4 ms·

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

by 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.

by tehabe 10y ago

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.