Forum Post: Low income hinders college attendance for even the highest achieving students
Posted 11 years ago on June 8, 2012, 4:49 p.m. EST by BetsyRoss2
(125)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This brings a whole new perspective into the individualistic notion of "word hard, go to school, get a job."
This data shows that even for the highest performing Math students, out of the poorest in that data set only 30% actually make it into college. What a waste... are "free market" economic principles keeping the next great Mathematician from improving society?
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20051012/
America waste resources on dumb rich kids so we fall behind other countries, if you go into any high tech industry you will find engineers from overseas in greater number than US born. We should make paying for education like paying for a kidney, illegal, you should have to earn your way in.
For all the crowing about "merit-based pay" for everything else, you'd think that "merit-based" would also apply to other areas of life. I'm with you: Give the best students, no matter what income, the opportunities to really improve our nation.
Do you have scholarships in the US of A?
High achievers in grade school can qualify for entry to higher education for free under both private- and govt-funded scholarships here in OZ.
we also have lotteries, but I oppose a lottery based economy,
but most of the damage is done when kids that don’t belong there get there because they’re families pay, and now the instructors and the rest of the class have to slow down for them.
I agree with you, and don't get me started on "merit based pay" can you say toadie based?
That's a pretty novel idea actually. "Earn your way in." It really inspires incentive to achieve.
Of course i think there should always be a private option to go along with the public option. Making paying for college illegal limits freedom and limits competition.
that's one of the concepts the 1% uses all the time money = freedom,
it doesn't,
limiting the use of money does not limit anyone's freedom, having said that I do think rewarding people through a money system and letting them buy big houses and fast cars makes sense, just not government or education or health care and a few more things maybe that everybody needs to be free these should be provided through other means than by how much money you have so everyone can be free not just those that can afford it
it limits a person's dream to start their own school because they don't like the current system.
We can't just make everything illegal. If you want to solve the problems of for profit schools, make a public option available. Competition is a good thing.
money is not competition, we need to get creative about how we think about these things, I'm not saying there would not be schools, even private schools, maybe with compensation, paid by the public at large and rewarded based on many factors, if a grad gets a Nobel Prize you get a huge bonus... it doesn't have to come from the students, the schools should compete for the best students so they will have the best results and get the most bonus money
who determines who gets the money
First let me say I oppose the restoration of Monarchy, even if I’m the King, but in general we have commission that award “prizes” all over the place many do a good job. The Nobel commission has great respect for the most part, (not to open the door on the whole peace prize to Obama thing), the think tanks have made people certain government can do nothing right, when really things they see and complain about are staffing issues brought on by weak ass politicians who won’t levy tax because they depend on the people with money for their seats. So place where government provides service is under staffed, private companies know that this level of staffing would kill you that’s why they make sure the government offices are staffed that way. Every time anybody points out how much cheaper the government is at doing stuff like delivering mail, they just shrug and mumble. So the bottom line is I think together we’re smart enough to figure a way out to it once we see it’s the right thing to do.
every campaign promises to make government administration
but I know I can't call the unemployment office
unless they send me a time, they will be calling me
Sounds like they're busy, I wonder if they're hiring?
Agree to disagree. There is a difference between private prisons and private schools. I do fully support a public option that could award students based on achievements as well as be available for everyone.
I am radical, don't expect everyone to agree, just want people to think a little differently about a few things, if we stop believing and thinking the way the think tanks have taught us for the past thirty years, if we question the fundamental issues concerning money, I think we have a chance, of course then we have to tell others what we come up with..
Why is Grover Norquist not upset about student loan interest going up. I am sure he would call it a tax if it were for corporate loans.
Those charts are for college completion, not those who start college.
For college enrollment see here: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2009/04/21/192622/college-attainment-and-family-income/
What a waste... are "free market" economic principles keeping the next great Mathematician from improving society?
The PRC will graduate 1 Million engineers alone this year. They subsidize all of the higher education expenses for students. So you tell me....
We would rather saddle our kids with debt. How are we going to complete globally with numbers like the PRC?
Curious, what kind of engineers? I mean, China is building its infrastructure at a remarkable rate, but our infrastructure is already developed (albeit it needs some modernization, but I won't digress). Point is, how many of these engineers are civil engineers versus chemical, electrical, mechanical, etc.?
I had the feeling a large portion were in software and telecommunications. I have to dig out the breakdown.
I'd think we would see a lot of telecommunications and civil engineers (these are the people you need to build a modern infrastructure). But, you also need electrical engineers (to build out the grid), and software engineers (to control all that infrastructure). The thing is with China ... they're playing catch up, so we see these massive top down programs implemented by the government, but thus far, there's been a lot of flaws in implementation. After all, having a plethora of engineers at your disposal, only helps if you listen to them (and the Chinese government isn't well known for its ability to listen).
Yeah....China's infrastructure....FABULOUS isn't it?
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/601007/n/China-s-Ghost-Cities
https://www.google.com/search?q=empty+apartments+homes+us
Home Ownership—Nearly 11 Percent of US Houses Empty - CNBC www.cnbc.com/id/.../Nearly_11_Percent_of_US_Houses_Empty Jan 31, 2011 – There were 18.4 million vacant homes in the U.S. in Q4 '10 (11 percent of all ... This as builders start to get more bullish, and renting apartments ...
Not the point really. China has set out to build a modern infrastructure (largely from scratch), for which they need engineers (one would think mostly civil engineers). Sure, they may not be doing a great job at it (I suppose so much is to be expected when such a large endeavor is implemented by a central planning authority, versus the slow, in many cases organic, infrastructure development characteristic of western countries), but I was merely postulating a possible explanation as to why China is training so many engineers (not applauding their approach to economic development or modernization). To be clear, as far as I'm concerned, China is a totalitarian country, and I'd rather be poor and free as opposed to a wealthy slave; so suffice it to say, I'm not impressed with China.
Given the large population of China, if a percentage of the population has been selected to be engineers (I don't believe they do it that way) you will have a large number turn out regardless.
In the prc kids take a test at age 10 that sets their educational track for the rest of their career. Only a fraction become engineers (although teaching is a higher paid position, > doctors). Rich folks spend big $ on tutors to improve scores. If rcih kids don't make the grade parents send them to school in the US.
This year the US will only graduate about 100000 engineers.
[Removed]
Damn it, this higher education bubble needs to pop already.
Take a look at the raw data.
Rich smart kids graduate college at more than 2x the rate of poor smart kids. But the real crime illustrated by the survey is that rich smart kids graduate high school at more than 11 x the rate of poor smart kids.
What an indictment of our public schools!
Interesting study. Do you see any flaws?
Rich smart kids gradtuate at more than 2x the rate of poor smart kids. Why do you suspect this is true?
Poor smart kids have to work for their tuition while rich kids get a "free ride." The extra loads that the poor kids have to take on make it far more likely for them to fall behind on grades and eventually drop out.
If you are poor, you get to get paid to go to community colleges, and by the time you transfer to a state school, the grants usually take care of most of the tuition.
The Pell Grant may cover some community college expenses, but they're not going to fully cover university. The rest has to be covered by loans.
http://www.finaid.org/calculators/scripts/estimate.cgi
Parents make $49,000 / year, child is unemployed
Tuition: 50000 20000 10000 Fees: 5000 3000 3000 Room and Board: 5000 5000 5000 Books and Supplies: 500 500 500 Transportation To/From Home: 500 500 500 Health Insurance: 1000 1000 1000 Incidental Expenses: 500 500 500
Total Cost of Attendance: 62500 30500 20500
Total Family Contribution: 3667 3667 3667 Pell Grant: 660 660 660
Financial Need: 58173 26173 16173
Scholarships and Other Resources: 500 500 500
Remaining Financial Need: 57673 25673 15673
Parents make $25,000 / year (Dad was laid off), child has part-time job and makes $10,000
Tuition: 50000 20000 10000 Fees: 5000 3000 3000 Room and Board: 5000 5000 5000 Books and Supplies: 500 500 500 Transportation To/From Home: 500 500 500 Health Insurance: 1000 1000 1000 Incidental Expenses: 500 500 500
Total Cost of Attendance: 62500 30500 20500
Total Family Contribution: 2374 2374 2374 Pell Grant: 1960 1960 1960
Financial Need: 58166 26166 16166
Scholarships and Other Resources: 500 500 500
Remaining Financial Need: 57666 25666 15666
Where are you getting this math?
1st paragraph:
Scratch room and board, obviously if costs are issue, you have to live at home. School gives you basic health insurance, so scratch that too. Your books estimates are low though. There are no state grants in consideration. Where are you getting these astromincal "fees" from?
Second paragraph:
Scratch room and board. Scratch health insurance. No state grants.
I did school not too long ago. Your math is insanely out of whack.
Its not MY math, its the EFC calculator that the government uses to determine how much money to give you in a Pell Grant. You can use your own numbers on the link.
I never had health insurance offered in college. I was lucky to be on my parents' plans, oh and the supposedly "evil" Obamacare made staying on their plans until I graduated possible.
Sure, scratch room & board if the school is within driving distance of the home, OR walking distance if you're really lucky. I guess we're assuming that most students have cars, so lets add in car insurance (mandatory in many states,) fuel, maintenance, and repairs...
Private schools have all sorts of these fees. They vary based on the degree chosen, to cover lab equipment and various forms of indemnity for the school. Go look it up.
The state grants are even lower than federal. They're a joke.
Even if you cut all of that out, it STILL proves that the lower income Americans are being forced to take out loans if they want to get an education.
You think they may be skewing the numbers a bit? :)
You had health insurance with them, you probably didnt realize it.
I assumed the fuel costs were what your "travel expenses" were? I went to a private school. My girlfriend is in graduate school for Physics (labs up the yahoo) and the fees were around 300 a year.
State grants are lower, but to not include them shows a bias towards the desired goal.
So yes, lower class is forced to take out some loans for the last two years of a four year degree. Or they can work through it.
I think the main problem with education is the level expected for it. The colleges, and high schools, are such shit, its a shame.
Pell grants should be expanded! The right wing has been cutting this benefit for the 99% for 3 decades. College is a requirement these days and an investment for the larger American workforce/economy. College costs have gone up disproportionately. It is a crime. Most private colleges take public money they should be made to facilitate more 99% attendance or have there public money taken back. Public school is a serious problem for the 99%. But since the 1% have no problem educating their kids nothing gets done. Much needs to done to correct the crimes against the students in public schools of the 99%.
You may like this idea for outreach.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/letter-sent-to-the-sierra-club-at-their-e-mail-con/
Yes I saw it yesterday. Love Bernie. He is singularly one the great progressive/left wing pols we have seen in America. Another 534 of him would serve me just fine thank you very much!
Yep - Bernie is good.
But I was thinking more along the lines of sharing his speech to other groups other sites - and not just his speech but all of the issues for uniting in common cause.
I am trying to motivate everyone to communicate. The speech is one motivation I am trying to spread far and wide as to wake up the public.
It would be great if other messages were sent out this way as well.
Or even this same message to other groups.
Excellent idea. I will consider where to post/send it.
Good deal - I am trying to get everbody thimkin and sharin.
Fuck the MSM.
Promote society through society.
the internet can circumvent the control of the msm. but it is a long hard slog. Do you think current tv has any independence.?
Cool I have bookmarked it.
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (493) 2 minutes ago
ok. I believe they support OWS as well. give me a minute. current.com Jart might be familiar with it. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Can you attach a link? I am talking with jart right now about setting up an educational and outreach site. I think any internet or satellite/cable channels for objective news would also be a great addition to the site.
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (493) 6 minutes ago
I was actually talking about the channel "Currenttv" Are you familiar with it? Founded a few years ago by Al Gore and others but not apparently part of the MSM nor owned by a big conglomerate. They claim independence and I do like them but they do lean left/progressive while still criticizing Pres Obama and Dems.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
ok. I believe they support OWS as well. give me a minute. current.com Jart might be familiar with it.
Some is still to be found on cable and satellite. But it is also buried in a million channels of BS.
We will only ever see a return to responsible journalism if the people demand it and demand that the FCC steps up it's game on enforcing standards. Junk the bias and spin - support objective facts - all of the facts on all of the issues from around the world but also from here at home.
People need real information - not propaganda.
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (493) 0 minutes ago
the internet can circumvent the control of the msm. but it is a long hard slog. Do you think current tv has any independence.? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
I was actually talking about the channel "Currenttv" Are you familiar with it? Founded a few years ago by Al Gore and others but not apparently part of the MSM nor owned by a big conglomerate. They claim independence and I do like them but they do lean left/progressive while still criticizing Pres Obama and Dems.
Where/where did you go to school?
Why? So you can attack me.? must you resort to the politics of personal destruction. You cannot argue intelligently, in a civil matter. Do you disagree that the right has cut Pell grants? (Obama increased them but not enough) Do you agree we should invest in creating a more educated workforce/citizenry? Discuss substance don't fish for clever attacks on me personally it is so right wing of you. You should care for your fellow man/woman/lgbt. That would be left wing! Ok?
More R vs L....the media has warped your ability to look at things.
http://realtimewithgenz.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pell_grant_awards_chart.gif
What percentage do you want pell grants tied to tuition increases?
Lets make 100% the goal! and fight it out with the greedy selfish right wing wacko 1% tools and see where we land. Hows that? Do you support that? Do you support the 99%? Or are you against Pell grant expansion for the 99%? Or are you anti OWS?
Again, your inability to look at things from a constructive viewpoint is very telling of the power of media in this country.
And sorry to tell you, but the amount you participate is directly related to your understanding of this OWS, just like anything else in life.
I already said to go ahead and make colleges free. CC already is with Pell and state grants. Make em all free, fuck it, the level of education still sucks.
Its obvious to myself and many others in here that you have spend very little time at GA's.
Go ahead, make it 100%. It still wont address the underlying problem which is college/parents is/are doing a pathetic job at preparing students for the overall challenges of life.
Just make sure you dont make it illegal for some schools to charge more for better than average service.
How much time I spend in GA's is irrelevent and just a clumsy attempt at fishing for more personal info to attack me with. So you won't take a stand on my questions of substance. Pell expansion? Are you anti OWS? You don't speak for anyone else here regarding anything about me. But lets see what you minimal statement of substance means.- "Don't make it illegal for some schools to charge more for better than average service"? So your concern is maintaining the capitalist elements of supply and demand in higher education? We wouldn't want the 1% to have to share their "better than average" college with the middle class 99%. is that it.? Isn't that clearly pro 1%? You are outed! You support right wing wacko policies.
Pell and state grants will cover cc and then some.
State shools, you can get a lot covered, the rest has to be either worked off or through loans.
The real tragedy that the study reveals is the failing, no-charge public schools. Smart poor kids drop out of HS at more than 11 times the rate of rich kids.
Yeah, because those poor kids have to work to feed their families, or babysit while mom & dad so to work at jobs #2 or 3. Or maybe the parents didn't graduate themselves, so there is no learning taking place at the home and the kids are in a toxic environment.
You can't just expect the school to do all of the work here. This is a three part equation:
Teachers + Time + Parents = Education
I know you're trying to make it seem like the rich are "just better" than everyone else. That's not true. They just have more time to focus on studying, instead of having to work like 99% of us.
Where do the rich send their kids? Private schools that go out of business if they do a crappy job (the Obama children go to Sidwell at $32000 per year).
Poor kids are stuck in lousy public schools with no incentive to excel. The schools get paid regardless of the crappy service. This problem can be fixed by ending the public school monopoly.
This study didn't make a distinction over where the kids went to school. Its also a moot point because with school vouchers in place & scholarships in many areas the best poor kids are making it into those schools. That's not going to work for everyone, however.
If you "Wal*Mart-ize" every school in America into a private school, what makes you think that the schools will not just crop up and serve shitty education in order to cut costs? Private business is in business only to make money. Nothing else matters.
We're going to end up with REALLY shitty teachers that make close to minimum wage, while school lunches will be unregulated and filled with the cheapest ingredients possible (to save money.) Class sizes will balloon to un-teachable levels (to save money.) Advertisements will be allowed everywhere on campus. The after-school programs that make money will stay open while everything else gets shafted. Bullying will be tolerated because it isn't profitable to waste labor cost on discipline. Even with vouchers most of the best schools will just raise their prices so that poor parents still can't afford them, and will be forced to "choose" the Wal*Mart schools.
Last but not least, anyone who isn't white or Christian will be segregated, persecuted, or attacked for their differences instead of forcing tolerance like in the public schools. If our entire education system became private, then I could see LBGT kids having NOWHERE to go, because the depraved Christian bullies don't want to tolerate someone that's different from them.
Private schools will not even fix our economy. The voucher system will cost the state WAY more than what we have now, since private schools will have a monopoly on the education of our youth and will be able to jack up prices like the health insurance industry did.
No, private schools are NOT the answer.
The study shows a disturbing correlation: Some of our smartest kids are being left behind because of their lack of wealth.
A few facts:
Only 10% of students currently attend private school.
65% of the private schools are non-profit.
The average cost to educate a child in Catholic School is ½ the cost of a public school in the same community.
One of the key problems with public schools is that they try to do too much (like focus on things like school lunch, and IPADS for kinder-gardeners). They can't teach the basics but want to spend time perfecting the study of art history.
A child is 12 times more likely to be molested by a public school teacher than a Catholic priest.
Private school test scores are higher than public schools.
Private schools are safer than public schools.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2004/01/01/private-schools-safer-teachers-and-students
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html
http://www.onlineschools.org/education-debate/saturday-night-john-stossels-new-stupid-in-america/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/6/17/9311/48633
Nessie a Plesiosaur? Louisiana To Fund Schools Using Odd, Bigoted Fundamentalist Textbooks
This 2012-2013 school year, thanks to a bill pushed through by governor Bobby Jindal, thousands of students in Louisiana will receive state voucher money, transferred from public school funding, to attend private religious schools, some of which teach from a Christian curriculum that suggests the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution and states that the alleged creature, which has never been demonstrated to even exist, has been tracked by submarine and is probably a plesiosaur. The curriculum also claims that a Japanese fishing boat caught a dinosaur.
On the list of schools approved to receive funding through the new voucher funding, that critics warn could eventually cut public school funding in half, are schools that teach from the Christian fundamentalist A Beka Book, Bob Jones University Press, and Accelerated Christian Education curriculum.
What's in that curriculum? Last year, researcher Rachel Tabachnick and I co-produced a 35-minute documentary on the spread of a similar voucher program in Pennsylvania and other US states, titled "School Choice: Taxpayer-Funded Creationism, Bigotry, and Bias". Embedded at the end of this post is an eight-minute video segment from that documentary with scans from material in currently used A Beka Book and Bob Jones University Press texts (in this May 25, 2011 story [http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/5/25/84149/9275] Tabachnick provides quotes from those textbooks.)
The is the best news for public education in the last 75 years. Jindal deserves a medal.
"One of the key problems with public schools is that they try to do too much (like focus on things like school lunch, and IPADS for kinder-gardeners). They can't teach the basics but want to spend time perfecting the study of art history.
A child is 12 times more likely to be molested by a public school teacher than a Catholic priest."
You got any links for these?
Also, I don't want to see my kids brainwashed by Catholics. The reason why those schools may be "non-profit" is because they want to convert our nation's kids into obedient Catholic drones who will perpetuate hatred and bigotry as long as some passage in their fairy-tale book tells them to. We need schools that are secular, oh and they need to teach Science too, not this fake "creationism" BS.
Lets talk about lack of diversity at these schools too. You know why so many Christians are trying to get the government to pay for their private schools? Because studies have shown that exposure to LBGT persons reduces the amount of homophobia among many people. Christians can't be exposed to these "sinners" or their make believe house will come crashing down. There's probably a lot of racism present behind these schools as well. A bunch of white kids being shielded from the "poor" which is a code work for black.
Public school forces kids to be exposed to diversity, respects everyone's religious beliefs or non-beliefs, and actually teach Science. For those reasons alone I would keep my kids in public than take them to any religious private school.
Schools approve tax money spent on IPADS for six-year-olds:
http://brynmawr.patch.com/articles/all-kindergartners-getting-ipads-in-lower-merion#photo-10022620
So? One iPad 1 is cheaper than the textbooks it is replacing. It is also saving some trees and could possibly replace full PCs at these schools soon.
We don't improve our educational systems by staying in the past.
Really.
Which text books did they avoid purchasing for kinder gardener's with the use of the IPAD?
Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report (U.S. Department of Education), said the number of abuse cases—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape (in the Catholic Church)—could be much higher.
"So we think the Catholic Church has a problem?" she told industry newspaper Education Week in a March 10 interview.
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000. That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.
Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml
290,000 out of how many hundreds of millions of kids that pass through the system? Yeah, I'm real scared about being molested by the evil public school teachers, ooh!
Catholic schools account for about 5 % of students.
Is your child not important enough to send to a school with a 100 x reduction in risk of molestation compared to the public schools?
What? Did they get rid of the priests?
A child is 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than by a priest. See reference above.
Unlike some parents, I actually take responsibility for my children and teach them to deal with those issues in the first place.
How exactly does a 7 year old deal with a 200 lb sexual predator alone in a school bathroom?
Why is it worth incresing the risk by 100 times?
Because the physical trauma of a sexual attack is much easier to recover from than years of religious brainwashing by Christian hate groups.
I would have never thought of that.
Catholic School Facts
Enrollment:
• Total Catholic school student enrollment for the current academic year is 2,031,455. 1,440,572 in elementary/middle schools; 590,883 in secondary schools • Student diversity: 19.3% are racial minorities, 13.9% are Hispanic/Latino and 6.5% were reported as unknown in the racial data collection. • Non-Catholic enrollment is 312,732 which is 15.4% of the total enrollment.
Schools: • There are 6,841 Catholic schools: 5,636 elementary; 1,205 secondary. • 34 new schools opened; 167 consolidated or closed. • 1,951 schools have a waiting list for admission.
The student/teacher ratio is 13:1.
Professional Staff: · Full-time equivalent professional staff numbered 151,395: 96.7%: Laity (Lay women: 74.9% Lay men: 21.8%) 3.3%: Religious/Clergy (Sisters: 2.3%; Brothers: 0.5%; Clergy: 0.5%)
No student is ever refused enrollment due to lack of ability to afford tuition.
http://www.ncea.org/news/annualdatareport.asp
http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/top-5-lies-told-by-accelerated-christian-education/
This BS is actually being "taught" in Christian private schools right now:
LOL
One young mind subjected to this kind of backward brainwashing is one to many.
The list of silly things taught in public school is ponderous.
The point is that parents should have a choice of where to send their kids to school.
The only data point that you should worry about is the following:
The US ranks third in cost per student and 27 th in math and science. They stink, how could private schools do any worse; and if they do you can fire them. You can't fire the local public school.
http://tlat.blogspot.ca/2005/05/stupid-things-taught-in-schools.html http://www.squidoo.com/school_or_prison http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/intelligentdesign.html http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
One young mind subjected to this kind of backward brainwashing is one to many. Your fist link just reinforces my position. This is backwards brainwashing 101. When I grew up in 1970s, I went to Sunday School after church services to learn about Noah and the Ark. I did not learn about God in the public school system. Why did we do it this way? Because the founding fathers intended for America to be a secular nation, not a religious nation.
The debate over school performance is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the issue of curriculum.
"I'll accept the demonstration. It requires no faith to accept something to be within tolerances."
There are an infinite number of possible positions for the particle. Infinity is not a tolerance.
You claim to make a judgment about the reliability of a source. You don't trust the corps so you discount their science, but you trust, say, the IPCC so you accept their science. That is exactly what faith is. You accept the IPCC science because you have faith that they would not mislead you. You don't perform the experiments, or do the work required to draw your own conclusion. You trust their answers because you have faith in them.
You don't have to be ashamed of this weakness. It is a human instinct to make judgments based on faith.
Now if you did the work necessary to calculate the probability of an event (for example catastrophic AGW in the next 100 years ) and the chances turn out to be very small and the down side benign you night change your mind. On the other hand if you considered Pascal's wager you might change your mind about faith.
FAITH IS BLIND TRUST
Taking my words and telling me what I am thinking by placing them into a context of your own choosing is clever, but not as effective as you might believe.
The thrust of your argument is this. By getting me to acknowledge faith in something, it would assume a type of validation for faith in anything. In other words, if I admit to showing faith in something, then all faith is acceptable without any criteria for tolerances. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Keeping my words in their original context, you will clearly see I am never accepting anything on faith. My words clearly show I am accepting certain arguments for the present, past, and future over other arguments.
FAITH means you don't question the arguments against something, you just take it blindly on faith. No argument can defeat faith. I will emphasize it one more time ---------Faith is absolute blind trust and I find no good arguments for allowing myself to trust blindly.
Sorry, but here is the bottom line. My judgment to accept my local weatherman's forecast or the IPCC's forecast of global warming does not, in any way, shape, or form, validate someone else's faith in a higher being. Although, I have to admit, it would make for one hell of a magic trick.
"Where do you get the information that we do not have evidence of a particle's velocity? I am not going to take it on faith that you are correct, you must provide evidence to support that claim."
The HUP demonstrates that there are an infinite number of possible velocities for the particle. The velocity is unknowable. The fact that it has a velocity must be taken on faith. It can not be calculated or derived empirically.
"I'll accept the demonstration. It requires no faith to accept something to be within tolerances."
There are an infinite number of possible positions for the particle. Infinity is not a tolerance.
So you are un-convinced that the HUP demonstrates that an infinite number of things are unknowable?
Why do you disagree with the current scientific consensus? Are you also a global warming denier? Or do you take it on faith that the ground level temperatures will rise by 4 - 8 deg in the next 100 years due to AGW?
"So you are un-convinced that the HUP demonstrates that an infinite number of things are unknowable?"
I'll accept the demonstration. It requires no faith to accept something to be within tolerances. The tolerance here being current knowledge. If a new demonstration comes along to significantly challenge the previously accepted demonstration, then I'll have to reexamine which demonstration is better, capiche?
"Why do you disagree with the current scientific consensus?"
Why did Einstein disagree with the current scientific consensus of his day?
"Are you also a global warming denier?"
No.
"Or do you take it on faith that the ground level temperatures will rise by 4 - 8 deg in the next 100 years due to AGW?"
The weatherman provides probabilities of how imminent a rain event is likely to occur in my area based on readings of the weather data. It might only be slight chance, or it could be a greater chance. It is not a question of faith how I respond to his forecast, it is a question of trust. If the weatherman constantly made incorrect predictions, I simply would not give much credence to his forecasts. On the other hand, If he is reliable, I will be more willing to accept his forecast and prepare by taking an umbrella.
Now, on the issue of AGW, I do not give much credence to the corporate think tank spin on this issue. They have ulterior motives which cast major doubts over the reliability of their predictions. The important point here is --- by no means does my acceptance or non-acceptance of predicting future events have anything to do with faith, you see, predictions are accepted on the deemed reliability of the source (the data and people) that produce predictions.
Many things must be taken on faith. The exact position and velocity of a particle for example. Heisenberg proved many years ago that both are not knowable at the same moment. We must therefore take it on faith that when we measure the velocity of the particle it exists at some position.
There is much in the universe that is unknowable.
Oh oh, I have a good example!
We must take it on faith that the sidewalk will not collapse while we are walking on it, killing us (but not always).
Actually, he did not prove it, he provided the best evidence he could gather (In the future, another scientist may well reveal him to be wrong with better evidence, just as Einstein revolutionized the earlier findings of Newton). Heisenberg tested and observed and gathered evidence. He used reason and logic and math to draw his conclusion. The evidence he observed led him to his findings, not faith. Faith means belief without question. I can assure you Heisenberg asked many, many questions to arrive at his answer.
Do we know everything? If we did, we would stop arguing about this subject because there would be nothing left to argue over.
"If the position of the particle is not known you must have faith that it exists at some position"
I do not require faith to find my car if I forgot the exact position of where I parked it in a huge parking lot - it only requires my knowledge of its existence to determine it exists at some position.
"you must have faith that someday someone will discover a way of determining the position"
No, it only requires the possibility. Evidence determines answers, not wishful thinking.
"you must accept that Heisenberg ( and Godel) is right and some things are not knowable"
I already agreed to that point.
"Any and all of these positions require faith."
No matter how many times you repeat it, it isn't getting any truer.
You did not address the dilemma.
If the position of the particle is not known you must have faith that it exists at some position; or you must have faith that someday someone will discover a way of determining the position; or you must accept that Heisenberg ( and Godel) is right and some things are not knowable (the current generally accepted science). Any and all of these positions require faith.
http://www.math.ias.edu/~avi/BOOKS/Godel_Widgerson_Text.pdf
You did not address the dilemma.
If the position of the particle is not known you must have faith that it exists at some position; or you must have faith that someday someone will discover a way of determining the position; or you must accept that Heisenberg ( and Godel) is right and some things are not knowable (the current generally accepted science). Any and all of these positions require faith.
http://www.math.ias.edu/~avi/BOOKS/Godel_Widgerson_Text.pdf
Pink Floyd not withstanding, do you believe that there are some things in the physical world that must be taken on faith? That all things are knowable?
that people like each other
Give me an example of something needing to be taken on faith in the physical world.
"My judgment to accept my local weatherman's forecast or the IPCC's forecast of global warming does not, in any way, shape, or form, validate someone else's faith in a higher being."
So your judgment is that faith in human beings; fallible, mendacious, flawed, murderous human beings, is acceptable, but faith in God requires validation?
BTW, your faith is better given to a coin toss than the weatherman (see the Precipitation Challenge Accuracy).
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/04/21/how-valid-are-tv-weather-forecasts/
"So your judgment is that faith in human beings; fallible, mendacious, flawed, murderous human beings, is acceptable, but faith in God requires validation?"
Your reading comprehension skills have dropped five grade levels since we started this conversation. I never said anything about placing faith in human beings. I said, acceptance within tolerances.
I said FAITH requires nothing but blind trust. I did not say faith requires validation (another twisting of my words). I said one person's faith can not be validated through an effort to prove another person's faith. The premise is illogical. For example, if I had total and complete faith that the boogeyman was real, it would not validate someone else's faith in ghosts.
"BTW, your faith is better given to a coin toss than the weatherman"
Since you insist on replacing my use of (acceptance within tolerances), with the word (faith), and other such petty nonsense, I have to accept the logical conclusion that you can find no sincere rebuttal to counter my arguments. So good day to you.
It is not possible to know both the position and velocity of the particle.
The HUP demonstrates that an infinite number of things are unknowable. Pretty humbling ay?
"It is not possible to know both the position and velocity of the particle."
How do you know it is not possible? How can you be certain we simply have not discovered the right tools or the right approach? How do you know it is not merely a myth? You can't be certain. That is why you can't take it on faith.
Karl Popper - "Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; neither with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical discussion of myths, and of magical techniques and practices. The scientific tradition is distinguished from the pre-scientific tradition in having two layers. Like the latter, it passes on its theories; but it also passes on a critical attitude towards them. The theories are passed on, not as dogmas, but rather with the challenge to discuss them and improve upon them."
You are creating a dogma and using the pre-scientific tradition.
To be scientific, you need to say "Currently, it is not possible to know both the position and velocity of the particle", thus, leaving it open for critical discussion and future improvements.
Faith is the belief in a thing in the absence of evidence, like the position or the velocity of the particle. The particle has a velocity, we have no evidence that it does, the velocity is not knowable, so we must have faith that it exists.
That is the whole disruptive point of the uncertainty principle, it demonstartes that there are things that are unknowable, and there are an infinite number examples.
Actually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that we can have some information about both velocity and position, but as the degree of precision about one variable is known the information about the other must decrease.
We will never have precise information about one so we will never have no information about the other.
"Faith is the belief in a thing in the absence of evidence"
Sounds about right
"The particle has a velocity, we have no evidence that it does, the velocity is not knowable, so we must have faith that it exists."
Where do you get the information that we do not have evidence of a particle's velocity? I am not going to take it on faith that you are correct, you must provide evidence to support that claim.
You did not address the dilemma.
If the position of the particle is not known you must have faith that it exists at some position; or you must have faith that someday someone will discover a way of determining the position; or you must accept that Heisenberg ( and Godel) is right and some things are not knowable (the current generally accepted science). Any and all of these positions require faith.
http://www.math.ias.edu/~avi/BOOKS/Godel_Widgerson_Text.pdf
Of course curriculum affects the school performance. Time spent by the students on some of the following wasteful tripe is time lost on critical studies that students will need to excel. These schools are stealing education from the students.
All of these examples of poor educational practices took place in public schools. Why not give parents a choice to pick the best school for their child, public or not.
Many religious stories impart valuable moral lessons. We lose as a society if we fail to instill moral values in our children (you will rely on that moral compass when you are 80 and the children take of you (or not )).
http://tlat.blogspot.ca/2005/05/stupid-things-taught-in-schools.html http://www.squidoo.com/school_or_prison http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/intelligentdesign.html http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
Once upon a time, religion taught everyone that the earth was the center of everything and anyone who spoke against their religious authority was labeled a heretic and such blasphemous views - silenced. Of course, religion turned out to be wrong (the sun, and not the earth, is the center of the solar system). Because religion is dogmatic and silences contrary evidence that does not fit with preconceived ideas, it does not encourage people to have an open mind. Religion teaches people to take the world around them on faith. If science had not grown, we would never have gotten out of the dark ages. Religion would never have put a man on the moon. Religion, limited by dogma, can only teach the same lessons over and over. We actually lose under that scenario, not only as a society, but as a human race when science does not make new discoveries. If you happen to live to be a hundred years old, you can thank all the advancements in overall science for that, not religion.
It is likely this is going in one ear and out the other, but please try to understand what Pink Floyd meant when they sang, "Hey teachers, leave them kids alone"
This can wait. Julian Assange needs our help NOW!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-julian-assange-ask-ecuador-to-grant-him-polit/
MECHA has done work to root ROTC military classes out San Diego high schools
Non-hispanic white students have scores that are competitive in top international rankings.
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect
Also see Does the U.S. Produce Too Many Scientists?: Scientific American
(also, tip: double space at the end of a line to produce a line break)
I agree that a lot of time in primary and secondary school is spent on subjects that do little to enhance the students chances of getting a job. Why?
Early education (< 15 yrs) can stimulate life long interest in reading, math, and science as well as develop a logical problem solving mind. These things (along with enthusiasm, honesty, and the ability to execute) are difficult to change in later years.
These are the assets that employers value when they hire. Skills are secondary and teachable.
Our schools stink. They should drop all other efforts and focus on the above until they have results that put the US back in the top 5. Then ease in other curricula.
Well is your point that we should leave non-white students behind in failing schools?
One of the main obstacles to getting ride of the public school monopoly is that people in wealthy towns are satisfied with the local school. The people in power are resisting change and improvement for poor kids.
Give parents school choice. Let the market work.
One of YOUR OWN links (http://www.squidoo.com/school_or_prison) says that high school has no point except to keep people out of the job market, and that "None of the worthless information they were forced to swallow was retained, and if it had been, it wouldn't have mattered."
Do you think that underachieving, non-white students should work harder so they can take on high student debt and still fail to get a job?
Or maybe, we should create jobs and more education just means you get a better job, instead of that you steal a low-skilled retail job from another worker with less education?
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/were-not-all-rocket-scientists/
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/rocket-scientists-part-2/
Job creation without higher government spending, inflation, or trade barriers: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/
The list of silly things taught in public school is ponderous.
The point is that parents should have a choice of where to send their kids to schools.
The only data point that you should worry about is the following:
The US ranks third in cost per student and 27 th in math and science. They stink, how could private schools do any worse?
http://tlat.blogspot.ca/2005/05/stupid-things-taught-in-schools.html
http://www.squidoo.com/school_or_prison
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/intelligentdesign.html
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
First link is an opinion piece that starts off with "Let's face it, liberals run the public school system across the nation." and offers no evidence for any claims.
Second link is another opinion piece with anecdotal evidence instead of anything substantive.
Third link, opinion piece.
The fourth link has SOME data. Congratulations! 1 out of 4 is OK in MLB, I guess... But I'm not sure why a school banning some words from tests equals "The list of silly things taught in public school is ponderous."
Banning offensive words (to create a open, welcoming education for ALL) on standardized tests has nothing to do with what's being taught.
We are in the top 3 world wide in cost per student but 27th in math and science. That performance is tragic. The monopoly is failing. Give the free market a chance to work.
10% of the kids in the US go to private schools. 50 % of them go to Catholic schools, 25% are not religious. Since Catholic schools are such a large % let's study them a bit. 65% of all private schools are non-profit.
Every student in Catholic grade school has one period of religion (~ 40 min per day) four days per week. While the focus is Catholicism they also study Judaism, Islam, Hinduism (the list varies depending on the state, city, and country); the idea is to learn about your neighbors.
Every student in Catholic High school also has four periods of religion per week, however the student may select which religion or spiritual related course to study. High school students put in 140 hours per year of community service in homeless shelters, kitchens, habit for humanity, and the like as part of the curriculum.
The courses in science are conducted using the same text books that are used in the local public schools (one funding source that does follow students in the US are public $ for books). Catholic school students are taught the theories of natural selection and geology just like their public school counter parts. There is no Creationism taught in the science curriculum.
I have three questions for you. Try these without consulting a reference:
How much of the story of creation from Genesis can you recall?
What are the four principles of the theory of Natural Selection?
How different would your life be if the theory in (2) was found to be in error?
"Every student in Catholic grade school has one period of religion (~ 40 min per day) four days per week."
That's the problem. If I'm a gay or lesbian student and my parents send me to one of these places, then I am going to be discriminated against and if I'm an atheist then I'm going to be forced to endure 40 minutes of something that I don't believe in. Private schools are not all-encompassing.
A different way of looking at it would be that your LGBT child would get some understanding of about 100 million of his or her neighbors in the US and maybe they will develop some tolerance for one another.
Gated communities are one of our biggest problems, and not all of them have actual gates.
I don't count bullying and being forced a bunch of BS beliefs as "understanding."
Christianity is a disease on the human race. It is a cancer that needs to be removed for the world to be at peace.
Should we burn the christains? Feed them to the lions? Gas chambers? Any other people that you want to remove? Jews? Gays? Where does the hate stop?
That's how every LBGT person in the world feels whenever Christians wage their campaigns of hate. No one would care about your stupid beliefs if you kept them in churches where they belong, and stopped trying to invade our schools and government.
The schools and Gov also belong to the more than 250 million people of faith in the US. Most laws are the manifestation of someone's faith and morals that are then imposed on everyone.
2 life the cooperates(move in herds, hunt in packs help each other out) has increased chance of survival
Rich kids are more likely to have small class sizes in pre-college education.
http://www.slideshare.net/jaredbernstein/bmore1
But that's besides the point, because the study in the first post is about poor kids who score well in math despite any disadvantages they have from being poor.
poor kid got know math if it mean to eat on a dollar
The service is just as crappy in rich schools. If the classes get harder, the parents bitch, and the dumbing down continues.
There isnt a whole lot of accountability with anything in this society anymore.
There is a lot of competition among private schools for students.
Expect a big shake out among colleges and universities over the next few decades. Many will fail and the best will prosper. Hold on to your endowment will become school motto.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/higher_education
maybe this is why? rich judges , judgmental people like yourself,, what chance does a kid in thrift store clothes have really?
http://fritz-aviewfromthebeach.blogspot.com/2012/05/judge-sentences-honor-student-to-jail.html
Where do you get off being so judgmental?
me? judgmental?.
from
It sounds a bit like overreacting. Schools try to teach effectively. The reason students are not seen to perform as well as some might hope can be complex. I think "The Spirit Level" such as this talk (transcript): How economic inequality harms societies might mention poor school scores as something that correlates with economic inequality.
The chart that shows the wide difference between states in the number of people who agree with the statement that "most people can be trusted" is particularly instructive, I think. It varies from around 60~70% to around 15%. If students don't trust their teachers, are they likely to learn very well?
(Job creation without higher government spending, inflation, or trade barriers: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/)
They try to teach effectively? If someone that works for me says they will try to do their job the next thing they try is the unemployment line.
We must demand results. The public school monopoly is a failure. Give the free market a shot.
They are difficult to measure.
I don't care enough about the subject to recall relevant examples, but two authors who are interested in the subject and I judge to be competent can be found at http://mikethemadbiologist.com/ and http://peerreviewedbymyneurons.wordpress.com/ .... I know, no one is going to bother searching either of those sites for useful information.
edit: have this in my history http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2012/06/01/but-teachers-unions-are-the-problem-no-good-deed-goes-unpunished/
Here is a good metric:
We are 3 rd in the world in cost per student and 27 th in math and science.
From one of the links at the end of that post I mentioned:
For example, for all teachers of math, and using all years of available data, which provides the most precise measures possible, the average confidence interval width is about 34 points (i.e., from the 46th to 80th percentile). When looking at only one year of math results, the average width increases to 61 percentile points. That is to say, the average teacher had a range of value-added estimates that might extend from, for example, the 30th to the 91st percentile.
So, yes, we can look at the scores of students of teachers. But it isn't very accurate; I assume you are familiar with statistics.
Statistically, we rank 27 th in the world and yet we are in the top three in cost per student.
Statistically, test scores in the US have been flat for 30 years.
Statistically, private school students have higher scores than pubic schools.
Statistically, poor children in public schools get the worst education because their parents have no choice but to send them to the failing public schools.
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/dspielman/stupid-in-america-a-message-from-john-stossel-on-a
That says nothing about how to go "We must demand results." to actual results.
You might say that all children should have the opportunity to attend $20k per year private schools that have 10 students per teacher, but throwing money at a problem is not always the best way to solve it.
Spend the same amout of money but allow parents to send their kids to private school using a voucher. Private schools will compete for students, improve the education, and drive down costs.
I personally am not familiar with the voucher debate or the relative merits of each option.
Is it that hard to get competent people involved with the public school system? If something is broken, why not fix it?
I do have this in my history though... it wasn't relevant to the earlier topic (how to measure teacher performance) but you might find it interesting: http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2012/06/05/how-charter-schools-kill-superman-the-boston-edition/
The whole thing is probably worth reading but I will just quote this:
"Dr. CEO often chuckles during all-staff meetings at how we charter school teachers work harder than they do in Boston Public Schools and get paid less for our troubles."
Louisiana ranks among the worst states in the country in student test scores. They are taking a courageous step towards fixing the problem. Most news organizations give this initiative little coverage, but the nation is watching.
http://www.edchoice.org/School-Choice/State/LA.aspx
[Removed]
Don't you feel a little ripped-off about the whole BP spill? The hype was so big two summers ago. 24/7 undersea cameras, fleets of clean-up boats, and then it turned out to be big nothing. Just like the petro-engineers originally predicted.
“How Charter Schools Kill Superman: The Boston Edition”
The following quote demonstrates the fundamental problem with public schools ( and other monopolies):
"I’ll also note that the last two sentence point out something else about the charter school model–the demands on teachers make most charter schools fundamentally unsustainable. "
The author views continuous improvement, one of the cornerstones of modern manufacturing that has driven quality in cars, medicine, aircraft, and cell phones, as unsustainable. The idea that organizations should measure and be accountable for their performance is alien to this author. This kind of thinking has kept public school test scores flat for 30 years.
The leading mother duck is an ironic illustration of the fate of many US public school students:
http://generallyawesome.com/photos/funny/mother-ducker#.T-Y3VrVPvCo
From one of the linked posts:
One of the things that I’ve long suspected about charter schools is that they’re an unsustainable model: they rely on incredibly motivated teachers (who I think are a pretty motivated lot to begin with) who are willing to work even longer hours for essentially the same pay (or sometimes less). I’m not sure how to scale that up. Even if there were a significant number of teachers who fit this description, it’s not clear how long they could remain like this.
Either there are enough teachers who are willing to work harder at lower rates of pay for charter or private (different?) schools, or there aren't. Presumably there is some standard that public schools must meet; would private or charter schools be required to meet the same standards or could they do whatever they like? You haven't explained why public schools don't do well.
And if the reason is that "public schools have teacher unions", does that mean that private or charter schools will have no advantages if their teachers also unionize?
Many commercial industries do just fine with union workers. The union is not the real problem. The problem is that public schools have a monopoly on education for 90% of the students that can't afford private school.
My town used to have the worst trash pick-up service you can imagine. It was expensive, they frequently did not show up and when they did rubbish and crushed trash cans lined the streets in the wake of their service.
8 years ago the city sold the trucks, fired the city workers, and hired a private hauler. The cost went down, the people are actually nice to us, they put the cans up on the sidewalk after they are emptied, and I swear that if I cut up an automobile and put it out front they would figure a way to get it in that truck. The workers make more than the city guys did (mainly because three of them do the work of six city guys). And this is all because unlike the city guys they know that if they do a lousy job the city just fires them and finds a better service.
Surely the education of our children is more important than collecting garbage.
http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2011/05/29/a_necessary_element_of_educati/
"In a recent Michigan study designed to look at the effects of environment pollution on student performance, the most important effect on student performance was poverty. But the second most importance factor was regular school attendance–just getting kids into the classroom."
This problem can be fixed tomorrow.
Education is no longer a right, it is a privileged like a drivers license. If a student violates the rules (like bringing a weapon to school or assaulting a teacher or student) they lose the privilege.
If you want a thing (like education) to be respected and wanted don't give it away for free. It must be earned.
A 2005 study done on kids who had done well on 8th grade math?
You've got to be kidding BetsyRoss clown.