This bill made me curious

[babe]

Wow the Mormon victim card. How many kids do you have? Yea I am sure that social security will repay the difference between educating 12 kids vs 1.

You really need to raise your level of discourse a bit. Well, maybe I do, too.

In Utah, the "liberal" minority has been playing their victim card as long as I can remember. You are disingenuous in your rhetoric. My kids are not in the public schools, but I still pay for other peoples' kids in those schools. What a complete *** you are making of yourself here. What an idiotic retort about "social security" paying anything. It's other people's kids that will be paying social security taxes and trying to keep that "tax" paying welfare for the older people. The Supreme Court defined "social security" as a tax, and therefore benefits paid out are merely "welfare". I would favor abolishing the social security tax entirely. But if you are going to track with the welfare state system, you at least need to recognize that the benefits, historically, have exceeded the revenues collected for "social security", and the program has been used as another form of deficit-spending Keynesian "shot in the arm" for the economy. The problem with "shots in the arm" is that financially they are much like the Heroin addiction form of "shots in the arm", in that they are unsustainable.

 

[babe]

The problem with conservatives is they love denying that they like to spend money too. This bill is needed to address the socialism that you so hate. It is unfair to spread the wealth to families who decide not to reproduce like rabbits. So how about taking some person responsibility and stop blaming all the ills of your life and society on public education. While I agree that the public school system needs to adapt with time and do a better job educating our children, the ultimate responsibility still lies with the child and the parents. THere are several reasons why parents and children love to blame the school system. Some are valid while others are simply a way for people to not take responsibility. A poor school system doesn't prevent one from learning, yes it makes it harder but if you want to learn then study. The fact that you give no credit for your public education is your choice but many people have used their public education to better their lives and without it would be stuck in poverty.

Your experience is not the same as others. However instead of seeing the benefits of public education, you tear it down so you can promote the idea of vouchers and online education. Vouchers are for rich people and not all charter or private schools out perform public schools. There are bad private and public schools. That is the reality. The real problem of being be boxed in and not taught to think goes way beyond education and more to do with how we process all the available (mis)information that is available today.

Some conservatives call me a socialist. I do think there are some things we can do efficiently through state or federal government. The issue here is the poor results we are getting with public schools. More taxes will not fix that. We need to do something else.

So at first blush, seeing your "passion" on this issue, I suppose you might be a school teacher. I came from a whole tribe of schoolteachers. If the public trough were shut down on education, school teachers could still meet the need, and earn a better living at it, educating people in private-run schools and doing it more efficiently.

Don't be afraid of change.

 

[babe]

The place of "welfare" or "charity"

If we just shut down all our public schools, auctioning them off as institutions or brick and mortar assets to private organizations, and did so in a way that did not encourage "cartelism" or monopoly so there could be actual marketplace competition in the educational industry, we might get better education at a lower cost. . ..

But what about all those large, poor families who can't afford even that?

Public assistance to education is, properly, speaking, welfare. With some tax exemptions available, charitable organizations like churches or even secular counterparts can raise funds from contributions, tax-incentivised, to help with some of that need, but I would expect there would remain some need for public assistance.

Giving poor families a "voucher" for education and letting them take it to the private school of their choice would keep competition in place, and achieve overall cost reductions in how much the taxpayers must support "other peoples' kids".

Even with that, I think the correct "liberal" or compassionate and wise position for politicians to take, is to stop trying to exploit class warfare. It is a benefit to the entire community if poor kids get education, without the state-dictated brainwashing and social agenda propaganda.

I am amazed at the gall of "liberals" who complain that big poor families are NOT paying enough taxes. . . . pointing a say a minority like the LDS. . . .

It is a real hoot. LDS folks are above the median in income, and probably do not generate, as a class, a disproportionate burden on folks with smaller families. Most LDS folks today have perhaps three to five kids when their families are "complete".

Quite a dissimilar statistic will be found if other "minorities" are compared to that, but of course it would be "racist" to discuss those. . . . lol

And I think the Mormons are a socialist, statist, authoritarian outfit, and I wish I could move their social system towards something that would not favor statism so much. Am I a hoot, or what???

I know, let's go back to 1896 and undo the agreement the Federal government extracted from the Mormons, and let the Mormons educate their own kids. Used to be every ward had a school for their kids on weekdays, teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. . . . and Mormon culture.

I'd be all for that. Every religion required to educate their own people. Good idea.

 

[mellow]

The illiteracy rate in 1870 was 20%. By 1979, it was 0.5%. That was the result of public education.

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

Flagged for logical fallacy.

It could also be said that in 1870 the death rate was higher than in 1979, there were also more automobiles in 1979 than in 1870. More Americans had indoor plumbing in 1979, than in 1870, and there were more murders, assaults and rapes in 1979 than in 1870. More drug abuse in 1979, more suicides, and more abortions. The percentage of the population in prison was higher in 1979 than in 1870. Should we also attribute all these to public funded education?

 

[♪alt13]

Cowhide, you are a perfect example of "liberal" hypocrisy. If the argument were directed at, say, Hispanics, who are poor and have a lot of children, or illegal immigrants whose children get educated on the public dollar while the parents are often employed and paid "beneath the radar", with no taxes deducted, you would be arguing against a "head tax" on children.

The bill introduced by Utah's most "liberal" folks is a regressive tax on the poor, and would drive more people into other forms of government dependency. It would not "raise revenue", it would decrease revenue while shifting expenses for supporting poor families to the welfare programs.

It's a bad idea.

Public education is also a bad idea, actually, when there are adequate private capacities to meet the educational needs at every level of education. . . . Even our state-run universities can't compete with private education anymore, and we should just let private organizations grow instead of inefficiently taxing the poor to support bigoted liberal brainwashing organizations that depend upon tax support for their existence.

Iawtp but I would not use the word tax. It is the removal of a subsidy for poor families. It's a bad idea.

It would also be a bad idea not to increase funding for public education when we have so many students that will be relying on it. So I ask you, where can the state get $400 million for education?

 

[babe]

Iawtp but I would not use the word tax. It is the removal of a subsidy for poor families. It's a bad idea.

It would also be a bad idea not to increase funding for public education when we have so many students that will be relying on it. So I ask you, where can the state get $400 million for education?

So the BLM "owns" most the land fit for cattle grazing in the State. The State does own some grazing land, and charges about ten times as much for the grazing use, and the revenue is used to support education. We had a fellow as State Attorney General who came from a ranching family who wanted to make the Federal government live up to the agreement it made when Utah applied for statehood, that the Federal government would relinquish the federal lands to the State, but never did.

The liberals in Utah got their undies in a bunch over that notion, and did a hatchet job on the fellow. He was kinda stupid, not unusually so for a politician. The deal he offered his client when he became AG was going to a deal brokered through Harry Reid, no less. The liberals didn't say a word about dirty Harry, but they wanted Swallow done in. The only difference between Reid and Swallow was that Reid was willing to turn all the Nevada lands into wilderness and fence them off from the common folk, and put them entirely out of the economic equation.

Let's get another Attorney General and follow through with that idea. This state needs to administer its own lands because it will do so with more incentive to make them pay, and the increased revenue will largely go to education.

 

[♪alt13]

If we just shut down all our public schools, auctioning them off as institutions or brick and mortar assets to private organizations, and did so in a way that did not encourage "cartelism" or monopoly so there could be actual marketplace competition in the educational industry, we might get better education at a lower cost. . ..

But what about all those large, poor families who can't afford even that?

Public assistance to education is, properly, speaking, welfare. With some tax exemptions available, charitable organizations like churches or even secular counterparts can raise funds from contributions, tax-incentivised, to help with some of that need, but I would expect there would remain some need for public assistance.

Giving poor families a "voucher" for education and letting them take it to the private school of their choice would keep competition in place, and achieve overall cost reductions in how much the taxpayers must support "other peoples' kids".

I would be in favor of this for 11th and 12th grade students but it would be inappropriate and more expensive for elementary age students. Economies of scale weigh heavily in favor of public education for younger students when a core curriculum is appropriate. All children need to read, write, be proficient in basic mathematics etc. I do think at later stages in our system we should diversify education to better prepare individual students for the future of their choosing.

We basically already have this system we just probably start collegiate level education a few years too late.

 

[♪alt13]

So the BLM "owns" most the land fit for cattle grazing in the State. The State does own some grazing land, and charges about ten times as much for the grazing use, and the revenue is used to support education. We had a fellow as State Attorney General who came from a ranching family who wanted to make the Federal government live up to the agreement it made when Utah applied for statehood, that the Federal government would relinquish the federal lands to the State, but never did.

The liberals in Utah got their undies in a bunch over that notion, and did a hatchet job on the fellow. He was kinda stupid, not unusually so for a politician. The deal he offered his client when he became AG was going to a deal brokered through Harry Reid, no less. The liberals didn't say a word about dirty Harry, but they wanted Swallow done in. The only difference between Reid and Swallow was that Reid was willing to turn all the Nevada lands into wilderness and fence them off from the common folk, and put them entirely out of the economic equation.

Let's get another Attorney General and follow through with that idea. This state needs to administer its own lands because it will do so with more incentive to make them pay, and the increased revenue will largely go to education.

Totally agree.

While we are talking about grazing and the blm. I cannot believe how many ****ing sheep they allow on some bits of land in this state. The BLM is imo completely incompetent at managing our lands. We have some unfenced land out west surrounded by blm property and the sheep murder it. I wouldn't need a fence if cattle were grazing there or the sheep were reasonable, and it's not like I can call my state rep to bitch about it because it's out of his hands. ****in BLM

 

[One Brow]

Flagged for logical fallacy.

It could also be said that in 1870 the death rate was higher than in 1979, there were also more automobiles in 1979 than in 1870. More Americans had indoor plumbing in 1979, than in 1870, and there were more murders, assaults and rapes in 1979 than in 1870. More drug abuse in 1979, more suicides, and more abortions. The percentage of the population in prison was higher in 1979 than in 1870. Should we also attribute all these to public funded education?

The relationship between public education and illiteracy rate seems obvious to me. Make an argument for the connection connection between public education and any of the other phenomena you mention. I think some of them may be accurate because improved education is strongly correlated with increased wealth, and wealth is associated with things like more cars, better plumbing, and better access to abortion. By contrast, wealth is negatively correlated to murder, assault, and rape, so you will have a more difficult time demonstrating a relationship.

 

[green]

Is the educational system really that important? I mean, really, really that big of a deal? We act like it is, but let's say that we completely did away with all public schools and the illiteracy rate went back up to 20%. What would change?

Would anything change? The kids who are fortunate enough to grow up in two parent home whose parents care about their education would still grow up to be our stock brokers, doctors and lawyers. The kids who grow up in single parent homes with parents who care about their education would still grow up to be our teachers, accountants, social workers. The kids who grew up in homes where the parents didn't care about education would still grow up to be our laborers, etc.

Now, I know I just threw out a ton of stereotypes there, but my point is this:

Is education really changing lives? Or does it all come back to what happens at home? And if it comes back to what happens at home, why is it so important that my plumber knows how to read a dissertation of English Lit theory? Or do a trigonometry problem?

Especially now, where education has become so important, that you need a bachelor's degree to be a cop, making $13/hr? How did that college degree change that cop's life vs his dad, who was a cop with no college degree? Other than put him $50,000 in debt?

Here is another example: In countries all around the world, Doctors only have bachelor's degrees. Here in the states, you have a doctorate degree. Other than an extra $200,000 in debt, what is the difference between the two doctors?

What exactly is this amazing literacy rate doing for us? How is it changing lives? How is it furthering the country?

 

[One Brow]

Is the educational system really that important? I mean, really, really that big of a deal? We act like it is, but let's say that we completely did away with all public schools and the illiteracy rate went back up to 20%. What would change?

Would anything change? The kids who are fortunate enough to grow up in two parent home whose parents care about their education would still grow up to be our stock brokers, doctors and lawyers. The kids who grow up in single parent homes with parents who care about their education would still grow up to be our teachers, accountants, social workers. The kids who grew up in homes where the parents didn't care about education would still grow up to be our laborers, etc.

Now, I know I just threw out a ton of stereotypes there, but my point is this:

Is education really changing lives? Or does it all come back to what happens at home? And if it comes back to what happens at home, why is it so important that my plumber knows how to read a dissertation of English Lit theory? Or do a trigonometry problem?

Especially now, where education has become so important, that you need a bachelor's degree to be a cop, making $13/hr? How did that college degree change that cop's life vs his dad, who was a cop with no college degree? Other than put him $50,000 in debt?

Here is another example: In countries all around the world, Doctors only have bachelor's degrees. Here in the states, you have a doctorate degree. Other than an extra $200,000 in debt, what is the difference between the two doctors?

What exactly is this amazing literacy rate doing for us? How is it changing lives? How is it furthering the country?

We have a much higher percentage of stockbrokers, doctors, and lawyers, and a much lower percentage of laborers and farmers, than we did 150 years ago. Part of that is because with public education, the child of an illiterate laborer, but one who cares about his children's education, can still become a professional by following a set path, instead of having to find their own way with no assistance.

Have you seen the map of economic mobility?

https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-...ecropping-and-the-Burden-of-Southern-History/

Firstly, the highest mobility happens in the least diverrse areas.

However, in the more diverse areas, economic mobility seems to track pretty well with spending in schools. I think if furthers the country to allow better chances to move up or down the economic ladder.

 

[♪alt13]

Is the educational system really that important? I mean, really, really that big of a deal? We act like it is, but let's say that we completely did away with all public schools and the illiteracy rate went back up to 20%. What would change?

Would anything change? The kids who are fortunate enough to grow up in two parent home whose parents care about their education would still grow up to be our stock brokers, doctors and lawyers. The kids who grow up in single parent homes with parents who care about their education would still grow up to be our teachers, accountants, social workers. The kids who grew up in homes where the parents didn't care about education would still grow up to be our laborers, etc.

Now, I know I just threw out a ton of stereotypes there, but my point is this:

Is education really changing lives? Or does it all come back to what happens at home? And if it comes back to what happens at home, why is it so important that my plumber knows how to read a dissertation of English Lit theory? Or do a trigonometry problem?

Especially now, where education has become so important, that you need a bachelor's degree to be a cop, making $13/hr? How did that college degree change that cop's life vs his dad, who was a cop with no college degree? Other than put him $50,000 in debt?

Here is another example: In countries all around the world, Doctors only have bachelor's degrees. Here in the states, you have a doctorate degree. Other than an extra $200,000 in debt, what is the difference between the two doctors?

What exactly is this amazing literacy rate doing for us? How is it changing lives? How is it furthering the country?

You can't be srs. You think creating an illiterate underclass won't have negative effects on society or ordinary people, get real.

 

[green]

You can't be srs. You think creating an illiterate underclass won't have negative effects on society or ordinary people, get real.

I don't know if I'm serious or not. Just a thought that popped in my head. What about my cop example:

A cop with a HS diploma has a son who now has to get a college degree to be a cop. Other than $20,000-$50,000 in student loans, what did we accomplish?

 

[green]

We have a much higher percentage of stockbrokers, doctors, and lawyers, and a much lower percentage of laborers and farmers, than we did 150 years ago. Part of that is because with public education, the child of an illiterate laborer, but one who cares about his children's education, can still become a professional by following a set path, instead of having to find their own way with no assistance.

Good point. I haven't thought of that.

 

[♪alt13]

I don't know if I'm serious or not. Just a thought that popped in my head. What about my cop example:

A cop with a HS diploma has a son who now has to get a college degree to be a cop. Other than $20,000-$50,000 in student loans, what did we accomplish?

Less ignorant cops that don't understand the laws that they are supposed to be enforcing.

 

[green]

Less ignorant cops that don't understand the laws that they are supposed to be enforcing.

Serious? You think that a cop with a degree in "business" or "sociology" has a better understanding of the law?

I think back to my undergraduate days, and they weren't spend perusing the laws of the land.

So, what do they really get?

I'm serious here. Other than the debt, what has that younger cop gotten? Both cops went through the Police Academy. Both cops learned what they need to learn in the Police Academy.

Another example: most doctors in the world are bachelors degrees. Why do we require ours to obtain doctorates? What does the Dr learn in his undergraduate studies that makes it essential to becoming a Dr? Other than the debt, what did we do for the Dr?

Same with school teachers. It used to be, to be a school teacher, all you needed was a teaching certificate. Now, most places want a bachelors degree. My sister did her bachelors in education. She didn't learn calculus. She didn't take extra history or english or literature or writing classes. So, what was the point? Other than the debt she came out of school with, what did she really come away with that teacher's in the past were so desperately missing?

Take a look at the list of degrees offered by most colleges and universities. What good are they? Most are completely useless. So, what is this huge advantage we are getting over being more educated?

One Brow's mobility link is interesting and I'll have to look more into this.

Now, I'm still forming my opinion on all of this. But I need more than "without schooling we would all be ignorant fools." Have you seen American lately? Even though we can read (somewhat. How often are there common grammar mistakes on message boards? And how often is that viewed as ok? So, again, what is the point of all this education?), we aren't less ignorant by any stretch of the means.

But, hey, at least we can read about what Kim Kardashian is up to, right?

 

[♪alt13]

Serious? You think that a cop with a degree in "business" or "sociology" has a better understanding of the law?

Then just some dude that spent a few weeks in the police acadamy, yes.

I think back to my undergraduate days, and they weren't spend perusing the laws of the land.

So, what do they really get?

I'm serious here. Other than the debt, what has that younger cop gotten? Both cops went through the Police Academy. Both cops learned what they need to learn in the Police Academy.

As far as cops I don't really care what they have gotten out of it. I care that I am less likely to deal with some dumb hick cop.

Another example: most doctors in the world are bachelors degrees. Why do we require ours to obtain doctorates? What does the Dr learn in his undergraduate studies that makes it essential to becoming a Dr? Other than the debt, what did we do for the Dr?

Same with school teachers. It used to be, to be a school teacher, all you needed was a teaching certificate. Now, most places want a bachelors degree. My sister did her bachelors in education. She didn't learn calculus. She didn't take extra history or english or literature or writing classes. So, what was the point? Other than the debt she came out of school with, what did she really come away with that teacher's in the past were so desperately missing?

Maybe you should ask your sister about class sizes in schools and how hard it is to teach nearly 40 kids to read.

I know 3 people that either just finished a bachelors in education or are almost there. All 3 seem happy with their schooling.

Take a look at the list of degrees offered by most colleges and universities. What good are they? Most are completely useless. So, what is this huge advantage we are getting over being more educated?

Education holds more value than simply the vocation it may provide. For one thing it gives me interesting people to talk to. People that chose to learn about something because they fell in love with it and are passionate about it help make this country the vibrant place that it is. As far as the debt is concerned if you choose to live off loans while you are in school you're going to go deep into debt. In state tuition at the U is what $7,000 a year. So that's 28,000 over four years. Half the price of a brand new truck. You can pay for that education on a low interest loan. Wahhhh

One Brow's mobility link is interesting and I'll have to look more into this.

Now, I'm still forming my opinion on all of this. But I need more than "without schooling we would all be ignorant fools." Have you seen American lately? Even though we can read (somewhat. How often are there common grammar mistakes on message boards? And how often is that viewed as ok? So, again, what is the point of all this education?), we aren't less ignorant by any stretch of the means.

But, hey, at least we can read about what Kim Kardashian is up to, right?

All I can say is compare well educated states to poorly educated ones. Pick a few measures you like.

Compare EU nations for that matter. The patterns will reveal themselves to you.

 

[LogGrad98]

In getting my business degree I took 3 classes aimed at business law. I deal with laws that affect workers and businesses on nearly a daily basis, and have training with great regularity to update us in terms of changes to such laws. I would argue that a business degree does a pretty decent job of helping the student get 1) an introduction to the legal system in America, and a good foundation for understanding, analyzing, and interpreting the output of congress (i.e. laws of the land), and 2) preparing the student to deal with the realities of those laws in a context that has a decided impact on real people.

Frankly, the argument against a degree, of any kind, sounds like it comes from someone who never went to college and is now bitter that they don't get the same chances as someone with a "useless" degree anyway.

 

[PearlWatson]

Frankly, the argument against a degree, of any kind, sounds like it comes from someone who never went to college and is now bitter that they don't get the same chances as someone with a "useless" degree anyway.

No it doesn't since the dude is a dentist.

He is making some valid points.

 

[LogGrad98]

No it doesn't since the dude is a dentist.

He is making some valid points.

I am aware of green's educational background, which is why the comment stood out to me, as that is exactly what it sounded like.

I am more in heyhey's camp in terms of the value of an education, especially for certain fields, and in general. Largely for me this comes from years of dealing with people with a huge diversity in educational backgrounds in an employment setting. There is a reason companies want to locate their operations in places with an "educated work force", as it provides a better prepared employee pool, who takes generally less time and money to train, is more productive and creative, and is also generally paid a higher wage. For example, Reno has a fairly diverse and educated workforce compared to, say, some places in the south. Consequently, we pay on average $4 per hour more for the same work as in parts of Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama. Part of that is cost of living-related, part of it is the fact that we are attracting generally a better-prepared workforce. On average about 80% of the people we hire graduated from high school or have some college, on average one of our sister facilities has 40% high school grad or some college, all others have some kind of GED and nothing more. On average, with the same processes, equipment, and software we are nearly 30% more productive. I do not attribute all of it to a higher education, but it does play a role, one you can see specifically when working with individuals. Of course there is always the chicken or the egg argument, does a higher wage attract a more educated person, or do you have to pay a higher wage due to the higher education of the people in the local employment pool. From my experience working with corporate and other locations in depth, it is more the latter than the former, and that holds true when looking at demographic data regionally to see that hiring patterns tend to follow societal trends in this regard.

I would add to heyhey's comments that I think one thing an extended educational tract does is weed out people who do not seriously want to pursue a particular field, which will generally increase the competence of those who push through, meet the requirements, and overcome the barriers of entry to get into the profession. If it were a 4 year program being enough to graduate as a doctor, then I would imagine the average quality of the doctoral candidates would decrease. If you lower the bar does it really help the profession or society as a whole? Or does it just make it easier for people who couldn't or wouldn't make it in the old system, which isn't necessarily better. Would it be worth it to lower the overall quality of healthcare in order to ease the burden of becoming a doctor?