why do we spend so much money on education, and have so little results

[Bern80]

Your article has been substantially dismissed and your opinion is as well as far as I am concerned, bvbm.




Enjoy your 41 cent letters while you can.

wow, you're kinda like Larkinn accept for the ability to coherently comment on anything.

You have many posts with your whitty little zings. But you have yet to refute any actual points (common for you in the history of the board) and yet to make any actual points of your own (also common for you).

 

[Psychoblues]

I asked for specific problems and I got a lot of shit from jerks just as jerky as you.

wow, you're kinda like Larkinn accept for the ability to coherently comment on anything.

You have many posts with your whitty little zings. But you have yet to refute any actual points (common for you in the history of the board) and yet to make any actual points of your own (also common for you).

I will not diminish your reputation as you attempt on my own but I will call you on the crap you espouse as truth.

 

[Bern80]

I asked for specific problems and I got a lot of shit from jerks just as jerky as you.




I will not diminish your reputation as you attempt on my own but I will call you on the crap you espouse as truth.

If you can back it up in writing that it is 'crap', fine, but you never do. You basically just say it's crap 'cause Psycho says so' with no evidence to back it up. When you get to lazy you pull your 'it's shit' or 'it's not worthy of response' B.S.

 

[Bern80]

The goal of education is to acquire sufficient knowledge and develop intellect suitable to a purposeful life. In this, much of what passes for education today is a waste of time, albeit that now a college education (which is little more than a high school refresher course) has come to be the ticket to middle-class society. Beyond that, what good is the pursuit of useless studies and advanced academic degrees that only certify learning beyond one’s capacity to think? It seems a tiresome venture with but little prospect for any substantial reward; and yet one sees such masters of arcane knowledge (myself included), who are no good for anything but a pretentious display of pedantry. I am reminded of a noted ichthyologist who prided himself with knowing the Latin names for the entire class Osteichthyes, and whose students joked that the professor was so full of fish that every time he learned of a newly-discovered species another previously learned would pop out his backside in an expression of unpardonable French! One cannot help but think that more useful things might well be learned outside the halls of academe at the local tavern.

Probably the single most important class that should be taught in high school and college is some form of financial literacy. I think majors such as econ. and management are useful because they have so many real life applications. The problem that I see is that school simply doesn't equip people with the knowledge to prepare people to make real life decisions, mainly financial ones.

 

[Bern80]

Thank you for your insightful reply.

The goal of education is to acquire sufficient knowledge and develop intellect suitable to a purposeful life. To seek knowledge for its own sake is, at best, an idle pursuit, and to cram one’s mind full of useless information is to be worse than a blockhead. In this, the importance of education depends on what value one places on knowledge. Knowledge to fit purpose is certainly of value, for to be without it is to live in a world without light; but by the same token, to pursue useless knowledge is worse than worthless, it is a waste of precious time. See Herbert Spencer, "What Knowledge is of Most Worth," Westminster Review (July 1859). Good schools are scarce, and useful knowledge invaluable. Individually, we are as much as we know; and as a nation, our democracy is dependent on an enlightened citizenry, which justifies placing a premium on education. What form that education takes - what curriculum our schools provide - is a matter, if not all important, at least essential to everyone.

The end of your post is the definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results). We do the same thing by constantly throwing money at education thinking somehow more money equals brighter students. There is no correlation between the two that I have ever seen.

The problem, as you alluded to is that schools are teaching little that is actually useful. Perhaps if we taught and learned more about money, more people would see the farce that is being laid upon us everytime our education system asks for more of it.

 

[Bern80]

Well, if they can teach anything useful about money, other than lessons learned in the “school of hard knocks,” there might be fewer bankrupts.

There are all kinds of things that they could teach about money. What's one of the first things people do after college? Generally they have to find a job and a place to live. Yet college teaches nothing about how to buy a house or whether renting is better than buying given one's financial situation. Would we be haveing the situation now where if people understood the very basic idea that if you have an adjustable rate mortgage and rates are low, the only direction your monthly mortgage payment is going to go is up?

 

[Shogun]

im telling ya.. pay the kids. acclimate them into our society of earning a living through work and effort. Skip teacher salaries and tech budget for a year and pay the kids.

 

[Bern80]

Can anyone teach you how to be wise? I think not; and much less when it comes to money. Indeed, when Countrywide Home Loans (the largest mortgage lender in America) goes bankrupt, it will be for all the bad loans it made.

Are they 'bad loans' simply because people weren't 'wise'? Understanding an ARM isn't about wisdom. Most money matters aren't. It's a lot of math sometimes, some common sense and basic understanding of things like interest. My grandpa told my dad who told me some good financial words to live by

"People who understand interest, earn it, people who don't, pay it."

 

[Bern80]

im telling ya.. pay the kids. acclimate them into our society of earning a living through work and effort. Skip teacher salaries and tech budget for a year and pay the kids.

I'd be a little worried about that depending on what age you started. It would teach them some things on a certain level I suppose, but I think some formal financial education would need to accompany it. I honestly believe many, many of the U.S. problems would go away if people understood money.

 

[Shogun]

I'd be a little worried about that depending on what age you started. It would teach them some things on a certain level I suppose, but I think some formal financial education would need to accompany it. I honestly believe many, many of the U.S. problems would go away if people understood money.

Ok, lemme run my idea by you and you critique it:



High School
Kids get up to 75% of minimum wage for an "A" grade point average with fractional payoffs for lesser grades. Each semester the kids get HALF of their earned money in cash while the other HALF goes into a savings account. The kid will get this other half upon graduation, hopefully, used for college or home ownership. Kids that do not graduate forfeit this money and it gets recycled back into the system. Each semester consists of 5 months of work and will count as 800 payable hours (40*4*5) and is malleable according to ATTENDANCE RECORD (unexcused absence = 8 hours less/semester).


Hypothetical cost/student
I'll use figures from my area ($6.50/hr min. wage)
A= (75% of min. wage) $4.88
B= (50% of min. wage) $3.25
C= (25% of min. wage) $1.63
D= no payout
F= No payout

Total Semester payout by GPA per student
A GPA/semester = 4.88 * 800 = 3904.00 (full) 1952.00 (half)
B GPA/semester = 3.25 * 800 = 2600.00 (full) 1300.00 (half)
C GPA/semester = 1.63 * 800 = 1304.00 (full) 652.00 (half)
Half gets paid out and half goes to college savings account.



My hypothesis is that basic education is no longer seen as a suitable steeping stone for success and the requirement of higher educations helps create apathy towards an education system that doesn't seem to produce relevant results on it's own. We live in a different society than we did 50 years ago where a basic education was a significant stepping stone to the American dream. Now, our population has grown to the point where the dangled carrot of basic public education is no longer leading the donkey forward. we need to change the carrot to reflect our American work ethic of working hard (personal effort) for rewards (paycheck). I think that the above will not only entice kids with the liquid medium of our culture (money) but will also instill an understanding that it takes work to be rewarded and such will be effected according to personal effort and attendance. Not only that, but kids will get to see the reward of savings upon graduation. Not to mention that half of their entire payoff is worth making the effort to graduate. This model uses positive reinforcement to mold behaviour which is, outside of random positive reinforcement (think slot machines) the best method of behaviour modification.

The obvious bump in this road would be cost. I would suggest that funding for this program would come from the reduction of two other areas of cost: Technology funding and Teacher salaries. Also, I would allow donated funds from local private companies to facilitate cost. How much PR would this kind of program be worth to Johnson&Johnson or whatever the local businesses are?

Regarding Tech funding, it's clear that the nature of tech will ALWAYS be in a state that requires the constant upgrading of hardware. We don't use old Apple II's despite the cost of their original investment. My old HS bought a CPU lab that was laughably outdated 5 years after purchase. I suggest that cutting the cost of tech would take the responsibility out of public education and place it into the hands of the kids who can buy their OWN laptops with their new source of income. Hell, this could be another layer of motivation.

Regarding teacher salaries, I do respect that teaching provides a stable source of income for a lot of Americans and I respect the lifestyle. I have a lot of friends in the education field. However, education paid from the public coffers should not result in overpaid educators. We all want more money. However, public servants cannot expect prolific salaries any more than cops can. I never understood how teachers qualify for larger salaries just for getting an MA while they teach the same material to the same demographic of HS kids. Besides, the KIDS would be more motivated to learn regardless of the input of a teacher who no longer has to find a way to motivate kids but, rather, acts as a tour guide for learning.

Actual percentages and variables can be changed by the school boards to reflect budget concerns over payout.


Like I said.. chew it up and spit it out and give me some objective criticism on why this might or might not work.

thanks.

 

[Bern80]

Interesting. I guess I see a couple of negative by-products. First that cheating I think would get worse. I would be interested in what the psychological change would be long term. Would we really be helping them understand money and make good financial decisions? Or would we be breeding a bunch of greed machines? My gut tells me the latter.

You'd also have a hard sell with cutting teachers salaries. Even I think perhaps they should get a little more.

You're theory is a real sink or swim approach. Given that tech is now the burden of the student (or parents if they arent makeing the grade). Perhaps the best bet is to become less dependent on it, computers specifically. There shouldn't be much beyond basic word processing that a kid needs.

 

[Shogun]

Interesting. I guess I see a couple of negative by-products. First that cheating I think would get worse. I would be interested in what the psychological change would be long term. Would we really be helping them understand money and make good financial decisions? Or would we be breeding a bunch of greed machines? My gut tells me the latter.

You'd also have a hard sell with cutting teachers salaries. Even I think perhaps they should get a little more.

You're theory is a real sink or swim approach. Given that tech is now the burden of the student (or parents if they arent makeing the grade). Perhaps the best bet is to become less dependent on it, computers specifically. There shouldn't be much beyond basic word processing that a kid needs.

Interesting... let me see if i can address a few of these. thanks for giving me some critical thoughts, dude.

1. I'm curious how you think cheating would get worse. Teachers would still have to act as educational guides and filter out cheating as they do now. Isnt there websites that allow teachers to vet for plegarism and such? Please expand on this one.

2. I would say that it's precisely a psychological change regarding working for compensation that is necessary in order to better gel into our work force that plays by similar rules. As it is, we expect kids to put forth effort merely because they are getting free education and because we tell them that an education is the key to a better life. This may ring hallow to kids that are poorer or with less opportunity. Kids don't appriciate this as a reason to learn like kids did deades ago. Specifically, I can tell you that a lot of kids that run to selling drugs do so because of social status AND the money it brings in. Ironically, selling drugs IS a job. I'm betting that we could reduce negative options for these types of kids by giving them a tangible example where their effort in education, isntead of the street, pays off. Indeed, I can't think of a better way to break the cycle of welfare and those who expect handouts than to give kids some hands on experience in working for money.

3. Greed machines? I'm afraid living in an unapologetic capitolist culture does that already. I'm just looking to use the system by which we operate to reach out amd make kids want to learn on their own. We can't force kids to learn. We can't force parents to be better parents. We can, however, make the kids an offer that they won't want to refuse. My theory is that testing this kind of plan in various types of school setting throughout America would drastically improve grades and graduation rates while helping kids realize exactly how our culture works as far as working for living compensation..

4. Yea, teachers salaries would be a huge hurdle to jump. BUT, we have an education system to serve the purpose of educating and not for creating a class of workers. Teachers salaries are secondary to the actual education service they provide. Indeed, considering the current track record in many public schools it's not like they have much to bargain with anyway. I'd hate to have to pull a Reagan and fire them all and replace them with the plethora of educators being pumped out every year. Like I said, I appriciate that teaching provides a stable living wage... but it makes no sense to pay teachers more just for belonging to a union and getting a Masters degree despite teaching the same type of students the exact same type of education as when they only had a B.A. Obviously throwing money at teachers isn't solving any problems. Standardized tests under No Child... isn't solving problems either. I think that this would solve many problems we now have with a lack of student motivation to learn. Would you have made a giant effort if you knew that you'd have recieved almost 4k for one semesters worth of work?


5. I'm not sure if it's so much sink or swim... rather re-allocating the significant motivation to perform into the lap of the kids. Lap tops are not required to graduate. They help but are not a prerequisite to learning. My point being that educational tech budgets are a sinkhole. I've built enough cpus on my own to see the value diminish on any piece of hardware every 6 months. Many times teachers (especially) will WANT things moreso than NEED them. Sure, it would be nice to have every fun tech toy available for the classroom but if the end product, the education of kids, is not meeting an acceptable standard then it wasn't much of an investment. In fact, one major lesson to be learned is how blowing the money instead of buying a computer to help with work the next year WILL negatively impact their GPA income the following semester. Would it be better for a kid to learn how to be responsible with money in HS or in college where the credit card sharks lurk?

After all, schools can still have a cpu lab... but they don't need a new one every three years with computers for every kid in every classroom, pc AND mac, with fancy projectors, cable tv and every thing else if the educational result is such a discrace.

 

[Bern80]

Interesting... let me see if i can address a few of these. thanks for giving me some critical thoughts, dude.

1. I'm curious how you think cheating would get worse. Teachers would still have to act as educational guides and filter out cheating as they do now. Isnt there websites that allow teachers to vet for plegarism and such? Please expand on this one.

I you are familliar with the phrase 'money talks' I'm sure. There are many, incentives you can give someone to acheive; better chances at college, scholarships, honor roll recognition, etc. But there is no motivator like money. Yes there are tools to combate plagarism, but what about math and science? Just as there are businesses in society that will cut corners for a buck, I believe you will find the same in schools to some degree. I don't think you could apply this concept to college either. Well you could but it would entirely defeat the purpose of college; to gain the tools to make a living. (Whether that's what today's colleges are actually doing is a different debate). I bet you've also heard the term 'professional student'......

2. I would say that it's precisely a psychological change regarding working for compensation that is necessary in order to better gel into our work force that plays by similar rules. As it is, we expect kids to put forth effort merely because they are getting free education and because we tell them that an education is the key to a better life. This may ring hallow to kids that are poorer or with less opportunity. Kids don't appriciate this as a reason to learn like kids did deades ago. Specifically, I can tell you that a lot of kids that run to selling drugs do so because of social status AND the money it brings in. Ironically, selling drugs IS a job. I'm betting that we could reduce negative options for these types of kids by giving them a tangible example where their effort in education, isntead of the street, pays off. Indeed, I can't think of a better way to break the cycle of welfare and those who expect handouts than to give kids some hands on experience in working for money.

I'm not sure mainly because it takes an awful lomg time to develop to psychological maturity. Probably college age at least (for many that we know in our lives, longer). Teenagers simply don't have the psychological maturity that adults do, which is why I am somewhat hesitant to make school a job so to speak.

If you think about it there would some significant economic impacts as well. No high school kids working at McDonalds, etc. Why would they? They're makeing there money at school. The minimum wage is another debate as well but for many teenagers, those minimum wage jobs are there first real life work experience. Those jobs do serve a purpose and they aren't all occupied by poor, down on there luck folk. Why provide a pseudo-job environment when many teens already get the real world experience?

3. Greed machines? I'm afraid living in an unapologetic capitolist culture does that already. I'm just looking to use the system by which we operate to reach out amd make kids want to learn on their own. We can't force kids to learn. We can't force parents to be better parents. We can, however, make the kids an offer that they won't want to refuse. My theory is that testing this kind of plan in various types of school setting throughout America would drastically improve grades and graduation rates while helping kids realize exactly how our culture works as far as working for living compensation..

I don't think that's what capitalist society does to people. And we are comeing more 'apologetic' all the time, if you take my meaning. They will have time to learn how society operates later. They do need to be kids while they are kids.

That's why I would lean more toward a college education approach to personal finance. No doubt serious changes need to be made to primary education, I just don't think paying students is the way to do it.

4. Yea, teachers salaries would be a huge hurdle to jump. BUT, we have an education system to serve the purpose of educating and not for creating a class of workers. Teachers salaries are secondary to the actual education service they provide. Indeed, considering the current track record in many public schools it's not like they have much to bargain with anyway. I'd hate to have to pull a Reagan and fire them all and replace them with the plethora of educators being pumped out every year. Like I said, I appriciate that teaching provides a stable living wage... but it makes no sense to pay teachers more just for belonging to a union and getting a Masters degree despite teaching the same type of students the exact same type of education as when they only had a B.A. Obviously throwing money at teachers isn't solving any problems. Standardized tests under No Child... isn't solving problems either. I think that this would solve many problems we now have with a lack of student motivation to learn. Would you have made a giant effort if you knew that you'd have recieved almost 4k for one semesters worth of work?

I don't know how to solve the teachers's salary problem (if it is even a problem). Many say merit based pay, but that opens up the cheating can of worms agian. I'm sure you had teachers as I did, some of which would allow 'open book' tests and some that wouldn't. One would thing the average grades of open book test takers would be higher than that of students who had to remember information, but is it then fair to pay the open book teacher more than the one who doesn't allow that?

Most definatley the incentive would be there to work hard if there was some financial reward at the end, but there are so many factors. What is the purpose of the monetary reward? What is the lesson you want kids to learn? Whatever that is, there is likely only a certain path that can be taken to reach that goal. Many paths can be taken to get to that monetary reward. How many of those paths do have control over?

That's why I opt for integrating it into college education. I'm not looking to instill some deep value, really. Just teach young people the tools they will need to make good financial decisions. Perhaps for students more interested, advanced classes in how to really make money, i.e. House Flipping 101. Simply giveing money as a reward doesn't do that.

5. I'm not sure if it's so much sink or swim... rather re-allocating the significant motivation to perform into the lap of the kids. Lap tops are not required to graduate. They help but are not a prerequisite to learning. My point being that educational tech budgets are a sinkhole. I've built enough cpus on my own to see the value diminish on any piece of hardware every 6 months. Many times teachers (especially) will WANT things moreso than NEED them. Sure, it would be nice to have every fun tech toy available for the classroom but if the end product, the education of kids, is not meeting an acceptable standard then it wasn't much of an investment. In fact, one major lesson to be learned is how blowing the money instead of buying a computer to help with work the next year WILL negatively impact their GPA income the following semester. Would it be better for a kid to learn how to be responsible with money in HS or in college where the credit card sharks lurk?

Perhaps teachers should be required to take teh college classes as well. As for the CC sharks, hopefull by takeing the classes they can avoid them. But one lesson should be that college kids should have a credit card. My dad made me get one. The sooner you start establishing a (good) credit history the better

 

[Shogun]

I you are familliar with the phrase 'money talks' I'm sure. There are many, incentives you can give someone to acheive; better chances at college, scholarships, honor roll recognition, etc. But there is no motivator like money. Yes there are tools to combate plagarism, but what about math and science? Just as there are businesses in society that will cut corners for a buck, I believe you will find the same in schools to some degree. I don't think you could apply this concept to college either. Well you could but it would entirely defeat the purpose of college; to gain the tools to make a living. (Whether that's what today's colleges are actually doing is a different debate). I bet you've also heard the term 'professional student'......

In our society there is no other motivator quite like money. It's the bloodstream of our economy. My point is to give students experience in working for their living since this is whta they will face upon graduation.

What about math and science? Teachers will still serve a purpose They will still teach and monitor performance. I'm not sure how the internet will help a kid diagram the internal structure of a frog during a test. Maybe if you give me a specific hypothetical.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with professional students. I'm not sure how that applies to high school students but I can alleviate that concern: The program only applies to four consecutive years. It seems to me that if a student were playing by the rules and getting paid that they will be out in four anyway. In fact, failing students wouldnt even get a payout as listed above.

As far as cutting corners, I'm not sure how you mean. Again, the purpose is education not creating teacher salaries. If we expect our government to handle standards in a police force then I think we can expect the same here. I realize that this isn't a miracle... BUT, i'm betting it would ahve a significant positive impact on graduation rates and work ethic.



I'm not sure mainly because it takes an awful lomg time to develop to psychological maturity. Probably college age at least (for many that we know in our lives, longer). Teenagers simply don't have the psychological maturity that adults do, which is why I am somewhat hesitant to make school a job so to speak.

while I agree that high school kids are not as mature as college kids who are nbot as mature as a 30 year old I have to retort that we don't shelter kids from money until they are as mature as adults. Indeed, it's precisely this formative period that will determine some behaviour for the rest of their lives. Let's not forget that compared to kids the same age 150 years ago we've grown to coddle our kids... some might argue that this is half the problem. If Ben Franklin can become an apprentice to his brother at an early age in order to gel into their culture then I believe our kids can do the same. Hell, what age were you when you had your first job type experience? lemonade stand? mowing grass? Shoveling snow? delivering papers?



If you think about it there would some significant economic impacts as well. No high school kids working at McDonalds, etc. Why would they? They're makeing there money at school. The minimum wage is another debate as well but for many teenagers, those minimum wage jobs are there first real life work experience. Those jobs do serve a purpose and they aren't all occupied by poor, down on there luck folk. Why provide a pseudo-job environment when many teens already get the real world experience?

Indeed, I'd say it would be better for them to focus on their education than working until 2am closing a mcdonalds (i did this type of thing in hs). Do you think there would be a vacuum that isn't filled? If anything it opens up viable jobs for people who don't live in a fruit picking state or people with no skills. Kids will still get after school jobs because they see the direct tradeoff between work and reward anyway. Why? because our current pattern of behaviours facilitated by our current real-world experience giving jobs are not impressive. Sure, SOME kids may hit homeruns but, by and large, it's not a general occurance. But, again, I'm betting that the kids would MAXIMIZE their earning potential instead of only spending what they get from school.



I don't think that's what capitalist society does to people. And we are comeing more 'apologetic' all the time, if you take my meaning. They will have time to learn how society operates later. They do need to be kids while they are kids.

The very nature of capitolism hinges on greed. Yes, that's what it does to people. Who was the last CEO you can think of that stopped trying to maximize his profit margin?

I would argue that it's the very CREATION of adolescence as a protected status that we see a stark decline in work ethic. Why would we keep kids ignorant regarding our society for the sake of a created status? They can still be kids. Hell, the last four years of school starts at age, what, 14? 14 isn't old enough to start learning a few things about earning a living? I think it is well old enough to start forming motivation that creates a better work ethic and facilitates education by putting the motivation to excell in the hands of the student. As it is now, the kids don't care, the teachers care enough to get paid, the parents care enough to bitch at someone despite shitty parenting, the unions care as long as yearly salaries increase; education be damned. While Ben Franklin was CLEAR about his motivations in learning a trade at his age so to should we make it clear to OUR kids that they will be rewarded according to work and I don't think 14 is too young to start.



That's why I would lean more toward a college education approach to personal finance. No doubt serious changes need to be made to primary education, I just don't think paying students is the way to do it.


I respect that you differ in opinion. Thank you for playing along and responding with critical thinking. I have to remain adamant and I think a social test with schools from different demographics would prove it.



I don't know how to solve the teachers's salary problem (if it is even a problem). Many say merit based pay, but that opens up the cheating can of worms agian. I'm sure you had teachers as I did, some of which would allow 'open book' tests and some that wouldn't. One would thing the average grades of open book test takers would be higher than that of students who had to remember information, but is it then fair to pay the open book teacher more than the one who doesn't allow that?

I would imagine that this is where the role of a school board kicks in. if they allow open book tests and t-90 calcs in class AND their graduation rate is acceptable then they could still qualify for my program. If not...

As far as teachers salaries... theirs come from taxes and I have no problem curtailing teaher salaries to reflect the average income of the population from which they teach. Teacher exist to educate kids, kids don't exist to provide a section of the nation with comforatble salaries and summers off.

Most definatley the incentive would be there to work hard if there was some financial reward at the end, but there are so many factors. What is the purpose of the monetary reward? What is the lesson you want kids to learn? Whatever that is, there is likely only a certain path that can be taken to reach that goal. Many paths can be taken to get to that monetary reward. How many of those paths do have control over?

Purpose? It gives a student a little financial autonomy and allows hands on experience in making and spending money. I want the kids to learn that theywill be rewarded financially by the effort of their own motivation and work ethic. Indeed, that certain path is to excell in school and get paid for the effort. People flunk out all the time without incentive to learn. Im not sure what you mean by the paths remark. As it is, we don't reward flunking students with a diploma. I'm talking about using the nature of our society to become an incentive in HS as they will find is the case after graduation.

That's why I opt for integrating it into college education. I'm not looking to instill some deep value, really. Just teach young people the tools they will need to make good financial decisions. Perhaps for students more interested, advanced classes in how to really make money, i.e. House Flipping 101. Simply giveing money as a reward doesn't do that.

See, but college is not something that all kids get to experience. Besides, the problem demographics that I'm looking at are ghetto kids that perpetuate a cycle of dependance on government. Can you imagine the fiscal impact if a mere 10% of the current welfare recipients discovered the value of working?

And, I disagree that giving money doesn't change behaviour. Did you ever have your allowance taken away as a kid for poor behaviour? Did you ever get paid for mowing the grass or other chores? Trade delivering newspapers for learning and you might step a little closer my way...



Perhaps teachers should be required to take teh college classes as well. As for the CC sharks, hopefull by takeing the classes they can avoid them. But one lesson should be that college kids should have a credit card. My dad made me get one. The sooner you start establishing a (good) credit history the better


no, classes don't help college students avoid credit cards or use them wisely. Im sure we can both agree on that. Hell, when I wa at school credit card companies would set up booths on the quad that looked like every junky on the playgoung scenerio i've ever heard from the drug war. From sirts, to food to candy to money itself CLEARLY college is not the midigating factor in using money responcibely.. Id suggest that a kid who lost 4 grand as a HS freshman might think twoce before blowing imaginary money that is credit. Indeed, GOOD credit being the key word. GOOD credit is not what brings CC companies to campuses like carion hawks circling prey.


Hey, have a great new year, dude!

 

[Bern80]

I you are familliar with the phrase 'money talks' I'm sure. There are many, incentives you can give someone to acheive; better chances at college, scholarships, honor roll recognition, etc. But there is no motivator like money. Yes there are tools to combate plagarism, but what about math and science? Just as there are businesses in society that will cut corners for a buck, I believe you will find the same in schools to some degree. I don't think you could apply this concept to college either. Well you could but it would entirely defeat the purpose of college; to gain the tools to make a living. (Whether that's what today's colleges are actually doing is a different debate). I bet you've also heard the term 'professional student'......

In our society there is no other motivator quite like money. It's the bloodstream of our economy. My point is to give students experience in working for their living since this is whta they will face upon graduation.

Sure, but is it better to teach it that way or cut to the chase and just go get a job? I think it would add an undo amount of stress into the lives of a group people that don't really need it. Think about the stress levels of adults that struggle to come up with money and add that to the rageing hormones and immaturity of your average teenager.

At an early ages I think it is more the parent's responsibility then our schools to teach children about money.

What about math and science? Teachers will still serve a purpose They will still teach and monitor performance. I'm not sure how the internet will help a kid diagram the internal structure of a frog during a test. Maybe if you give me a specific hypothetical.

I guess I'm think along more nefarious lines. Like students now being motivated to steal answer sheets.

As far as cutting corners, I'm not sure how you mean. Again, the purpose is education not creating teacher salaries. If we expect our government to handle standards in a police force then I think we can expect the same here. I realize that this isn't a miracle... BUT, i'm betting it would ahve a significant positive impact on graduation rates and work ethic.

I mean the idea behind merit pay is that the better a teacher's students perform, the more they get paid. So, what lengths is a teacher willing to go to show said acheivement?

I'm not sure mainly because it takes an awful lomg time to develop to psychological maturity. Probably college age at least (for many that we know in our lives, longer). Teenagers simply don't have the psychological maturity that adults do, which is why I am somewhat hesitant to make school a job so to speak.

while I agree that high school kids are not as mature as college kids who are nbot as mature as a 30 year old I have to retort that we don't shelter kids from money until they are as mature as adults. Indeed, it's precisely this formative period that will determine some behaviour for the rest of their lives. Let's not forget that compared to kids the same age 150 years ago we've grown to coddle our kids... some might argue that this is half the problem. If Ben Franklin can become an apprentice to his brother at an early age in order to gel into their culture then I believe our kids can do the same. Hell, what age were you when you had your first job type experience? lemonade stand? mowing grass? Shoveling snow? delivering papers?

But you what you end up doing is changeing the purpose of schooling; to gain knowledge. Now the purpose is to gain money.

I don't think that's what capitalist society does to people. And we are comeing more 'apologetic' all the time, if you take my meaning. They will have time to learn how society operates later. They do need to be kids while they are kids.

The very nature of capitolism hinges on greed. Yes, that's what it does to people. Who was the last CEO you can think of that stopped trying to maximize his profit margin?

No, the nature of capitalism is survival of the fittest. Whoever can produce innovation or gain a competitive advantage succeeds. Said group of people may have greedy people as a sub-set. But just being greedy isn't going to make you rich.

I would argue that it's the very CREATION of adolescence as a protected status that we see a stark decline in work ethic. Why would we keep kids ignorant regarding our society for the sake of a created status? They can still be kids. Hell, the last four years of school starts at age, what, 14? 14 isn't old enough to start learning a few things about earning a living? I think it is well old enough to start forming motivation that creates a better work ethic and facilitates education by putting the motivation to excell in the hands of the student. As it is now, the kids don't care, the teachers care enough to get paid, the parents care enough to bitch at someone despite shitty parenting, the unions care as long as yearly salaries increase; education be damned. While Ben Franklin was CLEAR about his motivations in learning a trade at his age so to should we make it clear to OUR kids that they will be rewarded according to work and I don't think 14 is too young to start.

I don't think it's too early to teach the lesson. I just disagree with how, because I don't think the results will be as intended.

That's why I would lean more toward a college education approach to personal finance. No doubt serious changes need to be made to primary education, I just don't think paying students is the way to do it.


I respect that you differ in opinion. Thank you for playing along and responding with critical thinking. I have to remain adamant and I think a social test with schools from different demographics would prove it.

I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot.

Most definatley the incentive would be there to work hard if there was some financial reward at the end, but there are so many factors. What is the purpose of the monetary reward? What is the lesson you want kids to learn? Whatever that is, there is likely only a certain path that can be taken to reach that goal. Many paths can be taken to get to that monetary reward. How many of those paths do have control over?

Purpose? It gives a student a little financial autonomy and allows hands on experience in making and spending money. I want the kids to learn that theywill be rewarded financially by the effort of their own motivation and work ethic. Indeed, that certain path is to excell in school and get paid for the effort. People flunk out all the time without incentive to learn. Im not sure what you mean by the paths remark. As it is, we don't reward flunking students with a diploma. I'm talking about using the nature of our society to become an incentive in HS as they will find is the case after graduation.

What I mean is we have a stated goal. We really both want the same thing. But will your plan actually acheive that? What is the likely hood given a lot of factors that that is how kids will actually turn out?

sorry I hacked off a bunch. It was getting long.

 

[Shogun]

Sure, but is it better to teach it that way or cut to the chase and just go get a job? I think it would add an undo amount of stress into the lives of a group people that don't really need it. Think about the stress levels of adults that struggle to come up with money and add that to the rageing hormones and immaturity of your average teenager.

At an early ages I think it is more the parent's responsibility then our schools to teach children about money.

sure, wouldn't it be nice if PARENTING became a reliable solution? but, alas, that doesn't seem to provide the results we hope for. In fact, our schools DO already try to teach kids economic responsibility but with lackluster results. I don't think that my idea would provide any more added stressthan found already in after school jobs for 15 year olds. If anything, my idea would re-align the concept of working for wages with actual rewards for making an effort in education instead of flipping burgers.



I guess I'm think along more nefarious lines. Like students now being motivated to steal answer sheets.


Ahh.. fair enough. There will always be exceptions to everything and I am under no illusion that some kids won't cheat.. But, any more than they do now?



I mean the idea behind merit pay is that the better a teacher's students perform, the more they get paid. So, what lengths is a teacher willing to go to show said acheivement?

I would answer that the only way to show student achievement is by actual student achievement. A teacher can't manipulate ACT results like they can class grades.



But you what you end up doing is changeing the purpose of schooling; to gain knowledge. Now the purpose is to gain money.

Gain money for the accrual of knowledge. What do you think kids in modern America go to school for now? to gain knowlege of because they are forced to do so by the state regardless of their individual education? Kid's these days don't make an effort to learn just for the sake of learning. If they did then we woulnd't need to complain about public education. If a greater number of kids learn via positive reinforcement of getting paid, in correlation with the same process post-graduation, then I don't see a problem with it.




No, the nature of capitalism is survival of the fittest. Whoever can produce innovation or gain a competitive advantage succeeds. Said group of people may have greedy people as a sub-set. But just being greedy isn't going to make you rich.

Capitolism, the very root word conveying increased value on investment, is not merely "survival of the fittest". the "fittest" are not companies that fail to RETURN A MAXIMIZED PROFIT. Indeed, being greedy IS the byproduct of a system that hinges on the capitalization of funds. Look at OIL Ceo's defending current gas prices for the sake of their stock holders despite national reprocussions to the common person. the "fittest" are also the greediest. We've never seen Microsoft take the position that it already has enough market shares and will dampen it's capitalist market strategy in order to invest in competition. Innovation is not the hallmark of capitalism. What innovations come from the stacked conglomerates of entity corporations and parent organizations? How is the monoploies of Bell Labs anything else than a product of free market capitolism? How were they're business strategies NOT a prduct of grossly unfettered greed? We may disagree about this dependingon our perspective of Capitalism but I'd have to argue that there is a specific reason why capitalism results in blatant green time and time again.





I don't think it's too early to teach the lesson. I just disagree with how, because I don't think the results will be as intended.


Perhaps they would, perhaps they would not. Certainly, I dont have a working crystal ball. I would be willing to try such a program in a handful of schools in each state in order to test the viability of this approach before making it universal policy. In this case, if I could make this happen, I'd take a friendly wager with you to find out.




I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot.

Again, thank you for your participation and consideration. Even if this isn't THE answer it is AN answer. We can all agree that public education seems to be failing and it's probably more important to come to an agreeable solution than to get caught up in a partisan lack of consideration. I probably feel the same way about school vochers as you do for an idea like this. Because you considered mine I would be open to consider your alternatives.




What I mean is we have a stated goal. We really both want the same thing. But will your plan actually acheive that? What is the likely hood given a lot of factors that that is how kids will actually turn out?

sorry I hacked off a bunch. It was getting long.

That's exactly what I'd love to find out by testing such a program in problem schools. Indeed, we both have the same goals in mind but different opinions of the correct paths to take. Im not sure what your opinion of a viable solution might be but, if it happens to be school vouchers I'd make the follwoing deal:

divide the states and test your idea in half and mine in the other half. Set dates for evaluation at 5 years, 10 years or the terms of two presidents and decipher the results.

 

[Bern80]

That's exactly what I'd love to find out by testing such a program in problem schools. Indeed, we both have the same goals in mind but different opinions of the correct paths to take. Im not sure what your opinion of a viable solution might be but, if it happens to be school vouchers I'd make the follwoing deal:

divide the states and test your idea in half and mine in the other half. Set dates for evaluation at 5 years, 10 years or the terms of two presidents and decipher the results.

I'll just cut to this because it kinda gets to the heart of it. Through high school I wouldn't change much where the children are concerned. I don't have the stats but if I had to guess the majority of teenagers are doing some sort of work for pay already. Yes, their education needs to be their number one priority.

I know many parents are doing their jobs where their children are concerned, but I don't see how that will improve by providing an added excuse to not do said job.

I would change school funding drastically. First it needs to be much more transparent. In our state anyway it is nearly impossible for the public to get an itemized report of what a district spends it's money on. From there we can determine what expenditures are appropriate and what constitutes mis or over calculations. It would be great if teachers unions were done for. A radio show host here (MN) I think brought up an interesting question. (If you have the ability I would reccomend listening to the Jason Lewis show). Anywho the question is, why does a group of peope (teachers, school workers, etc.) that is paid by the U.S. government, need a union? In our state especially which is overwhelmingly liberal. Why do the unions need to fight for them when the state is controlled by the left and wants to pay teachers more anyway?

I know we want to be able to show that our kids are the best and brightest in the world, unfortunately that has to start with parenting. The only way it's going to happen is to make......parents.....accountable.....are you thinking what I'm thinking? Perhaps you propose paying the wrong group of people...hint, hint.

As for the financial education, I would start in college and make it a first semester requirment. The basics like checkbooks, credit cards (and their benefits and pit falls) and the importance of establishing a credit history. After that have an optional curriculum of other important financial advise such as financing your first home, etc.

 

[Shogun]

I'll just cut to this because it kinda gets to the heart of it. Through high school I wouldn't change much where the children are concerned. I don't have the stats but if I had to guess the majority of teenagers are doing some sort of work for pay already. Yes, their education needs to be their number one priority.

Id need to see a source that conveys as much and I'd have to wonder if such is the case accross the specific demographics that need the most work. Specifically, inner city ghetto schools. I'm not sure if selling pot counts as a legitimate job although I can tell you that it can be hard work. Indeed, by paying them for their motivation in education instead of flipping burgers how wold this not make gaining an education more important than becomeing a minimum wage slave after school when they should be doing their homework?



I know many parents are doing their jobs where their children are concerned, but I don't see how that will improve by providing an added excuse to not do said job.

may do, but Many, MANY don't. How wold you suppose we get those who fail in parenting to become better parents? We can't. Thus, putting the motivation to learn on the student whose life with benefit from learning a good work ethic. I'd love to hear any ideas on getting parents to do a better job otherwise.



I would change school funding drastically. First it needs to be much more transparent. In our state anyway it is nearly impossible for the public to get an itemized report of what a district spends it's money on. From there we can determine what expenditures are appropriate and what constitutes mis or over calculations. It would be great if teachers unions were done for. A radio show host here (MN) I think brought up an interesting question. (If you have the ability I would reccomend listening to the Jason Lewis show). Anywho the question is, why does a group of peope (teachers, school workers, etc.) that is paid by the U.S. government, need a union? In our state especially which is overwhelmingly liberal. Why do the unions need to fight for them when the state is controlled by the left and wants to pay teachers more anyway?

Transparent, I agree. Itemization of spending, I agree. I appriciate Unions but, just like their antithesis, they are looking out for themselves instead of the reason they are around in the first place: education of kids. I would entertain the question but I think it may be better addressed in a different thread.



I know we want to be able to show that our kids are the best and brightest in the world, unfortunately that has to start with parenting. The only way it's going to happen is to make......parents.....accountable.....are you thinking what I'm thinking? Perhaps you propose paying the wrong group of people...hint, hint.


It may START with parenting but, by age 15-18, it doesn't end with parenting. I still think that kids of this age bracket would be able to thrive on an opportunity. But, I'm not sure that I took the hint. Please, be specific. Who could we pay in order to get parents to be better parents?



As for the financial education, I would start in college and make it a first semester requirment. The basics like checkbooks, credit cards (and their benefits and pit falls) and the importance of establishing a credit history. After that have an optional curriculum of other important financial advise such as financing your first home, etc.

yea.. But I learned all that in High School. I took Home Economics as a freshman and business and marketing my sophomore year. In fact, the marketing class was involved with DECA AND an internship program where kids could get school credit and get out of school at noon if they had a job. I really don't think that kids in HS are incapable of riding this roller coaster. In fact, I'd argue that the earlier we were able to mold their behaviour the better for our society overall.

I guess my question becomes, How would a kid REALLY understand the gaining and losing of money and the importance of establishing credit if they dont get the hands on experience of gaining and losing money? 4k per semester earned for learning might be a greater motivation than minimum wage flipping burgers.



Again, please elaborate on who we should be paying to get better parents. I'd like to clear that up before commenting on it.

 

[Bern80]

Id need to see a source that conveys as much and I'd have to wonder if such is the case accross the specific demographics that need the most work. Specifically, inner city ghetto schools. I'm not sure if selling pot counts as a legitimate job although I can tell you that it can be hard work. Indeed, by paying them for their motivation in education instead of flipping burgers how wold this not make gaining an education more important than becomeing a minimum wage slave after school when they should be doing their homework?

I don't know either. I'm sure you're right about the demographic issue and whether teens work or not. I'm only speaking from experience (small town northern MN high school) and I am hard pressed to think of many students that didn't have some type of job.

may do, but Many, MANY don't. How wold you suppose we get those who fail in parenting to become better parents? We can't. Thus, putting the motivation to learn on the student whose life with benefit from learning a good work ethic. I'd love to hear any ideas on getting parents to do a better job otherwise.

Sorry, meant are NOT doing their jobs. My point is though if another goal is to have better parents, I don't see how you reach that goal by haveing a third party take over the roles parents should be playing. Yes, it's hard if not impossible to get some parents to do what their suppossed to, but that's no reason to make it even easier for them to not do what they're suppossed to DO.

Transparent, I agree. Itemization of spending, I agree. I appriciate Unions but, just like their antithesis, they are looking out for themselves instead of the reason they are around in the first place: education of kids. I would entertain the question but I think it may be better addressed in a different thread.

very well, have at it if you like

It may START with parenting but, by age 15-18, it doesn't end with parenting. I still think that kids of this age bracket would be able to thrive on an opportunity. But, I'm not sure that I took the hint. Please, be specific. Who could we pay in order to get parents to be better parents?

Pay the parents.

yea.. But I learned all that in High School. I took Home Economics as a freshman and business and marketing my sophomore year. In fact, the marketing class was involved with DECA AND an internship program where kids could get school credit and get out of school at noon if they had a job. I really don't think that kids in HS are incapable of riding this roller coaster. In fact, I'd argue that the earlier we were able to mold their behaviour the better for our society overall.

good high school. Not sure whether you would be the exception or the rule. I know I didn't get any of that in high school or college.

I guess my question becomes, How would a kid REALLY understand the gaining and losing of money and the importance of establishing credit if they dont get the hands on experience of gaining and losing money? 4k per semester earned for learning might be a greater motivation than minimum wage flipping burgers.

Agreed they have to at some point. I'm not oppossed to haveing teenagers get a jobs just to get the experience of work responsibility and what not. I just don't know how wise it forcefully integrate into their lives. I suppose a basic finance classes in high school isn't too dumb.

Again, please elaborate on who we should be paying to get better parents. I'd like to clear that up before commenting on it.

Answer above. as to why, the first argument would be why pay them for something they should be doing anyway. My answer would be because honeslty the ends justify the means.

 

[Shogun]

it's a busy day today but I would like to finish this conversation next week.