orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/18/85)
> >If you're against social programs on principle, fine. I'd suggest to > >you that most people in this country have benefited from them. If you > >doubt that, ask yourself what kind of shape your older relatives would > >be in without social security; what kind of education you would have had > >without federal aid to primary and secondary schools, as well as the > >federal loan, grant and work-study programs for colleges; what your health > >would be like without federal support for disease research and universal > >vaccination. For some reason, people think social programs are what > >the government gives *someone else*; what you get are *rights*. > > > >Mike Kelly > >/* ---------- */ > > Whether or not social security benefits some people or not is beside the > point. What you must consider is if we'd be better off if people pro- > vided for their old age themselves, through savings, counting on their > children or whatever. > > I went to private primary and secondary schools that received no federal > aid, but my parents still had to pay taxes to support public schools. > So, it's hard to see how my family has benefited from federal aid to > primary and secondary schools. > > I currently attend graduate school and receive no federal aid, yet I am > required to finance the education of others thru taxes. > > Michael Sykora We *all* benefit from a more highly educated citizenry. For one thing I think it is quite obvious that the ability to read and write is simply a prerequisite for modern life. People would be most unproductive at their jobs if they couldn't even read simple instructions. But more than that education raises the cultural level of the people. The ability to debate on this newsgroup implies at least the ability to read and write. But I find the discussions are greatly aided by knowledge of certain areas. While I may disagree with many of Danny McK's propositions on the wonders of the free market, at least I know that he knows what the phrase "free market" means in some sense. It is far more difficult to debate people who accept something without even knowing what it is they are accepting. In economic terms I mentioned this before but I will mention it again: according to the economist Dennison, major gains in productivity in this century are more highly correlated with improved education than with increased physical capital. This only makes sense: if you work *smarter* you can work better. Most of the advances in this century involve developments of technology- you cannot develop that technology with a group of illiterates. There is a nice aphorism which applies here: "Give a person a fish and you will keep them fed for a day, Teach a person how to fish and they will be fed for their life." The effectiveness of this principle was shown in the results of a multiyear panel study of participants in Head Start programs vs poor children who hadn't been in Head Start. The kids in Head Start programs grew up to have over twice the employment levels of those not in Head Start, they were several times more likely to go to college, they were much more likely to get professional jobs, they were several times *less* likely to have any criminal record. Was it worth the relatively small amount spent on Head Start programs to provide poor children opportunities to learn and grow they had never had before? I think there is no doubt about it. It costs $20,000 a year to keep criminals in prison. If Head Start keeps even a fraction of poor kids from going on to crime and prison it is worth every penny spent on it. I agree that there is a lot of waste in many social programs and that some should be eliminated. But, for the most part, I think that spending for education is an investment in our future. The study on Head Start demonstrates an enormously successful educational program which should be increased rather than cut. Unless you would rather pay money for more prisons twenty years from now! tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/20/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 8:21 am Apr 18, 1985 */ >In economic terms I mentioned this before but I will mention it again: >according to the economist Dennison, major gains in productivity >in this century are more highly correlated with improved education >than with increased physical capital. This only makes sense: if you >work *smarter* you can work better. Most of the advances in this century >involve developments of technology- you cannot develop that technology >with a group of illiterates. There is a nice aphorism which applies >here: >"Give a person a fish and you will keep them fed for a day, > Teach a person how to fish and they will be fed for their life." >The effectiveness of this principle was shown in the results of a multiyear >panel study of participants in Head Start programs vs poor children who >hadn't been in Head Start. The kids in Head Start programs grew up to >have over twice the employment levels of those not in Head Start, they >were several times more likely to go to college, they were much more likely >to get professional jobs, they were several times *less* likely to >have any criminal record. Was it worth the relatively small amount >spent on Head Start programs to provide poor children opportunities to >learn and grow they had never had before? I think there is no doubt >about it. It costs $20,000 a year to keep criminals in prison. If >Head Start keeps even a fraction of poor kids from going on to crime >and prison it is worth every penny spent on it. It is certainly true that education benefits us all. But what about the net benefits? Education isn't free. I'm afraid "there is no doubt about it" is not a convincing argument. How about some facts to back that up? As Sowell pointed out in his "Ethnic America," education was not the key to success for a great many immigrants who came here in the past two centuries. In fact, it was only after they had achieved a moderate level of success, that their children were able to obtain education at the college level. Furthermore, by interfering in the market for education, the government has created distortions. The result of these distortions is that it is now more difficult to succeed without "credentials." Michael Sykora
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/23/85)
> From Michael Sykora: > It is certainly true that education benefits us all. But what about the > net benefits? Education isn't free. I'm afraid "there is no doubt > about it" is not a convincing argument. How about some facts to back that > up? I am glad that you concede the economic benefits of improved education. Public Education was a "radical" idea when it was firmly supported and placed into law by our nation's Founders. However I do not think you realize the point of Dennison's study of the impact of improved education. The point was that investments in improved education provided more economic growth per dollar than investments in physical capital. Again, I would like to point out that this is a very commonsense proposition. One could invest enormous sums of money in the capital needed to make candles or one could develop the incandescent bulb and produce many times the light of ordinary candles for the small price of a mass produced light bulb. While Edison had his problems with schoolteachers I doubt even his inventive talents would have gotten very far without the ability to read and write. > > As Sowell pointed out in his "Ethnic America," education was not the key > to success for a great many immigrants who came here in the past two > centuries. In fact, it was only after they had achieved a moderate > level of success, that their children were able to obtain education > at the college level. > Since I haven't read this book I am not in a position to comment. However merely counting "education at the college level" would obviously exclude not only ethnic immigrants but the vast majority of Americans (including very many inventors like Edison and others) from being counted among the "educated". Would immigrants children have learned English or American culture as quickly as they did without their immersion into the diversity of students in public schools? I think that it is *extremely* doubtful. > Furthermore, by interfering in the market for education, the government > has created distortions. The result of these distortions is that it > is now more difficult to succeed without "credentials." Two points here: One, is that it is probably more fair to judge people on the basis of "credentials" which everybody has the opportunity to obtain than on the basis of credentials, such as college education, graduate professional degrees, and so forth which in the past were limited primarily to the wealthy. Two, is that the problem of credentials and success is due to corporations own hiring policies and the increasing centralization of the economy. Libertarian myths notwithstanding, the fact is that very few people in this country are independent entrepreneurs or even independent professionals today. The vast majority of Americans are either wage or salary employees for somebody else. If Libertarians wish to critique bureaucracy (which I believe is at the heart of many of their complaints) they will not find much solace in the modern corporate economy. With every merger and giant conglomerate swallowed whole by an even bigger gargantuan conglomerate the economy moves towards more centralization and bureacratization: independently of anything the government does. As impersonal corporate bureaucracy grows, so grows the use of credentials. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/25/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 2:50 pm Apr 23, 1985 */ >> It is certainly true that education benefits us all. But what about the >> net benefits? Education isn't free. I'm afraid "there is no doubt >> about it" is not a convincing argument. How about some facts to back that >> up? >However I do not think you realize the point of Dennison's study >of the impact of improved education. The point was that investments >in improved education provided more economic growth per dollar than >investments in physical capital. Again, I would like to point out >that this is a very commonsense proposition. One could invest enormous >sums of money in the capital needed to make candles or one could >develop the incandescent bulb and produce many times the light of >ordinary candles for the small price of a mass produced light bulb. >While Edison had his problems with schoolteachers I doubt even his >inventive talents would have gotten very far without the ability to read >and write. The "point" of Dennison's study!? I'm not familiar with the study, but I have a hard time imagining what sort of control group one might use for such an "experiment." How about some sort of cost/benefit analysis!? There are some fundamental differences between the education of human beings and the production of lighting equipment. First of all, what type of education are we talking about (and who decides this?) ? Furthermore, if you "invest" in people, you are taking a much bigger risk, because you don't know if you are going to get any return on your investment. > . . . Would immigrants children >have learned English or American culture as quickly as they did >without their immersion into the diversity of students in public schools? >I think that it is *extremely* doubtful. Judging from my own experience (my parents are immigrants) I can't say I find it doubtful. I have never attended a public school (except kindergarten). I attended parochial primary and secondary schools, and if I haven't learned enough about "English or American culture," I feel no worse off for it. On the contrary, in a nation of conformists like America (okay, probably all nations are nations of conformists -- perhaps America is relatively non-conformist, but I personally find it too conformist) perhaps less stress on American culture would be better. >> Furthermore, by interfering in the market for education, the government >> has created distortions. The result of these distortions is that it >> is now more difficult to succeed without "credentials." >Two points here: One, is that it is probably more fair to judge people >on the basis of "credentials" which everybody has the opportunity to >obtain than on the basis of credentials, such as college education, >graduate professional degrees, and so forth which in the past were limited >primarily to the wealthy. Huh? - I don't follow your argument. What about human capital? > . . . If Libertarians wish to critique >bureaucracy (which I believe is at the heart of many of their complaints) >they will not find much solace in the modern corporate economy. With Please don't tell me what is in my heart -- I'm trying to keep it a secret! >every merger and giant conglomerate swallowed whole by an even bigger >gargantuan conglomerate the economy moves towards more centralization and >bureacratization: independently of anything the government does. >As impersonal corporate bureaucracy grows, so grows the use of credentials. > tim sevener whuxl!orb >/* ---------- */ You are probably right that if the economy becomes more bureaucratized then credentials become more important, but this does not mean that gov't. interference in the education market does not add to the importance of credentials. Furthermore, it is not apparent that you have considered the possibility that gov't. policy has created an incentive toward bureaucratization. Michael Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/26/85)
> > >If you're against social programs on principle, fine. I'd suggest to > > >you that most people in this country have benefited from them. If you > > >doubt that, ask yourself what kind of shape your older relatives would > > >be in without social security; what kind of education you would have had > > >without federal aid to primary and secondary schools, as well as the > > >federal loan, grant and work-study programs for colleges; what your health > > >would be like without federal support for disease research and universal > > >vaccination. For some reason, people think social programs are what > > >the government gives *someone else*; what you get are *rights*. > > > > > >Mike Kelly > > >/* ---------- */ > > > > Whether or not social security benefits some people or not is beside the > > point. What you must consider is if we'd be better off if people pro- > > vided for their old age themselves, through savings, counting on their > > children or whatever. > > > > I went to private primary and secondary schools that received no federal > > aid, but my parents still had to pay taxes to support public schools. > > So, it's hard to see how my family has benefited from federal aid to > > primary and secondary schools. > > > > I currently attend graduate school and receive no federal aid, yet I am > > required to finance the education of others thru taxes. > > > > Michael Sykora > > We *all* benefit from a more highly educated citizenry. For one thing > I think it is quite obvious that the ability to read and write is > simply a prerequisite for modern life. People would be most unproductive > at their jobs if they couldn't even read simple instructions. But > more than that education raises the cultural level of the people. > The ability to debate on this newsgroup implies at least the ability to > read and write. But I find the discussions are greatly aided by > knowledge of certain areas. While I may disagree with many of Danny > McK's propositions on the wonders of the free market, at least I > know that he knows what the phrase "free market" means in some sense. > It is far more difficult to debate people who accept something without > even knowing what it is they are accepting. > In economic terms I mentioned this before but I will mention it again: > according to the economist Dennison, major gains in productivity > in this century are more highly correlated with improved education > than with increased physical capital. This only makes sense: if you > work *smarter* you can work better. Most of the advances in this century > involve developments of technology- you cannot develop that technology > with a group of illiterates. There is a nice aphorism which applies > here: > "Give a person a fish and you will keep them fed for a day, > Teach a person how to fish and they will be fed for their life." > > The effectiveness of this principle was shown in the results of a multiyear > panel study of participants in Head Start programs vs poor children who > hadn't been in Head Start. The kids in Head Start programs grew up to > have over twice the employment levels of those not in Head Start, they > were several times more likely to go to college, they were much more likely > to get professional jobs, they were several times *less* likely to > have any criminal record. Was it worth the relatively small amount > spent on Head Start programs to provide poor children opportunities to > learn and grow they had never had before? I think there is no doubt > about it. It costs $20,000 a year to keep criminals in prison. If > Head Start keeps even a fraction of poor kids from going on to crime > and prison it is worth every penny spent on it. > > I agree that there is a lot of waste in many social programs and that > some should be eliminated. But, for the most part, I think that > spending for education is an investment in our future. The study > on Head Start demonstrates an enormously successful educational program > which should be increased rather than cut. Unless you would rather pay > money for more prisons twenty years from now! > tim sevener whuxl!orb Your comments on education suggest that you support more education in a rather indiscriminate manner. As nice as it may be for people to get educations in dance, art, and English literature, not all education is of equal value to the economy. During the 1960s, a lot of people went off to school and studied psychology, art, English literature, and lot of other fields where there were far fewer jobs than graduates. The areas where demand was and is high, were largely ignored by young people going off to college. I was unable to complete a bachelor's degree due to financial problems. (And being the wrong race contributed to the financial problems --- but that's another story.) My parents, like a lot of other lower middle class people, ended up paying to send people from more financially secure families off to college at governmentally operated and subsidized institutions. They benefitted from all that education by getting pretty good jobs. I got a pretty good job because of my skills. Why should my parents have subsidized kids from wealthier families? If education is as important to our economy as you say, then this should result in well-educated people being well paid. In fact, people going into fields where there was demand, did get well-paying jobs. There is no reason those people couldn't repay student loans. If education is as useful as you suggest to our economy, then any rational lender would be willing to make student loans without the government guaranteeing those loans. In fact, many of the degrees received are of no value to our society. They may make the person more interesting to talk to at a party; they make the person more culturally varied; but they benefit that person, and he should pay for it. The idea that education makes people better citizens strikes me as both idealistic and false. I know very few well-educated people with an active interest in politics; I know lots of people like me who are college dropouts, or even less educated, who are very aware of what's going in around the world. Education should pay its own way by insisting that those who receive the direct benefit of an education should pay the costs. Only then will we know whether the education is worth it. If it isn't worth it, a student going off to study English literature won't be able to realistically plan on paying back his student loans. One last thing --- the overwhelming majority of college students in this country are middle-class or above, and that has far more to do with the cultural values held by poor people than lack of money.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/06/85)
>/* muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) / 8:01 pm May 4, 1985 */ articles... >Yes, education is a good thing. I don't know that it should be paid for by >goverment, but it does seem to me that if someone can't afford to have their >children educated, this is no reason to penalize those children. Also, it Penalize is an action verb, i.e., it implies the presence of a penalizer. Who is the penalizer here? >It seems to me that the concern should not be over how much is *spent* on >education, but how much is *wasted* because no one really seems to know Why? >(as has been mentioned here) proper handling of guns. >reasonable sex education. >some unbiased surveys of religious and political systems (I wish I >had learned a lot more about these things earlier) >some nutrition and health information >practical cooking What I don't want my children to learn these things? Michael Sykora
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (05/10/85)
In article <1340064@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>/* muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) / 8:01 pm May 4, 1985 */ >articles... >>Yes, education is a good thing. I don't know that it should be paid for by >>goverment, but it does seem to me that if someone can't afford to have their >>children educated, this is no reason to penalize those children. Also, it > >Penalize is an action verb, i.e., it implies the presence of a penalizer. >Who is the penalizer here? > You are correct. I meant to say that I do not think it is fair for people (children) to be unable to get an education because their parents are unable to pay for it. As far as *why* I think the concern should be for how much money is wasted, I suppose it is because I have been in many different schools, and I have seen that many of them lack proper textbooks, facilities, etc. Others have all they need, and more. I still feel that a lot of time, and therefore money, is wasted by teaching the same thing, over and over again. >>...<list of possible things to add to curriculum> > >What I don't want my children to learn these things? > > Michael Sykora I do not think that any of the things I listed should be *mandatory*, I think they should be *available*. They are, of course, available from outside sources, but as I feel that lots of time is wasted in school, it seems that it would be good to have other things available, for those who want them. I realize, as well, that it is unlikely that children will know enough to make a reasonable decision if given lots of elective classes to choose from, although it's possible that they might, but it would certainly be possible for parents to give them this information (which will, of course, influence their choices, as the parents will give information from their own POV, but...) Muffy
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/10/85)
>/* muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) / 8:20 pm May 9, 1985 */ >>>Yes, education is a good thing. I don't know that it should be paid for by >>>goverment, but it does seem to me that if someone can't afford to have their >>>children educated, this is no reason to penalize those children. Also, it >>Penalize is an action verb, i.e., it implies the presence of a penalizer. >>Who is the penalizer here? >You are correct. I meant to say that I do not think it is fair for people >(children) to be unable to get an education because their parents are unable >to pay for it. > . . . > Muffy What exactly do you mean by fair? Do you also think it is not fair for some children to be born less intelligent than others? Mike
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (05/13/85)
In article <1340073@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>You are correct. I meant to say that I do not think it is fair for people >>(children) to be unable to get an education because their parents are unable >>to pay for it. >> . . . >> Muffy > > >What exactly do you mean by fair? > >Do you also think it is not fair for some children to be born less intelligent >than others? > > Mike I mean as equal as possible for all concerned. By this definition, yes, it is fair for some children to be born less intelligent than others, since that is not something that is (at this point) controllable. Muffy
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/18/85)
>/* muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) / 1:05 am May 13, 1985 */ >I mean as equal as possible for all concerned. By this definition, yes, >it is fair for some children to be born less intelligent than others, >since that is not something that is (at this point) controllable. > > Muffy Controllable by who and how?