|
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni).
I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying.
Let me make this clear: I don't care about the individual who got C's in college and now cannot find a job. They're just a symptom of a larger problem, one that my earlier post I think alludes to.
I mean, performance in college does determine later success-- I think that is sorta intuitive. What I'm objecting to are the systemic pressures that force a C student to still go to college, or for people to somehow think college is a necessity. In a large way, the people who enroll at a university and still don't have their prospects for long-term success improved are not culpable in any real sense-- many of my co-classmates have no place here, but are here because getting a college degree is "What you do."
|
On April 19 2012 05:14 v3chr0 wrote:
This is a solution? You mess up, and someone else is responsible? LOL
JFC, what is happening to this Country and people having personal responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions... uhg.
You can't pay your student loans, you don't ACTUALLY have money? You claim bankrupt, this system already has safety nets.
All rhetoric, short on facts, and no pragmatism. JFC, indeed.
This should be a dry issue. It isn't a moral issue. The only question that matters is if forgiving student loans will help move our society to a better place.
And, no, you can't claim bankruptcy on student loans -- although even if we could, it would probably be disastrous in itself given today's economy. A whole lot of young people declaring bankruptcy -- how is that better, or more accepting of personal responsibility?
|
On April 19 2012 05:43 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni).
I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying. Let me make this clear: I don't care about the individual who got C's in college and now cannot find a job. They're just a symptom of a larger problem, one that my earlier post I think alludes to. I mean, performance in college does determine later success-- I think that is sorta intuitive. What I'm objecting to are the systemic pressures that force a C student to still go to college, or for people to somehow think college is a necessity. In a large way, the people who enroll at a university and still don't have their prospects for long-term success improved are not culpable in any real sense-- many of my co-classmates have no place here, but are here because getting a college degree is "What you do."
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything?
|
On April 19 2012 05:39 Hamdemon wrote:
I hate this personally. If you go to college you should know you're taking out loans and intend to pay them back. Taxpayers and/or banks are then taking a hit if you're planning on forgiving the loans. Just because people do stupid things like go to NYU for a sociology or women's studies degree then wonder why they can't pay back their $250k+ in student loans doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer. Be smart and pick a real major and ask if it's worth it to go to that private univeristy, go to community college 2 years, etc.
Hey, they could take the money from our grossly inflated defense budget and easily cover all these loans. No need to raise taxes or accrue more government debt. By the way that budget is looking to be around $1 trillion.
|
True but as a parent you can make up for that. You want the best for your child, you get an EXACT picture of what the child understands cause you can keep pushing until you find out. Having more of your attention directed at a single student (by a factor of 30 for many public schools) means you can teach exactly to their needs. Everybody who was educated at a public school know how much time you spend hearing about stuff you already know and how sometimes you just don't get something teachers can't spend more time on in respect for the others. Even if you teach 20% as effective as a professional you can still get the same results by simply putting everything into one student. Homeschooling just needs to be checked by exams once or twice a year, that's about it. If kids pass it they're fine, make them a little harder cause it's a privilege in comparison, specifics are not the subject though.
And on topic: Problem is not the loan system, it's the fact that you NEED those loans. I mean wtf, outside of the US universities are often completely free or at least far less expensive without lacking in the quality of education. German engineers are world class and people here don't pay for tuition at all in most states, how does any uni justify 10k in tuition fees per semester? I mean where the fuck is that money even going?
|
On April 19 2012 05:48 Timerly wrote:
True but as a parent you can make up for that. You want the best for your child, you get an EXACT picture of what the child understands cause you can keep pushing until you find out. Having more of your attention directed at a single student (by a factor of 30 for many public schools) means you can teach exactly to their needs. Everybody who was educated at a public school know how much time you spend hearing about stuff you already know and how sometimes you just don't get something teachers can't spend more time on in respect for the others. Even if you teach 20% as effective as a professional you can still get the same results by simply putting everything into one student. Homeschooling just needs to be checked by exams once or twice a year, that's about it. If kids pass it they're fine, make them a little harder cause it's a privilege in comparison, specifics are not the subject though.
And on topic: Problem is not the loan system, it's the fact that you NEED those loans. I mean wtf, outside of the US universities are often completely free or at least far less expensive without lacking in the quality of education. German engineers are world class and people here don't pay for tuition at all in most states, how does any uni justify 10k in tuition fees per semester? I mean where the fuck is that money even going?
Wanna know where the money is going? Open up your local newspaper. Mine says: "University commission (the people that approve university spending projects) just approved $26 million construction for new bolton dining hall (cause the old one, while functional, isn't NEW enough). They need it to attract more students.
|
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
Anyway, have you ever gone to college with other teachers (people pursuing degrees to teach)? You make it sound like they are infallible experts in every way. Have you ever even been to public school?
Oboy. Here's the simple way I'm going to address this: you can no doubt give me numerous examples of poor public school teachers and I'm sure there are numerous examples of poor parents, homeschooling their children. Focusing on the individual exceptions, as you do when you say that
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
I'd love to meet all your past teachers. They must have been world class.
Isn't an effective way of discussing whether or not homeschooling as a category is better than public schooling. I just want to clear that up right off.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
You say "the reason why homeschool is awful [is]... ...there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child..."
You don't see a problem with that?
Just because a parent can instruct their child on how to talk or walk doesn't mean the same pedagogy translates into situations in which the child needs to learn about basic plant biology.
In most situations, actually, I'd wager that any given teacher, who has been trained in different methods of education, can instruct a child better in an academic area than their own parent.
As somebody who's taken intensive courses on how to teach ESL students writing, I have to say that the lay population's ideas around how to teach others are grossly off-base. Even if the teacher is apathetic or awful in some other way, they at least have the training to be an effective teacher, whereas the parent does not.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
I took your quote a little out of context, however, I believe I stayed true to your argument, which is basically, 'even if the parent knew the subject matter, it doesn't mean they know how to teach "effectively."'
No, there's also a good chance they don't understand the subject material either. How many average parents could you honestly say can tell you whether a sentence was grammatically correct or not, and why?
Even in language arts, or in english, parents can tell a child if a sentence is right or wrong, and how to make a wrong sentence right, but cannot instruct on why the wrong sentence is wrong. I think you grossly overestimate the background of most of these people.
|
On April 19 2012 05:48 Timerly wrote:
True but as a parent you can make up for that. You want the best for your child, you get an EXACT picture of what the child understands cause you can keep pushing until you find out. Having more of your attention directed at a single student (by a factor of 30 for many public schools) means you can teach exactly to their needs. Everybody who was educated at a public school know how much time you spend hearing about stuff you already know and how sometimes you just don't get something teachers can't spend more time on in respect for the others. Even if you teach 20% as effective as a professional you can still get the same results by simply putting everything into one student. Homeschooling just needs to be checked by exams once or twice a year, that's about it. If kids pass it they're fine, make them a little harder cause it's a privilege in comparison, specifics are not the subject though.
And on topic: Problem is not the loan system, it's the fact that you NEED those loans. I mean wtf, outside of the US universities are often completely free or at least far less expensive without lacking in the quality of education. German engineers are world class and people here don't pay for tuition at all in most states, how does any uni justify 10k in tuition fees per semester? I mean where the fuck is that money even going?
This is the crux of the issue. This is why people suggesting we just suck it up and pay our loans need to take a look at the real issue of the ridiculous expense of going to college in the United States.
|
On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote:
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything?
I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however.
|
On April 19 2012 05:48 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:39 Hamdemon wrote:
I hate this personally. If you go to college you should know you're taking out loans and intend to pay them back. Taxpayers and/or banks are then taking a hit if you're planning on forgiving the loans. Just because people do stupid things like go to NYU for a sociology or women's studies degree then wonder why they can't pay back their $250k+ in student loans doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer. Be smart and pick a real major and ask if it's worth it to go to that private univeristy, go to community college 2 years, etc. Hey, they could take the money from our grossly inflated defense budget and easily cover all these loans. No need to raise taxes or accrue more government debt. By the way that budget is looking to be around $1 trillion.
or they could take the money from the grossly inflated defense budget and pay down U.S. debt, and let private individuals pay back their own private debts. too bad china isnt willing to give the US loan forgiveness on all the US loans.
|
On April 19 2012 04:49 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 04:31 mcc wrote:On April 19 2012 03:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 03:22 mcc wrote:On April 19 2012 02:59 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 02:48 mcc wrote:On April 19 2012 02:20 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 01:57 Talin wrote:On April 19 2012 01:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 00:13 Talin wrote:
[quote]
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours. Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering. That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve. Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label. You are quite right. My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue. On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually. Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids. There is also different models Montessori amongst others. I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case. I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts. Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare. It should not be regardless of those qualifications. Without them it would just be a bad idea. It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. And considering stories from people going on "exchange" programs to US high schools I am inclined to believe that some US schools may be so terrible. Aside from (to one degree or another) having to limit educational progress to the lowest common denominator I would find it hard to believe that any teacher even with a masters degree in both education and their specific subject would be able to answer on the spot all questions their students may have. I don't think even a college education would provide such capable and immaculately rounded teachers. Not even close. However, with 1 on 1 education the instructor can look up every question the student would ask (at least until they reach a level of knowledge light years beyond what they would a standards defined and guided education could provide). It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools. The problem is not actually looking for an answer, but knowing what to look for and understanding it to properly dumb the answer down to appropriate level. That is hard to do without having some level of knowledge already. As for basic schools and wasting time. For most children there is "age-appropriate" knowledge and thus the speeding up the process is not really possible/wanted. And for children that could go faster it would mean separating them from their peers and that is also not the greatest solution. So there is no problem with inefficiency as speeding things up is not really useful. For those kids that parents want to learn more, there is always enough time after school. Of course best possible solution would be public schools where kids would be n on 1 with a teacher (n very low). Some group homeschooling could partially simulate it, but not completely, see below. And after basic school, there should be separation between people based on skills as one speed is no longer viable. But at that point, where homeschooling would actually had biggest benefits, homeschooling is completely out of question unless the parent studied the same field. All those social experiences are extremely hard to replicate in ways you describe, not impossible, but very hard. The point is to make the child used to people of as many different backgrounds, characters,... as possible. Real public schools in cities do that rather well, but the activities you describe are more often than not rather selective. I met a lot more varied and interesting people homeschooling than I ever did in public school. I also got a lot more out of it academically than I did from public school. Although I'll agree that homeschooling can't work for everyone, I disagree with a lot of the generalizations you make. Also, mcc, heads up, you're at 2499 :D
It was worded very carefully to not make incorrect generalizations, that is why there are so many qualifiers  And there is nothing more to get academically from basic school. You should get from it basic knowledge, something that 95+% of population can get. There should be no "more" or "less". The more or less part comes from out of school/extracurricular activities. And you are correct I post too much. I will make the special post in the same way as special Daily 200 was done, so when I reach 10000 I will make special post for 2500
|
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni).
I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying.
This is in the same category as, "The ones without jobs are the ones who ended up with a useless liberal arts degree". It's complete BS with nothing backing it up (the second one has actually been proven to be false) and it's just thrown around by those that don't understand that life isn't actually fair to everyone.
|
On April 19 2012 05:14 v3chr0 wrote:
This is a solution? You mess up, and someone else is responsible? LOL
JFC, what is happening to this Country and people having personal responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions... uhg.
You can't pay your student loans, you don't ACTUALLY have money? You claim bankrupt, this system already has safety nets.
Did you read the article, how it is impossible to get rid of those loans by bankruptcy ?
|
On April 19 2012 05:55 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote:
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything? I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however.
how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt.
|
On April 19 2012 05:51 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:48 Timerly wrote:
True but as a parent you can make up for that. You want the best for your child, you get an EXACT picture of what the child understands cause you can keep pushing until you find out. Having more of your attention directed at a single student (by a factor of 30 for many public schools) means you can teach exactly to their needs. Everybody who was educated at a public school know how much time you spend hearing about stuff you already know and how sometimes you just don't get something teachers can't spend more time on in respect for the others. Even if you teach 20% as effective as a professional you can still get the same results by simply putting everything into one student. Homeschooling just needs to be checked by exams once or twice a year, that's about it. If kids pass it they're fine, make them a little harder cause it's a privilege in comparison, specifics are not the subject though.
And on topic: Problem is not the loan system, it's the fact that you NEED those loans. I mean wtf, outside of the US universities are often completely free or at least far less expensive without lacking in the quality of education. German engineers are world class and people here don't pay for tuition at all in most states, how does any uni justify 10k in tuition fees per semester? I mean where the fuck is that money even going? Wanna know where the money is going? Open up your local newspaper. Mine says: "University commission (the people that approve university spending projects) just approved $26 million construction for new bolton dining hall (cause the old one, while functional, isn't NEW enough). They need it to attract more students.
I see, a pretty vicious circle...spend more money to get more people to spend more money on you, pretty good business model for an education system lol.
When Germany temporarily (god that's a long story) introduced student loans (about 800$ per semester tops) for everybody they made sure by law that these monies can't be spent on construction etc. and only on anything directly student level of education related (additional tutoring hours, free counselling, more library books). Could be a start? The combination of a rather low cap and spending regulations worked rather well until the general consensus among the people was brought to the politicians' attention. Fairness in education above all else. I don't think there's any country that's quite there yet but I don't think we can afford to waste so much potential by not nurturing young minds unfortunate enough to be born into a poor family.
|
On April 19 2012 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:55 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote:
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything? I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however. how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt.
So many people like you in this thread just can't understand that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The punishments for defaulting on student loans are absolutely ridiculous and this is why people need help.
|
United States43483 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it.
Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
|
It seems like you missed my point in both parts.
On April 19 2012 05:18 TheAngryZergling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 04:31 mcc wrote:
The problem is not actually looking for an answer, but knowing what to look for and understanding it to properly dumb the answer down to appropriate level. That is hard to do without having some level of knowledge already.
I agree that relating information in a way that is digestible for the student is necessary, but its also secondary to the requirement of having that information in the first place. The incompleteness of knowledge even for highly educated teachers of a subject is the issue I described. If one lacks the ability to present information in an appropriate way for your audience, then no, they probably shouldn't teach.
My point was not only how to relate the information. That was actually less important. It was how to even understand the question and the answer properly you need some previous advanced knowledge of the subject. That it is not as easy as just looking the answer up. I picked "hard" sciences in my previous post not by accident.
On April 19 2012 05:18 TheAngryZergling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 04:31 mcc wrote:
As for basic schools and wasting time. For most children there is "age-appropriate" knowledge and thus the speeding up the process is not really possible/wanted. And for children that could go faster it would mean separating them from their peers and that is also not the greatest solution. Here we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not acknowledge age appropriate knowledge. I believe that there is cognitive and maturity appropriate knowledge. While I had a standard education, none of the dozens of people I know of who were homeschooled were ostracized in any way shape or form. There are a million reasons kids torment and isolate each other and being homeschooled doesn't really carry the sting that so many others can.
I used age as good enough approximation of maturity for most. But you are correct.
But I made no point about ostracization. That was not my point when I said separating them is not greatest solution. My point was that at that point in their lives the academic part of education is not really the most important part. That being with as many different peers as possible (in non-parent controlled environment) is important. I did not really deal with ostracization as that is pervasive in public schools anyway. Although it might be another plus, to actually experience some kind of ostracization/other pervasive negative social phenomena might be good for preparing the kid for adult non-sheltered life. Of course with reason, schools should reasonably combat all those things, but they will still happen as they happen after the child enters the "adult" world.
|
On April 19 2012 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:55 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote:
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything? I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however. how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt.
Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job.
|
On April 19 2012 05:53 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
Anyway, have you ever gone to college with other teachers (people pursuing degrees to teach)? You make it sound like they are infallible experts in every way. Have you ever even been to public school? Oboy. Here's the simple way I'm going to address this: you can no doubt give me numerous examples of poor public school teachers and I'm sure there are numerous examples of poor parents, homeschooling their children. Focusing on the individual exceptions, as you do when you say that Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
I'd love to meet all your past teachers. They must have been world class. Isn't an effective way of discussing whether or not homeschooling as a category is better than public schooling. I just want to clear that up right off. Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
You say "the reason why homeschool is awful [is]... ...there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child..."
You don't see a problem with that? Just because a parent can instruct their child on how to talk or walk doesn't mean the same pedagogy translates into situations in which the child needs to learn about basic plant biology. In most situations, actually, I'd wager that any given teacher, who has been trained in different methods of education, can instruct a child better in an academic area than their own parent.As somebody who's taken intensive courses on how to teach ESL students writing, I have to say that the lay population's ideas around how to teach others are grossly off-base. Even if the teacher is apathetic or awful in some other way, they at least have the training to be an effective teacher, whereas the parent does not. Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
I took your quote a little out of context, however, I believe I stayed true to your argument, which is basically, 'even if the parent knew the subject matter, it doesn't mean they know how to teach "effectively."' No, there's also a good chance they don't understand the subject material either. How many average parents could you honestly say can tell you whether a sentence was grammatically correct or not, and why? Even in language arts, or in english, parents can tell a child if a sentence is right or wrong, and how to make a wrong sentence right, but cannot instruct on why the wrong sentence is wrong. I think you grossly overestimate the background of most of these people.
As a professional educator, I'm just going to tell you that you are wrong (as long as we are ignoring outliers, which we should) and you don't really understand how homeschooling works.
Most people who homeschool their children are:
a) very smart (as smart as, or smarter than the average teacher) and more than capable of teaching K-12 subject matter
b) smart enough to know that they aren't smart enough to teach K-12 subject matter and so they seek outside help
In both cases, the majority belong to co-ops, groups, learning associations, etc. that have access to a wealth of resources and professionals to bridge the gap. Studies show that homeschoolers, on average, outperform their public school counterparts in just about every area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
