Why isn't public education our #1 priority?

a well educated public is a difficult to dupe populace
the republican party as it is currently constructed needs highly suggestible morons to survive

>>37988307
Dumb people are easier to control. Next question

Seriously, America made its money off intelligent people.

India is actually fixing their education system. I know pajeets who graduated highschool and know up to PDE's already. They're not even cheating, they have good teachers because it's a good paying job there.

http://m.hindustantimes.com/education/mumbai-teachers-salaries-today-match-those-in-corporate-world/story-gl0hZfuJcuT5H5R3sz2I6J.html

My high school did not offer any calculus or programming classes.

>>37988307
There's something so naive yet astute about this question

>>37988307
You might as well ask why anyone ever does something wrong no? Why isn't world peace our #1 priority? Why don't we focus all our efforts on ending world hunger?
I'm not trying to disparage I do the same at times. Perhaps it's just observation and dissatisfaction, I saw a protest and was like just fucking talk to each other rather than hold up a sign like you think you're better than people. Fuck.

Just take a step back and ask yourself what would be the best action in this situation. It's weird. This is stuff you learn like day 3 of kindergarten but it feels like no one ever listens. Maybe I'm just focusing on the bad

>>37988307
because there is no monetary incentive
In fact there is more incentive to make them worse so the government pours more money in to it. So funnily enough you can get schools full of failing students and wealthy heads/runners

>>37988307
Because conservatives keep getting in charge through voter suppression, propaganda, and gerrymandering. And they have no interest in public education because it decreases income inequality, which they love. They prefer "private education" which they can make money off of and they aren't interested in increasing education quality in poor areas.

Also they aren't interested in science or rationality, which is why climate change deniers tend to be conservative.

They're not patriots and they don't care about the future

>>37988899
Source on conservative voter suppresion

>>37989015
Learn to google
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/republicans-and-voter-suppression.html

Lower voter turnout is correlated with disproportionately conservative results, so they enact voter ID laws, limit eligible voting days, limit hours, and all sorts of other nefarious activities which democrats as a whole do not engage in because they want high turnout

Because Boomers are selfish todlers that like to vote against tax revenue going towards anything that doesn't benefit them. Until they start thinning out, everyone else is fucked. There's just too many of them, and they use shitty tactics like scheduling counsel meetings during times that most Gen X and Millennials can't make, like 3:30 on a Tuesday.

>>37988713

It's a great question because in answering it you have to think about a lot of big questions and their real impacts, and honestly there's a lot of factors that go into it. Here would be my attempt at an answer;

Rich people can afford private schools and also pay the bulk of taxes for these things, despite having no desire to use them, and so they want out of the tax burden. They do have enough money to use PACs, campaign donations and other connections to get their will enforced on the population. So what they do is get in bed with a politician and have them defund the schools, make them shitty. The politicians/lobbyists then use this as evidence that public education is shit; rather than the reality that any schools will do poorly if you don't fund them properly; and push the idea of charter schools, which not only create profit streams for certain wealthy people but also reduce the tax burden on the rich.

However, what I find interesting is that this isn't the only way rich people could think about this. The fact is that rich people, more than anyone, have vested interests in keeping society stable and labor well cared for. Nobody stands more to gain from these things than the capitalist, whose existence is based on the security of rule of law and whose money allows them to profit off the genius of others by investing. Good education defends these things by giving everyone a real opportunity to advance, and in cultivating all the children of the next generation, we give ourselves the opportunity to have new inventions, and for our regular labor to get smarter and more productive, creating a broad, stable tax and consumer base. And when everyone's kept happy they're also kept productive and kept from trying to burn the status quo to the ground, which is good for the capitalist because the status quo is the one in which they're rich.

>>37988713
>>37989253

But given that the rich do have an interest in defending the common people at least a little, why is education still not our first priority, and in fact under attack by rich people? I think the short, scary answer is just that our ruling class of oligarchs is not that clever. Betsy Devos almost certainly wants to destroy public education purely because you can't teach the Bible as literal truth in a public school and that's what she wants to do. The Trumps and Kochs of the world want to destroy public education and Obamacare and other public services because they want to pay less taxes next year, despite not needing the money and despite the fact that they and their descendants would probably get exponentially more benefit out of having that money taken and then invested in infrastructure and education and healthcare, stuff that'll have lasting effects beyond next year and into the distant future of America. Even if it's not stuff they'll ever personally use, the mere presence of it for others will enrich and grow the health of the country in general, which they will obviously benefit from as citizens of it.

So really the answer is just that our country is run by the 1%, and the 1% has all the wrong priorities and a distorted, short-sighted worldview. They're running America over a cliff to put more zeroes in an overseas bank account. It's literally insane when you actually look at the macro picture, but everybody just sees their own little part.

Education is a meme. I've had top tier education my whole life but I still wanna die.

Why isn't public sex our #1 priority?

>>37988392
so does the democratic party.

they both want good little submissive worker bees who will parrot the party line, and work and get married and have kids and consume and pay taxes.

They just differ on the specifics of what party line they want parroted and the details of how the other stuff is to be done.

>>37989263

I agree, the state should be mandated to provide mr with a girlfriend

>>37989261
>It's literally insane when you actually look at the macro picture, but everybody just sees their own little part.
Excellent posts and description anon, I applaud you

It's truly absurd, really. This is all a result of the flawed and deeply rooted aspects of our psychology that we can just never shake off

These people literally care more about numbers in their bank account growing, which they will never ever possibly need, than they care about the lives of the common man.

This is no exaggeration - this is no overblown call to action playing on emotions - this literally just is the actual situation, and it's downright absurd. It's unacceptable, it's unconscionable, and it's something that honestly I don't know what the fuck to do about

I sit here and think about this all day, how horrible all of this is, and what the fuck can I do? I'm a small fish, I have nothing significant, just a decent job and enough to feed myself and secure an okay future. But these people have enough to secure the futures of millions of people, and they aren't interested in doing it

They don't realize the ultimate investment is in society itself, they are selfish and instead want to invest their money for personal enrichment instead of social enrichment

As absurd as this sounds - these people don't look up to Abraham Lincoln and Socrates. They don't - they look up to dictators and ruthless businessmen

This is something I don't quite know how to handle, and it's the thing that needs to be handled most right now

Fuck this all

>>37989485
>it's something that honestly I don't know what the fuck to do about
you inherently can't make people care more about large numbers of strangers than about themselves and people close to them. Any socioeconomic system that relies on altruism winning over greed is doomed to fail.

File: 1483495311076.png (288KB, 594x452px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 594x452px

>>37989533
Then we need to systematically remove the ability of individuals to exploit the poor. We need to find a way to enforce healthy workplace environments and UBI in a way that is economically incentivized

Globalization is the only answer, because otherwise there can always be third-world shitholes you can outsource to where they use slave labor and sweatshops.

You have to remove that lowest common denominator country which stoops to the level of exploiting its citizens from the equation, then this can start happening.

>>37989575
>we
speak for yourself. sheep with a number and no voice.

>>37989575
You can't do it. Because people fundamentally, inherently, innately don't care about someone they've never met in some faraway place, or what happens to him. If you put in lots of rules to try and stop this, they'll be worked around.

There's a lot of countries with very strong labor laws with lots of rules intended to protect workers from exploitation. What happens? Businesses either don't hire (and invest in automation instead), or they hire informal under-the-table workers (resulting in the worker having no protection at all), or otherwise work around the rules. (example: France has a lot of labor laws that apply to companies with 50 or more employees. Many firms deliberately stop expanding after hiring their 49th.) A one-world government won't save you, any more than it saves US states from competing against each other, despite their being members of a common federal structure.

Trying to prevent people from exploiting each other economically is fighting against fundamental human nature. You're doomed to lose. The answer to your problem is to give up and accept this fact.

>>37989675
not that guy nut better.
thats right. i see it in myself. embracing this fact is a step forward.
[ideas forming in brain]

>>37989575
There are a lot more child soldiers, sweatshop workers, and slaves then there are people living the cushy Western life you live. Unless you want live like Nig-click-nog in the CAR, Muhammed al-Bomber in Afghanistan, or Pajeet's bumpkin cousin who has only dreamed of the luxury of a designated shitting street, globalization is a bad move.

>>37989795
everyone got what he deserves.

>>37989158
>enact voter ID laws, limit eligible voting days, limit hours
So like every other country?

>>37989795
globalization is what allowed you your cushy luxuries. You think you could afford your PC without sweatshops?

>>37990020
Computers aren't made by hand by uneducated sweatshop workers, they're literally made by machines with very few people doing anything, and if hypothetically you were right, making them get paid minimum wage wouldn't necessitate any significant increase in price

You're a retard

File: education spending.png (39KB, 597x498px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 597x498px

>>37988307
How do you make it more of a priority.
Look at how much spending has been increased but test scores are the same, people aren't any more intelligent

>>37988899
see
>>37990086
How do you refute this increase in spending not doing anything for test scores

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-sJp1FfG7Q


adsfasdkgdskkjdgaskjgdkjgdasgas

>>37989575
Rebellion only happens from the top.

>>37990086
>>37990097
Correlation does not imply causation

There can be a million reasons spending increased

What needs to be compared is not spending but instead teacher to pupil ratios, testing methods, and deviations in funding between schools

For instance if spending increases were given to already succeeding schools, the resultant increases in results may not be significant. But if they were given to underperforming schools, the resultant increases in results may be significant. And guess what - that is how funding is managed

It's more complicated than "money isn't correlating with results"

File: 1471071482821.jpg (40KB, 342x298px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 342x298px

>>37990049
>Computers aren't made by hand by uneducated sweatshop workers
>You're a retard

How can someone be so stupid yet confident

If automation was advanced enough to make PCs your fast food joints would all be automated and sweatshops would cease to exist

Thank you for invalidating anything you previously or will say

>>37989485
Tl;dr rambling and wanting to bump thread.

I'm not economically or politically educated. I feel like I have to find where I stand more philosophically and even if I want to try at this before I move on to those. I also find them boring. However I do find it strange how one person can have such an impact. There was some comedian who talked about how he could buy a ton of cars with his money or feed 40 families. Haven't read any Singer yet though. I feel like I won't be confident in any decisions until I'm 50.
I guess we do vote where money should go though with government though, it's not a free for all exactly. Then there's the issue of when is it enough? Gave half your money to world hunger? Cool. Now we have world peace and mostly cured cancer, but there are still a few with cancer so give all your money to them.

Well let's define a goal and think of actions. You want to help people but you only have so much money. Inspire others? Friends? But just giving food to the poor won't help. Look at Africa. They just multiply and have the same problems. Can you help people? They have to want to help themselves, we can't carry everyone forever. Sink or swim no? What's the alternative? It's like a neet wanting to live at home forever. As much as it would pain the parent, they have to go. It's not necessarily to spite the kid, that's just how the world is. If a farmer doesn't sow he doesn't reap, and he starves. A morality born from nature and time pushing us toward the grave?
Even if you get a bunch of people to donate, you haven't changed the majority of people, and that's just human nature.
As that one anon said though, to just accept it. I don't agree. Surely there is a difference between how we act and those in less developed places. We are human but we can educate ourselves no? Tied back into the op I guess.

File: education spending 2.jpg (114KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 500x373px

>>37990167
There may very well be a "million reasons spending increased", but it didn't result in an increase in test scores
You're shifting metrics because spending increased and it didn't measurably increase the effectiveness of education.
If teacher to pupil to teacher ratios changed and test scores stayed flat you would switch metrics again because you can't admit that the data proves you are wrong.
Testing methods stayed the same during that time, actually scratch that, there was more of an importance put on test prep over the past 20 years so if anything test scores should be higher. But they're not higher, they are flat.
Accept the data and accept you're wrong

Spending more money on education doesn't raise the results, the major difference is the education of teachers and the huge gender disparity among them. Female teachers are generally less effective and less educated than their male counterparts.

The Education system has also become bloated with too many meme subjects, subjects like art, music and drama are among the most expensive yet they bring nothing to a persons education. If a person wants to learn such subjects do it on your own time and not with tax payers money.

The most important subject for students is language (reading and writing), basic math is good enough for most people, students seen as gifted in mathematics should be put in to advanced programs not accessible for everyone, trying to teach a bunch kids that don't like or aren't good at maths advanced math is a waste of time.

Both English and maths should be combined with the programs on the PC so students learn how to use basic shit like word and excel. You guys will get mad at me for saying it but the single most important subject is English/your native language. If you can't read you're a lost cause in our modern world.

A whole lot of the extra money spent on education went to fat pensions for union teachers, in exchange for being good Democratic Party foot-soldiers.

in other words it was completely squandered and the rest of us got left with the bill. Privatize education. All of it.

>>37990282
>Female teachers are generally less effective and less educated than their male counterparts.
If anything I would actually say that the problem is that the opening of other fields to women entering the work place, both business and the law means that talented and intelligent women aren't becoming teachers.
Before there was more equality, the thing women could strive to be would be teachers, as there wasn't many doors open to them, and teaching as one of the best
Since women have more options less are going to teachers

>>37988307
Because staying in power is #1 priority for any body in power.

>>37990282
Have you read freakonomics? If I recall correctly female teachers were very qualified, then when the 70s came around they pursued other careers, and less qualified men took their place resulting in a poorer education system.

I can see why one would want to defund art but at what point is it less education and more just making one ready for the workforce? If there are no art programs I see people being a lot more dismissive of it in general, rather than giving it the appreciation it deserves. For example, what would people think of the canon literature if schools stopped makkng people read Shakespeare?

>>37990341
Women became teachers at the same time other professions were becoming open to them. Before the first world war teaching was strictly a male profession. More women are joining other professions because of quotas put on businesses.

why the fuck should i care about other people's education

>>37990086
>>37990167
on top of what this anon said, it's easy to imagine there test scores don't change because the tests get harder as average skill increases.

>>37990405
>Hiring was handled by the local school board, who were mainly interested in the efficient use of limited taxes and favored young single women from local taxpaying families. This started to change with the introduction of two-year normal schools starting in 1823. Normal schools increasingly provided career paths for unmarried middle class women.
you're just lying

>>37990415
Would you rather live in a place populated by idiots or one that isn't?

>>37991120
Not them but I think it varies on the situation. If you're say, a snake oil salesman, having gullible idiots is ideal. If you were looking for people that might be beneficial to work with, then looking for smart people is preferable. Do you want to be better than the people around you or do you want them to be just as competent, if not beyond that? If it's not the situation, then it is preference.

>>37989261
Interesting but is there any way to verify these claims? It's like when r9k says some like this is a redpill thing but I can't see any justification other than it seems okay. Also don't you think it's a little boogeyman-y? Any way just making convo

File: 1494542811607.png (10KB, 209x241px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 209x241px

>>37988307
International oligarchs haven't found a way to turn school into a private company. The supplies are so it'll be soon before schools are even more assed.

>>37991375
>implying there aren't private schools
you livin on a rock, mate?

>>37991599
I live in Venice so my entire city is build on bricks and stones on islands.

>>37991670
>I live in Venice
fuck off Chad this post is not spam

>>37991120
Depends. Do I get 10% more money if I live in a place full of idiots?

The purpose of public education, as with any other government program that is apparently in place to benefit the population, is to increase taxation.

>The government increases taxation to implement X program.
>It works great for a while. Government programs are great!
>The government then proceeds to self sabotage it, gradually provides shittier quality.
>"The problem is funding, we need more money!" Taxes are raised again.
>Rinse and repeat.

Public education is just one of the oldest scams in the politician's book. Its purpose was never to educate.

The govenrment has absolutely no incentive to provide anything of quality. It just does it to have an excuse to make the forceful taking of other people's money legitimate.

>>37993013
Except educated people means more tax income

>>37993013
Could you not say the exact same thing about private? The goal was never to benefit the population, but to make a buck

>>37993042
Educated as in what? Reading, basic geography and simple arithmetics? Because that's pretty much all people takes from public education nowadays, and to achieve this you don't need to have mandatory schooling until 16-18 years. A twelve year old is often as qualified than the average joe a few years after graduating, with the advantage of his mind not having been dulled by all those innecessary years or repetitive and unproductive "learning".

One of the real main goals of public and mandatory education is to keep the young out of the job market for the most time possible. Mandatory schooling, and the raising of its age for graduation was strongly supported by unions in the past, since restricting the young from entering the workforce gave them more leverage to demand higher wages.

>>37993239
The thing with private is that parents have actually a choice, so they have a say on the quality of the education their kids receive and can withdraw their economic support by not getting their kids in and therefore not paying tuition. In public schooling you are just assigned one and shove it if you don't like it, "tuition" is mandatory whether you use it or not, as it is paid in taxes, so public schooling has no incentive to improve itself because there's no way they are going to have their funding cut. In fact, the more they fuck up the more funding they tend to get.

Ideally schooling shouldn't be mandatory. People who don't want to study and will drop out anyways will just waste their time and bother others who actually do want to learn, lowering everyone towards the lowest common denominator. Mandatory schooling sows the seeds of a totalitarian society.

>>37993042
Former gender studies students 100k in debt and working at Starbucks are increasing tax revenue how exactly?

>>37993382
Just give the money straight to the parents and allow them the choice to spend it on whatever school they like. This will incentivise the school to hire good teachers and help students so they get more students and a better reputation. The problem with this though is that as soon as the school gets a top reputation they could price out publicly funded students for private ones

>>37991120
Stupid people will always exist anon. Everyone and their grandma has a intersectional feminism degree now

>>37993042
Dumbfuck sheep that parrots the mass media detected

>>37988307
Communist infiltrators and female puppets have irreparably destroyed it.

>>37988763
>I saw a protest and was like just fucking talk to each other rather than hold up a sign like you think you're better than people. Fuck.
Fuck off and go talk to the protesters next time you fucking idiot.

>being a democrat
>thinking "public education" isn't just brainwashing

wew lad.