I do have a MBA. I worked full time (50+ hours per week) and took classes at night for 5 years. It did in fact help me get my current job. I was brought in as if I had 3 years experience because of my MBA even though I had no experience in the field I currently work in. This translated into an additional $8k per year up front. Just a thought.

I would not trust anything from the Heritage Foundation. They have a political agenda and can twist facts to support their agenda. I say this not because they are conservative. I'd say the same thing about an organization with a liberal agenda. Any organization seeking to do serious objective research works very hard to avoid even the appearance of bias. HF actually promotes themselves on the basis of being biased!

But I do believe you are correct that we have dramatically increased education spending with no net benefit.

Some of the increase in spending may have gone to helping equalize various groups and I know many people object to that philosophically or out of ignorance. The truth is that minority groups were treated dispicably in this country not long ago. I witnessed this personally in my lifetime. So basically, I think we had (or have) a lot of making up to do. If you are too young to remember that then, frankly, I don't think you can truly understand it.

The situation has improved greatly but problems still exist. If you don't believe that then you should come to Arizona. There are politician here who openly support legalizing discrimination in employment and in other area.

Now, I do think that most of the major "affirmative action" type programs are unnecessary now and I do not think we should spend much if anything on them. But I don't think that those laws should be abolished and I do think that those programs were extremely beneficial overall.

But generally, I agree that spending more on education is not the answer. A family member used to go to a private school. This was non-religious and completely self-supporting. I know for a fact that they spend less than half the amount per child than the public schools around here and the kids were several years ahead by the time they finished 6th grade. Most were already doing high school level work. It can be done.

I am 33 years old, studied late; age 26-30, had kids during college, have $37.100 in student debt. Interest rate is 1,5%* and minimum is paying it off to the day I turn 55 or so. We are looking at a monthly cost (annuity) of about $140 (about $46 is interest this year). Apart from a car loan of $2.800 that I will be rid of in a couple of months that is my only debt. I have no reason to pay it off since I get 3,15% on my best savings account...

*Swedish state student loan. The interest rate comes from average interest rate in Sweden last three years and will always be very (very) low.

So, you think the government should be in charge of what people study, and therefore their knowledge?

Seems to me like a combination of planning economy and giving the political power a long term influence over how problems is descibed and defined. Slippery slope mate.

Do you think it is a coincidence that China churn out hundreds of thousands of decent engineers every year, but have quite few nobel price winning economists, historians, political scientist or sociologists?

Actually, no I dont think that.

I believe that cheap easy to access money from tax payers and a society that preaches that only college can lead to wealth as created a system where: education is detached from earnings, and debt is potentially never paid by some students.

We are currently saying, go to college...get "a degree" and you will find a job. Dont worry about the money we will loan it to you...based on the college you are accepted at. I am saying that if you go to a private school and get 150K of debt to get a masters in library science (a real life case from my own family) you are probably NOT going to add a great deal to society and your life will be worse. This is my opinion.

I would rather have a lot more engineers and scientists in our economy then librarians. I understand that others might feel differently. So if the government is going ot be involved at least create productive workers...

It is a very delicate line between the government intervening by providing access to essentially unlimited funds for higher education and no direction on the allocation of the resources.

The european model is scarce university - x places for each major and everyone competes for those places. When the places are full every ones waits a year. They also fail about 30-40% of each class.... it attrition the strong survive. This is at least what I experienced while studying in Austria.

I believe that the federal government should remove itself from the higher education business and let the states and private enterprises take a shot at it.

Ever notice that the government never stops doing anything... it doesnt matter how poorly it does something the assumption is that it just needs to do it better or it needs to be fixed. Not that it should just stop doing it...

I agree the system has some serious flaws. So let's say a $100k debt is never paid back in federal loans. This means tax payers funded the persons education and the person never did really contribute to society...



This is the same model in Brazil. Less than 15% of the population attends university. Less than 2% of the population gets graduate degrees. Education actually has significant value there.



I agree less federal government intervention would be the best solution.

Stictly my opinion: that's why adding a branch or jobs to the government is never really the best solution. New Deal all over again. But hey as they say "The private sector is doing fine." Lol.

The problem with letting states handle education is that they are generally poorly equipped to do so. Not that the Feds are doing a good job, but at least the Feds can take a national approach to it. The skills and knowledge that is required for students from kindergarten through graduate school do not vary by state so why should we have 50 different ways of managing it?

I believe that we should have 50 different ways of doing it because...it will drive innovation... solutions.... best practices....

A national approach looks at a california and and south carolina and says...well california is so much larger we need to take all their special needs into consideration. South Carolina ends up with a program that might not make a lot of sense for them. In short a national system tries to account for the average and really makes little sense to the majority.

If states were allowed to compete and innovate...bad states... would be forced to adopt better systems...local government is held more accountable in my limited experience... a local politician isnt as far removed from what the people want and doesnt have to travel far and wide to fund raise.

A federal systems has no incentive to innovate... post office is classic example... the National Government isnt able to adapt and innovate and remain profitable. I guarentee private enterprise could as demonstrated by fed ex and UPS.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. In my experience the incompetence of politicians is greatest at the local level and decreases slightly as you move up. It's a bit like the old ranking of idiots, imbeciles and morons. Local politicians behave like idiots, at the state level they are more like imbeciles. Once they get into national office most have at least reached the intelligence of morons. (Look up those terms if this makes no sense!)

The problem I have is that people need to know how to read, write, do math, think critically, and know enough science to distinguish opinion from fact. There is nothing about living in California or South Carolina that changes math, critical thinking skills, or even reading and writing. There are local dialects and such but proper grammar is the same in CA and SC. We have seen what happens when states start getting involved in curriculum. You get religion being taught in science classes and a generation of students denied a proper education.

If SC wants to teach local history and spend more time on the civil war era while CA dwells on the Spanish missions and the gold rush, I'm fine with that. But those are extras. We need national minimum standards like nearly every other country in the world. There is a reason that the US is falling behind and it has a LOT to do with the poor state of education in this country.

Your USPS/UPS example is not really applicable either. If UPS were required by law to serve every household 6 days a week and had to get Congressional approval for every price change they'd be bankrupt as well. I'm not defending the post office. But if we actually allowed states to run their schools like UPS and only serve the best students in prosperous areas where parents were willing to pay high taxes we'd have even bigger problems.

I can agree there is not a findamental difference in "what" needs to be taught.

But I cant disagree strongly enough that there are 50 different ways to deliver it. Why can't SC decide to do all education through the internet etc?

Let's agree to disagree about the cream rising to the top of the political system. It's off topic.

I believe that the public eduation would do better if the money was raised and spent as locally as possible. We already have national standards of education, just like other countries. It doesnt seem to be helping very much. In my opinion the system is broken but the only answer being forwarded is... spend more... we already spend more then any other country and the product we get is worse and worse...

I suspect... (i would argue that it is absolute but ...again) I suspect that it is PARENTAL involvement... that leads to better education. Imagine a US where you can only claim your child as a dependant if they maintain a c average...or go to the next grade...something... to make parents part of it. How about charge more taxes on parents whose children get into trouble at school, fine them, etc? How about not trying to treat all children equally and accept that some kids need different things and start seperating into schools that specialize into various courses of study?

http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/germanschools.html

Take a look at this system. Everyone is educated the same through 4-5th grade, then it is segmented based on family wishes and student ability. I constantly hear horror stories about how "no child left behind" has caused students who will pass the required tests to sit idle or self directed study while the teacher has to focus on a few in need. As a society, economically (not arguing moral) this isnt a good investment. We would be better off having "need" placed in schools where needs could be met rather then current system and not punishing those already at pace.

I would not have a problem with customizing modalities and that kind of thing.

But you can't have SC deciding to teach creationism or tobacco farming while California and Maryland teach organic chemistry and Freidman economics. Tobacco farming might be important in some areas of SC but they are not what citizens of the United States need to know. If we get to the point that all students are so well educated that there is extra time to teach tobacco farming, quantum physics, creationism, or Koran study as electives then I'd have no problem with that.

But at this point there are only a handful of states of the 50 that are even meeting the most basic standards for even a minority of students. Most colleges report that 60-75% or higher of the incoming freshman class over the last decade or two do not meet minimum abilities in reading, math, or writing. And remember, that is the fraction of the college-bound students. If you include all high school graduates the statistics become embarrassing.

We have a a lot of problems to address before we start letting every school distric decide what is important.



Fine. But your argument is that local politicians would be better at establishing education policy. That would only be true if local politicians were smarter or otherwise better qualified. I don't agree it is off topic but I can agree to let you believe what you wish.



One major problem with your local funding approach is rich areas would be much better funded than poor areas. That might not seem terrible on the surface but it leads to institutionalized poverty. I am not a big fan of redistribution of wealth. Frankly, I want to keep what I've earned. But I also think every student should have the opportunity to succeed even if his parents did not. And that just doesn't happen in the system you describe. It has been tried in this country and the results were not good.



Here we could not agree more. I think your system is an excellent idea. Let's hold parents accountable for their kids behavior and education. Remember the private school I mentioned? After about 8 years of association with the school my opinion of what makes it work did not change from what I observed at kindergarten orientation. It was parental involvement. All parents and often extended family were very involved. Some parents were contractors, some doctors, one was a law school dean, and a couple had ordinary jobs in stores or whatever. I sat next to all sorts of people in those tiny chairs during "parents nights" or other school functions. They were all normal people but shared the common trait that they cared about their child's education!

The DoD schools work in a similar way - there is a great deal of parental involvement. I understand those schools were terrible 25-30 years ago but are now excellent.



Yeah, Germany has some good things going. Actually much of Europe has a similar system. I think it is a decent system but is maybe a little too socialist for US sensibilities. I went to a year of school in Europe so I'm pretty familiar with the details. I was not in Germany but the system where I was is almost identical.

It seems to me though that, aside from the individual states having operational control, the schools are the same everywhere. Unless I am mistaken, the national government defines the curriculum and other details. If I'm not mistaken, the funding is also largely from the national government, more so even than here.

I don't think the problem with schools here is with funding. I think it is with how money is spent. People point to things like busing to a correct discrimination and say that that is a waste of money. It might be. But in many areas the money spent for that is small compared to waste elsewhere. Schools pay outrageous salaries to multiple levels of administrators then argue they can't afford teachers. Compare that to a factory with 200 assembly line workers and one plant manager! A school might have 30 teachers and 15-20 administrators.

Hmmm...I am trying to appreciate your point of view.
We both agree that parents are the key.
We both agree that money doesn't equal product.
We both agree that the system is over administered.

I do want to clarify I do NOT think that local politicians are BETTER at policy or in any other fashion. Nor do i disagree with a core program that must be taught regardless of location. No need to argue regarding these points.

I believe that local politicians are held more accountable.... not that they are better... I expect my local politicians to be more in touch with my local issues and problems then a national one. I worry that as a small state that my needs are not even remotely served by a federal government. I am not important enough to matter on a national stage... I think I can easily prove this if you like? I would imagine that about 40 of the states agree with me... barring NY, Cali, Fla, Tx, Penn, Ohio, Mass, MD, and one or 2 others... the other states just aren't politically important enough, arent populated enough, etc.

My belief is that the US government does not care about educating as much as "level playing field" or "fairness". The top priority is not making the smartest kids possible or even raising the average...it is making sure that every kid is brought to minimium levels. If we accept that a teacher has X amount of time a day. Kids all learn at Y rate a choice must be made utilizing that teachers scarce resource most effectively. I would say that I would rather a teacher try and get the average student smarter at the end bringing the whole class up. AKA 10 students 1 smart 2 bright 4 average 2 below 1 struggling. If the teacher teaches to the top 7 the average gets better... but some get left behind. If she teaches to the 3 below average, they may get to where the 4 average are...but the 4 average +3 above at or above averages do not improve and might go down... Its harsh... like the reality of social security not being sustainable without serious cuts...etc... People dont want to face it some kids must be left behind OR we will continue to decrease in national rankings. There isn't enough funding to make every kid smarter...

You speak to us trying priviatization in the past and it failing? I want to understand this? I understand the whole funding rich poor etc... but I thought we agreed that parental involvement was the key not funding? I guess that I came from a very rural school, one that was from a poor area of a poor state. My teachers didnt seem to care less about educating us. The age of our books didnt seem to change the knowledge transfer process. Believe it or not even with a 13 churches and only one grocery store in town we were still taught evolution (creationism was not metioned) and about the civil rights movements. Having said that I was probably taught a more liberal interpretation of the Civil War, I do still believe it had as much to do with economics and states rights even if the issue was "slavery".

We are essentially having the same debate right now, I don't want the federal governments "help" good or bad.