5 ms·

Personally, I went to a very traditional private high school and received a great education. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with education. I think the thr

by logn 14y ago

Personally, I went to a very traditional private high school and received a great education. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with education. I think the three current problems are 1) education is expensive, 2) people are too poor, and 3) people of average or below average intelligence probably aren't served very well by the high school curriculum. We should close all corporate tax loopholes and send the money to schools and require that school funding is not proportional to property tax. We should institute a minimum wage of ~$12/hr tied to inflation to fight poverty. The high school curriculum should have alternate vocational and tech skills tracks.

unimpressive 14y ago
>We should institute a minimum wage of ~$12/hr tied to inflation to fight poverty. Can you walk me through the economic justification for this?
- logn 14y ago
  Sure. Take Walmart for example. They had over 100 billion (edit: I was wrong it's 36 billion) in profits in 2012. If you assume they pay every one of their 2 million workers $8/hr then giving them a raise to $12/hr would cost around 15-20 billion dollars. In my opinion this means they can afford it. It also means that the government would stop subsidizing their profits through government handouts for the working poor. Edit: realistic numbers of average pay for Walmart is approaching $10/hr making the total cost of a wage hike 10 billion.
  - btilly 14y ago
    You might want to double-check your facts. Starting with the fact that Walmart's profits in 2012 were $15.7 billion, making a $15-20 billion line item not nearly as affordable as you would have us believe. Note that this is the biggest retailer in the world, in an economic climate which has been very good for them. (When people become price-conscious, sales move from higher end stores to Walmart.) What is affordable for them right now might not be for other retailers in general, or for them in a different year. (That said, if every employee cost more, prices would rise and costs would get passed to consumers.)
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    > They had over 100 billion in profits in 2012. EBITDA was $36B. Giving up ~2/3rds of the money available for dividends or reinvestment in the business is not going to fly with the shareholders.
    - btilly 14y ago
      EBITDA was $36B. I think that for this discussion Net Income is the more appropriate figure to use given that Walmart's interest, tax, depreciation and amortization add up to tens of billions of dollars.
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        You're right. They booked net income for 2011-12 as $15.6B. So a $20B payrise would put them in the red. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&annual http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&ann...
        logn 14y ago
        Yeah you're all probably right. However, with average walmart wages of $10/hr I think that's a realistic target for minimum wage. Also I think it's a shame that we charge any tax to people making minimum wage. I plugged $14500 into the ADP pay calculator, and in my state you walk away with just over 10k per year.
    - logn 14y ago
      You're right. Sorry my numbers were wrong. Anyhow their average pay is actually closer to $10/hr anyway making the total cost more like 10 billion dollars. Their dividend payout ratio is around 30%. A payout ratio of 60% would still be okay with most investors, though I'm sure it would hurt the investment opportunity. But when we recognize that we have a growing income disparity this would be the price we pay to fix that.
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
thatswrong0 14y ago
The U.S. already spends more than any other country on education. Throwing more money at the problem won't necessarily fix it. I also want to add that people of above average intelligence are not well served by the high school curriculum either. Next, the minimum wage will not fight poverty like you think it will. Something like a negative income tax would be more effective. Also, how would you go about paying for a school in a district if not for property taxes? There isn't just an easy solution to that problem. I do agree with your last point though. Not everyone needs to or should go to college. Beyond that, I think more people should work after high school or take a years break instead of going straight to college so that they can actually think about what they want to do. The fewer people that get saddled with crippling debt and a useless degree, the better.
- yardie 14y ago
  Yes, there is spending and then there is spending effectively. Something like half the money allocated for each student is siphoned at various points starting at the federal, state, county, district, and school. When teachers have to spend their own money to get basic schools supplies (like paper for the printer) and the school board is bragging how much they spend on each student* you know something is really wrong about where that money is going. *My school board was require to print an annual report with the school performance and the average spent on each student. It was something like $6000/year; as a student I don't think they spent a tenth of that on me.
kiba 14y ago
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with education. I think the three current problems are 1) education is expensive, 2) people are too poor, and 3) people of average or below average intelligence probably aren't served very well by the high school curriculum. Yes, it is, and it have nothing to do with our funding. The way we teach is extraordinary inefficient and outdated. For example, spaced repetition is a learning technique that takes advantage of the spacing effect phenomenon that is present in all humans. You know why your teachers told you to study everyday instead of cramming? Well, cramming doesn't help you retain information in the long run! Computers can be used to track every answers and problem, what our weakness are, and to schedule when to review, allowing us to take spaced repetition to its logical conclusion. The computer can generate problems on demand, give out recorded lectures by the very best teacher, and so on. Spacing effects also implies summer vacation is harmful to knowledge acquisition process unless we continuously practice. When we finish high school and college, decays begin to set in because we stop practicing. The result is that countless generation learned mathematics, history, language art, literature, only to forget upon exiting formal education. That's why khanacademy is so powerful. They really do leverage computers to generate problems, explain stuff, track your every mistakes, and schedule practices problem using spaced repetition. Right now, long run khanacademy users like me knows more and is the most refreshed on mathematics than the vast majority of high school students and working adults. We practice math problems everyday, thus ensuring that we never forget and be prepared to build a new knowledge as soon as Khan Academy adds new exercises or revise old one. That's in contrast to going to a very inefficient traditional institutions and receiving a "great education" and then immediately forgetting most of what you're taught. That's a very inefficient way to learn.
- logn 14y ago
  I don't think high schools exist so that you remember things. They're to teach you how to learn.
  - kiba 14y ago
    I don't think high schools exist so that you remember things. They're to teach you how to learn. What part of learning that doesn't involves remembering and building a foundation on what you have learned? What if you forgot your basic when you have to do more advanced stuff. That is part of the process of "learning".
enraged_camel 14y ago
>>Personally, I went to a very traditional private high school and received a great education. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with education. Of course you would say that, since you went to a private high school and received, in your words, a great education. There are many others who were not so lucky (to have parents who could afford private school tuition).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
qxcv 14y ago
> people of average or below average intelligence probably aren't served very well by the high school curriculum. Explain. My experience has been that high school is little more than a legal straightjacket to prevent the archetypal hormone-addled teenager from going off and doing stupid shit or otherwise causing potential problems for themselves. > The high school curriculum should have alternate vocational and tech skills tracks. This doesn't happen already? What's the pipeline in your education system for someone who wants to become, say, a diesel mechanic? Can they leave school early and get an apprenticeship?
arethuza 14y ago
I'm a big fan of private education - my son has attended a private school here in the UK from the age of 4 and he is now 14 and he loves his school (both for academic studies and sports). However, in many respects it is easy for private schools - they have plenty resources, excellent buildings, huge playing grounds and a fairly uniform set of reasonably high achieving parents - who are motivated to encourage their kids to try and excel.

by logn 14y ago

unimpressive 14y ago

>We should institute a minimum wage of ~$12/hr tied to inflation to fight poverty. Can you walk me through the economic justification for this?

logn 14y ago
Sure. Take Walmart for example. They had over 100 billion (edit: I was wrong it's 36 billion) in profits in 2012. If you assume they pay every one of their 2 million workers $8/hr then giving them a raise to $12/hr would cost around 15-20 billion dollars. In my opinion this means they can afford it. It also means that the government would stop subsidizing their profits through government handouts for the working poor. Edit: realistic numbers of average pay for Walmart is approaching $10/hr making the total cost of a wage hike 10 billion.
- btilly 14y ago
  You might want to double-check your facts. Starting with the fact that Walmart's profits in 2012 were $15.7 billion, making a $15-20 billion line item not nearly as affordable as you would have us believe. Note that this is the biggest retailer in the world, in an economic climate which has been very good for them. (When people become price-conscious, sales move from higher end stores to Walmart.) What is affordable for them right now might not be for other retailers in general, or for them in a different year. (That said, if every employee cost more, prices would rise and costs would get passed to consumers.)
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  > They had over 100 billion in profits in 2012. EBITDA was $36B. Giving up ~2/3rds of the money available for dividends or reinvestment in the business is not going to fly with the shareholders.
  - btilly 14y ago
    EBITDA was $36B. I think that for this discussion Net Income is the more appropriate figure to use given that Walmart's interest, tax, depreciation and amortization add up to tens of billions of dollars.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      You're right. They booked net income for 2011-12 as $15.6B. So a $20B payrise would put them in the red. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&annual http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&ann...
      - logn 14y ago
        Yeah you're all probably right. However, with average walmart wages of $10/hr I think that's a realistic target for minimum wage. Also I think it's a shame that we charge any tax to people making minimum wage. I plugged $14500 into the ADP pay calculator, and in my state you walk away with just over 10k per year.
  - logn 14y ago
    You're right. Sorry my numbers were wrong. Anyhow their average pay is actually closer to $10/hr anyway making the total cost more like 10 billion dollars. Their dividend payout ratio is around 30%. A payout ratio of 60% would still be okay with most investors, though I'm sure it would hurt the investment opportunity. But when we recognize that we have a growing income disparity this would be the price we pay to fix that.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago

thatswrong0 14y ago

The U.S. already spends more than any other country on education. Throwing more money at the problem won't necessarily fix it. I also want to add that people of above average intelligence are not well served by the high school curriculum either. Next, the minimum wage will not fight poverty like you think it will. Something like a negative income tax would be more effective. Also, how would you go about paying for a school in a district if not for property taxes? There isn't just an easy solution to that problem. I do agree with your last point though. Not everyone needs to or should go to college. Beyond that, I think more people should work after high school or take a years break instead of going straight to college so that they can actually think about what they want to do. The fewer people that get saddled with crippling debt and a useless degree, the better.

yardie 14y ago
Yes, there is spending and then there is spending effectively. Something like half the money allocated for each student is siphoned at various points starting at the federal, state, county, district, and school. When teachers have to spend their own money to get basic schools supplies (like paper for the printer) and the school board is bragging how much they spend on each student* you know something is really wrong about where that money is going. *My school board was require to print an annual report with the school performance and the average spent on each student. It was something like $6000/year; as a student I don't think they spent a tenth of that on me.

kiba 14y ago

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with education. I think the three current problems are 1) education is expensive, 2) people are too poor, and 3) people of average or below average intelligence probably aren't served very well by the high school curriculum. Yes, it is, and it have nothing to do with our funding. The way we teach is extraordinary inefficient and outdated. For example, spaced repetition is a learning technique that takes advantage of the spacing effect phenomenon that is present in all humans. You know why your teachers told you to study everyday instead of cramming? Well, cramming doesn't help you retain information in the long run! Computers can be used to track every answers and problem, what our weakness are, and to schedule when to review, allowing us to take spaced repetition to its logical conclusion. The computer can generate problems on demand, give out recorded lectures by the very best teacher, and so on. Spacing effects also implies summer vacation is harmful to knowledge acquisition process unless we continuously practice. When we finish high school and college, decays begin to set in because we stop practicing. The result is that countless generation learned mathematics, history, language art, literature, only to forget upon exiting formal education. That's why khanacademy is so powerful. They really do leverage computers to generate problems, explain stuff, track your every mistakes, and schedule practices problem using spaced repetition. Right now, long run khanacademy users like me knows more and is the most refreshed on mathematics than the vast majority of high school students and working adults. We practice math problems everyday, thus ensuring that we never forget and be prepared to build a new knowledge as soon as Khan Academy adds new exercises or revise old one. That's in contrast to going to a very inefficient traditional institutions and receiving a "great education" and then immediately forgetting most of what you're taught. That's a very inefficient way to learn.

logn 14y ago
I don't think high schools exist so that you remember things. They're to teach you how to learn.
- kiba 14y ago
  I don't think high schools exist so that you remember things. They're to teach you how to learn. What part of learning that doesn't involves remembering and building a foundation on what you have learned? What if you forgot your basic when you have to do more advanced stuff. That is part of the process of "learning".

enraged_camel 14y ago

>>Personally, I went to a very traditional private high school and received a great education. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with education. Of course you would say that, since you went to a private high school and received, in your words, a great education. There are many others who were not so lucky (to have parents who could afford private school tuition).

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

qxcv 14y ago

> people of average or below average intelligence probably aren't served very well by the high school curriculum. Explain. My experience has been that high school is little more than a legal straightjacket to prevent the archetypal hormone-addled teenager from going off and doing stupid shit or otherwise causing potential problems for themselves. > The high school curriculum should have alternate vocational and tech skills tracks. This doesn't happen already? What's the pipeline in your education system for someone who wants to become, say, a diesel mechanic? Can they leave school early and get an apprenticeship?

arethuza 14y ago

I'm a big fan of private education - my son has attended a private school here in the UK from the age of 4 and he is now 14 and he loves his school (both for academic studies and sports). However, in many respects it is easy for private schools - they have plenty resources, excellent buildings, huge playing grounds and a fairly uniform set of reasonably high achieving parents - who are motivated to encourage their kids to try and excel.