privatization of education
Catherine L Harris
> One thing I forgot to mention in my original response to Tedrick's
> request for my opinion: I consider tax credits or vouchers for
> education as merely an interim measure to be followed by complete
> removal of the tax burden for education. It is unfair for a person
> to be forced to pay for somebody else's child's education; the idea
> that someone's hard work is going to pay for what are properly others'
> responsibilities can hardly be considered just, unless one adopts
> socialist notions or a spurious appeal to pragmatism.
> I've never heard any other justifications for this.
Our society has a conception of children as more than the property of their
parents. We view them as human beings with certain rights. One of the
rights is a right to an education.
A child should not be punished because fate decreed that she be born
the daughter of an alcoholic, a criminal, an honest hard working person who
is having financial problems, a member of a discriminated minority, a retarded
person, or a middle-class business man who would rather spend his money on
improvements to his house or a new yacht than on his children's education.
Beyond this conception of children's basic right to an education, there are
"non-spurious" pragmatic concerns. A democracy depends on educated
citizens; our society requires that people have at least some ability to read
street signs and grocery prices, and to fill out tax forms and rent agreements.
Admittedly, I can see why it might be convenient to have a large uneducated
class of people: this class would provide cheap unskilled labor, would
pay rent rather than owning property, and would be unlikely to vote, thus
allowing laws to continue to support the educated and exploitative elite.
-----
Cathy Harris, UCSD cognitive science
Clayton Cramer
> Our society has a conception of children as more than the property of their
> parents. We view them as human beings with certain rights. One of the
> rights is a right to an education.
>
Gee, where is this "right to an education" defined? It didn't seem be to
case when I was trying to get an education in the 1970s. (Of course, I
was poverty class white -- and all good liberals know that such things
don't exist.)
> A child should not be punished because fate decreed that she be born
> the daughter of an alcoholic, a criminal, an honest hard working person who
> is having financial problems, a member of a discriminated minority, a retarded
> person, or a middle-class business man who would rather spend his money on
> improvements to his house or a new yacht than on his children's education.
>
You assume that only the government, in its beneficience, would educate
a person coming from such a background. This is hardly the case. There
have ALWAYS been organizations offering scholarships based on need --
but most of them wanted evidence of educational potential (hence the
term, "scholarship"). This all changed in the 1970s, when for a while
the only issue that mattered was race.
>
> Beyond this conception of children's basic right to an education, there are
> "non-spurious" pragmatic concerns. A democracy depends on educated
> citizens; our society requires that people have at least some ability to read
> street signs and grocery prices, and to fill out tax forms and rent agreements.
>
A valid argument -- but since the government has largely failed, in
fact, created a generation less educated, but with more years of
schooling, than the previous generation, it is worth considering if
there is a better way to educate the population adequately for
the responsibilities of citizenship.
> Admittedly, I can see why it might be convenient to have a large uneducated
> class of people: this class would provide cheap unskilled labor, would
> pay rent rather than owning property, and would be unlikely to vote, thus
> allowing laws to continue to support the educated and exploitative elite.
> -----
> Cathy Harris, UCSD cognitive science
The current subsidies to state universities are a transfer of wealth from
working class families to middle and upper class families. Yes, there
are kids from working class backgrounds attending University of California,
but the majority are from families that could afford to pay their own
way. The practical requirements of making a living, and contributing to
the financial obligations of the family make it quite difficult for
working class and poverty class kids to attend college full-time. (And
the University of California requires (or at least did when I was trying
to get a degree) that you finish your last year full-time. Don't have
rich parents to help you out -- get out of here!)
Second, remember that the requirements of UC (and most other good
schools) make it unlikely that kids from economically deprived back-
grounds will be able to enter. Even if allowed in under special
admission policies, many, if not most, are inadequately prepared for
UC, and drop out within the first year. THEIR INADEQUATE PREPARATION
IS PARTLY EARLIER EDUCATION, AND PARTLY THE CULTURAL DEPRIVATION OF
GROWING UP POOR.
The University of California (through taxes) sucked my parents dry of
money to subsidize the education of people from middle-class and above
families, so they were unable to provide any help to me.
I don't care if the University of California exists next year or not.
Clayton E. Cramer ("You are damn right I'm upset.")
Tom Tedrick
>case when I was trying to get an education in the 1970s. (Of course, I
>was poverty class white -- and all good liberals know that such things
>don't exist.)
Whites don't have it so easy despite all the propaganda against them.
I've been discriminated against for being white for most of my life.
I went to mostly black schools, in a poor urban area. I was often
afraid for my life and several times beaten up by gangs of blacks
(because I was white).
I guess that was a big reason why I became interested in weight-lifting,
martial arts, theory/history of war and such things.
I quit grad school after the only advisor I could find refused to
talk to me because I wasn't a "minority". When I told him I was
a minority of one he laughed.
Everything I achieved was achieved after hard work and against
strong opposition. Really like a war almost.
The current system promotes mediocrities because they happen
to be minorities, and discriminates against talented individuals
sometimes, merely because they are not officially ethnic minorities.
As if Danish/German/ScotchIrish/Cherokee is some kind of majority.
Anyway, things have gone too far. If you push someone into a corner
don't be surprised if he fights back.
Doug Gwyn
>> In article <24...@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gw...@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
>> Our society has a conception of children as more than the property of their
>> parents. We view them as human beings with certain rights. One of the
>> rights is a right to an education.
Please note that this is MISATTRIBUTED. Someone else said all that,
not me. Jeez.
Mike Huybensz
The right to an education is not clearly defined. Would you object if we
surgically removed what little you have? :-)
I think children ought to have the best opportunities they can for an
education. Anything else is a foolish waste of potential resources for
our society, as well as unjust (by my lights.)
> It didn't seem be to
> case when I was trying to get an education in the 1970s. (Of course, I
> was poverty class white -- and all good liberals know that such things
> don't exist.)
Maybe your idea of a "good liberal" is an ignorant (or dead?) liberal.
But liberals have been working for poverty-class whites too since long before
you were born, and continue today (in Appalachia, for example.)
> You assume that only the government, in its beneficience, would educate
> a person coming from such a background. This is hardly the case. There
> have ALWAYS been organizations offering scholarships based on need --
> but most of them wanted evidence of educational potential (hence the
> term, "scholarship").
I saw those "scholarship" criteria: generally they included academic
standards like who your parents worked for or what community you lived in.
Educational potential is not well correllated by grades from schools or
standardized tests. And the correllation is worse when language barriers,
unequal funding, physical handicaps, and bad environments in the home or
school are present.
> A valid argument -- but since the government has largely failed, in
> fact, created a generation less educated, but with more years of
> schooling, than the previous generation, it is worth considering if
> there is a better way to educate the population adequately for
> the responsibilities of citizenship.
While it's always worth considering other options, it's not appropriate to
pin the blame on "government". First, because it is a vast number of
separate bodies that manage American schooling, and second because
demographic and sociological changes invalidate comparisons between
generations.
> The University of California (through taxes) sucked my parents dry of
> money to subsidize the education of people from middle-class and above
> families, so they were unable to provide any help to me.
Oh? What fraction of your parent's total tax burden went to UC?
> I don't care if the University of California exists next year or not.
>
> Clayton E. Cramer ("You are damn right I'm upset.")
--
"The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good
ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of
rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays".
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Timothy Lee
> are kids from working class backgrounds attending University of California,
> but the majority are from families that could afford to pay their own
> way.
Not true. The majority of UC students receive financial aid.
You do mean `lower economic class' when you say `working class', don't you?
But note that most `middle class' ($15K-30K / year) people must work to
maintain their current life style. So `working class' is not an entirely
accurate term to describe to lower class. The `non-working class', ie
that which does not work, composes of the welfare class and the richest.
>
> Second, remember that the requirements of UC (and most other good
> schools) make it unlikely that kids from economically deprived back-
> grounds will be able to enter. Even if allowed in under special
> admission policies, many, if not most, are inadequately prepared for
> UC, and drop out within the first year. THEIR INADEQUATE PREPARATION
> IS PARTLY EARLIER EDUCATION, AND PARTLY THE CULTURAL DEPRIVATION OF
> GROWING UP POOR.
That means that one should try to remedy those problems. Politicians are
reluctant to address those problems since the payoff will come about 12
years later, when a successor can claim credit for what the original
politician did.
Timothy Lee
> to be minorities, and discriminates against talented individuals
> sometimes, merely because they are not officially ethnic minorities.
> As if Danish/German/ScotchIrish/Cherokee is some kind of majority.
You couldn't convince everyone that you were Native American? You'd be
quite a valuable commodity when it comes to quota filling...
SEVENER
> You assume that only the government, in its beneficience, would educate
> a person coming from such a background. This is hardly the case. There
> have ALWAYS been organizations offering scholarships based on need --
> but most of them wanted evidence of educational potential (hence the
> term, "scholarship"). This all changed in the 1970s, when for a while
> the only issue that mattered was race.
>
>
This is total nonsense. In the first place, despite scholarships
many, many people from lower middle class to poor backgrounds simply
could not afford to go to college before the expansion of the student
loan program and other aids for *all* to go to college.
Because of these programs the percentage of youth obtaining college
degrees doubled.
Nor was "race the only issue that mattered" in qualifying for such aid.
The only issue that mattered for the student loan program (without
which I could not have gone to college) was income level. The student
loan program, Basic Educational Opportunity Grants and work-study
assistance were all programs *totally* based upon income and had nothing
to do with race. These programs made up the bulk of student aid
when I went to college in the 70's.
There were other programs targetted towards increasing minority attendance
in colleges but many of these were primarily concerned with recruiting
minorities to attend college in the first place and using economically
based programs such as student loans, BEOG's, Pell Grants, and work-study
programs to insure that such recruited minorities could afford to go
to college. Here are the actual figures of educational expenditures
for post-secondary education in 1984:
Educational opportunity grants: 3,561,209
Work study : 561,322
Direct student loans : 191,962
Guaranteed student loans : 3,130,939
Other student assistance : 32,969
--------------------------------------------
Total student assistance : 7,478,401
Where is all the "race-based" student assistance Clayton claims exists?
I see scarcely any. To my knowledge the only category which is
not economically-based may be "other student assistance" - which
represents less than 1% of all student financial aid.
Oh, but I forgot:
"Why should I worry about *facts* when I have such marvelous
*opinions*!!"
tim sevener whuxn!orb
Timothy Lee
> > The University of California (through taxes) sucked my parents dry of
> > money to subsidize the education of people from middle-class and above
> > families, so they were unable to provide any help to me.
> >
Your parents were poverty class? Then they couldn't have paid too much in
tax. Remember that the middle class pays more than the poverty class and
the upper class is *supposed* to pay more (ok, this argument about our
screwed up tax system goes to net.taxes), so your parents' pennies were hardly
subsidizing anyone.
Clayton Cramer
> > > Clayton E. Cramer ("You are damn right I'm upset.")
> > --
> >
> > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good
> > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of
> > rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays".
> > --
> > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
>
I also hold passionately to the belief that genocide is WRONG, and
under no circumstances should it be ignored or tolerated. By Bertrand
Russell's argument above, this means there is no rational conviction
behind it.
If you are quoting Bertrand Russell correctly, Mike, why does anyone
view him as a great philospher. His statement sounds like the statement
of a reactionary.
Clayton E. Cramer
Clayton Cramer
Sales tax is highly regressive, and in California, its original justification
was to fund public education. My parents worked, and paid income taxes
to California, and to the Federal Government.
I suggest you open ANY economics text, and you'll see that our tax system,
in practice, is not all that progressive. (Nor should it be -- EVERYONE
gets taxed too heavily.)
Clayton E. Cramer
Timothy Lee
> > >are kids from working class backgrounds attending University of California,
> > > but the majority are from families that could afford to pay their own
> > > way.
> >
> > Not true. The majority of UC students receive financial aid.
> > You do mean `lower economic class' when you say `working class', don't you?
> > But note that most `middle class' ($15K-30K / year) people must work to
> > maintain their current life style. So `working class' is not an entirely
> > accurate term to describe to lower class. The `non-working class', ie
> > that which does not work, composes of the welfare class and the richest.
> >
>
> as a way of suggesting that the students come from families that are
> struggling financially. Then you define 'middle class' as $15K-30K/year,
I didn't say `struggling financially', I said `receive financial aid'.
This means that they would have trouble paying their own way through college.
> which by California payscales is lower middle class, then you say that
> "'middle class' ... people must work to maintain their current life
> style," presumably to keep up the payments on the Winnebago. Those of
^^^^^^^^^ ???
Did you, as a `lower middle class' person, have a Winnebago?
> us who grew up lower middle class find your definitions highly specious.
>
> Your definition of 'non-working class' is pretty questionable also.
> Welfare includes a lot of working poor, and there are very wealthy
> people who work -- and work hard. (Probably more than there are of
> the "idle rich".)
Ever know a person in the `middle class' who doesn't work (for more than a
few months) without becoming `lower class' eventually?
By `welfare class' I meant those whose main source of income is welfare payments
The current welfare system is a disincentive to work for the poorest; their
benefits are often cut by more than they would earn. I AM NOT AGAINST
HELPING THE POOR, only I want to see the poor helped so that they are not
dependent on government handouts.
How about those who inherited their wealth?
In any case, you just said that `working class' means just about everybody.
>
> Sounds like definitions designed to justify the status quo.
>
Did I say so?
> > > Second, remember that the requirements of UC (and most other good
> > > schools) make it unlikely that kids from economically deprived back-
> > > grounds will be able to enter. Even if allowed in under special
> > > admission policies, many, if not most, are inadequately prepared for
> > > UC, and drop out within the first year. THEIR INADEQUATE PREPARATION
> > > IS PARTLY EARLIER EDUCATION, AND PARTLY THE CULTURAL DEPRIVATION OF
> > > GROWING UP POOR.
> >
> > That means that one should try to remedy those problems. Politicians are
> > reluctant to address those problems since the payoff will come about 12
> > years later, when a successor can claim credit for what the original
> > politician did.
>
> Actually, politicians ignore people without political influence --
> subsidies to the middle class and above are the reason that UC seems
> to get the first pick of the budget, and California State University
> system (which is much less elitist) gets the scraps.
Naw, CSU gets lots of budget. The CCCs are the ones who get gypped for the
reasons you just said. But the K-12 schools get shafted for the reasons that
I said before.
Mike Huybensz
> > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of
> > rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays".
>
> under no circumstances should it be ignored or tolerated. By Bertrand
> Russell's argument above, this means there is no rational conviction
> behind it.
Ah, Clayton. Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument.
Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction
behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate
belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was
a free-market phenominon. :-)
--
A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Clayton Cramer
> > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good
> > > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of
> > > rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays".
> >
> > I also hold passionately to the belief that genocide is WRONG, and
> > under no circumstances should it be ignored or tolerated. By Bertrand
> > Russell's argument above, this means there is no rational conviction
> > behind it.
>
> Ah, Clayton. Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument.
>
Do you agree with Russell's above quoted statement asserting that opinions
held "with passion are always those for which no good ground exists" or
not? I pointed out that the statement is blatantly false, and that Russell's
statement is reactionary to emotional positions. Now you claim it was
a rhetorical argument. Which is it?
> Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction
> behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate
> belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was
> a free-market phenominon. :-)
>
I demand an immediate retraction of this libel. Show ONE SINGLE POSTING
I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT
BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT.
> A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth.
>
> Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
First you take a position. Then I point out it is untenable, and you
try to claim you weren't serious in the first place.
Clayton E. Cramer
Mike Huybensz
> > > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no
> > > > good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's
> > > > lack of rational conviction." Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays".
> > >
> > > I also hold passionately to the belief that genocide is WRONG, and
> > > under no circumstances should it be ignored or tolerated. By Bertrand
> > > Russell's argument above, this means there is no rational conviction
> > > behind it.
> >
> > Ah, Clayton. Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument.
>
> Do you agree with Russell's above quoted statement asserting that opinions
> held "with passion are always those for which no good ground exists" or
> not? I pointed out that the statement is blatantly false, and that Russell's
> statement is reactionary to emotional positions. Now you claim it was
> a rhetorical argument. Which is it?
I don't think Russell's statement is false, except that I wouldn't have used
the word "always". I consider it an extremely good indicator. That's why
I used the term "rhetorical".
Your notion of "pointed out... blatantly false" is a bit warped. All you did
was attempt to provide a counter-example, which I disagreed with.
Your usage of the word "reactionary" seems inappropriate: I think that the
statement gives emotional positions the credit they are due: extremely little.
> > Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction
> > behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate
> > belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was
> > a free-market phenominon. :-)
>
> I demand an immediate retraction of this libel. Show ONE SINGLE POSTING
> I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT
> BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT.
I can tell what basis you have for a lawsuit: nothing valid. This is
another example of where an application of Russel's statement is correct.
I view this as a mere strategem to make me accept your counter-example
uncritically.
> > A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth.
> >
> > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
>
> First you take a position. Then I point out it is untenable, and you
> try to claim you weren't serious in the first place.
I leave it to you to figure out which sentences were facetious and which
were serious, and where ambiguities lie. That should show you how little
footing you have for a lawsuit.
Twit. :-)
[I will be away in Georgia for three weeks. Responses to my notes will
expire here during that period: mail me copies if you want me to see them.]
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Pete Zakel
> > Ah, Clayton. Always ready to misinterpret a rhetorical argument.
>
>
> > Obviously, the correct inference is that YOU have no rational conviction
> > behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate
> > belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was
> > a free-market phenominon. :-)
> >
>
> I demand an immediate retraction of this libel. Show ONE SINGLE POSTING
> I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT
> BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT.
>
>
> Clayton E. Cramer
Oh, pish and tosh. Clayton, you have NO grounds for libel whatsoever. How
anyone could prove libel from a statement of the form "Judging from X, A
might permit Y if Z were true" is just beyond me. Talk about over-reaction.
And how can you ignore the smiley (which you even included in the quote)?
--
-Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,?}!ridge!valid!pete) (member of HASA)
Clayton Cramer
Over-reaction? I guess you don't consider genocide a serious matter.
Clayton E. Cramer
Clayton Cramer
> > > behind it. Assuming, of course, that you really do have such a passionate
> > > belief. Judging from your writings, you might well allow genocide if it was
> > > a free-market phenominon. :-)
> >
> > I demand an immediate retraction of this libel. Show ONE SINGLE POSTING
> > I HAVE EVER DONE THAT BACKS UP THIS LIE OF YOURS, OR I WILL FIND OUT WHAT
> > BASIS I HAVE FOR A LAWSUIT.
>
> I can tell what basis you have for a lawsuit: nothing valid. This is
> another example of where an application of Russel's statement is correct.
>
> I view this as a mere strategem to make me accept your counter-example
> uncritically.
>
Wrong. I want to you stop telling lies and misrepresenting my position.
You are a liar, and a thoroughly dishonest person.
Clayton E. Cramer