O'Reilly is changing my mind RE "free" college...

[resodko]

i was all stoked when i took a class in my education program named "teaching the exceptional student"

i thought we were gonna learn jedi mind techniques for working with high iq students :banana:


turned out to be a class for teaching developmentally delayed kids

 

[chrysostom]

i was all stoked when i took a class in my education program named "teaching the exceptional student"

i thought we were gonna learn jedi mind techniques for working with high iq students :banana:


turned out to be a class for teaching developmentally delayed kids

the barbarian has been permanently delayed

 

[resodko]

i taught math at rcsd's edison tech high school several years ago

when i was a kid, in the sixties and seventies, it was a flagship tech school for the area - kids from outside the rcsd district would compete to get into its programs and graduates were eagerly sought by local businesses

when i taught there in the late 2000's, it was just another failing urban school


still had some of the tech programs, but we couldn't convince many of the kids to apply for them, even with the almost certain guarantee of a job upon graduation


local manufacturing businesses had to run training programs of their own for new hires

 

[chrysostom]

i

local manufacturing businesses had to run training programs of their own for new hires

it is the best way

 

[kmoney]

The government is going to foot the bill for kids living in poverty one way or another. At home, on the street, in prison, or in school. But since so much of education is for the purpose of commercial exploitation, why can't businesses foot the bill for some of it? Why can't Apple make some specially designed pop gizmos to be given to poor kids who stayed in school and got good grades … as a reward? Why can't Nike design and give out some special shoes? So that when the other kids see this, they see a very real reward for real positive actions. Maybe staying in school would become a little more "hip" when kids see the immediate rewards of it. And their friends can see it, too.

We need to quit whining about money in this country. We have made everything about money, and our lives are going to crap because of it. It's not all about money. It's about raising kids out of the cycle of poverty and crime. And that's going to mean doing for them some of the same things we do for wealthy kids. And that will take not just money, but time and effort and the willingness on our part to do whatever is necessary.

You say we've made it all about money but then you want to incentivize education by giving them stuff? Doesn't that seem a little bit like continuing what you think the problem is?

For companies, I don't see giving students stuff for good grades to be very practical. Maybe more things along the lines of targeted scholarships or competitions with prizes. But giving a straight A student an ipod? :idunno: Probably not. Perhaps a program where you can get a rebate if you submit a good report card? :idunno:

For the government, since you compared it to parents giving money to children I figured you meant the gov't giving money to children too. Perhaps a middle ground would be to set up a fund for the kid for higher education costs. But not direct money.

 

[PureX]

You say we've made it all about money but then you want to incentivize education by giving them stuff? Doesn't that seem a little bit like continuing what you think the problem is?

No. They're kids. They need the stick AND the carrot. Right now poor kids aren't getting much of either. They grow up surrounded by hopelessness and neglect, so they become hopeless and neglectful of themselves, before they can even grow up. They need something to work for. Not promises 10 and 15 years into their future. But positive rewards that they can gain and show off, now.

For companies, I don't see giving students stuff for good grades to be very practical. Maybe more things along the lines of targeted scholarships or competitions with prizes.

The rich kids will win all of those, just as they do, now. Plus, we don't want to create any more of a "corporate sugar-daddy" mentality than we already have in this country. I'd say give companies tax incentives to create and donate these kinds of 'rewards' to schools that are populated by poorer kids. But leave the distribution methods to the teachers, and let the teachers define what's an acceptable object of reward.

But giving a straight A student an ipod? :idunno: Probably not. Perhaps a program where you can get a rebate if you submit a good report card?

We need to reward them with things THEY consider a reward. Not things WE consider a reward. And lots of parents would reward a good grade with an iPod or phone or whatever, and do so all the time, (those that can afford it).

For the government, since you compared it to parents giving money to children I figured you meant the gov't giving money to children too. Perhaps a middle ground would be to set up a fund for the kid for higher education costs. But not direct money.

Forget the money. If we want to put money in kid's pockets we should give them jobs they can do to earn it. I'm talking about giving them rewards that they can be proud of, show off, and that other kids can see and admire. So that staying in school and getting good grades makes them look and feel "cool".

 

[republicanchick]

y are there so many libs on this thread

and on this forum?

weird...



+++

 

[aikido7]

The discounting of a college education is rooted in the propensity today of Republicans and conservatives still reacting to the cultural upheavals in the
1960s. It is the college educated young people who first make their opinions known by demonstrating, cutting classes or occupying university buildings.

Every social movement throughout the world usually starts from college-age young people. Egypt, Iran, Iraq, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, etc.

 

[kmoney]

No. They're kids. They need the stick AND the carrot. Right now poor kids aren't getting much of either. They grow up surrounded by hopelessness and neglect, so they become hopeless and neglectful of themselves, before they can even grow up. They need something to work for. Not promises 10 and 15 years into their future. But positive rewards that they can gain and show off, now.

I'd just hope that the immediate rewards would lead to real, lasting interest in education and not something that fizzles out.

The rich kids will win all of those, just as they do, now.

Why can't lower income schools be targeted? Or lower income kids be targeted?

Plus, we don't want to create any more of a "corporate sugar-daddy" mentality than we already have in this country. I'd say give companies tax incentives to create and donate these kinds of 'rewards' to schools that are populated by poorer kids. But leave the distribution methods to the teachers, and let the teachers define what's an acceptable object of reward.

Why would having the schools be an intermediary prevent a corporate sugar-daddy mentality that you think would happen otherwise? I mean, I think if there'd be a program like that then working through the schools makes sense, but I'm not sure how that prevents a sugar daddy mentality because it's all still coming from the corporations.

We need to reward them with things THEY consider a reward. Not things WE consider a reward.

I didn't specify what the reward would be. I said a rebate, the rebate could be on whatever the kids want.

And lots of parents would reward a good grade with an iPod or phone or whatever, and do so all the time, (those that can afford it).

But do you think that's a large factor in rich kids doing well in school? Is there any way to gauge how many parents give incentives like this and how much influence it has on their performance? What you propose could still work, but if you are basing it on how well it works for rich families I'm not convinced that it's a big reason why children of wealthier families do better in school.

 

[PureX]

I'd just hope that the immediate rewards would lead to real, lasting interest in education and not something that fizzles out.

Well, right now all we do is blame their parents and forget them. And to listen to some of the Christians on TOL, we should be doing even less than that.

I was suggesting some possible methods of creating positive change.

First, lets make a good education available to them. Then let's incentivize them to take advantage of it. Then we could encourage employers to seek out disadvantaged kids who worked hard and stayed in school and get good grades, for employment. After all, they've shown themselves to be smart, tough, and motivated.

Why would having the schools be an intermediary prevent a corporate sugar-daddy mentality that you think would happen otherwise?

Because the kids would receive their rewards from the schools, not the corporations, and do so by achieving what their teachers set out for them to achieve.

I didn't specify what the reward would be. I said a rebate, the rebate could be on whatever the kids want.

"Rebates" are too abstract, and are too often just tricks to increase sales. No, I think we need to give them a real, objective reward. Also, the "rebate" could too easily end up in the parent's pockets, being used for the parent's desires. Keep in mind that poor parenting is part of this problem.

But do you think that's a large factor in rich kids doing well in school?

I think it's a significant factor for anyone doing well at anything, especially at things that take a long time and great persistence to achieve: receiving reward and encouragement along the way is important.

Is there any way to gauge how many parents give incentives like this and how much influence it has on their performance? What you propose could still work, but if you are basing it on how well it works for rich families I'm not convinced that it's a big reason why children of wealthier families do better in school.

Do we really need to study the idea that rewards help incentivize kid's (or anyone's) behavior?

I'm puzzled by why you're working so hard looking for a problem in this. Do you think it's wrong for parents or teachers to reward kids for their achievements? Do you think it's wrong to reward them with things they actually would want to have? Everyone is talking about education as the primary means of people being able to support themselves without resorting to criminal behavior, which essentially means trading education for a paycheck as adults. So why not make this idea concrete at an early age, before the hopelessness of poverty all around them, infects them? It's what many wealthier parents do to teach their kids that exact lesson.

 

[Sheila B]

Just change the culture. Instead of pushing kids to take out huge debt and grants straight out of high school, have businesses pay for students to learn a trade for exchange of a work contract. A local hospital could pay for a student to get a LPN license, if the student agrees to work at the hospital for X amount of years afterwards, for example. The young person learns a trade, works a few years and then they can save up money to pay cash for university or college. The price of college would go down then, if all students paid cash. There wouldn't be unpaid loans and more need for bigger grants driving up the price of college tuition.

Or another solution, colleges can adopt this program from Alice Lloyd College. Many students graduate from that college with no debt.

WorkProgram

Someone's God forbid the President doesn't do any research and try to actually pioneer a new solution, let's just fall back on the ages old flawed tax and spend method.

Great post! I have for years felt the over glorification of college degrees to be a BAD mistake. Most countries are made strong and built on the backs of the everyday landowner/farmer/small business owner, etc.

Industrialization has changed so much! But, going back to tradesmen and mentorships, apprentices, etc... excellent!! Businesses get lower cost labor, young/older folks can gain a new career without debt, a broader exchange of ideas in the market place.

 

[Sheila B]

Higher education is overrated.

So true!!!!

Many young folks today are living off their grants. Paying for apartments, food, cars etc, and sure they take classes, but how often do they quit and never use the "education" received?

Or continue on just to get more hand out money? Recently I went to nursing school, and there were 4 of us women there that had saved up tuition and paid out of our pockets and worked also!!

The entire rest of the large class had received money from elsewhere! I found that statistic mildly disturbing.

 

[Sheila B]

when implemented correctly
well when implemented correctly.
exceptionally well when they're implemented correctly.
well when properly implemented.

We know this because there are many other nations around the planet that have managed to implement these programs properly, and they have worked very well for them.

Small countries the size of our individual sates can do it.
The USA is a monster and centralized government is too big to handle. imho

And they would work very well for us, too, if only we could implement them properly.

 

[Sheila B]

still had some of the tech programs, but we couldn't convince many of the kids to apply for them, even with the almost certain guarantee of a job upon graduation

Why is this so?
People are not "hungry" enough?
TV has shown the lifestyles of the rich and famous and regular, daily work has taken a big hit in popularity?
The responsibility of the small business owner is not prized as much as it used to be?
Kids get so much so early and parents don't let them do without?

 

[PureX]

Why is this so?
People are not "hungry" enough?
TV has shown the lifestyles of the rich and famous and regular, daily work has taken a big hit in popularity?
The responsibility of the small business owner is not prized as much as it used to be?
Kids get so much so early and parents don't let them do without?

And they get it for nothing. It creates a disconnect between getting things and earning them.

 

[PureX]

Small countries the size of our individual sates can do it.
The USA is a monster and centralized government is too big to handle. imho

Top-down government has always been a problem, regardless of size. Our problem isn't the size, it's methodology. Top-down government creates dependency, and rewards the power-mongerers. Layers of oversight are good, they keep everyone honest. But layers of control is not good, as it invites abuse.

But ultimately, the only way to stop this top-down control and abuse is for the people to take responsibility for what government is doing, and correct it as needed. We have not been doing that, and out government has been usurped by a small very wealthy elite who seek to exploit us all for their own gain, and are succeeding in doing so.

All the more reason we need and educated and responsible populace. And not religious, corporate, or government dependents.

 

[PureX]

Well, I favor minarchism, which means a minimal fed that would only concern itself with national infrastructure, protecting borders and settling disputes between states... responsibilities like that. I'd like to see states have sovereignty over what goes on in their borders. If they can afford social programs, public education, war on drugs etc etc, then more power to them, they should certainly do it.

A large centralized bureaucracy that taxes everyone for programs they don't want to support and then dictates that each state must do what they want or can't do what it wants, is more or less fascism. All we do in this country is switch between two fascist regimes every 8 years, I'd like to find a way to escape that.

For the most part, we already have what you are suggesting. The reason the fed is so big is because our society has become incredibly inter-dependent, and so have the towns, cities, and states in which we live. The independence you imagine the states having does not exist. Everything we do effects everyone else, more and more and more each year.

So that the fed ends up being the arbiter for all those interactions: it must oversee commercial interactions (uniform codes and standards of commerce), it must oversee civil interactions (human and civil rights, etc.), it must oversee environmental impact (set standards and enforce protections), it must oversee effective information distribution (media and communications) and ensure uniform law enforcement standards. And it has to set and enforce educational standards.

Basically, the fed has by necessity become the entity charged with setting and maintaining cohesive standards, nationwide. Which is an essential task. The problem is that any entity given that much control responsibility will inevitably attract power-mongers who want to abuse it (of which there will always be a multitude). And we the people are the only ones overseeing them. And we wen't doing that properly, because we're too busy arguing amongst ourselves about our individual desires and resentments. Government 'by the people' only works when the people are informed, united, and responsible.

 

[resodko]

Why is this so?
People are not "hungry" enough?
TV has shown the lifestyles of the rich and famous and regular, daily work has taken a big hit in popularity?
The responsibility of the small business owner is not prized as much as it used to be?
Kids get so much so early and parents don't let them do without?

these kids were the urban poor

they all thought they were going to get rich quick with rap or sports

And they get it for nothing. It creates a disconnect between getting things and earning them.

yep

most of the students i taught came from homes dependent on welfare

Many young folks today are living off their grants.

i have too many higher degrees to qualify for grants

i do qualify for student loans! :banana:

Every social movement throughout the world usually starts from college-age young people.

that's because, generally, they are inexperienced idiots who think themselves brilliant

 

[Sheila B]

And they get it for nothing. It creates a disconnect between getting things and earning them.

Ah, truer words were never spoken!

When I read your words, it made me think of contraception... sex separated from responsibility. Good bye babies and good bye marriages til death us do part. Gov pls pay for me to raise my child cause who knows where the other parent has gone?

 

[Quincy]

Government 'by the people' only works when the people are informed, united, and responsible.

Right but we don't need to send people to Washington to get it done, that creates huge bureaucracies that gets bogged down in corruption and red tape. If we did all this on a local level, it would work better. The feds could still ensure civil rights and such are protected but we don't need agencies where someone is mandating what goes on in a region of the country they've probably never even visited.

Complexity is unnecessary.