from the program. There were, are, and will be substantial populations of poor whites with very poor future prospects.
Poor people tend to stay poor because they lack social capital. One needs to have parents that are competent climbers; one's family needs a reasonable amount of cash to successfully launch children into social advancement. An interest in, and the capability of obtaining education is critical. Having good local social contacts is important, and so on.
Without social capital, people who are poor tend to stay that way.
THE COLOR OF LAW is a 2017 book about the FHA -- very good read.
Until the 1960s, it was commonplace here that the teacher must physically punished his students. And until the 80s, humiliating punishments were still in place... Not to mention gum chewing. :sweat:
Huh, I haven't spent much time thinking about education from that view (economic mobility). It always just seemed a given that of course everyone should have equal access to education, and then those that choose to do bigger things (and have the drive and talent), at least are not held back by their education.
But if I really think about, that (equal education alone) will have very little effect on societal economic equality. And when I use phrases like "equal access to education" what do I even mean? If my parents (guardians) are well educated I have an un-equal advantage. If my parents (guardians) care (or not), it matters.
But isn't education a good starting point (well "starting" is probably not quite the right word)? How else do the workers of the world know they are supposed to unite? Isn't education a good place to hopefully create a tipping point at some time in the future? I am certainly being WAY too optimistic...but you do not seem perpetually pessimistic. You seem to have some hope that your somewhat communist view can come true. Where does the revolution begin if not through education? Or should we copy previous successful models (monarchy, capitalism, etc) and just hope that a few of the "best" of us can convince the rabble with nothing but rhetoric and a little sophistry?
And apologies, as I am not sure I entirely understand your position. I don't think you are devaluing education, but you seem to be hinting at a better way to accomplish the goal of economic equality?
I should have been more clear. By "directly related" I meant "a primary factor of inter-generational poverty transmission".
If racial segregation, in itself, was a factor in inter-generational poverty, then a black community would be more likely to stay poor because they are black.
I think we are in agreement, but it is a pet peeve of mine for racist premises to "slip in by the window", which is what happens when we accept the premise that a "poor kid will likely remain poor for being born to a black family in a black community".
When "a black community" is used as shorthand for a whole range of policies over many generations aimed at keeping blacks poor, then it's perfectly sensible. But this is a dangerous short-hand, as it reinforces the racist premise that blacks are poor because they are black or because they live with blacks.
So it is not racial segregation that is a cause of poverty, but rather all sort of policies, many targeted specifically at blacks and many just targeted at the poor in general, that are the cause of both poverty and lack of social mobility (the poverty trap).
Though the above is just a question of emphasis and don't think we have any fundamental disagreement.
Where we disagree is that, what the Nordic model has shown is that the correlation between parents and child income can be significantly lowered; that there is a set of policies under-which poor children relatively easily make much more money than their parents.
From a US perspective, this is of course not the case, and so whatever inequality there was 30, 50, 100 years ago is highly correlated to the income inequality now.
However, the Nordic model demonstrates that this correlation can be broken, social mobility, fairly significantly within a single generation: parents to children.
So, it is true that:
Quoting Bitter Crank
Because of US policies that make social mobility unlikely. But the Nordic model demonstrates that parent's income need not be the main determining factor. Which is why I said "under other policy conditions" those poor communities could now be economically vibrant.
I.e. if the Nordic model was brought to these communities, the child income would start to decouple statistically from parent income.
I would argue education is the most important element of the Nordic model. And to repeat, education in Nordic countries is the same investment per child wherever they are in the country, and the investment is high:
In primary and secondary education, facilities are excellent, teachers need a masters degree in addition to pedagogical training, class size is relatively small, teachers generally have an assistant, lot's of extra support available, play/structured learning balance. In higher education, tuition is free and students receive housing and a stipend in order to focus on learning.
Other things also benefit social mobility, such as universal health-care, rehabilitation based justice system, city planning, tax policy, welfare for unemployed periods, grants to start a business, free retraining to change careers, and so on.
Why I would argue equal opportunity in education (which includes non-economically segregated schooling to have the opportunity to make friends of kids other social-classes) is the most important is because it leads to a generally educated population where perspectives and arguments are shared more broadly, and so people vote more effectively for all these other policies (changing and improving them as what-works and what-doesn't-work is discovered, both domestically and abroad).
Is there a certain philosophy or approach to education that varies? I know the philosopher, John Dewey had a major influence on American schools. I know many people at the time were theological in nature, given the time period. And quite possibly, does American's public / socialized system breed normalcy? A sort of collectivism and is this the case in Europe?
Also, any conversation about black children's performance has to mention their roots here in America and their continuing and transforming Identity. In my opinion, for the benefit of blacks, having their own schools might be the best thing. I know some might try to spin this into some racial statement, but every community or social group needs to form their own identity first and be proud of that identity, not given to them by the same people who oppressed them.
See my point above about:
Quoting boethius
And discussion that followed from it.
Quoting halo
As others have mentioned, there can be a lot of differences from country to country.
The Finnish system is usually what people have in mind in discussing Europe vs US education.
It is very different philosophy in Finland; the architects of the "Finnish way" changed their purpose from academic achievement, however you want to measure it, to mental health of students. Basically, they said "Finland has become fairly wealthy since WWII (when it was very poor), but what's the purpose in creating wealth and being economically competitive if kids aren't happy?".
So they went about at first largely focusing on mental health issues, which quickly reduces mostly to stress. So what's stressful? Turns out competitive-based-learning is extremely stressful, as well as other things like bullying, not enough time in nature, too long classes / school days, etc.
But in terms of pedagogical philosophy the one thing that created the most changes, is moving from competitive to collaborative based learning. What this means is that there are not "smart streams" and "dumb streams" and you need to compete to get into a smart stream, likewise there are very few tests especially at younger ages and viewing these as competitive "to see who's best" is de-emphasized as much as possible (tests are still needed to see how a student is doing, but they can be done in a way that avoids the perception of competition between students), for that matter "first grade" is at seven which is when structured learning involving classes and tests starts (because earlier is too stressful on small children, so they stay with parents and daycare), lot's of working together in a non-competitive way, and even at 7 it is half the day (the afternoon is with parents or at a "play club", which will usually have a theme like sports or dance, but will be mostly playing).
It turns out, to the surprise of the architects of this system, that reducing stress levels allows students to excel better, learn more, be more creative, and when international testing became a thing, Finland was on top. This wasn't expected, as bringing up the average isn't very visible, especially internally for people comparing to the internal average.
Also, a little note, students call teachers by their first name and are encouraged to question the teacher's authority in the sense of spotting a mistake or needing justification for what the teacher is saying. Is it really true? Is seen as an educational opportunity.
Do you know if other systems incorporate more critical thinking? I can certainly remember having to memorize most of my school years. No pun intended.
We do, basically, share the same viewpoint. BUT, "IF the Nordic model was brought to these communities" is a very big IF, indeed. It's a big IF especially when the US seems to be disinvesting more than investing in education and quality-of-life programs.
There is a program in New York City called the Harlem Children Zone. One part of the program is to remediate one of the earliest appearing educational deficits that poor black children manifest--low verbal development. Poor black children (sorry, I don't have comparative stats for poor white children, say in Appalachia) hear about 20-30 million fewer words by the time they are 5 years old (I'm citing this from memory--it might be 4 years) than middle class white children. Further, they hear about twice as many command words (shut up, sit down, get out of the way) and about half as many positive phrases (good job, nice work, that's right!...) as middle class white children, same age.
If the deficit is not addressed early in life, it tends to result in life-long literacy deficits,
So the remediation program was directed to new mothers, or recent mothers in the project area. They were recruited on the street. The remediation consisted of coaching the mothers to talk to their children more, read to them, say more positive things, say fewer command words, and so on. Engage the child verbally, in other words. (TV has no effect here. It has to be caretaker to child.)
The results weren't magic, but they were very positive -- children in the program did better in school and for a longer period of time than children who were given remedial education once they got to first grade.
Naturally the program has not received generous support from the Dept. of Education (during several administrations). Surprisingly, the non-profit hasn't died of starvation, but I bet that it serves far fewer clients than it could with better funding.
That's just one small example. When you compare not-disadvantaged young children who are in excellent pre-school programs with ones that are at home, they tend to do better in social interaction, verbal skills, eye/hand coordination -- all that basic stuff. I don't have children, but I know parents who do have difficulty finding excellent, affordable day care and pre-school programs. I think France, for instance, does much better at this than we do.
Minnesota, where I live, is a lot like the Nordic countries in a number of ways. Our rate of gun deaths per 100,000 is about the same as Northwestern Europe. The state spends a lot on education and other pieces of public social infrastructure. At the same time that Minnesota schools rate close to the top, the gap between white students' and black (and other minority) students' performance is the largest in the country.
In college (1964-1968) there was very little discussion about class (except in a couple of mid-level sociology courses). In an American history course, the prof suggested I write a paper on the 1919 "Red Scare". This was quite 'enlightening' as I hadn't heard anything about it before.
After college, I roomed for a year with a guy from the University of Illinois who had been involved in leftist politics on campus. We talked about Marx and Trotsky, and the like.
I grew up during the height of the Cold War, so enthusiastic talks on Marx would be pretty unlikely. But the Cold War is over, 30 years past. Still, I don't think much is being said in schools about Marx, class conflict, or anything along those lines. It obviously isn't in the interests of the ruling class to encourage the masses to think about over-throwing them.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I would agree to this. However, the sad truth, as you noted, is THAT THERE IS INDEED A DIFFERENCE EVEN IN FINLAND between the highest ranking schools and the lowest ranking schools (even if there actually is no official/semi-official ranking system). It's not huge as in the US, but it still is. What can one say it but: Meritocracy divides still people into classes. The fact is that highly educated parents with good salaries typically will emphasize more on the upbringing of their children and will tend to live in certain areas. The fact is that a poor community from where people move to bigger cities simply will have more broken families and more social problems, which do have an effect in school performance of the children. Even if it is extremely difficult to measure, there still are these mentalities towards education and school between classes of people. I'm not a racist, hence I don't think Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) are genetically better to others, but I believe they simply regard school and education far important than others.
Yet the US school system is very segregated and indeed as you say, the difference between the lowest performing and the highest performing schools is great.
Quoting Grre
Yep. And have to say that Finland is far less multicultural than the US state of Maine, and has less difference between the richest community and the poorest one. In fact if you don't have any idea how large Finland is, picture in your mind the state of Minnesota. They (Finland and Minnesota) have roughly the same number of people, roughly the same kind of environment and so on. And Minnesota isn't the poorest state in the US, just like Finland isn't the poorest country in Europe. With funding, this means a lot.
Quoting boethius
Never underestimate the importance of the economy. Just like Marx said, it is in the end the most important issue. Hence to have well educated teachers and a well funded education system is still extremely important. If communities can go bankrupt and they won't be helped, no matter what kind of educational policies you have, they won't matter as they cannot be implemented without funding.
Quoting boethius
I'm not so sure about that. First, the teachers and the educators responsible for the system were left alone without a politically motivated agenda and just tried to create "a very good educational system". Yes, the objective wasn't to achieve better results statistically in some test, but still academic achievement wasn't forgotten. To note that Finnish students don't have so many tests as Americans still gives a distorted view as still academic achievement matters. There's just one universal test in the end of the gymnasium.
And let's not forget that Finland has copied some things from the US too. I wouldn't say that there is a difference in "philosophy" in education between the US and Finland. Good teachers now what kind of school and teaching works. Yet as in everything else, things like bigger problems in the society do matter.
And btw Finnish system isn't so top of the notch anymore. I remember one education professional here saying that if you would just take the capital area (which has the best funding), the system would be still as good as in Singapore. With all of the country taken into account, not so. Hence funding is important.
Quoting Bitter Crank
As I've said, Minnesota is the closest equivalent to Finland in the US. Minnesota in fact has a little town called Finland.
Hence the closest to "What the Nordic model would look like in the US?", look at Minnesota.
The Lutheran church was apparently struck by lightning on 6 July 2013 and burned down.[6]***
***According to the Minnesota State Theologian, the lightning strike was a sure sign of divine displeasure.
For sure. I want the system that can identify the geniuses in any "class". (even in a perfectly equal economic system {a fantasy for sure}, there will be "classes" - good looking, athletic, intelligent, doctors, trash men, etc).
Quoting ssu
yes, and this is a rather large advantage for the Fins and the Chinese. Unfortunately, there is no good solution for this problem (please correct me if I am wrong :smile:).
Quoting ssu
I do not doubt this, but I do question the feasibility of something like that happening in the USA. A few years back when I was researching this topic, most Finnish teachers came from the top 20% of their graduating classes in college, while most American teachers are from the bottom third of their graduating class. I thought this might be significant.
Quoting ssu
This entity (http://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/) still has Finland at number 2, with Canada rising to number 1 (@Grre must be shocked and appalled - if that is the "best" we can imagine how awful the "worst" must be). A few years back, the NCEE and the PISA exams were well respected for international comparisons...perhaps things have changed. I guess the fact that they dropped to number 2 implies things are getting worse, and that may be your point.
You may find that Finland and Canada were closer to 10th in pure PISA scores, but the NCEE drops outliers based on certain factors (like if a school scores very high, but has zero low income or learning disabled students - like, singapore, who was still ranked 9th, but I think they are #1, or close to it, on reading, math, and science for the PISA exams).
Quoting ssu
Hmmmm, so even the "ideal" model still struggles with this issue. I guess the wealthy (or otherwise powerful) will find a way to get "theirs", and then wonder what is holding everyone else back.
Well you will be happy to know that they now teach about as much Marx as Adam Smith (which is very little, but it is introduced). Also, many World History classes spend 1-3 weeks on the Russian Revolution (yes it mostly conveys "you see what happens when people try communism...stalin", but for the critical thinkers it is an introduction).
More reason for hope:
Those in favor of Laissez-Faire economics (or even your average American Republican) are not going to seek out a low paying career as a government lacky (teachers), so the vast majority of teachers in America are left-leaning (that doesn't mean they know the difference between communism and socialism or shit from shinola), but they are sympathetic (they particularly love the sound of "equity", and stuff like "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" certainly strikes that chord).
Quoting Bitter Crank
I can't disagree with any of that (in teaching the Russian Revolution I occasionally must mention that Lenin intended for the world to follow their lead, but there is certainly little emphasis on class warfare and zero direct comparison to the modern world, unless the students bring it up) . Teachers do have a decent amount of autonomy. I can't teach students that they should revolt, but I can certainly teach about every revolt in history and what caused them (including living conditions and political philosophies). Surely, the thinkers will see the parallels.
In the same way I can't preach religion (in a public school history class), but I can teach the history of every religion and their impact/role in their given societies.
I have seen some fairly new government and economics textbooks being used that were strongly biased against socialism (sometimes just plain ignorant like saying all socialism is a type of command economy), so I get what you are saying. But personally, nothing convinced me of Marxism more than my knowledge of capitalism (once I learned more about Marx, I realized I do not entirely agree with his solutions, but his critique of capitalism seemed dead on).
I guess I am arguing that a "bad" education beats no education…but I am sure I have limits on how bad.
That's good news! What countries do this? My country, the UK, doesn't.
Dammit, the one thing I say that was entirely based on anecdotal evidence, haha. Yes, I got this from someone who went through the school system in France. They said they did some introductory philosophy at the secondary level (high school level US).
I just tried to research it (a little), and it looks like they (France) have the option to do some philosophy at the upper secondary level (15-18 years old), but it does not look like there is any sort of required philosophy.
And I always forget that the UK standards have required religion (I get you can opt out, but if the default is you are in then most will do it)...Is the "required" material all about the Church of England or is it more of an exposure to all major religions? How much freedom do the teachers have when teaching religion classes? With a little freedom I think one could teach some philosophy in a religion course (Plato seems obvious)? I get that this belittles philosophy a little (or elevates it from the religious perspective I suppose), but it is an opening, and if "we" want philosophy to be more pervasive in society (do we?), maybe it is on "us"(those who want it to be more pervasive) to make it happen within the parameters laid out by our wealthy overlords (that last bit may not apply to you at all, but is just a leftover point from my discussion with BitterCrank).
And I meant one thing in this thread. I am sure I have offered plenty of barely justified opinions on this site (hell, probably more than once in this thread).
Can't help you, I'm afraid. I was educated in a religious cult (Roman Catholicism), and all other colours of religion - including atheism - were collected together and identified by the term "non-Catholic". I was offered no education at all on any other religion, including other flavours of Christianity. I stopped attending church as soon as I was old enough to shoulder the responsibility of damning my soul for all eternity (by denying Catholicism). Hmm. :meh:
Two of my three best teachers ever were teachers of Religion, as we do have state religion in our country. Both were Lutheran priests also (and men, since we didn't back then have yet female priests as we do now). The other one also taught philosophy in the gymnasium (and was totally at the level with the professors teaching Philosophy in the University, even if naturally didn't go so deep into the subject). Both had a great objective: to make us to think about the issues. So they teach religion the following way: 1) Here's a moral problem or a moral question. 2) Here's the answer that Christianity gives to this question. 3) But hey, it's up to you. Just think yourself about it. If you don't, your not an adult, but a child.
Hence we didn't actually ever open the study book of Religion in school. Both teachers weren't interested on making read texts, they knew you don't teach a person to have faith, but really made the best effort to make us open our mouths about the issues at class and discuss the issues. How else would you really teach Religion or Philosophy, actually?
Thanks to them, I'm not an atheist, but an agnostic. Nope, they didn't convert me to a true Christian believer, but they did show how shallow and empty atheism is.
Hahahaha. I will see you in super-hell. I was also raised Catholic. No purgatory for us who were exposed to the "Truth".
Quoting ssu
And we will see you in hell also :smile: (or eternal death if your version of Christianity has no hell).
That aside, American Philosophy is mostly Analytic and European Philosophy tends to be more Continental. My independent studies have been mostly of Continental Philosophy, but, I will end up studying Analytic Philosophy at the university. We'll see how that goes, I guess. I think that it'll be sort of interesting. I've consumed too much 'Continental' Philosophy in my spare time. It kind of makes me feel like my rationale is a bit lacking. Analytic preconceptions of Reason do sort of bother me a bit, though. I don't really know how it will all pan out. I'm hopeful, though.
I mean, you could always take six classes 'from' Martin Heidegger and one 'from' Sartre, but, why should you do that when there is another option?
I'm not sure if this thread was directly discussing philosophy structure in university, but I do feel like chiming in here and saying I agree! Grouping schools of thought can be confusing, because so many thinkers have so many different conceptions of the same (largely abstract) ideal/theory. It gets overwhelming. Then again, some philosophers are ~easier~ to read on your own than others, some philosophers you can read their primary texts, do some background research, and maybe read a secondary/biography, and you understand their position...others, you can try to read their works but you get nowhere. More questions than answers, which is where it is useful to have an instructor guide and encourage helpful discussion. Beyond that, philosophy lessons, for their own sake , are useless. You have to come prepared to learn in philosophy...unlike in other subjects from what I've found.
Maybe I'm being ungrateful. My university here in Canada is beautiful, landscape wise...set in acres of woods-state of the art environmental science stuff ect. It was terrible in the sense of resources, because it was rural it had a very small/non existent library-no real public library in the town it is set in ect. Also did not attract very high achieving/scholarly people, mostly just middle class rural kids who's parents made them go so they can get a degree, or underachieving middle class kids who did not have the grades to go to "better" Canadian universities. My friends warned me not to go there actually-but well, I did. Ended up wasting two years of my life not really being challenged...it was challenging balancing a lot of coursework + substance abusing SURE less challenging was the actual content. I was taking third and fourth year courses at second year, and shocked by the state of some of my third year courses especially one I took called "Philosophy of Animals" which was cross-referenced with enviro studies (small universities = lots of cross discipline courses which are just as disappointing as you can imagine). Painfully easy. It was hard for me to sit through the hour seminar every week.
Public school here, despite provincial funding, is awful. There is still some class stratification re: area, ie. schools in richer areas get more PTA activity, bake sales, donations, ect. which equals a nicer school and better extracurriculars. My school was one such school-in fact, it felt like a private school seeing as most of the students drove better cars than the teachers in high school (Jeeps, BMWs). I had to apply to go to it (because I was out of area)-another public high school in my area, was also richly desired because it was "advanced" and thus you had to write an entrance exam. Such stratification also means that you get more "resources" for things such as university applications-we had assembly after assembly, while at my friends high school (in a less wealthy, high immigrant area) did not receive any information on university/college applications-I guess because none of the parents demanded it? Or expected it? Most of the students in my school did a lot of extra courses at a private online school as well-meaning while they managed to graduate, they also paid for their grade 12 marks for university applications. The school building itself though, was a piece of shit, worse still, are the adult schools here, literally there are holes in the wall and boarded up windows. It's awful. What conditions are the schools in Finland/Europe? I assume at least clean, and not literally falling apart (some schools in my city you can't even read the name on because of fading/lost letters/over growth). All the schools in my city were built circa 1920-1950, that's probably why.
Now my middle school was an arts "speciality" school, meaning it was publicly funded, but I had to audition when I was about nine years old. I have no idea what criteria they selected applicants, but race had a lot to do with it. 90% of the grade was white, skinny (there were two-three token "chubby" girls), blonde (literally), beautiful little girls (a pedophiles dream)-all "artistic" while the other 10% consisted of eight boys (also all white, save one) one token Black girl, three asians, and (if I recall) one brown/Indian girl. There were 120 children in my year. I'm unsure if its different now-but make no mistake, these children were 'handpicked' out of hundreds auditioning, it was no accident. We also had more $$$ than one would think possible, I mean, every year we had a huge concert to put on, we had a full Mac lab (more than my university does haha!) equipped with another full Mac lab x2 of MacBooks + the latest in graphic design software, photo developing, and SMARTBOARDS-They also, for no reason whatsoever, decided to create an "outdoor classroom" in my last year there, 10k on about a dozen large rocks set in a circle out front of the school. Again, this is a public school, where right down the street, there was another public school so old that its basement had fallen in twice...
I can't get anymore into the education system...it's eleven at night here and I don't need to get all frustrated aha. I have very strong critiques but for now, they are too strong, the memory is fresh seeing as I just graduated high school two years ago. If anyone cares though, I suggest starting with John Dewey-he writes a bit on Marxist critiques of the education system and actually championed anarchistic tenets with his Free Schools concept, same with Emma Goldman among others.
- kids here in North America are encouraged to keep their dignity and integrity.
- in the old wrold the teachers are far more authoritarian, and berating the kids is not far from them.
- kids here are accepted if they have low academic achievement. In the old country everyone is pushed to the limit academically. Socioeconomic status is immaterial in this aspect.
- kids here are popular in class with their mates if they are good in athletics or can beat others up. At home, the kids are popular if they are smart, get good grades, and are funny. Good sense of humour carries you the farthest.
- in both countries good-looking kids, both girls and boys, enjoy the farthest in social privileges.
Your attitude seems fine to me. I think you are just analyzing education from what would be ideal, then wondering why everyone does not have the ideal (or even seem to be trying to work toward it) situation. As you went through your education system, you noticed many problems. Now, if I grab some analysis that says Canada is actually a highly rated education system, does that mean you were wrong about the problems? Of course not. It should just make us all disappointed that even the "best" systems are heavily flawed. But as long as everyone (I will be happy for a few more) thinks like you and acknowledges that no education system is perfect and we should all be making efforts to improve the systems that we are a part of (or at least whine about it on philosophy sites until there seems to be some level of consensus...my method of choice), maybe we will make some progress.
Quoting Grre
I think this highlights one of the biggest problems with education systems. People can't help but want the best for "me and mine". If the school down the road can't afford smartboards, maybe they need to work a little harder :roll: You have noticed a significant problem, but unfortunately, places like the US, Singapore, and Hong Kong are even MORE unequal. So, yeah, the world seems screwed, but on a high note, overall, more people are receiving more education, than ever in history (just based on literacy rates).
Quoting Grre
Well you are way ahead of me :smile: I didn't really pay attention to "the system" while I was in school. It wasn't until I started looking at things from the teaching/administrative side that all of the problems you are pointing out became more clear (I quickly gave up on the administrative side as things are too much of a mess at that level...within a single classroom I feel I can at least have a minimal impact with a few students). And while I have definitely read a little Dewey, I should probably take another look (I also find Marxist interpretations interesting so a good reason to check it out). I have heard of Goldman, but don't know why, so I will need to look at that one.
Quoting Grre
As someone who is far better at complaining about the world's problems than I am at solving them, I am happy to hear them. As this post shows though, it may take a few days to respond.
This is a watershed issue in the United States: In a minority of school districts, high level academic success is expected/demanded and delivered by the students. (Not all, of course, but as many as can manage.) In another minority of schools, academic achievement is not respected--it's maligned by the students.
In most schools there is a distribution of performance from very good to very poor, and as you observed, being on the poor performance end of the distribution doesn't make one a diseased pariah. Status is enhanced, as you suggest, if you have something going for you--comic ability, sport ability, good looks, fighting ability, and the like.
Well you should have seen us 20 years ago :grimace: I am in US, not Canada, but my experience suggests the "popular jock" thing is somewhat changing. Intelligence is not suddenly being valued but being charming and good looking has certainly overtaken physical power. The new version of 21 Jump Street captures this change fairly well.
I appreciate your thorough response! I tell myself I am young enough that right now I can complain-and when I am older (and maybe very rich) I will start doing.
Regardless of personal experience-since I suppose I'm "bias" being a high functioning autistic student who never had any friends until about high school (when I started getting 'attractive')-and even those friendships were rift with drama and complications, what defines popularity is dependent on age (I work with children these days). Younger children; athletic ability, personality domination (ie. being very aggressive, upfront, talkative, precocious, bossy, gumption, and being able to manipulate the other children) and as they grow up, this of course, turns into 'charisma'. Appearance becomes more important around puberty. And then in my eyes, we are no longer observing child behaviour, but the behaviour of young adults and youth which mimics, in small and important ways, the behaviours and interactions of real adults. What is valued in adults (individually and culturally) is valued exorbitantly in youth, and it is also gendered. appearance being #1 (for both genders but most important for girls), athletic/physical ability being #2-but only for boys, and in my case at my school (and the schools I've worked in now)-is wealth, or at least, the pretence of wealth-new phones, flashy shoes, a different jacket for every day of the week, these are also status signs. Also "coolness" which can roughly be calculated by multiplying appearance value with wealth value divided by reputation; access to drugs and alcohol and other 'taboo' and infamous experiences being the ultimate deciding factor. A youth can come from a poor family, but with the right imitation of being wealthy (ie. working to afford their own designer clothes) and the right access to drugs/alcohol/sexual experiences/illicit gatherings) the youth in question can become very popular among peers. Nowhere is intelligence valued, outside of being the smart kid that gets hired to do the older kids summative essays...which was me! To all the boys that graduated because of me, they can thank this strange social maze for my willingness to do their work for their approval, and I guess, the money too.
Child and youth social behaviour and its complexities both within and beyond academic institutions and the education system should be a topic all of its own it seems.
I was educated in Europe. The short answer: there is probably no difference worthwhile mentioning.
The core of an education system revolves around how it tests student achievement. Everything always follows from there: curriculum design, teaching and learning, infrastructure support, staffing, and so on. Hence, you only need to look at how the system examines student achievement to understand its fundamental nature.
Both systems test the student on their ability to memorize useless information and moderately also on their capacity to execute tedious procedures. Hence, it favours those personalities that have acquired the strongest resistance against boredom and which have the strongest inclination to slavish orthodoxy.
An education system is never, ever more useful than the behaviour that its evaluation procedures encourage.
The reason why graduates from both systems are increasingly considered by future employers to be utterly useless and utmost inept individuals, is because they were specifically trained to excel in uselessness and ineptitude. That is why they successfully graduate with such good grades in the first place.
That doesn't describe my educational experience. If you were educated in Europe, how do you know what my experience was in the US?
Quoting alcontali
No they're not. It's not as if we have a declining GNP every generation.
I can perfectly see how you were tested for your academic attainment. I just need to take a look at the multiple-choice questions you were supposed to answer. That says it all.
Quoting Hanover
They were trained on memorizing useless information. We have photocopiers for that job. Cheaper and better. They were trained on executing tedious procedures. We have computers for that job. Cheaper and better. So, what do we need them for, huh?
A few observations:
The idea of individuality is of central importance, thus there not much emphasis on conformity, except perhaps with such things as school uniforms. Individuality of thought and action plays well, within certain bounds.
I do not know if things have changed recently but last I checked those receiving degrees in education were in general at or near the bottom of their class.
Parents tend to take the side of their children when it comes to discipline problems and will blame the teacher if the student is failing.
Some years back I did some reading on the philosophy of education and it was a dismal affair. Schools would change their approach to education often and sometimes radically based on questionable theories of education and research that seemed to be designed to confirm whatever assumptions it intended to prove.
I'm guessing some useless graduate programs those computers.
How were you able to transcend your useless education and gain such wisdom?
Rigorous analysis.
I, personally, after graduating from university, joined Internet philosophy forums. They were parts of dating sites then, but the format and the dialogues were the same. Ie. "I believe in god and free will" "I believe in determinism and scientificism", and then the conversation devolved to mud-slinging.
Photocopiers can't do that. They need to evolve for thousands more years to perform on such intelligent level.
THAT's what education prepared me for.
When I was 14 years old, somewhere in the 80ies, my father came home with a second-hand Apple IIe computer, which had two floppy drives but no hard disk, along with a photocopy of a Borland Turbo Pascal manual, in a language that I could barely read, i.e. English.
So, a few months later, I wrote my first, utmost useless program in Pascal, which is one of the worst languages to program in, but that is something I did not know back then.
The teachers at my high school could not use a computer, because none of them had one, let alone, write programs. That last bit is still the case today. High-school teachers still cannot write programs.
Programming is not knowledge. It revolves around the discovery of new knowledge.
If existing knowledge were the sole or most important ingredient in the process of discovering new knowledge, then first of all, humanity would never have discovered any knowledge at all, and secondly, we would by now have discovered all possible knowledge already.
Hence, programming is an aptitude similar to composing music. It is not possible to "teach" it. Either you manage to figure it out by yourself, or else, you will never be able to do it. That is why most programmers cannot program.
I was incredulous when I read this observation from Reginald Braithwaite: Like me, the author is having trouble with the fact that 199 out of 200 applicants for every programming job can't write code at all. I repeat: they can't write any code whatsoever.
Being good at memorizing useless information or at carrying out tedious procedures does not attract people who like discovering new knowledge. Therefore, talented individuals will tend to score badly at high-school and university tests. I was personally only good at mathematics. I was horrible at probably every other subject. Since the system grudgingly allowed me to filter pretty much everything else away, I still did quite well.
Good programmers, just like good welders, tend to come from outside the education system. Being good at any real-world skill is not particularly so compatible with being good at school; and the reverse also tends to be true.
Quoting Hanover
I find the term "wisdom" quite impredicative. What exactly does it mean? Not a "justified (true) belief", I hope, because we use that elsewhere already! ;-)
Did I gain something ineffable? Well, the answer to that question is obviously also ineffable!
I learned much more from drilling down in Wikipedia over the last 15 years than I ever did at university, which never contributed anything, actually.
In Wikipedia, you can always find the original publications mentioned in the foot notes. Still, I only click on what I am interested in. So, there are always topics that I just totally skipped, because at that point they were of no importance to me.
At the moment, I am completely stuck in the proof for the Curry-Howard correspondence, which I would like to fully grasp, but I am too lazy to first figure out Hilbert Calculi.
It is not the first time that Hilbert's work in logic is a blocking factor. Every time I try to figure out the late Voevodsky's univalence axiomatization (homotopy type theory, aka HoTT), I get stuck again in Hilbert Calculi.
David Hilbert was undoubtedly a genius, but his work is simply unreadable ...
Most computer programmers have degrees from universities and there are also schools that teach music. That you find it easier to self teach says something about you, not about the world generally. It also sounds like you struggled in school, although maybe you didn't, but that's what it sounds like.
Do Developers Need College Degrees?
[i]Our 2016 Developer Survey found that 56% of developers in fact do not have a college degree in computer science or related fields. The most popular way for developers to learn is by “self-teaching” in some way (69% of respondents told us they were at least partially self-taught; 13% said they were entirely self-taught).
Of the 4,499 jobs currently listed at Stack Overflow Jobs (across all regions), a Boolean search for “degree OR bachelor OR BS OR BA OR B.S. OR B.A.” yielded 1,760 matches. So we can extrapolate that 2,739 listings, or 61%, do not specify a “degree” or a “bachelor’s” as one of the requirements, and 39% list a degree somewhere in the job posting, either as a requirement or as a preference.
Does this mean you have over 50% more opportunities to get a job as a developer if you have a college degree? Not necessarily. Nick stresses that the ability to demonstrate what you can do and what you have done will always be more important than whether or not you have a degree, even in cases where the company has listed a degree as a requirement.
Smart recruiters know that the people who love programming wrote a database for their dentist in 8th grade, and taught at computer camp for three summers before college, and built the content management system for the campus newspaper, and had summer internships at software companies. That’s what they’re looking for on your resume.[/i]
A programmer does not need a degree for the same reason a welder doesn't.
Quoting Hanover
Take the top 100 grossing artists in music. Check how many have studied at a music school.
Zero?
That has always been like that. Vivaldi, "il prete rosso", was a priest, moonlighting as a music composer.
The longer the software field will exist, the fewer programmers will bother getting a degree.
Quoting Hanover
I still seem to have a Stackoverflow Developer Survey backing me up. I am quite confident that Github would come up with similar results, if they haven't already.
Quoting Hanover
Well, probably not enough. Look at where everybody is going, and then, seriously, go elsewhere.
You see, when you ask a teenage girl why she is wearing her choice of clothes, she will most likely answer: "Because all my friends are wearing them too." If all these teenage girls give the same answer, we would end up in a situation of circularity or of infinite regress. So, that is not possible. Hence, there are original sources of manipulation, talking these teenage girls into wearing what they are wearing.
The general populace is not better than teenage girls.
The schools try to manipulate their students into a particular direction, and that has only gotten worse since I graduated.
For example, why do young women prefer "bad boys"? In my impression, they prefer school drop outs because these "bad boys" have escaped the rampant feminization of boys in schools and are still much more naturally male.
If you look at men in their twenties nowadays, a lot of them tend to be "involuntary celibate", i.e. their female peers do not wish to deal with these over-feminized and effeminate individuals, apparently over 80% of the lot. This problem did not exist when I was in my twenties.
In the meanwhile, the school system is gradually destroying the sexual reproduction process in the West.
The uncritical belief in the schools will destroy the false believers and their offspring in the 7th generation. The ancient scriptures already warned for that problem. Their false gods will gradually turn on them, and then devour them, by eating their flesh and drinking their blood.
Seems generally true. However, I think the more ADULTS emphasize that there are a variety of ways to be "cool" the less kids will feel the need to fit that formula (notice the teachers that are 'friends' with students, it tends to be outgoing popular kids who they 'befriend' - shouldn't teachers 'befriend' almost exclusively friendless students?). Unfortunately, I am CONSTANTLY reminded that most adults want to be "cool" the same as they did in high school.
There are a few people, like Elon Musk (who is definitely one of those trying to be cool like it was high school), are at least somewhat valued (cool) for there intelligence.
I don't know. As soon as people start talking about 'cool', I start rambling off nonsense about what I think is cool, but add little to the discussion.
Still true in the US. And what do you know, highly rated Finland gets their teachers from the top 20% of graduating classes.
Quoting Fooloso4
I am not sure about Europe, but I know this is an important distinction between the US and Asian educational systems. In Asia, the teacher is generally given the benefit of the doubt, in America it is more like, MY CHILD IS BRILLIANT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE DAMN TEACHERS!
Quoting Fooloso4
Well I got a teaching degree about 5-6 years ago and the college was FULL of unproven educational ideas. Multiple Intelligences Theory by Gardener (Harvard) was the big one at the time. Education does not even attempt to assess approaches scientifically. Any time you hear of a new educational approach, know that you can't trust educational journals (even peer reviewed, i think they exist) because the study of education is inherently unscientific in America. Fortunately, you can look up educational theories in Psychology journals and get a more rigorous assessment (in the case of Multiple Intelligences you will find absolutely no evidence - they just made up new definitions for old ideas).
Quoting Fooloso4
yep. the madness continues. And notice that people near the top of their graduating are more likely catch on to these problems, whereas those at the bottom are just happy to have their assumptions confirmed.
Many of these students are ill-prepared for higher education but there is a persistent push to get students to attend college. Higher education has adopted a business model sometime in the seventies and since the bottom line is now the most important thing, a major concern is retention. It is couched in terms of the interest of the students but it is really all about not having empty seats. "The customer is always right" is their unspoken motto.This has contributed to grade inflation. Instructors bear the brunt of the blame from both students and administration if students fail or get poor grades. Students expect to get A's of B's for doing minimal work of poor quality. There is an enormous sense of entitlement.
Some years back I read something by a professor whose evaluations by students were always low. The most common complaint was that he was too demanding. And so he decided to treat the class as if it were kindergarten. He even brought cookies for snack time. He praised them for whatever they said or did. He made sure all assignments were easy and if they could not handle even that he still graded them as if they were the exceptional students they thought they were. He quickly became teacher of the year.
More and more classes are now being taught by adjuncts. As full time faculty retire or move on they are not replaced by tenure track instructors. Adjuncts are often as qualified as tenured faculty but are paid very poorly and must teach multiple courses at several schools and take other jobs on top of that if they are to live above the poverty level. The are academic migrant workers. No contracts and no benefits.This is not an exaggeration. No matter how qualified they cannot keep up with the amount of classes they teach. It is one of higher educations dirty little secrets.
Indeed. once anything becomes a business, then it seems business rule(s) apply. Seems like that could be a problem if applied to education.
Quoting Fooloso4
True. But businesses also seem to have a huge sense of entitlement to capable employees that they put zero investment into training. And what do you know, these business complain that their few capable employees are easily 'headhunted' by other companies. You are right about entitled students, but they would tell us, "I learned it from watching you!" (well I guess most would say, 'huh?' or maybe spew some buzzwords about equity and collaboration, but the clever ones would point out the older generations are equally 'entitled').
Quoting Fooloso4
Sadly, this rings a bit too true.
Quoting Fooloso4
Back to running education like a business. Hasn't the entire economy moved in this direction for the last decade or 2? I don't remember ever hearing of 'gig economy' before that. Don't these adjuncts just have more freedom to pursue their other interests when they are paid on a 'per classes taught' basis? That last sentence was sarcasm if not obvious. It is just an example of the stuff I constantly hear about how uber drivers actually benefit from that business model.
I have two assumptions for econdomic success as far as educational preparation goes.
Assumption 1. The percentage of VERY GOOD graduates that are needed in the economy to not collapse due to inadequate training in the academic fields (engineering, accounting, medicine, technology) is steady vs the entire body of graduates per period has decreased.
Assumption 2. To allay the chronic and huge unemployment situation, a large part of the work force is pulled out of there, and put in colleges and universities.
1. Most work in the economy that requires talent is done by fewer and fewer people as a percentage of the work force. Case in point (don't tell me I did not do my research): the Apollo 11 launch employed 400,000 highly skilled and horribly high achiever talented people at their peak of intensive labour involvement. The same WORK can be accomplished by fewer than 2000 people. (As per the google clip that celebrated or commemorted the first moon landing.)
2. The talented work force carries the work of the untalented part of the work force, and no disrupiton can be noticed in the throughput of production.
So you two, @fooloso4 and @ZhouBo Tong can relax, despite the fact that grades have inflated, graduates have deflated, professors are overworked and underpaid, and teaching philosophies, methods and methodologies change like weather-vane in a shitstorm.
--------------------
IN terms of numbers: in the seventies, X percent of high school graduates went on to study in post-secondary schools. Our current rate of Y percent, where X < Y shows robust reinforcement of that policy.
However, the good students of X (GX) was a greater percentage of X than now. Similarly, the good studernts of Y (GY) are greater in numbers, than GX. Despite the huge amount of graduates that are basically good for nothing.
The economy can be driven by the good graduates, and populated by the poor achievers, who are like fillers with the mandated task to spend money but without getting in over their heads in debt..
First off, you are clearly just stating facts, so I am not disagreeing, but...
I think you are using 'economy', when you mean 'progress of the human race'? Those brilliant people that drive progress forward actually are not the point of education...those people will be just fine. Also, what are the rest of us paying for when we go to college (can I get a decent job without a degree? can everyone?)? I am not saying you are wrong, but should the bottom 50% just shut up and eat our crappy existence because those few 'producers' deserve all the benefits of their own brilliance?
I think @Fooloso4 (by the way when you entered @fool and @zhou it did not work correctly - maybe you typed @...? you need to use the @ button at the top of the dialogue box...I am pretty sure), will be more encouraged by your point. I have gotten the feel from both of you that you may be agreeable to American libertarianism? In europe maybe they call themselves classical liberals? I am not trying to label anyone and PLEASE make fun of me when I am wrong (I do have a tendency to make wild assumptions and then base my entire conversation on those assumptions). I just find that I often agree with libertarian types on their assessment of the problems...then wildly disagree on the solution. Of course, I typically get to team-up with the libertarian types in the god/religion threads :smile:
Traditionally, adjuncts were experts working in other fields who brought their knowledge to the classroom. Since there is now a shortage of academic jobs and there are several financial advantages to the university, adjuncts are taking the place of full time instructors. They would prefer a full-time position but they are few and far between. The workload carried by an adjunct may the about the same as a full-time faculty member, but since adjuncts are so poorly paid and there are no healthcare and other benefits they must either work full time doing something else or work at multiple schools with a workload that far exceeds full time faculty, and still make only a small fraction of full-timers. They rarely have the time or energy to pursue other interests.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
If you are referring to me then no I am not a libertarian. In my opinion libertarians cannot see passed their own self-interests narrowly and myopically construed. While I certainly favor individual rights I do not accept the notion of social atomism. Due consideration should be given to the public good and the good of the whole not just the protection of individual rights.
What you are talking about, @ZhouBoTong, is a question of distribution of wealth, which is a very worthwhile topic, but COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT ONE, which is the efficiency of education.
My post was strictly about why education works, very well, from the point of view of the economy as a whole.
I guess I ought to have included this as well in my previous post: The good students get a lot out of education, no matter what the methods or the methodology is. They will carry the economy (not the human progress, or not JUST the human progress, as you assumed, but the economy: the production, the distribution of goods, the money management, etc.)
Why employers need new hirees to have a degree, even for jobs on car manufacturing and other manual, unskilled labour? Because the more people are forced off the labour force, the more balanced the job/jobseekers ratio is. If you spend 4-8 years off of the labour force, it's a portion of your productive life you don't need to spend in production, which PARTIALLY SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF OVERPRODUCTION CRISIS.
It was very helpful.
I thought I agreed with you a bit too often :smile: Sorry like I said, my brain makes assumptions that I occasionally need correction on...I have done worse...ask @Pattern-chaser, at some point I assumed he was African American...he has no African ancestry (well not recently anyway) and is not even American. Although I guess to be fair, I wouldn't mind being mistaken for a person who is black, and might take a little offense to being called libertarian...so maybe I owe you an extra apology.
Quoting Fooloso4
Dang, that makes sense. I think I missed that era. Too bad, it sounds great.
Quoting Fooloso4
I hope you caught that I was joking when I said that. And in case I was otherwise vague and unclear (or making stupid assumptions), I agree that this:
Quoting Fooloso4
Is not good and needs fixing.
I didn't. There are some who think it is an easy way to make a living with lots of free time.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
There was at time talk of adjuncts forming a union. I don't know if that ever happened. One major problem is that they would have no power. It would be no different than declining to teach a class. In some schools full-time faculty have successfully petitioned to put limits on the number of classes an adjunct could teach. I think that is a step in the right direction but for practical purposes it simply means that the adjunct would look to pick up classes elsewhere with possible extra burden of travel.
I don't know what will bring about change but as long as there is a pool of qualified people willing to teach and an administration unwilling to hire full-time, let alone tenure track, faculty the problem will persist.
Someone helped me when I messed up the same thing :smile: pay it forward, haha.
Quoting god must be atheist
I think I got that. My point, which upon review was not at all clear, is that poor people might not think it was working well for their 'economy', which is part of 'the economy'. So, I would take your evidence as showing that education works for maintaining a 2-3% increase in GDP every year. If it was 1919, I might have bought that 100 years of 2-3% increases would help the poor. The last 2-3 decades suggest that while GDP may continue to grow, it is not a given that everyone benefits.
Again, I think your analysis is correct. But know that most educators outside the business department DO NOT view 'the economy' as the point of education. If they did, wouldn't they have to tell all their students to switch to business, computers, or engineering classes? Surely the occasionally New York Times bestseller, or that one painting that just sold for 8 million, or those 6 astro-physicists that are paid to talk on the science channel, can not justify the entire English, Art, or Astronomy departments if the point of education is to improve the economy?
haha. Well maybe 'joking' was the wrong word. I did mention I was being sarcastic in the next sentence. But overall, I am happy to accept that most communication failures are likely my fault :grimace:
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, and unfortunately, in America, people would tell those qualified people to get out there and do something (those who can do, those who can't teach). I THINK THIS IS COMPLETE CRAP (beyond that it is nonsense), but I would expect that at least half of Americans agree with it to some extent, which makes the changes you described less likely.
I wonder what they think those with a PhD in philosophy should do. Be like Socrates and harass people at the mall?
I think that if potential students and their parents are aware of the problem and make clear that they will not apply to schools with a high percentage of adjuncts things may begin to change. Grad students teaching courses is another problem, especially in the sciences when the grad student comes from another country and her command of English is poor or has a heavy, difficult to understand accent.
I'm not sure, but my guess is that avoiding adjuncts would require one to attend very expensive private schools.
An excellent PhD adjunct instructor in Classics at the U of Minnesota said back in the early 1980s that college teaching was turning into 'migrant labor' because one could never put together enough jobs at one institution. One would end up running all over town.
The funding problem in state universities (like the U of MN or anywhere else in the country) is that legislatures started to reduce the state's share of higher education around the middle of the 1970s. Up until the early 1970s, state-owned high education operated with full time staff, except in emergencies like the death of a professor in the middle of the term.
I'm not entirely sure what the motivation was for cutbacks in state support. I assume that it was a conservative push to reduce government expenditures. Or it could have been a way to cut down on the anticipated over-supply of college graduates. Or it could have been a way of abandoning commitment to high quality higher education for middle class which was gradually becoming more prole-llike. Or maybe it was born out of a basic hatred of college professors. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure.
Quoting Fooloso4
This is another long-standing complaint. Teaching low level science or engineering classes may be good for future scientists or engineers, but the grad students don't seem to think so -- outside of the opportunity to earn money against tuition. What they want to do is research and pursue their own studies.
Basically, TAs are just one more way for the college to stretch budgets. If they could get away with it, they'd have them cleaning the buildings too.
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think it had something to do their animosity toward higher education, and, as you say a basic hatred of college professors. The Koch brothers are fixing that. They have bought whole departments and decide who will teach in those departments. Another problem is that considerable funds go to facilities to make colleges more like country clubs.
Adults always tell and emphasize messages to kids to "help them", its the classic hero complex narrative, not unlike how we as humans are always "rescuing" animals. I'm not sure to what extent it "works" as I recall there are plenty of messages adults tried to install in me as a kid, that in turn, I mocked, blatantly disobeyed, and made fun of (I'm also extremely oppositional by nature). As a result I somewhat take a step back when it comes with children, I speak to them like they are adults, even make casual conversation and small talk about things in my own life (like telling them my baby fish died), but in no way do I pretend to be their friend or talk baby talk to them. Children are smart, curious, and honest, and I try to let their natural capacities guide them; I ALWAYS answer their questions honestly, and I NEVER tell them to stop asking questions or "because I said so" or "that's just the way it is" (though it is tempting sometimes with certain annoying ones). Question-asking, or "inquiry" as educational theorists have described it, is so important to maintaining critical thinking skills (philosophy skills!) of course these are the very skills that traditional education systems had tried to limit; ie. by claiming that all facts are absolute, memory-based testing ect. vs. open discussion and exploration as more encouraged today. I digress.
My point is, I think children who are raised openly being directed, circumvented, "rescued", and protected by an adult is one that grows up with impoverished critical thinking and critical action skills. They are more passive, malleable, naive, ect. My parents do a lot for me financially (paying for my schooling right now, helping me with car insurance) but I always felt alone when dealing with social or personal issues. My parents never "rescued me", at least, not because I voluntarily went to them for help. Bullying has always happened, it is inevitable, we as social beings will exert power over one another, often in manipulative and cruel ways-it is cyclical at the very least, meaning that in any society organized hierarchally, where there is a power imbalance, and where certain individuals can assert power over others, there will be "bullying" as it is so loosely and vaguely defined. I also hate how the last ten years or so of anti-bullying campaigning (so basically my entire childhood growing up with it) focused so heavily on stigmatizing the "bully" and romanticizing the victim without examine external circumstances and pressures (ie. like race or class). It rarely touched upon WHY people become "bullies". Like the poet Iain [something] said, "Everyone was born as soft as water, that is the tragedy of living" (or something amongst those lines).
Perhaps I shouldn't be proclaiming what is or isn't considered "cool". Cool is again, while important to all ages of youth and adult groups, each age cluster has a defining border where what is cool changes slightly from age cluster to age cluster, sometimes with clusters inheriting and absorbing elements from other clusters. Clusters are also organized loosely by cultural factors; race, wealth. I think it is easier to define what ISNT "cool" than what is...Elon Musk was certainly an unpopular and misunderstand child-but success is cool, and now as a successful adult being celebrated for those very successes, he is considered "cool"-he also of course has the wealth to buy "cool" things that are de facto cool resulting from their price, use, and availability (like VIP tickets, private jets ect.) The biggest defining difference between "coolness" as perceived among children and "coolness" as perceived among adults is that adults are more often forced to interact, collaborate, and put up with people regardless of their "cool" factor. Therefore, there is more room for heterogeneity and interspersion-I am friends with people I consider less "cool" than me because we have other common interests or were forced into similar or close-working situations.
Is it presumptuous of me to presume that you were not considered "cool" in school?
My perception (without having any experience on US education) is that US education system prepares young adults to succeed, it has a more preponderant component on the how and focus on human relations inherent to success after studying.
Europe education is more keen to "theoretical" knowledge, more detail in terms of programmatic contents.
Also I reckon that Europe has been heading in the direction of US education.
In the end of the day, European academics and American practicality are complementary and have a lot i common.
This is the lousiest (also inconsequential) post I wrote this forum.
Hahaha, indeed. It really makes me laugh (and get a little sad) to think of Socrates in modern America. At best he would be a barely respected teacher, more likely just a bum that no one listened to.
Quoting Fooloso4
Unfortunately, I think businesses will have to stop hiring students from high adjunct density colleges before parents (and their students) begin to change. If that degree from Purdue (not trying to highlight that school as using a lot of adjuncts - I have no idea), still GUARANTEES the student a good job/career, will anyone care? What percent of students are actually there to learn anything anyway?
In Antifragility, Nassim Taleb argues that the belief that university knowledge generates economic wealth stems more from superstition than empiricism. Empirical investigation, he writes, shows no evidence that raising the general level of education raises a country's income level. "But we know the opposite is true, that wealth leads to the rise of education - that's not an optical illusion."
The reason why he says:
"Too much education is bad. Don't over-educate the young"
is:
"In any case, he contends that education "removes entrepreneurs from the system and turns them into bureaucrats".
In my own opinion, especially state-run education tends to destroy the social structure by its negative effects on sexual reproduction. Over time, societies that suffer from excess educationism will simply disappear.
Japan seems to be an early example of how educationist societies gradually collapse. The USA and Europe will undoubtedly also implode.
Most are there in order to get a job. Learning is not a high priority
Well I definitely have this problem/trait. This is actually why I only teach middle school or higher, because younger than that, they NEED emotion/facial expressions to understand the words (tell a 6 year old that they can't do something while smiling and/or laughing...I bet they do it again).
Quoting Grre
Ok, you talk to children like adults for good reasons, haha. I do it because I am not sure of how else to talk to someone :grimace: But seriously, everything you said here sounds like you would be a great elementary teacher, and we need a lot more smart ones (I would bet big money that THE BIGGEST cause of America's math deficiency is that MOST of our elementary teachers don't really know math).
Quoting Grre
Sounds right to me. I think this is lacking in schools for a significant reason...what happens when the student asks a question that the teacher doesn't understand? A smart teacher will explicitly say, "gee, I DON'T KNOW", "maybe we should do a little research (or create a project) and figure this out. Unfortunately, dumb (mean word choice, maybe "those from the bottom of their graduating classes" is better?) people view "I DON'T KNOW" as a sign of weakness, and many teachers are hesitant to use those words (I even had an education professor question me after I praised a student who pointed out that something I said wasn't exactly right).
Quoting Grre
Hopefully, we eventually accept that all of these learning methods have their place. Rote memorization is not ideal for the vast majority of deep learning (probably ALL deep learning, I guess I meant the vast majority of learning). However, I have not seen any other method that works nearly as good for things like learning the alphabet and the multiplication tables. Students that do not memorize their multiplication tables (and it is becoming more and more common) NEVER get them down. Education is quick to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
Quoting Grre
There is some slight coming around on this issue as we all start to admit that many things are outside individual control (the book - and movie - called 'Wonder' definitely spent some time ensuring the reader understood that the bully had a tough life too).
I feel like this whole paragraph (yours) shows some of the difficulties in attempting to ensure a good education...there are so many factors that play a role. Kind of like trying to predict economics without acknowledging that most people are bat sh*t crazy.
Quoting Grre
I wrote a bunch of my thought on 'cool' but it felt equally rant-like to what I wrote before...so I will just say that I generally agree with you, but would just add "it can be complicated depending on the individual and the situation"
Quoting Grre
Not at all, haha. Seems a safe bet.
I think (I tend to be good at being objective, but it may difficult here) I would have counted as 'cool' until I was about 14-16 (somewhere around Freshman -Sophomore year of High School). Then 'cool' suddenly required more than playing sports and I was having none of that. Basically, as soon as I was aware that 'cool' was a thing, I started to become aware that I was not that (I actually get very uncomfortable if I am ever the center of attention...unless I am busy, like playing sports).
Pullman, pull yourself together. Pull, man.
My thoughts exactly...unfortunately.
Ding ding ding ding ding...
We have a winner!!!
Again I appreciate your thorough correspondence.
Its weird because I never considered myself one to like small or younger children, for one, I don't like running those games that seem all the rage in elementary school programs, the ones where "everyone wins" blah blah. And I don't like the constant stress that one might dissipear ect. But this summer at the camp I work at I was placed with the young young children (3-5), the first time I have ever really interacted with children at that age, and I found them I did like them better than the school age/older children. You can be just as realistic with younger children as older children, just as blunt, you just have to be more patient because it takes some brain power to explain more complicated concepts and eventually you have to settle with "well something like that I think" and just hope that ten years from now they'll miraculously remember the conversation and be able to do something about it. Older children also lose their ability (at least in some cases) to entertain themselves, while younger children, exempting shyness, are a marvel, you give them items and set them lose, watching their creativity and imaginations and curiosity, it absolutely fills me with vigor. PHILOSOPHY vigor. Is that not what philosophy is all about? Where would Socrates be in the modern age? Either homeless yes, or uneducated working in McDonalds playing on this forum in his spare time, OR in a kindergarten classroom, making slime (we made slime today) or out in the rain digging for worms, or playing with balloons ect. I have come to love and respect kindergarten aged children because of this curiosity and desire to learn...I had always thought that if I do become a teacher (which isn't on the horizon at the moment) I will teach highchool seniors, but I'm starting to think that would just frustrate and distress me. I was never very well understood or liked by children in middle school or early high school (again, until puberty hit) so I have this horrendous image of my head of me still sitting alone at lunch at age 45 reading all my silly philosophy with all of my students in the cafeteria making fun of me-no sexiness this time to make them like me (I kid). Also, young children really don't know-they're learning, they're learning social cues as much as they're learning how to interact with the physical word, while older children KNOW, when they're talking over me, or doing something dumb/inconsiderate, they KNOW and I got 0 patience for that.
They DO haha, it makes me hyper-aware of my face and helps me become more animated/it feels good. Kind of like adulthood bitterness and the need to appear perfectly passive, polite, and calm all the time has botox-ed my face, and then getting to play and laugh and air-guitar breaks all the hardened clay.
Might have to look into this. I'm always for breaking down individual moral culpability.
Education is complicated and multifaceted, by no means am I attempting to narrate an absolute solution. Also no one cares. Unless you are a child, you have kids, or you directly work in education, no one wants to foot the bill. Canada must have dropped a good couple million $$ just on the manhunt currently going on (two teens wanted for murdering someone up in some shit hole town in some shit hole part of Manitoba or something) I'm talking tanks, SWAT, air force (common for the US very rare for Canada) they haven't found them, probably won't, probably they died in the woods, TOO BAD THAT MONEY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN SPENT ON hm education? Sorry, but I'm a big believer in preventative action...my answer to every social problem, IMO is education education education, we're all just products of our environments. And this is Canada, where, while provincial loans for post-secondary school were recently cut quite a bit, at least we have a reliable government loan program...America, well, just google military budget vs. education budget...and then people wonder "why is America so screwed up" "how did they elect Trump?" blah blah, well quite easily it turns out, look at what that culture values. Certainly not the individual welfare and growth of its citizens.
*I am biased because I am a university student*
Side note-best of luck teaching middle school. Much cringe. While I respect middle school age boys for their hyper-athleticism (gotta love a super competitive deadly game of dodgeball) I could never face that age group, too awkward, too uncomfortable, all I think about is how terrible their lives are at that point in their life. Middle school is the most sucky of all sucky. For one you're so SEXUALLY frustrated all the time jesus CHRIST.
I digress.
And the winner is clearly not the US.
https://www.businessinsider.com/education-military-spending-comparison-2016-9
This was before the Republicans (sorry, I mean the NRA) came into power.
Actually I lied. They were always in power. One just has to look at Obama's face when he talked about all this massacres, including the kindergarten one...the NRA was in the shadows, gun to his head, NRA hands deep in the pockets of the Pentagon.
Haha gun pun unintended!
The NRA hasn't always been powerful. At some point, less than 70 years ago, they decided to pursue a strong political program to insure that "gun rights" (something that had previously been a minor issue, if an issue at all) would be promoted/protected as a constitutional right. They collected allies, donations, and sympathetic congressmen (suckers all) to do their bidding. Their propaganda was effective. Here we are with gun rights being more important than massacres.
May God damn the NRA to the depths of hell.
By my lights it's quite a bit more complicated than that. The NRA is doing exactly what they are allowed to do, and what they are doing is - in and of itself - just one facet of many on the set of problematic jewels within the US.
It makes no sense to me when people start talking about unrelated events. The NRA is a group of people who do not seem to be making their voices heard except in light of gun violence. When that violence happens within an educational setting such as a public school system, the NRA is not focusing upon the funding thereof.
Rather, they all read from the same script. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Restricting all public access to guns by virtue of creating more involved complex access regulations will simple create more red tape for the citizens who obtain their firearms legally to begin with. That thought will lead one to further talk in terms of "punishing" legal gun owners for the crimes of others. This often continues on and will eventually arrive at the 'conclusion' that more regulation will not stop those who acquire firearms by illegal methods from acquiring a gun. With that in the forefront of one's mind, it is then argued that the overwhelming majority of gun violence in America is perpetuated by people who've purchased/acquired the firearms illegally to begin with. So the story/narrative then often further morphs... if the goal is stopping the crimes from happening and the means to that end is having less guns, then we need to stop those who acquire the guns illegally from acquiring them, and passing more regulations that only the law-abiding gun owners follow anyway will not satisfy that end.
You see...
The NRA doesn't talk about the insufficiently funded American public education system.
I disagree. I think the NRA is too powerful of a propaganda group to not hold accountable for the cultural mindset that props up the bullshit gun ownership argument-an argument that is inherent to the whole topsy-turvy. An argument that is undermined by factual statistics. The guns used in the majority of massacres, especially perpetuated by teens in high schools, are legally owned-family guns, or legally bought at gun shows. Owning a gun in your home exponentially raises the risk of dying from said gun, whether by accident, suicide, or spousal/domestic homicide. Children kill themselves everyday by accidentally discharging a gun at themselves, siblings, or parents. Guns are for killing people. Knives aren't. Guns are.
I never claimed that NRA "talks" about the insufficiently funded American public system. My point was actually-that no one does. My point was that America cares more about guns than people. That the people are so culturally indoctrinated that "gun rights" are more important than public safety.
These events are in no way isolated. No political events really are? I mean, I'm aware i am making brief generalizations and summarizations here, but it doesn't take much common sense and internet research to build a pretty clear case of this. The insufficient public education funding is a problem of its own, but it is a problem that is overshadowed by these hungry lobbyists-and it is a problem that is resultant from a culture that doesn't value individual human life.
I’m afraid rational arguments are not going to work here in rural Wisconsin (actually this is a satellite community of Madison with a mix of different kinds of people, but it’s far enough away from Madison that it is also kinda rural). If popular support tips overwhelmingly in your favor, then the government will take the guns away; but that would result in civil upheaval in many places in this country, I’m afraid. Still, I sympathize with your view.
My apologies, you're right-an exaggeration on my part (my boyfriend often accuse me of being an exaggerator). Interesting that the rise of the NRA coincided with post-ww2 cultural tribulations at the time, ie. rising black rights movement, second "wave" feminism" ect. ect. Smells like the elite white rich (and the ignorant, rural, poor white who were exploited and manipulated into believing all this propaganda by the elite rich) had some qualms about the changing tides.
I agree. Remember, I am only two decades old. For as long as I have been alive there has been guns and severe gun violence and massacres on the news. For me, it really has been forever. I grew up with all the stranger danger, not being able to walk anywhere by myself until I was about 12, monthly armed lock down drills in my school, hiding under desks ect. ect. And this is in Canada, where I feel relatively safe. When I steal someones parking spot at the mall and they roll down their window to give me the finger, not for one moment do I think my life is in danger-but I do know that if I lived in the US, I would be risking my life.
I've never been to rural Wisconsin but I've been to rural Canada so I can imagine. These gun supporters correlate directly with poor, ignorant (read: LACK OF EDUCATION FUNDING), rural, isolated, and otherwise easily fear-mongered communities-fearful of change and "others"-fearful of control ect. ect.
Again, all these issues are so deeply and closely related.
I hear your argument. Your people will uprise.
That is what the NRA propaganda has done.
That's what's called a "glittering generalization". Sounds good; probably not all that true. Rural, poor whites may be more ignorant than they need to be, but a lot of rural whites are not poor (not rich, either), and not ignorant. Some of them are reasonably well educated.
I do agree that millions of Americans have been manipulated into believing all sorts of propaganda, just as most people everywhere have, excepting Canadians, whose minds are 100% free of any propaganda, whatsoever. I mean, they see propaganda on the CBC and it just doesn't make sense to them. It's like the announcer was suddenly speaking Swahili or something. They, of course, never watch American TV or film, listen to American Radio, or read American publications, so they stay pure and uncontaminated.
NRA gun owners and non-NRA gun owners are somewhat different.
Here are a couple of graphs from PEW RESEARCH which clarifies some of the differences between NRA gun owners and non-NRA gun owners.
I'm left wondering...
Do you disagree with the report I offered regarding the go-to talking points of pro gun people(including but not limited to NRA members)? I mean, was it in some way inaccurate? Did I misrepresent something that those folks think/believe and/or otherwise argue for? Do they talk about the insufficient funding of American education? Do they actively lobby for laws and/or legal actions that have a negative effect/affect upon the public funding situation at hand?
The NRA is not the problem. It is a symptom.
What statement of mine are you disagreeing with?
Public spaces ought have rules that keep the space usable by all. If the best technology is good enough for screening public passengers as a means for keeping the public airways safe, then what on God's green earth are we doing not providing those same safeguards to our children?
Well regulated.
We would avert many a scenario.
I live in a small town of 16,000. I know any community is diverse in its views. It’s less heterogeneous than NYC, though, and there are ignorant, hot-headed people in my community who wave confederate flags. There are also a lot of people who have “Hate Has No Home Here” signs in their yards. I’m not concerned about the latter. I’m concerned that if there was ever a gun buy-back (essentially a confiscation), then the former would get violent. I had no intention to paint rural America with a broad brush. My hometown has a population of 5,000; mostly good people. There is a lunatic fringe element, though, and the people who would get most upset by a gun confiscation tend to reside in smaller towns. But, I’m sure they’re in the Twin Cities, too, just not as many.
The lunatic fringe is everywhere. The difference between New York City and Oconomowoc, Wisconsin is that New York can absorb and dilute far more lunatics than a small Wisconsin town. That's why I moved to Minneapolis -- it's a safer place to be a rural lunatic than rural Podunk. In a small town, a few lunatics are very noticeable. It's easy for the whole cloth community (to which the fringe is attached) to make life difficult for the small group of deluded, mistaken, misinformed, deviantly opinionated, bigoted, faggoted, torqued out, commie, rebel yelling people. Or at least make them uncomfortable.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Ah, like one of my in-laws...
What people lunatic fringe about changes over time. When I was a kid, the lunatic fringers were worried about communists. Later they were worried about women libbers, hippies, and fags. Then drugs and motorcycle gangs, or welfare queens. Or Islamic Terrorists, or immigrants, or martians.
Not really. We’re all mostly polite here. The lunatic fringe here is just passive-aggressive. Confederate flags and bumper stickers mostly. I hope you’re right about the gun-confiscation thing because they would go from passive-aggressive to aggressive-aggressive I fear. But what’s the solution to the mass shootings then?
You are over simplyifing my original points. And as nice as your charts look, they're not comforting? Gun safety solves one of two gun issues, prevents accidental discharge. Doesn't prevent purposeful discharge. You're not going to convince me that guns is better than no guns; because no guns is better. Human emotionality for one; you can force someone to safely store and take gun safety courses until their ears turn blue, but it won't change their anger when they go for their gun in some dispute...everyone at some point in their life could have shot someone, myself included, if I had a gun. Hence why I will never own a gun. Or support gun ownership. Guns are for killing people. A population that feels the need to "arm" itself to "protect" itself is one that is already brutalized by fear, paranoia, and violence.
Even better, how about I carry a gun around my kindergartens? Like all those NRA people in the graphs you showed clearly want. Then we can start real early on indoctrinating them into a culture that thinks that it is okay to carry, "proudly" something used only to hurt other people. I mean, or we could teach them not to hurt people at all? A complete non-violent culture? A complete lockdown and amnesty on guns the military and so forth? A complete reconstruction of our economic and political relations?
Okay, I know I'm being silly here. But I prefer dreaming up complex upheavals than settling for, "well we just gotta make sure people don't kill too many people!"
Okay. They do have metal detectors at some schools, including here in Canada. Have to point this out, but don't you think there is something WRONG when we have to screen children going to school? Are we that desperate to hold onto the freedom to have a gun? When gun = killing people? A good stop gap attempt. But also bad. It says, "it's okay that people have guns, and people sometimes get killed by inevitably occurring human mental instability, so we're just going to work on minimizing the damage rather than address the real problem".
There won't be a solution anytime soon. America won't give up their guns (as per evidenced in these posts).
I don't think my statements are that "out there" but appears they are according to you people. I'm not trying to posit Canada as a country devoid of issues, we have plenty, including our historical mistreatment of Indigenous peoples; and of course we are influenced by American culture, we practically drown in American products for one...that is why I am worried. Canada is following the same trends as the United States. The extreme fringes you speak of, if they do reach a boiling point, will spill over to us.
@Bitter Crank
Did not mean offence. I too know educated rural people, including one heading to law school with me But there are statistics showing that anti-gun people are more likely to hold at least a bachelors degree, and that the less education someone has the more likely they are to have pro-gun views and die a violent death.
https://www.thoughtco.com/who-really-owns-guns-3026230
The whole "gun = safety" narrative is caused by racism, an us against them mentality, white against black, American vs. immigrant, $$ vs. capitalism, Christianity vs. Islam ect. ect. (hi George Orwell, yes you are right! A nation at war, facing an external "other" or enemy, is a unified nation, except in the case when the literal nation is divided by this (perceived) diversity...)
and while you are right @creativesoul the NRA is not THE problem, the NRA is the propaganda of the problem, and it is posing many problems of its own, including funding and organizing this deep felt divide and feeling of threat (on one side that is, and we all know what side that is) that otherwise would have no teeth...
Oh, I wasn't offended. And. I agree that more education tends to equal less likelihood of pro-gun right views. I think that one of the background processes affecting this is that older, white people in general tend to be more conservative. Older people in general tend to be more conservative in various ways, but because older white people also tend to be voters, they are targeted by conservative interests.
Another background process is that opportunities for educated people tend to be fewer and farther between in rural areas, so people with educated skills tend to move to urban centers. This leaves a less educated population in rural areas. The opportunities for advancement aren't great for them, either, but may be better than in urban areas.
Older white folks also tend to stay in rural areas. So, one has less educated, older people, people with fewer opportunities forming the bulk of the population. This fits the hilly agricultural county I grew up in, and 55 years later, it is still like that. It's something like 92% white. There are only very small towns (less than 2500, with maybe one exception of 3000 people. It's average income is not impoverished, but it is poorer than the average Minnesota county, quite a bit poorer than metropolitan MN counties.
Agriculture is always a dicey proposition, and that is true now. The difference is that the small dairy farm with some cash crops on the side, and a small herd of pigs and a flock of chickens or geese is totally obsolete. Milk, corn, beans, hay, poultry, and hogs just aren't produced that way any more (unfortunately). It's been obsolete for a good 40 years.
So, if this county is at all representative, I think a lot of people there feel trapped by economic forces they can do nothing about. (Of course, the rest of us are also trapped by economic forces beyond our control, but we haven't been totally shafted yet.)
I don't own a gun but I don't object to other people owning guns, but if 1/3 of the population owns guns, then that has to be accepted (like it or not) as a mainstream, normal, practice.
The amount of gun violence resulting in death and injury is a public health issue of enormous importance. But let's be clear about this: All but a small fraction of gun deaths and injuries are caused by civilians, and in any community--black, white, or hispanic, the gun deaths will be caused by black on black, white on white, or hispanic on hispanic killers. Some deaths are caused by interracial killers, but most are intrararacial. White and black cops alike are involved in shooting a greater number of whites, but a smaller percent of the white population.
Black on black violence is concentrated in black neighborhoods, and generally the victims and perpetrators know each other.
:brow: :zip: :brow: