Could quality education solve most of America's domestic problems?

[King]

Could quality education solve most of America's domestic problems?

1. Everybody gets better K-12 education, everybody goes to college for free.
2. People have better jobs.
3. Better jobs produce more income.
4. More income means more money for getting private health insurance, retirement savings, and of course more tax dollars.
5. More tax dollars means less deficit.
6. More income means less work hours which means parents can spend more time with their kids.
7. Parents spending more time with their kids means they are off the streets.
8. Kids off the streets means less street crime, gang violence and drug problems (there will still be drugs as youth always = drugs, but the hard stuff will be harder to sell).
9. Less of #8 means la policia can focus more on illegal immigration.
10. Less of #8 also means less jail overcrowding which eliminates the need for the death penalty.
11. More money for health insurance and retirement savings (#4) means no more HMOs and social security deficit.
12. Better jobs also means a smaller working class which in turn means the job demands will be low enough that outsourcing will not be considered a problem
13. A more educated population also votes more which solves turnout problems.
14. A tough, quality free education system that cares about it's students and not tuition or funding will also recognize problems such as mental health issues.  No more insane people owning guns or stupid people given a free ride for athletic scholarships.  No more competing for scholarships, either.
15. No more affirmative action as everybody is in position to succeed.
16. Trade deficit would close as the dollar would likely increase in value.
17. Did I mention economic growth? Educated people = entrepreneurs = growth. Also, higher incomes = more spending = growth.
18. Issues like war, abortion, campaign finance, and civil liberties/rights would all still be issues as usual, but with a more financially and socially independent populous, they'd be less of a hassle than they currently.
19. Oh and illegal immigration again.  There will be a lot more jobs Americans won't do which means there can be a working visa program set up solving most of that issue.
20. Um, America turning from a working industrial nation to a working commercial and high tech nation would reduce pollution and save the environment!

Is that everything?  I think so. What do you guys think?

Awesome Metaphor for This
Everything is like a 25-story building.  The American dream is on the penthouse floor.  The American citizen is a miserable obese man on the first floor.  The left-wing is an elevator that promises to take the man to the penthouse, but when he gets there he will still be a miserable obese man who did nothing to deserve making it to the penthouse.  The right-wing is the stair case that promises to make the man happier and healthier when he reaches the top. Only problem with the stairs is that the man is already so out of shape that he can't make it to the penthouse.  Education is the health spa on the first floor that will get the man fit or at least fit enough to take the stairs.  Only problem is that the health spa hasn't been built yet.

BUILD THE SPA!

[MasterJedi]

In a perfect world, yes. In reality it would help but it wouldn't come close to solving the problem.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Not only would it be a giant waste of money, we can't get anywhere near close to all our population to stay in school through what we currently offer, why would they go any further?  Also, some people do not need to go college because they are doing something like working and then taking over a family gas station.

[7,052,770]

Yes, absolutely.  And I'm proud to support a gubernatorial candidate who believes in such ideals, rather than a sh**thead governor who doesn't care about the poor.

[King]

Not only would it be a giant waste of money, we can't get anywhere near close to all our population to stay in school through what we currently offer, why would they go any further?  Also, some people do not need to go college because they are doing something like working and then taking over a family gas station.

Tough truancy laws.  Better funded schools and teachers that care when students  don't show up.


And are you suggesting that people don't go to college because they don't want to and would rather work? Family gas station? What is this? 1956?

The vast majority of those who don't go to college don't go because they can't afford it not because they'd rather work off of food stamps and minimum wage salary.  If it's free, they will go.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Not only would it be a giant waste of money, we can't get anywhere near close to all our population to stay in school through what we currently offer, why would they go any further?  Also, some people do not need to go college because they are doing something like working and then taking over a family gas station.

Tough truancy laws.  Better funded schools and teachers that care when students  don't show up.


And are you suggesting that people don't go to college because they don't want to and would rather work? Family gas station? What is this? 1956?

The vast majority of those who don't go to college don't go because they can't afford it not because they'd rather work off of food stamps and minimum wage salary.  If it's free, they will go.

There are plently of people who are doing jobs that don't require a college degree, compulsory college is an absolutley terrible idea.  Again, ideal society would keep people in school but there is no way inner city schools are going to keep down their drop out rates to low levels.

[King]

Not only would it be a giant waste of money, we can't get anywhere near close to all our population to stay in school through what we currently offer, why would they go any further?  Also, some people do not need to go college because they are doing something like working and then taking over a family gas station.

Tough truancy laws.  Better funded schools and teachers that care when students  don't show up.


And are you suggesting that people don't go to college because they don't want to and would rather work? Family gas station? What is this? 1956?

The vast majority of those who don't go to college don't go because they can't afford it not because they'd rather work off of food stamps and minimum wage salary.  If it's free, they will go.

There are plently of people who are doing jobs that don't require a college degree, compulsory college is an absolutley terrible idea.  Again, ideal society would keep people in school but there is no way inner city schools are going to keep down their drop out rates to low levels.

It's not compulsory, but it's a way out from under the gutters.  I know people who've dropped out of school.  The reasons: they had a kid (result of delinquency), they fell behind and most importantly of them all they felt they weren't learning anything important.  They all got GEDs because GEDs are more field specific and interesting and they thought they were better set that route when there is really no chance for investment.

How about a quality public school and college system that is career specific, that is interesting, that makes sure kids don't fall behind, and tries to limit delinquency? Would that not be money well spent? Would it not be better long term than all these stupid anti-poverty, health insurance, social security, blah blah bullsh**t proposals both sides of the aisle constantly volley back and forth yet never pass into law?

[Colin]

No

Let's take one example, everyone gets a free college education. Well then that would mean that you'd have an over abundance of college educated people with not enough jobs that require a college education. You'd end up with guys with a BS in Chemistry being bartenders or a woman with a BA in Political Science becoming a checkout girl at Wal-Mart. Also what it could do is lead to more academic elitism than there current is as people who go to the free universities don't have as many opportunities as those who go to schools that you still have to pay to get into. If those things don't happen then most employers will just raise the amount of education that you need to move higher into the company. Because a college degree would mean less because more people are getting them, and thus you have an over abundance of college educated workers, it would be in a company's best interest to hire either those people who come from better schools or who have more higher education, graduate degrees and such, because those people would now have an advantage over the masses of college educated people.

This has happened before. Two generations ago most people did not finish high school and most people with an 8th grade education could actually find jobs that today would go to high school educated people, like my Grandfather, for instance, was a telephone repair man and he only had an 8th grade education. As more people went to high school those jobs that used to be done by 8th grade educated people began to be done by high school educated people because not only did they have more education than prior generations but were also much more available now than they were before. Many office jobs that before only needed a high school diploma now become for college graduates only. If you change the standard that people complete, ie if most people are college graduates, you are basically making it so that most of those people with the current standard education retain the same sort of jobs that were before preformed by those with the standard education previously.

Of course people want to go to college and they should all I'm saying is that, theoretically, this sort of situation will occur and, overall, if a college education stops becoming a highly sought after trait in a prospective job applicant and becomes the norm or the standard education then it will lose that edge that it gives to those who go to college. Just as being a high school educated person in 1925 gave you an advantage in the job market but today is the standard of education for the country. All told giving everyone better education wont change things all that much except raise standards higher and create new traits and educational demains that employers want fulfilled.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No; absolutely not. The idea that kids will always do what's best for them is only they were more educated is totally and utterly ridiculous, in saying it would benefit certain individual cases.

Also I'm not comfortable with the whole Social engineering aspect of this idea - though I suppose it's better than Christian home schooling.

Wixted pretty much summed up the other points I was going to make. In Ireland just over 50% of people aged 17-25 attend college and get a degree, partially as we have free third education. But what has happened here is that:

1) Middle class families (like mine - yay!) then are free to spend more money on their child's secondary education (High school to you Americans) in private or semi-private schools. (And on Tutorials, Extra lessons, etc. This money would have previously been saved up for college. Since the 90s when the FG\Lab govt. introduced 'free' fees, the semi-private "fee paying" schools like what I went to have seen their numbers rocket. While many free (and some quite old) schools in middle class areas have closed down.)
2) Meaning that such Middle class kids still better grades than those who go to second rate national schools.
3) Meaning that such Middle class kids then get into better college places meaning they get better careers and so on than those that aren't.
4) Meaning that the level needed to get a really high job is now in many cases a masters degree or PhD, which isn't free. And guess who can afford those..
5) Also meaning that it's politically impossible to bring fees back because of the potential suburban mum backlash at the polls.

In other words free third level education has only really benefitted the top bracket.. I'm grateful for it, because it will put less financial pain on myself and my parents when I start college, but it's a complete idealism to imagine that it will greatly improve the standards of the bottom 25% social class students. Their problems begin in the education system even before pre-school, actually pretty much the day their out of the womb in many cases...

* (Note: The above is generalization. Of course there are individual exceptions that contradict what I've just said.)

[Person Man]

I think we should do is allow for both vouchers and a well-funded public school system  and make school cheaper by disallowing usury for those who requre financial aid. (No annual interest rate above 1% of the annual inflation rate for public loans). Sure there are those who don't need or want to go to school, but there are many people I have spoken with that do not want to pursue their dream career because of the loans they would have to pay soon after. Also, in order to create the sacrcity that is needed to make sure that we do not get an "over educated populace", we need to create minimium benchmarks for all who attend a nationally accredited school. We need to rebuild academic meritocracy by making sure that all students have a good education and that anyone can afford an education, but only good students can pursue it past High School. 

[Citizen James]

In an ideal world...

A well educated populous is vital to a well functioning democracy.  People who are well suited to think for themselves are much more difficult to manipulate and better able to consider various conflicting opinions to make well informed decisions than those whose skill set is limited to rote recitation and menial tasks.

Totalitarian states tend to limit education.  In the killing fields of Cambodia they passed out newspapers and shot anyone who was able to read.   Even when knowledge is limited mostly to the elite it can pose a threat to regimes - such as the Tien en Mein protests in China which ended in the wholesale massacre of unarmed civilians because they were so frightened of people who dare to question absolute authority.

But as they say, you can lead a horse to water, et al.  Some kids will ignore the great gift presented to them, and follow a more lazy path.  (the hardest group of kids to teach, IMO, are the well-to-do.  They are so used to being handed things on a silver platter - opebo style - that they are often adverse to the bit of work it takes to actually learn something).  But if they have the right amount of money/connections they can still become president .

A good education does give people more options in life.  And as more jobs require a higher level of knowledge/understanding it reduces wage pressures on a number of industries.

Naturally the average troglodyte tends to fancy themselves a good deal smarter than they actually are, and sees education as a waste on the unwashed, inferior masses when everyone should just follow them blindly instead.

[7,052,770]

No

Let's take one example, everyone gets a free college education. Well then that would mean that you'd have an over abundance of college educated people with not enough jobs that require a college education. You'd end up with guys with a BS in Chemistry being bartenders or a woman with a BA in Political Science becoming a checkout girl at Wal-Mart. Also what it could do is lead to more academic elitism than there current is as people who go to the free universities don't have as many opportunities as those who go to schools that you still have to pay to get into. If those things don't happen then most employers will just raise the amount of education that you need to move higher into the company. Because a college degree would mean less because more people are getting them, and thus you have an over abundance of college educated workers, it would be in a company's best interest to hire either those people who come from better schools or who have more higher education, graduate degrees and such, because those people would now have an advantage over the masses of college educated people.

That can be countered by making college more rigorous.  That way only the people who are smarter and willing to work hard will get the degrees.  That way the system completely rewards those who work hard, not those who have money.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No

Let's take one example, everyone gets a free college education. Well then that would mean that you'd have an over abundance of college educated people with not enough jobs that require a college education. You'd end up with guys with a BS in Chemistry being bartenders or a woman with a BA in Political Science becoming a checkout girl at Wal-Mart. Also what it could do is lead to more academic elitism than there current is as people who go to the free universities don't have as many opportunities as those who go to schools that you still have to pay to get into. If those things don't happen then most employers will just raise the amount of education that you need to move higher into the company. Because a college degree would mean less because more people are getting them, and thus you have an over abundance of college educated workers, it would be in a company's best interest to hire either those people who come from better schools or who have more higher education, graduate degrees and such, because those people would now have an advantage over the masses of college educated people.

That can be countered by making college more rigorous.  That way only the people who are smarter and willing to work hard will get the degrees.  That way the system completely rewards those who work hard, not those who have money.

And as I said already, by College most of the students are nearly all children of the well-off. Having better and more rigorous system of education isn't going to change the class system in the US (obviously some studious individuals will benefit). Any real change has to start at the lowest and youngest levels of education. Or hell, before that as the child grows up. Do you think that an averagly intelligent (potentially) child growing up in BRTD's wankfest of urban blight is going to stand as a potentially averagly intelligent child from an upper middle class suburb?

[David S]

A well educated populace would be a benefit to society. They don't necessarily all need college degrees but it would be nice if they were all literate. Also trade schools can provide valuable training for those who don't want college.

But I think there is a bigger problem that needs to be overcome. What do you do with kids from drug infested ghettos where parents don't care about their children's education? Many of these kids don't finish high school even though it is provided free of charge to them. Many of those who do graduate HS are illiterates.

George Foreman (ex heavyweight boxing champion) once said that when he was a teenager he mugged some guy and then got arrested for it. He didn't know why he was being arrested because he didn't know it was illegal to mug someone. Happily for Foreman boxing gave him a way out and in his later years he became a pretty good person I think.  But the story illustrates the kind of ignorance you are dealing with. I don't know what the solution would be short of taking the kids from their parents at birth and having someone else raise them, but that's way too draconian for a free society.

[Јas]

No; absolutely not. The idea that kids will always do what's best for them is only they were more educated is totally and utterly ridiculous, in saying it would benefit certain individual cases.

Also I'm not comfortable with the whole Social engineering aspect of this idea - though I suppose it's better than Christian home schooling.

Wixted pretty much summed up the other points I was going to make. In Ireland just over 50% of people aged 17-25 attend college and get a degree, partially as we have free third education. But what has happened here is that:

1) Middle class families (like mine - yay!) then are free to spend more money on their child's secondary education (High school to you Americans) in private or semi-private schools. (And on Tutorials, Extra lessons, etc. This money would have previously been saved up for college. Since the 90s when the FG\Lab govt. introduced 'free' fees, the semi-private "fee paying" schools like what I went to have seen their numbers rocket. While many free (and some quite old) schools in middle class areas have closed down.)
2) Meaning that such Middle class kids still better grades than those who go to second rate national schools.
3) Meaning that such Middle class kids then get into better college places meaning they get better careers and so on than those that aren't.
4) Meaning that the level needed to get a really high job is now in many cases a masters degree or PhD, which isn't free. And guess who can afford those..
5) Also meaning that it's politically impossible to bring fees back because of the potential suburban mum backlash at the polls.

In other words free third level education has only really benefitted the top bracket.. I'm grateful for it, because it will put less financial pain on myself and my parents when I start college, but it's a complete idealism to imagine that it will greatly improve the standards of the bottom 25% social class students. Their problems begin in the education system even before pre-school, actually pretty much the day their out of the womb in many cases...

* (Note: The above is generalization. Of course there are individual exceptions that contradict what I've just said.)

Actually, to defend the Irish system - I have benefitted enormously from it and I'm not a middle class kid who went to a private second level school. Nor am I alone - a great many of my friends would also not have been able to get the education we did without this system.

Three years of subsequent study beyond one's primary degree are also fundable on a mean's tested basis - something I have also been very grateful to benefit from. Something which I think weakens you're 4th point.

All of which is not to say that the system is perfect - certainly a level of 'academic inflation' has occured and certainly the ability of the middle class to send their kids to private second level schools gives them advantages - but I think the benefits to myself and others outway the cons.

As to the 5th point, this is propbably true. Former Minister for Education Noel Dempsey wanted to alter the system to make the fees system more means-tested, which I would have supported had it gone through. I think that would have helped level the playing field at second level.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No; absolutely not. The idea that kids will always do what's best for them is only they were more educated is totally and utterly ridiculous, in saying it would benefit certain individual cases.

Also I'm not comfortable with the whole Social engineering aspect of this idea - though I suppose it's better than Christian home schooling.

Wixted pretty much summed up the other points I was going to make. In Ireland just over 50% of people aged 17-25 attend college and get a degree, partially as we have free third education. But what has happened here is that:

1) Middle class families (like mine - yay!) then are free to spend more money on their child's secondary education (High school to you Americans) in private or semi-private schools. (And on Tutorials, Extra lessons, etc. This money would have previously been saved up for college. Since the 90s when the FG\Lab govt. introduced 'free' fees, the semi-private "fee paying" schools like what I went to have seen their numbers rocket. While many free (and some quite old) schools in middle class areas have closed down.)
2) Meaning that such Middle class kids still better grades than those who go to second rate national schools.
3) Meaning that such Middle class kids then get into better college places meaning they get better careers and so on than those that aren't.
4) Meaning that the level needed to get a really high job is now in many cases a masters degree or PhD, which isn't free. And guess who can afford those..
5) Also meaning that it's politically impossible to bring fees back because of the potential suburban mum backlash at the polls.

In other words free third level education has only really benefitted the top bracket.. I'm grateful for it, because it will put less financial pain on myself and my parents when I start college, but it's a complete idealism to imagine that it will greatly improve the standards of the bottom 25% social class students. Their problems begin in the education system even before pre-school, actually pretty much the day their out of the womb in many cases...

* (Note: The above is generalization. Of course there are individual exceptions that contradict what I've just said.)

Actually, to defend the Irish system - I have benefitted enormously from it and I'm not a middle class kid who went to a private second level school. Nor am I alone - a great many of my friends would also not have been able to get the education we did without this system.

Three years of subsequent study beyond one's primary degree are also fundable on a mean's tested basis - something I have also been very grateful to benefit from. Something which I think weakens you're 4th point.

All of which is not to say that the system is perfect - certainly a level of 'academic inflation' has occured and certainly the ability of the middle class to send their kids to private second level schools gives them advantages - but I think the benefits to myself and others outway the cons.

As to the 5th point, this is propbably true. Former Minister for Education Noel Dempsey wanted to alter the system to make the fees system more means-tested, which I would have supported had it gone through. I think that would have helped level the playing field at second level.

Perhaps I should have made exceptions for rural areas; though the standard of education outside the pale can vary from school to school, area to area quite a bit. Can't say I know much about Monaghan; only my experience in South Dublin (where of course there are alot of overpriviledged Middle Class kids - and plently of nearby 'free' schools have closed down. Though many (but not all) of them were CBS, which can also be attributed to other factors.) shows what I think to be true. Of course, the Inner city schools are in a dreadful state. But that's hardly news. My more general point was that one's position in the "lucky sperm race" has a greater effect on one's education than any sort of similiar of financial advantages could ever enduce. In fault, I had actually forgotten about the grands system.. don't know how I left that out.

I should not say that the system has got worse since the 90s, since I wouldn't know before it. Though grade inflation is ridiculous (though my 'B2' in Classical studies states otherwise. ). If it weren't for personal greed I would strongly support you final point.

I think Jas and me should get our own forum on Irish stuff. Every time we're in a thread together the topic always seems to move to Ireland. So...

*If you're not Jas or if you're not Irish in any way, ignore this post*

[MaC]

I'll say that model looks reasonable.  I'll say that roots of many of the problems today are due to poor or no education, though not the problems themselves.  But would I want the government involved in education? Hell no.  As long as government funds the schools, what's in the government's interest to teach the students will be the status quo for what they learn.  Because the world desperately needs less indoctorinated sheep, I'll say there's got to be a better way to solve the problem.

[2952-0-0]

A better education system is a must, seeing that China and India are producing zillions of geeks every year who can work for a quarter of what someone in the US wants. The alternative is for half of the workforce to see their jobs sent to India, and end up at Wal Mart. That's just going to happen, and there's no way to stop that.

Free college? Sounds good on paper, but it could lead to other problems. In France, college is free, but many universities just aren't career specific (it has 1/4 of Europe's psychology students...go figure). There's also the problem of overcrowding, the red tape, etc. So for the vast majority, the diploma could just be a piece of paper. On the other hand, the government puts huge amounts into a few world class "grand ecoles" that cater to the top 5% and excel. In the end this creates a two tier system that excels for those who excel in the first place, and leaves everyone else behind. So free college isn't as good as it looks, and society needs to ensure everyone has a chance to succeed.

[Ban my account ffs!]

A quality education to me is one that educates people to their best ability and instills a love of learning and education for life.

College educations should be available to everyone, though not necessarily free.  We should help those in need with financial aid so they can attend the school that is best for them.  Your out of pocket expenses should be based on income with incentives to perform well like bonuses for maintaining good grades.

And I don't think quality education would solve America's problems.  I think it would just create a new set of problems, though they'd probably be easier to deal with.

[opebo]

No.  Horatio Alger nonsense.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes.

[Person Man]

A quality education to me is one that educates people to their best ability and instills a love of learning and education for life.

College educations should be available to everyone, though not necessarily free.  We should help those in need with financial aid so they can attend the school that is best for them.  Your out of pocket expenses should be based on income with incentives to perform well like bonuses for maintaining good grades.

And I don't think quality education would solve America's problems.  I think it would just create a new set of problems, though they'd probably be easier to deal with.

The main benefit of modernizing our education system is that it would create new industries to replace industries that are being shipped overseas. in the 70s, it was the auto industry that was shipped over seas, now its the entire internet industry. We have to have an educated society ready to jump on the next thing. I think it will be regenetative medicine, robotics and sustainable development(goddamn hippies)  (and maybe space development after that generation), but someone else will develop those first and we will have NO industry besides low paying service industries  if we do not have a world-class education system. If we miss the boat, our economy will tank and our national security will be in dire straits.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Quality education would solve a lot of major problems in this country.

But only if the students actually want to learn.  Which is one of the largest hurdles facing today's education system: a culture of ignorance where being black and smart is somehow akin to being a traitor to the race.

[Person Man]

Quality education would solve a lot of major problems in this country.

But only if the students actually want to learn.  Which is one of the largest hurdles facing today's education system: a culture of ignorance where being black and smart is somehow akin to being a traitor to the race.

Yes. Culture is a major thing to change in this country....but I see it inapproriate for the government to try to, yet nothing else that can is willing to do so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Higher education is already very well funded in the states. The problem is lower down.