timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (07/19/86)
> > Now, by "privatizing" the school system, the children of parents who > > a) can't afford or b) don't want to pay for [expensive] private education can't > > are being punished, since the money is no longer there for the public schools. > > False. Private schooling is less expensive than public schooling. It > appears that public schooling is cheaper because the money is collected > by taxation. If public schooling were as cheap as private schooling, > only the very poorest of the poor would be unable to send their kids > to private schools. Private schools may have lower costs per student from the school's point of view, but from the student/family point of view it is more expensive. A student attending public school has his education paid for by his family's taxes. One who attends private school pays tuition IN ADDITION to taxes which support public schools. (Note, though that the public schools don't get the extra subsidy since school funding is by student; the governments keep the taxes not used by schools). Summary: a student who attends private school: a. adds money and population to private school s/he attends b. subtracts money and population to public school s/he would have attended c. adds money to the state and local goverments (unused school subsidy) Note that the money the public school loses is constant, so from the school's point of view it does not matter (in an economic sense) whether the student's family was rich or poor. Whether the public school loses or gains (in an economic sense) depends on whether the marginal cost of educating one more student is less or more than the lost subsidy.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/20/86)
In article <491@bnrmtv.UUCP> timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) writes: >A student attending public school has his education paid for by his family's >taxes. One who attends private school pays tuition IN ADDITION to taxes ... One thing I forgot to mention in my original response to Tedrick's request for my opinion: I consider tax credits or vouchers for education as merely an interim measure to be followed by complete removal of the tax burden for education. It is unfair for a person to be forced to pay for somebody else's child's education; the idea that someone's hard work is going to pay for what are properly others' responsibilities can hardly be considered just, unless one adopts socialist notions or a spurious appeal to pragmatism. (At least, I've never heard any other justifications for this. It's similar to the complaint one often hears about being forced to support the children of a welfare family, while the parents irresponsibly continue to produce more children for others to support.) In summary, fully privatized education would not require that the government handle educational funding at all, although since it does at present it would have to be involved in the conversion to completely private education.
jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) (07/24/86)
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but:
Perhaps a, partial at least, justification of public funding of education
is that the governmental system itself requires an education. Democracy
can't last long when the voting public becomes illiterate.
When I say illiterate, I mean to include lack of knowlege/understanding
of science, literature, history, etc. not just "can't read".
--
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma San Diegodsf@allegra.UUCP (David Fox) (07/24/86)
ization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 15 Xref: clyde net.sci:1414 net.politics:18019 In article <2413@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: > It is unfair for a person >to be forced to pay for somebody else's child's education; the idea >that someone's hard work is going to pay for what are properly others' >responsibilities can hardly be considered just, unless one adopts >socialist notions or a spurious appeal to pragmatism. A spurious appeal to pragmatism? Heaven Forefend! The economy of our country, or any post-industrial economy, cannot function unless most of the population are literate. If this country eliminates its free public education system, its economy will collapse. This seems somewhat more unfair to me than subsidizing the educations of "those less fortunate". David Fox
gkb@necntc.UUCP (Greg Busby) (07/24/86)
reg Busby) Organization: NEC Electronics Inc. Natick, MA 01760 Lines: 84 Xref: clyde net.sci:1420 net.politics:18055 In article <2413@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <491@bnrmtv.UUCP> timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) writes: >>A student attending public school has his education paid for by his family's >>taxes. One who attends private school pays tuition IN ADDITION to taxes ... > >One thing I forgot to mention in my original response to Tedrick's >request for my opinion: I consider tax credits or vouchers for >education as merely an interim measure to be followed by complete >removal of the tax burden for education. It is unfair for a person >to be forced to pay for somebody else's child's education; the idea >that someone's hard work is going to pay for what are properly others' >responsibilities can hardly be considered just, unless one adopts >socialist notions or a spurious appeal to pragmatism. Before I launch into my response, I would like to say that IN PRINCIPLE I am not opposed to many of the things that Objectivists, Libertarians, et al. believe in, such as those who work harder deserve to do better than those that don't, and that paople should be free to choose (and live with the results of) their own actions. I am, however, opposed to the apparently calluos disregard that many of them show for those who have not been given the opportunity to acquire a status in life that allows them to see the fruits of their own labors and the results of their own actions. I also think that they assume most of America is middle-class and educated, and that they are therefore prepared to make and accept the consequences of informed, reasoned decisions. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and thosewho aren't as far along the in their [social, psychological, economic, etc.] development should be helped along a little by those who are. Anyway, on to my response... Although it is true that the education of children is primarily the responsibility of the parents, and that good parents will take on this responsibility willingly and (hopefully) well, it should be remembered that there are many parents who are unwilling (or unable) to spend a lot of time (or MONEY) on their children's education. BUT, this does not really hurt the parents, who are (usually) adults and should be able to live their own lives, but rather hurts the children by denying them the oportunity and training to better themselves and build the kind of life that they may want to lead. Since it is so important to have a good education in this country in order to get a good job in order to get a good salary in order to make a good life, etc., ALL children should be given the opportunity, as I said. Now, if you say that there should be no publice education, and that all education should be paid for by the parents, you either beleive that A) all parents are financially responsible enough that they can sed their children to a private institution (a notion which, by the way, I am sure very few people are naive enough to believe) or B) that children whose parents are not financially able to sen them to a private school should not be given the same advantages as those who were lucky enough to be born to more affluent parents. This seems, at least to me, to be a case of 'them that has, gets, and them that hasn't, gets screwed'. Revolutions have been fought over less. >(At least, >I've never heard any other justifications for this. It's similar >to the complaint one often hears about being forced to support the >children of a welfare family, while the parents irresponsibly >continue to produce more children for others to support.) This last statement is more of the same -- it is penalizing children for the transgressions of their parents. This has been part of the Judeo-Christian teachings for some time, but I can't honestly believe that anyone who romotes Rational solutions to problems can feel that the children, who had no voice in choosing their parents, should be made to pay for thier parents' mistakes. The alternative, forced sterilization, is repugnant. >In summary, fully privatized education would not require that the >government handle educational funding at all, although since it >does at present it would have to be involved in the conversion to >completely private education. In order to pay for the education of children with poor parents, the government will have to be involved, either through a "school stamps" program or through direct establishment and control of educational facilities. In either case, the only way to pay for this is through taxes, whether they be on the amount of income you earn or on the amount of property you own or on the amount you pay in tuition for your children to attend a private institution. In any case, you are probably no better off than you are now, a lot of extra red tape and hassle has been created for everyone, and very little, if anything, has been done about the vicious cycle of the more affluent person (ie the one who needs it least) getting the larger sare of the pie.
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (07/24/86)
> There is a big problem here. In the "ideal" situation, underachievers could > get the social and peer-pressure reinforcement to achieve academicly. Instead > overachievers are often separated through "advanced placement classes" from > underachievers on every level but perhaps the Phys. Ed. classes. Actually, the underachievers are often separated through "remedial" or "general" classes from overachievers on every level. Many high school overachievers find themselves unchallenged by even by the most rigorous courses the school offers. Those classes would be challenging for mid and under achievers, but high schools will let them breeze through "general" or "remedial" classes. In PE classes, the overachievers (in PE, anyway) ARE separated out (by athletic programs) !
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/25/86)
In article <288@necntc.UUCP>, gkb@necntc.UUCP (Greg Busby) writes: > ... I can't honestly believe that anyone who romotes Rational > solutions to problems can feel that the children, who had no > voice in choosing their parents, should be made to pay for > thier parents' mistakes. I don't think Tedrick or I claimed that they should. > The alternative, forced sterilization, is repugnant. It's repugnant, all right, but it's not "the alternative". I'm sure if you really think about it, you could come up with better solutions. For example, how about holding parents legally responsible for their children's well-being? It could be required that the children be given a certain amount of schooling at licensed schools. This is much the same as the current mandatory schooling requirement, which was not the topic of discussion.
ix764@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (Catherine L Harris) (07/29/86)
In article <2413@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > One thing I forgot to mention in my original response to Tedrick's > request for my opinion: I consider tax credits or vouchers for > education as merely an interim measure to be followed by complete > removal of the tax burden for education. It is unfair for a person > to be forced to pay for somebody else's child's education; the idea > that someone's hard work is going to pay for what are properly others' > responsibilities can hardly be considered just, unless one adopts > socialist notions or a spurious appeal to pragmatism. > I've never heard any other justifications for this. Our society has a conception of children as more than the property of their parents. We view them as human beings with certain rights. One of the rights is a right to an education. A child should not be punished because fate decreed that she be born the daughter of an alcoholic, a criminal, an honest hard working person who is having financial problems, a member of a discriminated minority, a retarded person, or a middle-class business man who would rather spend his money on improvements to his house or a new yacht than on his children's education. Beyond this conception of children's basic right to an education, there are "non-spurious" pragmatic concerns. A democracy depends on educated citizens; our society requires that people have at least some ability to read street signs and grocery prices, and to fill out tax forms and rent agreements. Admittedly, I can see why it might be convenient to have a large uneducated class of people: this class would provide cheap unskilled labor, would pay rent rather than owning property, and would be unlikely to vote, thus allowing laws to continue to support the educated and exploitative elite. ----- Cathy Harris, UCSD cognitive science
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/01/86)
> Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but: > > Perhaps a, partial at least, justification of public funding of education > is that the governmental system itself requires an education. Democracy > can't last long when the voting public becomes illiterate. > > When I say illiterate, I mean to include lack of knowlege/understanding > of science, literature, history, etc. not just "can't read". > > ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma San Diego True indeed. I guess it's time for the government to start funding education then, because the population is already to this point... oh, they DO operate schools already? What went wrong then? Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/01/86)
> In article <2413@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > Our society has a conception of children as more than the property of their > parents. We view them as human beings with certain rights. One of the > rights is a right to an education. > Gee, where is this "right to an education" defined? It didn't seem be to case when I was trying to get an education in the 1970s. (Of course, I was poverty class white -- and all good liberals know that such things don't exist.) > A child should not be punished because fate decreed that she be born > the daughter of an alcoholic, a criminal, an honest hard working person who > is having financial problems, a member of a discriminated minority, a retarded > person, or a middle-class business man who would rather spend his money on > improvements to his house or a new yacht than on his children's education. > You assume that only the government, in its beneficience, would educate a person coming from such a background. This is hardly the case. There have ALWAYS been organizations offering scholarships based on need -- but most of them wanted evidence of educational potential (hence the term, "scholarship"). This all changed in the 1970s, when for a while the only issue that mattered was race. > > Beyond this conception of children's basic right to an education, there are > "non-spurious" pragmatic concerns. A democracy depends on educated > citizens; our society requires that people have at least some ability to read > street signs and grocery prices, and to fill out tax forms and rent agreements. > A valid argument -- but since the government has largely failed, in fact, created a generation less educated, but with more years of schooling, than the previous generation, it is worth considering if there is a better way to educate the population adequately for the responsibilities of citizenship. > Admittedly, I can see why it might be convenient to have a large uneducated > class of people: this class would provide cheap unskilled labor, would > pay rent rather than owning property, and would be unlikely to vote, thus > allowing laws to continue to support the educated and exploitative elite. > ----- > Cathy Harris, UCSD cognitive science The current subsidies to state universities are a transfer of wealth from working class families to middle and upper class families. Yes, there are kids from working class backgrounds attending University of California, but the majority are from families that could afford to pay their own way. The practical requirements of making a living, and contributing to the financial obligations of the family make it quite difficult for working class and poverty class kids to attend college full-time. (And the University of California requires (or at least did when I was trying to get a degree) that you finish your last year full-time. Don't have rich parents to help you out -- get out of here!) Second, remember that the requirements of UC (and most other good schools) make it unlikely that kids from economically deprived back- grounds will be able to enter. Even if allowed in under special admission policies, many, if not most, are inadequately prepared for UC, and drop out within the first year. THEIR INADEQUATE PREPARATION IS PARTLY EARLIER EDUCATION, AND PARTLY THE CULTURAL DEPRIVATION OF GROWING UP POOR. The University of California (through taxes) sucked my parents dry of money to subsidize the education of people from middle-class and above families, so they were unable to provide any help to me. I don't care if the University of California exists next year or not. Clayton E. Cramer ("You are damn right I'm upset.")
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (08/01/86)
>Gee, where is this "right to an education" defined? It didn't seem be to >case when I was trying to get an education in the 1970s. (Of course, I >was poverty class white -- and all good liberals know that such things >don't exist.) Whites don't have it so easy despite all the propaganda against them. I've been discriminated against for being white for most of my life. I went to mostly black schools, in a poor urban area. I was often afraid for my life and several times beaten up by gangs of blacks (because I was white). I guess that was a big reason why I became interested in weight-lifting, martial arts, theory/history of war and such things. I quit grad school after the only advisor I could find refused to talk to me because I wasn't a "minority". When I told him I was a minority of one he laughed. Everything I achieved was achieved after hard work and against strong opposition. Really like a war almost. The current system promotes mediocrities because they happen to be minorities, and discriminates against talented individuals sometimes, merely because they are not officially ethnic minorities. As if Danish/German/ScotchIrish/Cherokee is some kind of majority. Anyway, things have gone too far. If you push someone into a corner don't be surprised if he fights back.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (08/02/86)
In article <963@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <2413@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >> Our society has a conception of children as more than the property of their >> parents. We view them as human beings with certain rights. One of the >> rights is a right to an education. Please note that this is MISATTRIBUTED. Someone else said all that, not me. Jeez.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/02/86)
In article <963@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > Gee, where is this "right to an education" defined? The right to an education is not clearly defined. Would you object if we surgically removed what little you have? :-) I think children ought to have the best opportunities they can for an education. Anything else is a foolish waste of potential resources for our society, as well as unjust (by my lights.) > It didn't seem be to > case when I was trying to get an education in the 1970s. (Of course, I > was poverty class white -- and all good liberals know that such things > don't exist.) Maybe your idea of a "good liberal" is an ignorant (or dead?) liberal. But liberals have been working for poverty-class whites too since long before you were born, and continue today (in Appalachia, for example.) > You assume that only the government, in its beneficience, would educate > a person coming from such a background. This is hardly the case. There > have ALWAYS been organizations offering scholarships based on need -- > but most of them wanted evidence of educational potential (hence the > term, "scholarship"). I saw those "scholarship" criteria: generally they included academic standards like who your parents worked for or what community you lived in. Educational potential is not well correllated by grades from schools or standardized tests. And the correllation is worse when language barriers, unequal funding, physical handicaps, and bad environments in the home or school are present. > A valid argument -- but since the government has largely failed, in > fact, created a generation less educated, but with more years of > schooling, than the previous generation, it is worth considering if > there is a better way to educate the population adequately for > the responsibilities of citizenship. While it's always worth considering other options, it's not appropriate to pin the blame on "government". First, because it is a vast number of separate bodies that manage American schooling, and second because demographic and sociological changes invalidate comparisons between generations. > The University of California (through taxes) sucked my parents dry of > money to subsidize the education of people from middle-class and above > families, so they were unable to provide any help to me. Oh? What fraction of your parent's total tax burden went to UC? > I don't care if the University of California exists next year or not. > > Clayton E. Cramer ("You are damn right I'm upset.") -- "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (08/04/86)
> Yes, there > are kids from working class backgrounds attending University of California, > but the majority are from families that could afford to pay their own > way. Not true. The majority of UC students receive financial aid. You do mean `lower economic class' when you say `working class', don't you? But note that most `middle class' ($15K-30K / year) people must work to maintain their current life style. So `working class' is not an entirely accurate term to describe to lower class. The `non-working class', ie that which does not work, composes of the welfare class and the richest. > > Second, remember that the requirements of UC (and most other good > schools) make it unlikely that kids from economically deprived back- > grounds will be able to enter. Even if allowed in under special > admission policies, many, if not most, are inadequately prepared for > UC, and drop out within the first year. THEIR INADEQUATE PREPARATION > IS PARTLY EARLIER EDUCATION, AND PARTLY THE CULTURAL DEPRIVATION OF > GROWING UP POOR. That means that one should try to remedy those problems. Politicians are reluctant to address those problems since the payoff will come about 12 years later, when a successor can claim credit for what the original politician did.
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (08/04/86)
> The current system promotes mediocrities because they happen > to be minorities, and discriminates against talented individuals > sometimes, merely because they are not officially ethnic minorities. > As if Danish/German/ScotchIrish/Cherokee is some kind of majority. ^^^^^^^^ You couldn't convince everyone that you were Native American? You'd be quite a valuable commodity when it comes to quota filling...
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (08/05/86)
> In article <963@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > The University of California (through taxes) sucked my parents dry of > > money to subsidize the education of people from middle-class and above > > families, so they were unable to provide any help to me. > > > > Clayton E. Cramer ("You are damn right I'm upset.") Your parents were poverty class? Then they couldn't have paid too much in tax. Remember that the middle class pays more than the poverty class and the upper class is *supposed* to pay more (ok, this argument about our screwed up tax system goes to net.taxes), so your parents' pennies were hardly subsidizing anyone.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/05/86)
[Long discussion of privatizing education deleted] > > > Clayton E. Cramer ("You are damn right I'm upset.") > > -- > > > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good > > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of > > rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays". > > -- > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > I also hold passionately to the belief that genocide is WRONG, and under no circumstances should it be ignored or tolerated. By Bertrand Russell's argument above, this means there is no rational conviction behind it. If you are quoting Bertrand Russell correctly, Mike, why does anyone view him as a great philospher. His statement sounds like the statement of a reactionary. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/07/86)
> > Yes, there > > are kids from working class backgrounds attending University of California, > > but the majority are from families that could afford to pay their own > > way. > > Not true. The majority of UC students receive financial aid. > You do mean `lower economic class' when you say `working class', don't you? > But note that most `middle class' ($15K-30K / year) people must work to > maintain their current life style. So `working class' is not an entirely > accurate term to describe to lower class. The `non-working class', ie > that which does not work, composes of the welfare class and the richest. > Hmmm. First you say, "The majority of UC students receive financial aid," as a way of suggesting that the students come from families that are struggling financially. Then you define 'middle class' as $15K-30K/year, which by California payscales is lower middle class, then you say that "'middle class' ... people must work to maintain their current life style," presumably to keep up the payments on the Winnebago. Those of us who grew up lower middle class find your definitions highly specious. Your definition of 'non-working class' is pretty questionable also. Welfare includes a lot of working poor, and there are very wealthy people who work -- and work hard. (Probably more than there are of the "idle rich".) Sounds like definitions designed to justify the status quo. > > Second, remember that the requirements of UC (and most other good > > schools) make it unlikely that kids from economically deprived back- > > grounds will be able to enter. Even if allowed in under special > > admission policies, many, if not most, are inadequately prepared for > > UC, and drop out within the first year. THEIR INADEQUATE PREPARATION > > IS PARTLY EARLIER EDUCATION, AND PARTLY THE CULTURAL DEPRIVATION OF > > GROWING UP POOR. > > That means that one should try to remedy those problems. Politicians are > reluctant to address those problems since the payoff will come about 12 > years later, when a successor can claim credit for what the original > politician did. Actually, politicians ignore people without political influence -- subsidies to the middle class and above are the reason that UC seems to get the first pick of the budget, and California State University system (which is much less elitist) gets the scraps. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/07/86)
> > In article <963@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > The University of California (through taxes) sucked my parents dry of > > > money to subsidize the education of people from middle-class and above > > > families, so they were unable to provide any help to me. > > > > > > Clayton E. Cramer ("You are damn right I'm upset.") > > Your parents were poverty class? Then they couldn't have paid too much in > tax. Remember that the middle class pays more than the poverty class and > the upper class is *supposed* to pay more (ok, this argument about our > screwed up tax system goes to net.taxes), so your parents' pennies were hardly > subsidizing anyone. Sales tax is highly regressive, and in California, its original justification was to fund public education. My parents worked, and paid income taxes to California, and to the Federal Government. I suggest you open ANY economics text, and you'll see that our tax system, in practice, is not all that progressive. (Nor should it be -- EVERYONE gets taxed too heavily.) Clayton E. Cramer
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (08/11/86)
> > > Yes, there > > >are kids from working class backgrounds attending University of California, ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ == everybody, according to you. See below > > > but the majority are from families that could afford to pay their own > > > way. > > > > Not true. The majority of UC students receive financial aid. > > You do mean `lower economic class' when you say `working class', don't you? > > But note that most `middle class' ($15K-30K / year) people must work to > > maintain their current life style. So `working class' is not an entirely > > accurate term to describe to lower class. The `non-working class', ie > > that which does not work, composes of the welfare class and the richest. > > > > Hmmm. First you say, "The majority of UC students receive financial aid," > as a way of suggesting that the students come from families that are > struggling financially. Then you define 'middle class' as $15K-30K/year, I didn't say `struggling financially', I said `receive financial aid'. This means that they would have trouble paying their own way through college. > which by California payscales is lower middle class, then you say that > "'middle class' ... people must work to maintain their current life > style," presumably to keep up the payments on the Winnebago. Those of ^^^^^^^^^ ??? Did you, as a `lower middle class' person, have a Winnebago? > us who grew up lower middle class find your definitions highly specious. > > Your definition of 'non-working class' is pretty questionable also. > Welfare includes a lot of working poor, and there are very wealthy > people who work -- and work hard. (Probably more than there are of > the "idle rich".) Ever know a person in the `middle class' who doesn't work (for more than a few months) without becoming `lower class' eventually? By `welfare class' I meant those whose main source of income is welfare payments The current welfare system is a disincentive to work for the poorest; their benefits are often cut by more than they would earn. I AM NOT AGAINST HELPING THE POOR, only I want to see the poor helped so that they are not dependent on government handouts. How about those who inherited their wealth? In any case, you just said that `working class' means just about everybody. > > Sounds like definitions designed to justify the status quo. > Did I say so? > > > Second, remember that the requirements of UC (and most other good > > > schools) make it unlikely that kids from economically deprived back- > > > grounds will be able to enter. Even if allowed in under special > > > admission policies, many, if not most, are inadequately prepared for > > > UC, and drop out within the first year. THEIR INADEQUATE PREPARATION > > > IS PARTLY EARLIER EDUCATION, AND PARTLY THE CULTURAL DEPRIVATION OF > > > GROWING UP POOR. > > > > That means that one should try to remedy those problems. Politicians are > > reluctant to address those problems since the payoff will come about 12 > > years later, when a successor can claim credit for what the original > > politician did. > > Actually, politicians ignore people without political influence -- > subsidies to the middle class and above are the reason that UC seems > to get the first pick of the budget, and California State University > system (which is much less elitist) gets the scraps. Naw, CSU gets lots of budget. The CCCs are the ones who get gypped for the reasons you just said. But the K-12 schools get shafted for the reasons that I said before.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/11/86)
In article <977@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good > > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of > > rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays". > > I also hold passionately to the belief that genocide is WRONG, and > under no circumstances should it be ignored or tolerated. By Bertrand > Russell's argument above, this means there is no rational conviction > behind it. Ah, Clayton. Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument. Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was a free-market phenominon. :-) -- A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/14/86)
> In article <977@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good > > > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of > > > rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays". > > > > I also hold passionately to the belief that genocide is WRONG, and > > under no circumstances should it be ignored or tolerated. By Bertrand > > Russell's argument above, this means there is no rational conviction > > behind it. > > Ah, Clayton. Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument. > Do you agree with Russell's above quoted statement asserting that opinions held "with passion are always those for which no good ground exists" or not? I pointed out that the statement is blatantly false, and that Russell's statement is reactionary to emotional positions. Now you claim it was a rhetorical argument. Which is it? > Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction > behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate > belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was > a free-market phenominon. :-) > I demand an immediate retraction of this libel. Show ONE SINGLE POSTING I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT. > A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth. > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh First you take a position. Then I point out it is untenable, and you try to claim you weren't serious in the first place. Clayton E. Cramer
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/18/86)
In article <1001@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no > > > > good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's > > > > lack of rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays". > > > > > > I also hold passionately to the belief that genocide is WRONG, and > > > under no circumstances should it be ignored or tolerated. By Bertrand > > > Russell's argument above, this means there is no rational conviction > > > behind it. > > > > Ah, Clayton. Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument. > > Do you agree with Russell's above quoted statement asserting that opinions > held "with passion are always those for which no good ground exists" or > not? I pointed out that the statement is blatantly false, and that Russell's > statement is reactionary to emotional positions. Now you claim it was > a rhetorical argument. Which is it? I don't think Russell's statement is false, except that I wouldn't have used the word "always". I consider it an extremely good indicator. That's why I used the term "rhetorical". Your notion of "pointed out... blatantly false" is a bit warped. All you did was attempt to provide a counter-example, which I disagreed with. Your usage of the word "reactionary" seems inappropriate: I think that the statement gives emotional positions the credit they are due: extremely little. > > Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction > > behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate > > belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was > > a free-market phenominon. :-) > > I demand an immediate retraction of this libel. Show ONE SINGLE POSTING > I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT > BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT. I can tell what basis you have for a lawsuit: nothing valid. This is another example of where an application of Russel's statement is correct. I view this as a mere strategem to make me accept your counter-example uncritically. > > A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth. > > > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > > First you take a position. Then I point out it is untenable, and you > try to claim you weren't serious in the first place. I leave it to you to figure out which sentences were facetious and which were serious, and where ambiguities lie. That should show you how little footing you have for a lawsuit. Twit. :-) [I will be away in Georgia for three weeks. Responses to my notes will expire here during that period: mail me copies if you want me to see them.] -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (08/19/86)
[stuff deleted] > > Ah, Clayton. Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument. > > [more stuff deleted] > > > Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction > > behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate > > belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was > > a free-market phenominon. :-) > > > > I demand an immediate retraction of this libel. Show ONE SINGLE POSTING > I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT > BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT. > > > Mike Huybensz > > Clayton E. Cramer Oh, pish and tosh. Clayton, you have NO grounds for libel whatsoever. How anyone could prove libel from a statement of the form "Judging from X, A might permit Y if Z were true" is just beyond me. Talk about over-reaction. And how can you ignore the smiley (which you even included in the quote)? -- -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,?}!ridge!valid!pete) (member of HASA)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/19/86)
> [stuff deleted] > > > Ah, Clayton. Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument. > > > > [more stuff deleted] > > > > > Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction > > > behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate > > > belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was > > > a free-market phenominon. :-) > > > > > > > I demand an immediate retraction of this libel. Show ONE SINGLE POSTING > > I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT > > BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT. > > > > > Mike Huybensz > > > > Clayton E. Cramer > > Oh, pish and tosh. Clayton, you have NO grounds for libel whatsoever. How > anyone could prove libel from a statement of the form "Judging from X, A > might permit Y if Z were true" is just beyond me. Talk about over-reaction. > And how can you ignore the smiley (which you even included in the quote)? > -- > -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,?}!ridge!valid!pete) (member of HASA) Over-reaction? I guess you don't consider genocide a serious matter. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/20/86)
> > > Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction > > > behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate > > > belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was > > > a free-market phenominon. :-) > > > > I demand an immediate retraction of this libel. Show ONE SINGLE POSTING > > I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT > > BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT. > > I can tell what basis you have for a lawsuit: nothing valid. This is > another example of where an application of Russel's statement is correct. > > I view this as a mere strategem to make me accept your counter-example > uncritically. > Wrong. I want to you stop telling lies and misrepresenting my position. You are a liar, and a thoroughly dishonest person. Clayton E. Cramer
takashi@rlgvax.UUCP (Takashi Iwasawa) (08/22/86)
In article <1001@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > In article <977@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good > > > > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of > > > > rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays". > > > > [some stuff of Clayton Cramer and Mike Huybensz deleted.] > [the following stuff is Clayton] > > Do you agree with Russell's above quoted statement asserting that opinions > held "with passion are always those for which no good ground exists" or > not? I pointed out that the statement is blatantly false, and that Russell's > statement is reactionary to emotional positions. Now you claim it was > a rhetorical argument. Which is it? > Please! Before we start arguing, let's be sure we understand what we are arguing about. Given an opinion held by person A, whether A has a rational (note, not "good") basis for the opinion, whether there is any rational support for the opinion, and whether the opinion is "true" in some sense, are three entirely distinct things. Let me illustrate with an example. I am walking down the corridor when I meet my friends John and Mary. I pull a gold twenty dollar piece from my pocket; John and Mary have never seen a gold coin, so they are naturally curious. I tell them, "I'm going to flip this coin; do you think it will fall heads or tails?" Mary immediately says, "It'll be heads!" and John says, "You are wrong! It will fall tails!" They both passionately defend their opinions. [ Note that at this point, neither Mary nor John have any rational basis for their opinions, even though one of them must be correct! ] While John and Mary are arguing, Bill comes down the corridor and hears the argument. Bill says, "I think the coin will fall heads." Mary immediately rushes over and kisses Bill. I ask, "Why do you say that, Bill?", and Bill replies, "I recognised that "magic" coin of yours; I know it's weighted so that it falls heads 90% of the time!". [ Note that there was a rational argument supporting Mary's opinion, even though Mary didn't know it. ] While Mary and John continue to argue, I go around the corner and flip the coin. When I come back, Mary asks, "What's your opinion?". I grin and answer, "I don't have an opinion, because I KNOW!" [ End of illustration. ] So how does this apply to the quote from Bertrand Russell? If the quote is correct, Bertrand Russell said: > > > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good > > > > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ > > > > rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays". ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ [ emphasis by me. ] Obviously Bertrand Russell is talking about whether the person holding the opinion has a rational basis for the opinion, not whether the opinion is "true", or whether there is any rational basis anywhere for the opinion. Since "opinion" by definition cannot be known to be "true" by direct observa- tion or strict rational proof (otherwise it's factual knowledge, not opinion), a person holding an opinion by rational conviction must be aware that there is some possibility, however small, that he is wrong (Bill knows there is a 10% chance that the coin will land tails). Hence I think Bertrand Russell is right. I think Clayton is misconstruing Bertrand Russell when he says: > .............Russell's above quoted statement asserting that opinions > held "with passion are always those for which no good ground exists" To my mind, Bertrand Russell is saying no such thing. PS: Shouldn't this all be in net.philosophy? Takashi Iwasawa