Educated vs "Non-Educated"

Oh those pesky facts. Nineteen percent of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Of course these are Department of Education numbers, so who knows. I couldn’t find a stat on how many of the 19% end up at the Dept of Ed.

 

.

 

1) SHOULD, but don't - and likely never will, as long as we keep making it easy for them to opt out. You need to make peace with that, and stop trying to fix something which isn't broken.

2) Yes, our job as PARENTS is to create success. If you interfere by providing advantages (in terms of academic outcomes) to 'lazy' parents, you are literally robbing the parents who work their behinds off for the same result. That is grossly unfair.

3) I'll say it again ... WE are not leaving kids behind - their parents are. We are doing the right thing by our kids, and that's all any of us can do. Any more than that and you're interfering with freely made choices, and demanding that people remain poverty free.

 

We're talking about school kids, Dear. Keep up.

And yes, it's outrageous to provide 'advantages' for failing students when that failure is freely chosen. All such resources should be concentrated upon the physically/intellectually disabled, and the capable students who have the self-discipline and parental support to actually torque those advantages into a lifetime of financial security.

 

That’s absolutely laughable, the tuition alone is $7-8 thousand a year. Where is this crappolla that it cost $180 a year per year come from. What have you been drinking ?

So, you don’t understand this statement ?
“Just ask the property tax payers in towns. It’s the single greatest expense of ANY municipality that funds public education.”

 

Canada also doesn't train enough doctors.

Obviously, we would lower what are incredibly high admission standards.

There's some truth to what you say and that's why I prefer Coburn's medical voucher approach along with increasing the supply of doctors.

It has everything to do with the higher risk of insuring older people with preexisting conditions. Reinsurance is used by home and auto insurers.

We disagree about how derivatives and reinsurance work.

In any event, we're not going back to that simpler time.

I've seen it work and make a huge difference. For more than a decade, I was on staff at a school that made it work.

Because the people with high incomes have often received more than their fair share from an economic system favoring them.

Government is the only entity that can do either one. It sets out the rules for the economy, so it determines wealth and income shares. According to you, it can't then make good on protecting private property.

 

I was first drawn to enlightenment philosophers because of their anti religious positions. It was liberalism that came up with the idea of separation of church and state.

I always remember a quote I read, at an early age, something about not wanting to go to heaven, because it would be full of Christians.

 

1) You clearly have very little experience of university life outside of your own (apparently small) town. My kids attend a very big university of 20,000+, and less than 1% live on or near campus. There is no parking, either - meaning no one drives. Which means EVERYONE commutes. Are you even aware that on any given day, there are far less on a college campus than that 20,000?

2) I have no experience of being a university student from a middle class family. I came from working class stock, and paid my way through school at night, while working days in a minimum wage job.

 

You are SO wrong.

 

Only 15% are fully literate, most of who didn’t have to be taught.

 

Oops

 

Changing, but you're right. About one-third of Americans over 25 have a four-year degree.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/326995-census-more-americans-have-college-degrees-than-ever-before

 

There is no difference between liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party. Liberals have always tried to practice Keynesian economics.

 

I would classify anyone over about the age of 6, who can’t read, as being mentally challenged.

 

No, but as parents WE pick how we'll approach education.

And there are no financial roadblocks if resources are allocated according to moral value (the likelihood they'll actually be used for their intended purpose - provision of the tools for escaping poverty). If you don't care about the outcome of all that resource use, you are engaging in the very problem which leads to poverty in the first place. You are literally a part of the problem.

 

Again, you're fabulously incorrect. Literacy is learned, it's not an innate talent.

 

Too bad. Try harder.

Lowering the standard would be a disaster. Rise up and meet the damned standard, don't drag it down because you can't be arsed doing the work necessary. Jesus, what a ****ing age we live in.

 

Being as every child in the United States is taught to read, it is only those with mental challenges who can’t read.

 

LOL LOL LOL, you think the most ardently capitalist nations on earth are 'socialist'. Comedy gold!

 

Don't be that family, obviously.

 

You don't appear to be qualified to comment, with respect. Neurotypical children will easily learn to read, given sufficient support at home and upon starting school with the required level of self-discipline (also learned at home) to pay attention. If kids don't have either of those two foundations at HOME, they will fall into functional iliteracy. It's far more common that you realise.

 

Nonsense. Asian and Indian kids are doing spectacularly well in public schools, so there is nothing wrong with the system.

 

Apparently far more heart than those who don't seem to give a flying **** whether what they're proposing relieves poverty, or creates more of it.

 

Awesome

 

What does 'in town' mean? And what does it have to do with the cost (to parents) to send their child to public school?

I am not American, our education system is 'nationalised'.