4 ms·

Because they ought to be more than that? In some cases, perhaps, because they _are_ more than that? I'm pretty sure my K-12 education (public school) and colle

Because they ought to be more than that? In some cases, perhaps, because they _are_ more than that? I'm pretty sure my K-12 education (public school) and college (private university) were both above average, but I definitely learned _something_ from at least a few classes every year in K-12, and at least could tell you what sorts of things I've forgotten from them. Meanwhile, I couldn't tell you what about half of my college classes were even _supposed_ to have taught, shortly before graduation, despite passing all of them with (almost all) high marks.

gridlockd 7y ago
> I definitely learned _something_ from at least a few classes every year in K-12 What if the guy managing your retirement fund lost 85% of your money, would you stick with him because you got to keep at least some of it? > Meanwhile, I couldn't tell you what about half of my college classes were even _supposed_ to have taught, shortly before graduation, despite passing all of them with (almost all) high marks. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
- Qwertystop 7y ago
  My point is that public primary and secondary schooling seems to have been more effective (anecdotally) than private higher education. This is a strike against the idea that the government shouldn't be paying for it, in that in at least this one case the government paying for it seems to be working better than a non-government organization doing that doing so. Since educational institutions aren't going to disappear altogether, those are the alternatives.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > My point is that public primary and secondary schooling seems to have been more effective (anecdotally) than private higher education. Primary and secondary public education often fails to provide basic literacy competence. As a result, a high-school diploma isn't worth much, but the right college degree statistically is worth even the absurd prices that are now being paid for them. > This is a strike against the idea that the government shouldn't be paying for it, in that in at least this one case the government paying for it seems to be working better than a non-government organization doing that doing so. The government can pay for it without running it, see the Swedish model and the voucher system, which has resulted in improvements. However, teacher unions are obviously against this. They fear their jobs will be less secure if most parents had a real choice in where to enroll their children.

gridlockd 7y ago

> I definitely learned _something_ from at least a few classes every year in K-12 What if the guy managing your retirement fund lost 85% of your money, would you stick with him because you got to keep at least some of it? > Meanwhile, I couldn't tell you what about half of my college classes were even _supposed_ to have taught, shortly before graduation, despite passing all of them with (almost all) high marks. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Qwertystop 7y ago
My point is that public primary and secondary schooling seems to have been more effective (anecdotally) than private higher education. This is a strike against the idea that the government shouldn't be paying for it, in that in at least this one case the government paying for it seems to be working better than a non-government organization doing that doing so. Since educational institutions aren't going to disappear altogether, those are the alternatives.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > My point is that public primary and secondary schooling seems to have been more effective (anecdotally) than private higher education. Primary and secondary public education often fails to provide basic literacy competence. As a result, a high-school diploma isn't worth much, but the right college degree statistically is worth even the absurd prices that are now being paid for them. > This is a strike against the idea that the government shouldn't be paying for it, in that in at least this one case the government paying for it seems to be working better than a non-government organization doing that doing so. The government can pay for it without running it, see the Swedish model and the voucher system, which has resulted in improvements. However, teacher unions are obviously against this. They fear their jobs will be less secure if most parents had a real choice in where to enroll their children.