The rich are getting richer...

[oldjones]

I think the US ranks third on per student spending in K - 12 education (over 12k if memory serves, I think only Canada and Lux spend more), almost twice the UK for instance. Throwing more money at education won't change the results.

As a tip of the hat to Someone here is the 2006 OECD Education at a glance for the US. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/20/37392850.pdf

I listened to a short but depressing NPR report Thursday, they said a large percentage of African American male students don't graduate from high school and that those who drop out have a better chance of being in jail than being employed.

OTB

I too got a depressing bit from weekend radio: it costs more to keep a young man in jail for a year than to send him to university—room, board, books and tuition paid. And by and large, cime rates go way down as education levels go up. Yet somehow the people and the pols have an easier time funding super-jails than college education.

I'd disagree that more money wouldn't change the results, unless you were serious about just throwing it. Schools with inadequate funding will turn out inadequate graduates—barring the occasional Oprah-story of triumphant human spirit. While it's clearly possible to waste money—if f'rinstance the US spends twice what the UK does without getting superior results, someone's wasting some somewhere—but give any system the money to fix the roof, hire better teachers and more of them, and put more books in students' hands and on library shelves and the numbers of educated strivers for success you were so keen on earlier are bound to increase. Do the spending well and they'll increase even more.

'Course it's no good asking the poor to pay for that, even though they're the most likely to benefit. Anymore that it's any good asking them to pay for the roads, police, navy or even their own health, beyond token amounts. Now where will we find people with a stake in and the means to pay for a healthy society I wonder?

 

[onthebottom]

I too got a depressing bit from weekend radio: it costs more to keep a young man in jail for a year than to send him to university—room, board, books and tuition paid. And by and large, cime rates go way down as education levels go up. Yet somehow the people and the pols have an easier time funding super-jails than college education.

I'd disagree that more money wouldn't change the results, unless you were serious about just throwing it. Schools with inadequate funding will turn out inadequate graduates—barring the occasional Oprah-story of triumphant human spirit. While it's clearly possible to waste money—if f'rinstance the US spends twice what the UK does without getting superior results, someone's wasting some somewhere—but give any system the money to fix the roof, hire better teachers and more of them, and put more books in students' hands and on library shelves and the numbers of educated strivers for success you were so keen on earlier are bound to increase. Do the spending well and they'll increase even more.

'Course it's no good asking the poor to pay for that, even though they're the most likely to benefit. Anymore that it's any good asking them to pay for the roads, police, navy or even their own health, beyond token amounts. Now where will we find people with a stake in and the means to pay for a healthy society I wonder?

IMHO what is holding back the bottom 20% of our society and potential students are their parents, or lack there of. Frankly, if I really felt that spending more money on education would improve results I'd be all for it, I see it as an excellent investment. I'm afraid we're already spending the money, what now is lacking are students ready to learn. If it were up to me I'd fully fund headstart... in 20 years you'd see a big payback from that.

OTB

 

[markvee]

I agree with OTB that spending more money on education does not gaurantee a better education.

McMaster University has hyped it's innovative medical education program, but also being a hotbed of evidence-based medicine, researchers there tried and failed to find much difference in the physicians pumped out.

One researcher said something to the effect of:
Good students do well in spite of the educational system inflicted upon them.

Old books are practically free, and at least in the early grades, students need to learn reading, writing, and math.

There should also be an exercise program, and I agree with Arnold Schwarzenegger that you don't need any fancy equipment to do pushups and situps.

I have a relative who worked briefly at a private school, and he concluded that the only thing that the money was buying was better marks, enforced by the money grubbers.

 

[oldjones]

IMHO what is holding back the bottom 20% of our society and potential students are their parents, or lack there of. Frankly, if I really felt that spending more money on education would improve results I'd be all for it, I see it as an excellent investment. I'm afraid we're already spending the money, what now is lacking are students ready to learn. If it were up to me I'd fully fund headstart... in 20 years you'd see a big payback from that.

OTB

Speaking of parents: Another factoid, from Freakonomics I think, connected a falling urban crime rate to earlier availabilty of abortions. The premise, which would need further research, was that indigent, pregnant girls were aware enough of the connection between the their own parenting readiness and child-poverty and youth (and adult) crime that they terminated their pregnancies. But state-funding for voluntary abortions? The Devil's Work!!

The difference between Headstart and like programs and standard socialized education is the focussed energy it applies to the issue—and to the indifferent students that markvee's post alludes to. Of course as the history of Japanese vs US automakers for the past half-century proves, focussed energy is everything. That and getting out from under the stifling bureaucracy that any large organization grows probably accounts for charter-schools' success. OF course as they turn into franchises and chains to max profits by cutting costs and grow their own top ends they'll likely prove no more effective overall than anything else we poor humans do in large groups.

 

[papasmerf]

oldjones[/left]]Speaking of parents: Another factoid, from

Freakonomics​

I think, connected a falling urban crime rate to earlier

availabilty​

of abortions. The premise, which would need further research, was that indigent, pregnant girls were aware enough of the connection between the their own parenting readiness and child-poverty and youth (and adult) crime that they terminated their pregnancies. But state-funding for voluntary abortions? The Devil's Work!!

You are a frightening man Jones.........You figure you kill them in the womb and you can control crime. Damn you are the perfect education secretary for Hitler.

 

[onthebottom]

Speaking of parents: Another factoid, from Freakonomics I think, connected a falling urban crime rate to earlier availabilty of abortions. The premise, which would need further research, was that indigent, pregnant girls were aware enough of the connection between the their own parenting readiness and child-poverty and youth (and adult) crime that they terminated their pregnancies. But state-funding for voluntary abortions? The Devil's Work!!

That was a fantastic book, I also liked the section about why drug dealers live with their mothers..... I don't know that state funded abortions would help much, I think it's already the number 1 cause of death in the US.

The difference between Headstart and like programs and standard socialized education is the focussed energy it applies to the issue—and to the indifferent students that markvee's post alludes to. Of course as the history of Japanese vs US automakers for the past half-century proves, focussed energy is everything. That and getting out from under the stifling bureaucracy that any large organization grows probably accounts for charter-schools' success. OF course as they turn into franchises and chains to max profits by cutting costs and grow their own top ends they'll likely prove no more effective overall than anything else we poor humans do in large groups.

What really works is parents that are both ready to be parents and give a shit.

OTB

 

[oldjones]

You are a frightening man Jones.........You figure you kill them in the womb and you can control crime. Damn you are the perfect education secretary for Hitler.

O for Pete's sake! Stop putting words in my mouth!

What I said: IF my memory's right, there was a statistical correlation, pointed out by the author of Freakonomics. IF he was right, he's simply saying that wanted babies do better, unwanted babies do worse—and maybe do crimes.

Should I then assume you'd force all pregnant women to deliver, no matter what life the child might face? Well I won't. You'll hang yourself with your own words in your own time, and far be it from me to imagine what they'll be.

 

[someone]

For the original paper, see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508

 

[oldjones]

For your citation someone, and even more for the solace of your epigraph, much thanks.

 

[onthebottom]

You are a frightening man Jones.........You figure you kill them in the womb and you can control crime. Damn you are the perfect education secretary for Hitler.

That's what the regression analysis shows. One theory is that women know if their ready to become mothers and when their not they save themselves and society the trouble of an unwanted kid. For those who favor capital punishment, think of it as fewer victims at less cost.

OTB

 

[fosgate]

Anyone can be rich. You just have to want it bad enough. Lots of people would like millions of dollars, but they beleive it can not be acheived or you have to sell your soul to do so.

You want anything in life, beleive you can do it, and you will make it happen.

 

[danmand]

I too got a depressing bit from weekend radio: it costs more to keep a young man in jail for a year than to send him to university—room, board, books and tuition paid. And by and large, cime rates go way down as education levels go up. Yet somehow the people and the pols have an easier time funding super-jails than college education.

North American justice has always been based on the concept of punishment,
possibly a leftover from the pioneer days. In Europe, rehabilitation is in front of
punishment, because it benefits society. Why keep someone locked up in prison
at a high cost, if it is possible to rehabilitate him and make him into a productive
member of society? As a conservative, I look at the ROI.

 

[maxweber]

One born every minute

Anyone can be rich. You just have to want it bad enough. Lots of people would like millions of dollars, but they beleive it can not be acheived or you have to sell your soul to do so.

You want anything in life, beleive you can do it, and you will make it happen.

How, uh, long have you had these sensations? You need to stop watching infomercials, and read a few books, chum.

MW

 

[someone]

North American justice has always been based on the concept of punishment,
possibly a leftover from the pioneer days.

My understanding is that originally, American punishments where considered much more lenient than European punishments. I believe that there are some famous accounts of this by Frenchmen writing about American society shortly after the revolution. Thus, I don’t think it has much to do with pioneer days.

Why keep someone locked up in prison
at a high cost, if it is possible to rehabilitate him and make him into a productive
member of society?

Of course the problem is that in some cases it will be possible to rehabilitate him and in others it is not. The question is how you distinguish between the two types. This is a topic I’m currently interested in and I’m currently working on an aspect of it regarding juveniles. You can actually explain a lot of characteristics of the justice system as a way of trying to do both. Examples include treating first time offenders more leniently than repeat offenders. Likewise, treating juveniles more leniently than adult offenders. Indeed, almost all western countries have a separate justice system for juveniles which is more focused on rehabilitation. This is despite the fact that empirical evidence shows deterrent effects of punishments is at least as great for juveniles as adult offenders (I can cite a very good paper on this by Levitt, the same guy OTB and OldJones like so much). One reason for this is that the present discounted value of rehabilitation is much higher for juveniles. However, there are always going to be those for whom rehabilitation is going to be unlikely. For these people, the deterrent and incapacitation effects of punishment are going to be more important. I’m really not sure the Europeans are better at making the distinction (although I admit that when it comes to Europe, I’m more familiar with the British data so my impression may not generalize to other countries). Thus, I’m not sure you can really say their “ROI” is higher without more evidence. If you are aware of any empirical studies in this regard, I would be very interested in them (especially if they deal with juvenile and adult offenders separately). You might try to cite the fact that they have lower crime rates than the United States (I’m not sure how they compare with Canada) but you should remember that causation goes both ways in this regard.

As a conservative, I look at the ROI.

I suspect your describing yourself as conservative is tongue in cheek. However, I’ve never thought of cost benefit analysis of being a political view point.

 

[onthebottom]

How, uh, long have you had these sensations? You need to stop watching infomercials, and read a few books, chum.

MW

See, that's the thing, you can't get rich by reading a few books about how bad things are, you have to get off the couch (or out of the classroom) and do something.....

We're living in a country where the richest guy is a collage drop out....

OTB

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I suspect your describing yourself as conservative is tongue in cheek. However, I’ve never thought of cost benefit analysis of being a political view point.

danmand is a Pink Conservative.

We in the party call them "kinder, gentler conservatives". They come from a wing of the party with roots in Denmark. Pink Conservatives were expelled from their homeland due to their propensity for kinky behavior.

 

[onthebottom]

danmand is a Pink Conservative.

We in the party call them "kinder, gentler conservatives". They come from a wing of the party with roots in Denmark. Pink Conservatives were expelled from their homeland due to their propensity for kinky behavior.

With isolationist tendencies.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I both agree and disagree.
The way trade is going today
it's against domestic producers.
The deck is stacked against the
mature economies. Period.

Only if you assume that mature economies can not transform and developing economies do not mature - both poor assumptions over the long term but valid over the short. The reason I like the US chances so much is we are so flexible and entrepreneurial....

The disagreement is that we
just have to get used to the
postmodern playing field. When
China has influence over our
economy by being a lender
and we're debtors then I must
protest. That's not acceptable.
We can't tolerate that. It's a
dagger against our security.

China is far more exposed to us then we to them. They can't call that debt and their growth is dependent on us keeping our markets open to them.... It is an interdependent world / economy, that you had better get used to.

I killed Communists for Christ,
and now I'm paying them interest
on our money. BS, OTB, BS.

You killed communists for Kennedy and Johnson, I'd leave the son of god out of it.

OTB

 

[WoodPeckr]

You killed communists for Kennedy and Johnson, I'd leave the son of god out of it.

OTB

Interesting revision of history and wrong as usual!

Commies were killed for Ike, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon.
That war/debacle dragged on forever. Until Tricky Dick decided to declare victory and pull out, hoping it would save his sorry lying presidency! Well it didn't, Nixon was still, RIGHTFULLY, booted out of the White House!....
Guess it was fitting the Viet Nam war started by the GOP should be ended by the GOP, eh?
Had dimwit Dubya been a better student of history, perhaps he wouldn't have repeated the Viet Nam Debacle in Iraq......

 

[someone]

I both agree and disagree.
The way trade is going today
it's against domestic producers.
The deck is stacked against the
mature economies. Period.

There is really no turth to your protectionist arguments.