4 ms·

> How do you measure efficacy of a school? Over the long term? The frequency and size of the checks their alumni write them. It's good signal that the alumnus

by User23 5y ago

> How do you measure efficacy of a school? Over the long term? The frequency and size of the checks their alumni write them. It's good signal that the alumnus likes the school well enough wish to do so and was prepared to be successful enough to be able to.

rbanffy 5y ago
> The frequency and size of the checks their alumni write them This only measures economic success, which is only a single dimension of educational success. It also fosters inequality, as schools with better outcomes from other factors (such as rich parents) will receive more resources as the ones that fail for factors the school system can’t control (such as, surprise, poverty).
- User23 5y ago
  Economic success is a decent proxy for social success, and has the advantage of being quantifiable. Being successful also correlates with health and happiness. If the purpose of school is to prepare students to have good lives then it’s a good metric. Not to mention donating to the school is charitable, which is another nice trait for people to have. Evidently you believe that the purpose of school is enforcing equality? How exactly does that work in a way that doesn’t result in at best failure and at worst an Harrison Bergeron hellscape?
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > Economic success is a decent proxy for social success By that logic, Jeff Bezos would be an amazing human being. I believe we can agree he isn't. > Not to mention donating to the school is charitable, which is another nice trait for people to have. Donating to the school in your catchment area will increase the sale value of your property, and improve the school for your kids and your neighbors. That's not charitable. What would be nice is donating the same amount to the least privileged schools in your city/county/state. A donation that benefits your own kids? Seriously? > Evidently you believe that the purpose of school is enforcing equality? Evidently you confuse equality of opportunities (which I do support) with equality of outcomes (which I don't). Overall, the more unequal a society gets, the less democratic it becomes.
    - User23 5y ago
      > By that logic, Jeff Bezos would be an amazing human being. I believe we can agree he isn't. You know what a proxy is. Please don't straw-man it's against the guidelines and not very interesting besides. One can always pick out individual exceptions. "My grandfather smoked two packs a day his whole life and never got lung cancer," doesn't refute that smoking is correlated with lung cancer. > That's not charitable Your highest obligations of charity are to yourself, your spouse, and your children. Once those obligations are met I agree that it's good to donate to your wider community. It's uncharitable to neglect your family for the dopamine hit of virtue signaling. > least privileged schools in your city/county/state It's observably true that poor school quality in the USA isn't due to a lack of funding. California's school system is proof. > Evidently you confuse equality of opportunities (which I do support) with equality of outcomes (which I don't). Overall, the more unequal a society gets, the less democratic it becomes. I don't confuse them, I consider them both equally impossible. Equality of opportunity is impossible because in large part one's opportunities are the result of the decisions one's parents made, beginning with choosing to procreate together. It's a heresy against the tabula rasa dogma to say so, and yet it moves. As for a society being more or less democratic, that's a grave oversimplification. First, there are no extant democracies. We have constitutional monarchies, federal republics, and so on. Second, the extent to which democratic decision making is beneficial is very much a consequence of scale and locality. It makes sense for the citizens of a county to popularly elect the Sheriff that will police them. Paradoxically, a larger pool of electors is actually less democratic. If the citizens of the entire country voted on who was to be sheriff for the county, then the citizens of that county effectively have no vote at all over their own affairs.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        > Your highest obligations of charity are to yourself, your spouse, and your children. That’s not charity. That’s self interest, specially if I can save on taxes while I increase the value of my property. > It's observably true that poor school quality in the USA isn't due to a lack of funding. California's school system is proof. There’s a multitude of reasons for school failure that are unrelated to funding - violence, poverty, discrimination, etc. Supporting those in need is always more important than supporting those who don’t need support. > Equality of opportunity is impossible because in large part one's opportunities are the result of the decisions one's parents made, And we should work towards not allowing that to reduce the opportunities for those who lack that privilege. > beginning with choosing to procreate together. I don’t see how genetics are involved here. It’s been proven many times it has little relation with academic success. Growing up in a favourable environment to learning is a much more powerful predictor. > As for a society being more or less democratic, that's a grave oversimplification. When you have people who can fund successful electoral campaigns you get people who effectively can vote multiple times, by convincing more people to vote for their candidates. You also get people who can influence the elected officials because they know that, if they don’t favour the people who got them elected, they’ll make someone else be elected. One important role of public universal schooling is to form an informed electorate that can operate a democracy. If the last few years didn’t teach us we have been failing at that, I can’t imagine what will. > Second, the extent to which democratic decision making is beneficial is very much a consequence of scale and locality. I’m not sure why you brought this up. There are local authorities at various levels, but that has no impact on the argument I was making. All levels can be influenced with the right amount of money.
armonge 5y ago
I believe writing checks to your university is a USA only thing

by User23 5y ago

rbanffy 5y ago

> The frequency and size of the checks their alumni write them This only measures economic success, which is only a single dimension of educational success. It also fosters inequality, as schools with better outcomes from other factors (such as rich parents) will receive more resources as the ones that fail for factors the school system can’t control (such as, surprise, poverty).

User23 5y ago
Economic success is a decent proxy for social success, and has the advantage of being quantifiable. Being successful also correlates with health and happiness. If the purpose of school is to prepare students to have good lives then it’s a good metric. Not to mention donating to the school is charitable, which is another nice trait for people to have. Evidently you believe that the purpose of school is enforcing equality? How exactly does that work in a way that doesn’t result in at best failure and at worst an Harrison Bergeron hellscape?
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > Economic success is a decent proxy for social success By that logic, Jeff Bezos would be an amazing human being. I believe we can agree he isn't. > Not to mention donating to the school is charitable, which is another nice trait for people to have. Donating to the school in your catchment area will increase the sale value of your property, and improve the school for your kids and your neighbors. That's not charitable. What would be nice is donating the same amount to the least privileged schools in your city/county/state. A donation that benefits your own kids? Seriously? > Evidently you believe that the purpose of school is enforcing equality? Evidently you confuse equality of opportunities (which I do support) with equality of outcomes (which I don't). Overall, the more unequal a society gets, the less democratic it becomes.
  - User23 5y ago
    > By that logic, Jeff Bezos would be an amazing human being. I believe we can agree he isn't. You know what a proxy is. Please don't straw-man it's against the guidelines and not very interesting besides. One can always pick out individual exceptions. "My grandfather smoked two packs a day his whole life and never got lung cancer," doesn't refute that smoking is correlated with lung cancer. > That's not charitable Your highest obligations of charity are to yourself, your spouse, and your children. Once those obligations are met I agree that it's good to donate to your wider community. It's uncharitable to neglect your family for the dopamine hit of virtue signaling. > least privileged schools in your city/county/state It's observably true that poor school quality in the USA isn't due to a lack of funding. California's school system is proof. > Evidently you confuse equality of opportunities (which I do support) with equality of outcomes (which I don't). Overall, the more unequal a society gets, the less democratic it becomes. I don't confuse them, I consider them both equally impossible. Equality of opportunity is impossible because in large part one's opportunities are the result of the decisions one's parents made, beginning with choosing to procreate together. It's a heresy against the tabula rasa dogma to say so, and yet it moves. As for a society being more or less democratic, that's a grave oversimplification. First, there are no extant democracies. We have constitutional monarchies, federal republics, and so on. Second, the extent to which democratic decision making is beneficial is very much a consequence of scale and locality. It makes sense for the citizens of a county to popularly elect the Sheriff that will police them. Paradoxically, a larger pool of electors is actually less democratic. If the citizens of the entire country voted on who was to be sheriff for the county, then the citizens of that county effectively have no vote at all over their own affairs.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      > Your highest obligations of charity are to yourself, your spouse, and your children. That’s not charity. That’s self interest, specially if I can save on taxes while I increase the value of my property. > It's observably true that poor school quality in the USA isn't due to a lack of funding. California's school system is proof. There’s a multitude of reasons for school failure that are unrelated to funding - violence, poverty, discrimination, etc. Supporting those in need is always more important than supporting those who don’t need support. > Equality of opportunity is impossible because in large part one's opportunities are the result of the decisions one's parents made, And we should work towards not allowing that to reduce the opportunities for those who lack that privilege. > beginning with choosing to procreate together. I don’t see how genetics are involved here. It’s been proven many times it has little relation with academic success. Growing up in a favourable environment to learning is a much more powerful predictor. > As for a society being more or less democratic, that's a grave oversimplification. When you have people who can fund successful electoral campaigns you get people who effectively can vote multiple times, by convincing more people to vote for their candidates. You also get people who can influence the elected officials because they know that, if they don’t favour the people who got them elected, they’ll make someone else be elected. One important role of public universal schooling is to form an informed electorate that can operate a democracy. If the last few years didn’t teach us we have been failing at that, I can’t imagine what will. > Second, the extent to which democratic decision making is beneficial is very much a consequence of scale and locality. I’m not sure why you brought this up. There are local authorities at various levels, but that has no impact on the argument I was making. All levels can be influenced with the right amount of money.

armonge 5y ago

I believe writing checks to your university is a USA only thing