Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Theology professors and the like would be limited to private schools though, unless you really want government funding to go toward stuff like that. And since I doubt outlawing religious classes would be a good idea either, we're kinda stuck.

I didn't suggest outlawing either of those things.  If a private school can fund those things within its budget that's no problem at all.

I would advocate getting rid of the "you must be this religion to enter" schools (or at least forcing them to drop that requirement) on the ground that it is extremely unhelpful segregation, but again that's not really relevant to a discussion on equality.

e: Also I think some religious education is worth covering under the state curriculum anyway.  It is here at least.

That's just stating the obvious though.

Yeah.

[Criptfeind]

I don't really agree with the idea of lowering the quality of private schools, even though it is unfair. Life is unfair, and... It's not. Something that I believe should be fully removed. I think the way forward is to raise up the lower classes, and although that does somewhat involve the lowering of the upper classes, I don't advocate for that as much as many people seem to.

In the end, I don't think true equality is a goal we should work towards with our current culture and technology. Instead we should work towards increased fairness, and then maybe equality, but maybe not. Anyway things I think would help:

Free (good) schooling.
Trying to reduce the cost of higher education and make the whole crippling debt thing less... Of a thing.
Housing, free to cheap.
Life essentials, free.
Free medicare.
Certain tools required to lift oneself up in ones chosen area. This one is harder to say just what it is. But. Yeah.

[Leafsnail]

I feel like private schools being so heavily funded is in fact directly damaging to neighboring schools and the students in those schools, though.  Since a) it means they can horde all the best teaching talent that might otherwise have been spread around more equally and b) a student who is getting £33,000 a year spent on their education (not to mention the extra support they'll receive from having a richer family in the first place) is inevitably going to have a large advantage over a student who had a £4000 a year education when it comes to getting into a top university.  And thus the children of rich people will go on to become tomorrow's rich people in the majority of cases, at the expense of those in lower income families.

You can say the solution is to raise the standard of education, and I kindof agree but... we can't afford to spend £33,000 per student per year (I presume there are schools in America which charge similar fees).

[genmac]

Parents shouldn't be able to send their child to a better school just because they can afford it, because this is inequality.

Hooray for satirical positions actually making sense.

Yes, they shouldn't be able to send their kid elsewhere JUST because they can afford it. Otherwise, those who couldn't afford it would be stuck in the "bad" school. Instead, we should give parents lots of options, make sure there are no "bad" schools in the first place, or both.

Is it really fair that some children do piano study?  I don't think so.

Man I really didn't like piano lessons

Naturally.  And who better to deliver education than the government?  That's where the smartest and most incorruptible citizens end up, after all.  Heroes dedicated to public service who are in it for the good of us all.  Not the type of folks to lie, cheat, steal, or make immense fortunes insider trading on upcoming regulation.

Once again we are agreed, except on the 'satire' and 'strawman' points.  I think you were looking for 'sarcasm' and 'reductio ad absurdum', but when this schooling issue is sorted out by a sort of equality flattening, we'll both be using the same terms (because neither of us will know the correct ones).

 

[kaijyuu]

A failed reductio ad absurdum argument IS a strawman. You're not pointing out the logical conclusions of what I'm advocating, but rather misrepresenting my points into something easy to attack.

Besides, if you want a serious debate dude, drop the irony. I'll tolerate a bit of it, but at these levels it just comes off as inflammatory.

[Eagle_eye]

There's always this myth that government is always inefficient and corrupt. Yes, it can be. So can corporations. So can a small business. So can anything composed of people, because by and large, people suck. Private businesses are just as likely to be corrupt as governments. Perhaps even more so, given that their sole purpose is to make money.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

getting rid of private property, or at least imposing a limit on how much you can hoard. you can still benefit people based on merit, but take away their power to exploit other people's merit
also, get an advanced AI to manage the country

[Strife26]

Trying to kill of private education seems kinda silly to me. What is our hypothetical parent still allowed to do? Can they hire a private tutor to teach their children off of school hours? Can they send them to low level college classes outside of school? Take a week off of work to teach their children themselves?

I mean, last time I checked, parents kinda should have a right to, you know, parent?

I feel like private schools being so heavily funded is in fact directly damaging to neighboring schools and the students in those schools, though.  Since a) it means they can horde all the best teaching talent that might otherwise have been spread around more equally

That's a bit of a wonky problem to solve, though. I mean, government monopoly on the labor market for teachers? If we're looking at the high-speed, super-motivated individual who is considering being an educator, and who could make it as a highly-paid, highly effective private teacher, how much of a detriment is this going to have on them going into teaching in the first place?

You can say the solution is to raise the standard of education, and I kindof agree but... we can't afford to spend £33,000 per student per year (I presume there are schools in America which charge similar fees).

I'd exactly agree with that. Education's paid out of whatever tax it's normally paid out of (your jurisdiction determinate, I'm pretty sure it's property based in Fargo, at least), then let the parent do whatever the bloody hell they want with educating their kids. Killing upper class education isn't going to improve the lower class ones, it'll just make parents seek other ways for their children to get ahead (and, to be honest, I don't see why this is always a bedeviled human habit).


I dunno, it may be because I'm from Fargo, North Dakota, the nicest city in the world. But, I know for a fact that it was doable for very low class families to, with effort, send their children to the hated private school. Also, I can say from my own family's straight middle class experience, one can send someone to world-class primary education (namely my little sister, I'm publicly edumacated through and through)

[kaijyuu]

The point is to improve social mobility, if not outright eliminate the correlation between parent's wealth and child's wealth.

The problem is here:

I know for a fact that it was doable for very low class families to, with effort, send their children to the hated private school.

Why are the lower classes required to put in more effort? What can we do to make it the same, without putting arbitrary ceilings on things?

[Strife26]

Destroy the social order. That's your only option if you feel like removing inequality.

You can always bring to bottom up, but trying to do that by bringing the top down is never going to work. I certainly have a right to work hard, and to use my work to make things better for my children. Hell, that's pretty much the core of my definition of the American Dream.


Put more money in education. Break teacher unions so you can fire the incompetents in education. Make things work, fight your tank. Don't get pissy at the private schools that can pick and choose their students and teachers.

[Zrk2]

GUYS! I thought up of another way to make everyone equal!

kill everyone by the same means! then there is no inequality!

Are you sure you aren't secretly a Forkrul Assail?

Honestly the best way to start (in the current world) would be to eliminate tax reductions for anyone earning over, say $1 mil, and put a complete end to corporate welfare bumming, and invest all that money in fixing the public education system.

But you also need to find some way to convince people to stop getting mostly useless degrees and instead go to tradeschool or something else.

[Strife26]

Honestly, I'm hoping that the traditional trades catch up in popularity in the next few years. Electricians and plumbers are already in high enough demand that we should be seeing tv commercials for em soon enough. Shouldn't take too long before the prestige factor gets back in line with demand/pay.

[Zrk2]

It's true. I'm in university and everyone rips on them, except the guys (engineering here) who have trades(people?) in the family, and we point out how full of shit said people are. My dad tells me that he always chuckles when he tell people he's in the trades because they always assume he makes less than them, when he probably out-earns most of said people.

Of course he rips on engineers all the time too, so it goes both ways.

Did you ever look into trying to get a trade while you're in the army?

[kaijyuu]

Destroy the social order. That's your only option if you feel like removing inequality.

Sounds good to me. Current social order sucks.


As a side note, the "American Dream" is bupkis. A nice lie told to working class heroes.

[Strife26]

As a side note, the "American Dream" is bupkis. A nice lie told to working class heroes.

As a side note, '"the American Dream' is bupkis," is bullshit, a nice lie told to people who can't be happy with life and blame society instead of themselves.