6 ms·

>"It's very indecent because they are looking at poor people as a profitable market." --Camilla Croso I don't understand this reasoning. When there is competit

by mrob 10y ago

>"It's very indecent because they are looking at poor people as a profitable market." --Camilla Croso I don't understand this reasoning. When there is competition, which there is here, profit means the customers are getting value from the service. They aren't being coerced into buying anything. It's not like BIA has a monopoly and the poor have no choice in the matter.

tehabe 10y ago
That is a naive idea. Profit means the investors are getting a value from their investment. If the customers are getting a value remains to be seen. Especially in education we are talking about years. Unlike a restaurant where you know after the first bite if you got a good service or not.
- mrob 10y ago
  It doesn't take years to check if a child can read and write. But the main objection I have is the idea that it's automatically unethical to profit from the poor. Giving money to poor people is usually a more effective form of charity than giving goods or services, eg: http://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly http://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly This is using the fact that profiting from the poor is possible to help poor people efficiently. Free markets generally work better than planned economies. Why should the poor be cut off from the free market?
  - tehabe 10y ago
    To limit a good education to "It doesn't take years to check if a child can read and write." is condescending. Free markets might work for some things well, for education they don't, not in development countries nor in developed countries.
    - mseebach 10y ago
      But as long as the kids can't read and write, it's condescending to insist on western ideals of "good education", especially when you don't have a such to substitute. It's one of those times where checking your privilege isn't SJW histronics. Learning to read and write in a for-profit school >> not learning to read and write at all because nobody could figure out how to build a not-for-profit "good education" school.
      - tehabe 10y ago
        Education is more than just learning how to read and write, if you think that makes me an SJW, I'm one. I also think that locally run schools, either by the government or by the municipality give the people back their agency. How much agency have the people with a school company headquartered in another country? To which the school only has contact via a smartphone?
        mseebach 10y ago
        Yes, education is more than learning to read and write. But if there's nobody around to teach you how to read and write, then education is only about learning to read and write. How much agency does people who don't have a school at all have? If you're out there with your wholesome non-profit locally run good education school, competing with a foreign run for-profit school, I'm all with you, hand down, no competition. But you're not, so I'm cheering for the guys actually (if imperfectly) changing facts on the ground.
    - mcherm 10y ago
      > To limit a good education to "It doesn't take years to check if a child can read and write." is condescending. It would be condescending if anyone had actually said that. Saying "one part of the education is easy to measure" is not the same as saying "no other part of the education matters". The question is not whether these schools "work". The question is whether they are better for the students than the alternative. Measuring the ability of students to read and write is one useful way of assessing that. If it is dramatically worse or better that would be a helpful indicator (although still not the "whole story").
    - gaius 10y ago
      Free markets might work for some things well, for education they don't, not in development countries nor in developed countries. Simply not true. Plenty of proof that private schools in the UK (weirdly referred to as public schools) provide a far better education than "bog standard" State Comps.
      - tehabe 10y ago
        Well, but only for those who attend those schools. My point is, that school markets leave winners and losers. Losers who have to go to awful schools and winners who get the best education ever. If that is what you want, okay. But I want the best education for everybody. Everything else is IMO pointless.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > But I want the best education for everybody. You don't get that unless you pay a lot and subsidize. A lot of people are not willing or unable to pay that cost. Your wants have nothing to do with the matter. A lot of people want the amount of education they can afford, no more, no less. > Everything else is IMO pointless. This is why your viewpoint is pointless. No point in learning your times tables or how to read, just because you're not being taught finger painting or how to play a violin? Grow up.
        tehabe 10y ago
        Actually I think it will be cheaper than today's system. Also it will be paid for by everybody and since all school are equally good it is much easier to get good teachers. A good teacher is needed to integrate academically weak pupils as well as academically strong pupils. reading and writing is important, very important but so is math, biology, physics, geography, history, and more.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Actually I think it will be cheaper than today's system. The best education ever possible is going to be cheaper than today's educational system? What gives you this idea? > Also it will be paid for by everybody and since all school are equally good it is much easier to get good teachers. Why would everybody pay for good education? I don't have children. And good teachers are rare no matter what. I certainly have no inclination to discipline 30 kids for 8 hours a day. Why is it easier to get good teachers? > reading and writing is important, very important but so is math, biology, physics, geography, history, and more. Yes, would it be better to learn reading and writing and miss out on some math, biology, physics, etc etc? You said there's no point in education unless it's "the best". What color is the sky in your world? None of your statements make logical sense or form a consistent view of reality. It says you've been a member of HackerNews for 5 years, it seems like a long time to finally unleash your inner troll.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    Nobody is profiting from these people. The program does not generate profits. It's completely absurd to suggest 'capitalists' are going into an extremely unprofitable industry, targeting the poorest people in the world who have no money. Nobody is every going to make a profit teaching poor Africans anything. The issues is not about private/public - the issue is Uganda is not doing a very good job with their public schools, and they are embarrassed by the presence of the NGOs, who are obviously doing a better job in the minds of many parents.
lumberjack 10y ago
They aren't being coerced but maybe they are being mislead just in the same way that Americans were mislead by for-profit degree mills. Neither the prospective students nor their parents have any way of accessing the quality of the education that is being offered. Maybe in 10 to 15 years it turns out that all graduates amounted to nothing because the education was not good enough and they had no future anyway. But by then thousands of very poor families would have been paying large sums of money for years to put their children through this useless school system. Lots of potential for harm.
- mrob 10y ago
  In that case the objection should be the false advertising, not the profit.
  - lumberjack 10y ago
    No. I think being for-profit is seen as a negative incentive if you are an education provider. Notice for example that while there are a lot of private universities in the US, there are very few for-profit ones and none that are prestigious.
    - mrob 10y ago
      Higher education is more about social signaling than actually providing education (STEM subjects being a partial exception). The main value is in the prestige, and prestige is highly path-dependent. The BIA schools are teaching numeracy and literacy, which is valuable to everybody and easily measured.
      - unescape 10y ago
        Higher education is more about social signaling than actually providing education (STEM subjects being a partial exception). That's a very limited perspective. I enjoy reading history books, many written by people who studied history and teach history at institutions of higher education. Are you saying that everyone is just going through the motions to send a social signal, except for STEM? Also you didn't address the question of for-profit vs private education. For-profit tends to be inferior because profit is the only mission; private institutions have a mix of goals, including solvency. BIA is by all accounts for-profit. The BIA schools are teaching numeracy and literacy Education at every level consists of showing someone how to act in the world. It's not just "this is what a number looks like, this is what a word looks like." I haven't been to a BIA school, but I've seen a lot of concerns that their method is to cheapen education by removing any human guidance, and divert money from the World Bank away from traditional education.
morgante 10y ago
Yea, it's very interesting to see how dogmatic people are. For example, "adding that privatization of education goes against human rights principles" seems to be entirely unsubstantiated to me. If private schools can offer a superior education at a lower cost than public schools, what human rights have been violated? Arguably it's against human rights to ban such schools when they're educating students.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  They're basically appealing to the illusion that government services are free. If I'm being even more cynical, I'd say it's probably because CNN is owned by pro-socialism special interests. They are monetarily invested in convincing the public that government services cost nothing and solve everything.
- unescape 10y ago
  It's been pointed out that there's a world of difference between a private school and a for-profit school. A for-profit school has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits. If it can make more profits by providing an inferior product at inflated prices, and convince consumers it buy it - then it basically has to do that, or they are defrauding their shareholders. Otherwise the shareholders should pull there money and invest it elsewhere. Private schools, by contrast, have an obligation to remain solvent, but also a broader mission to educate people, promote learning, make the world a better place and so on. The word "privatization" in this context implies BIA is pursuing the for-profit model. By contrast a charter school in the US, or religious school, may be either for-profit or private and not-for-profit.
  - morgante 10y ago
    No, "privatization" does not inherently imply a for-profit model. You'll see plenty of people complaining about the "privatization" of public schools when they're replaced by (non-profit) charter schools. Also, the strict dichotomy of non-profit vs. for-profit isn't always enlightening. Particularly in the education sector, you'll find there are investors who are not exclusively looking for the highest possible return. In this specific case, I am 100% positive that Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are not investing in BIA to maximize their profit. They both have access to far more lucrative investment options.
edblarney 10y ago
It's easy for private entities to coerce people. This is definitely not the issue. A) The schools are 'not or profit' - they don't make money. B) It's absurd to suggest a company would try to 'make money' by targeting literally the poorest people in the world, that have no money. $6 a month. Thin margins. Do the math. You think a big American corp is interest in that? The 'real story' is that the Ugandan government is severely neglecting their own population, and that the schools are embarrassing them and showing their incompetence. So the corrupt government wants to shut it down.

by mrob 10y ago

tehabe 10y ago

That is a naive idea. Profit means the investors are getting a value from their investment. If the customers are getting a value remains to be seen. Especially in education we are talking about years. Unlike a restaurant where you know after the first bite if you got a good service or not.

mrob 10y ago
It doesn't take years to check if a child can read and write. But the main objection I have is the idea that it's automatically unethical to profit from the poor. Giving money to poor people is usually a more effective form of charity than giving goods or services, eg: http://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly http://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly This is using the fact that profiting from the poor is possible to help poor people efficiently. Free markets generally work better than planned economies. Why should the poor be cut off from the free market?
- tehabe 10y ago
  To limit a good education to "It doesn't take years to check if a child can read and write." is condescending. Free markets might work for some things well, for education they don't, not in development countries nor in developed countries.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    But as long as the kids can't read and write, it's condescending to insist on western ideals of "good education", especially when you don't have a such to substitute. It's one of those times where checking your privilege isn't SJW histronics. Learning to read and write in a for-profit school >> not learning to read and write at all because nobody could figure out how to build a not-for-profit "good education" school.
    - tehabe 10y ago
      Education is more than just learning how to read and write, if you think that makes me an SJW, I'm one. I also think that locally run schools, either by the government or by the municipality give the people back their agency. How much agency have the people with a school company headquartered in another country? To which the school only has contact via a smartphone?
      - mseebach 10y ago
        Yes, education is more than learning to read and write. But if there's nobody around to teach you how to read and write, then education is only about learning to read and write. How much agency does people who don't have a school at all have? If you're out there with your wholesome non-profit locally run good education school, competing with a foreign run for-profit school, I'm all with you, hand down, no competition. But you're not, so I'm cheering for the guys actually (if imperfectly) changing facts on the ground.
  - mcherm 10y ago
    > To limit a good education to "It doesn't take years to check if a child can read and write." is condescending. It would be condescending if anyone had actually said that. Saying "one part of the education is easy to measure" is not the same as saying "no other part of the education matters". The question is not whether these schools "work". The question is whether they are better for the students than the alternative. Measuring the ability of students to read and write is one useful way of assessing that. If it is dramatically worse or better that would be a helpful indicator (although still not the "whole story").
  - gaius 10y ago
    Free markets might work for some things well, for education they don't, not in development countries nor in developed countries. Simply not true. Plenty of proof that private schools in the UK (weirdly referred to as public schools) provide a far better education than "bog standard" State Comps.
    - tehabe 10y ago
      Well, but only for those who attend those schools. My point is, that school markets leave winners and losers. Losers who have to go to awful schools and winners who get the best education ever. If that is what you want, okay. But I want the best education for everybody. Everything else is IMO pointless.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > But I want the best education for everybody. You don't get that unless you pay a lot and subsidize. A lot of people are not willing or unable to pay that cost. Your wants have nothing to do with the matter. A lot of people want the amount of education they can afford, no more, no less. > Everything else is IMO pointless. This is why your viewpoint is pointless. No point in learning your times tables or how to read, just because you're not being taught finger painting or how to play a violin? Grow up.
        tehabe 10y ago
        Actually I think it will be cheaper than today's system. Also it will be paid for by everybody and since all school are equally good it is much easier to get good teachers. A good teacher is needed to integrate academically weak pupils as well as academically strong pupils. reading and writing is important, very important but so is math, biology, physics, geography, history, and more.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Actually I think it will be cheaper than today's system. The best education ever possible is going to be cheaper than today's educational system? What gives you this idea? > Also it will be paid for by everybody and since all school are equally good it is much easier to get good teachers. Why would everybody pay for good education? I don't have children. And good teachers are rare no matter what. I certainly have no inclination to discipline 30 kids for 8 hours a day. Why is it easier to get good teachers? > reading and writing is important, very important but so is math, biology, physics, geography, history, and more. Yes, would it be better to learn reading and writing and miss out on some math, biology, physics, etc etc? You said there's no point in education unless it's "the best". What color is the sky in your world? None of your statements make logical sense or form a consistent view of reality. It says you've been a member of HackerNews for 5 years, it seems like a long time to finally unleash your inner troll.
- edblarney 10y ago
  Nobody is profiting from these people. The program does not generate profits. It's completely absurd to suggest 'capitalists' are going into an extremely unprofitable industry, targeting the poorest people in the world who have no money. Nobody is every going to make a profit teaching poor Africans anything. The issues is not about private/public - the issue is Uganda is not doing a very good job with their public schools, and they are embarrassed by the presence of the NGOs, who are obviously doing a better job in the minds of many parents.

lumberjack 10y ago

They aren't being coerced but maybe they are being mislead just in the same way that Americans were mislead by for-profit degree mills. Neither the prospective students nor their parents have any way of accessing the quality of the education that is being offered. Maybe in 10 to 15 years it turns out that all graduates amounted to nothing because the education was not good enough and they had no future anyway. But by then thousands of very poor families would have been paying large sums of money for years to put their children through this useless school system. Lots of potential for harm.

mrob 10y ago
In that case the objection should be the false advertising, not the profit.
- lumberjack 10y ago
  No. I think being for-profit is seen as a negative incentive if you are an education provider. Notice for example that while there are a lot of private universities in the US, there are very few for-profit ones and none that are prestigious.
  - mrob 10y ago
    Higher education is more about social signaling than actually providing education (STEM subjects being a partial exception). The main value is in the prestige, and prestige is highly path-dependent. The BIA schools are teaching numeracy and literacy, which is valuable to everybody and easily measured.
    - unescape 10y ago
      Higher education is more about social signaling than actually providing education (STEM subjects being a partial exception). That's a very limited perspective. I enjoy reading history books, many written by people who studied history and teach history at institutions of higher education. Are you saying that everyone is just going through the motions to send a social signal, except for STEM? Also you didn't address the question of for-profit vs private education. For-profit tends to be inferior because profit is the only mission; private institutions have a mix of goals, including solvency. BIA is by all accounts for-profit. The BIA schools are teaching numeracy and literacy Education at every level consists of showing someone how to act in the world. It's not just "this is what a number looks like, this is what a word looks like." I haven't been to a BIA school, but I've seen a lot of concerns that their method is to cheapen education by removing any human guidance, and divert money from the World Bank away from traditional education.

morgante 10y ago

Yea, it's very interesting to see how dogmatic people are. For example, "adding that privatization of education goes against human rights principles" seems to be entirely unsubstantiated to me. If private schools can offer a superior education at a lower cost than public schools, what human rights have been violated? Arguably it's against human rights to ban such schools when they're educating students.

microcolonel 10y ago
They're basically appealing to the illusion that government services are free. If I'm being even more cynical, I'd say it's probably because CNN is owned by pro-socialism special interests. They are monetarily invested in convincing the public that government services cost nothing and solve everything.
unescape 10y ago
It's been pointed out that there's a world of difference between a private school and a for-profit school. A for-profit school has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits. If it can make more profits by providing an inferior product at inflated prices, and convince consumers it buy it - then it basically has to do that, or they are defrauding their shareholders. Otherwise the shareholders should pull there money and invest it elsewhere. Private schools, by contrast, have an obligation to remain solvent, but also a broader mission to educate people, promote learning, make the world a better place and so on. The word "privatization" in this context implies BIA is pursuing the for-profit model. By contrast a charter school in the US, or religious school, may be either for-profit or private and not-for-profit.
- morgante 10y ago
  No, "privatization" does not inherently imply a for-profit model. You'll see plenty of people complaining about the "privatization" of public schools when they're replaced by (non-profit) charter schools. Also, the strict dichotomy of non-profit vs. for-profit isn't always enlightening. Particularly in the education sector, you'll find there are investors who are not exclusively looking for the highest possible return. In this specific case, I am 100% positive that Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are not investing in BIA to maximize their profit. They both have access to far more lucrative investment options.

edblarney 10y ago

It's easy for private entities to coerce people. This is definitely not the issue. A) The schools are 'not or profit' - they don't make money. B) It's absurd to suggest a company would try to 'make money' by targeting literally the poorest people in the world, that have no money. $6 a month. Thin margins. Do the math. You think a big American corp is interest in that? The 'real story' is that the Ugandan government is severely neglecting their own population, and that the schools are embarrassing them and showing their incompetence. So the corrupt government wants to shut it down.