Education, tool of the new slavemasters

Originally posted by techsouth
As a percentage of GDP, no.

As an absolute amount per student, apparently the US does.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/oecd-education-report_n_3496875.html

And since whodey didn't mention a percentage of GDP, seems like he's correct.

Clearly, it doesn't make much sense to talk about how much a country is spending and not correct for different population size when comparing. Then again, it's whodey making the claim, so perhaps one should expect it not to make sense.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Clearly, it doesn't make much sense to talk about how much a country is spending and not correct for different population size when comparing. Then again, it's whodey making the claim, so perhaps one should expect it not to make sense.

I think measuring based on cost per student does a better job of adjusting for population size because it considers the population of those being educated.

Although it is reasonable to debate which is the more meaningful number, unquestionably "cost per student" is a very reasonable choice.

And whodey's main premise is that the US already spends boatloads on education. He used the fact that it spends more than any other country already. If one wants to squabble over whether "cost per student" or "cost as percentage of GDP" is the better indicator that's a different squabble altogether. At least acknowledge the difference. And the fact remains that the US does spend more per student than any other developed nation and that is more than adequate to support the premise that lack of spending isn't the issue.

Originally posted by techsouth
I think measuring based on cost per student does a [b]better job of adjusting for population size because it considers the population of those being educated.

Although it is reasonable to debate which is the more meaningful number, unquestionably "cost per student" is a very reasonable choice.

And whodey's main premise is that the US already spen ...[text shortened]... ion and that is more than adequate to support the premise that lack of spending isn't the issue.[/b]

Undoubtedly, the US could make gains by simply using resources devoted to education more efficiently. Eliminating poverty will significantly boost educational performance, while saving lots of money in other areas as well (e.g. lower crime rates).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't know anyone who went to a private school. Perhaps if you guys, you know, got rid of poverty and invested in your public schools there would be less demand for private education?

I seriously doubt that so called good education requires spending more than is spent in Washington, DC, or Detroit. Per child costs increase annually, but results either remain bad or get worse. Throwing money at the problem is not the answer for the children, only for the union teachers and administrators.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Undoubtedly, the US could make gains by simply using resources devoted to education more efficiently. Eliminating poverty will significantly boost educational performance, while saving lots of money in other areas as well (e.g. lower crime rates).

Is the elimination of poverty possible? Where has it been done?

Originally posted by normbenign
I seriously doubt that so called good education requires spending more than is spent in Washington, DC, or Detroit. Per child costs increase annually, but results either remain bad or get worse. Throwing money at the problem is not the answer for the children, only for the union teachers and administrators.

Which problem can be solved by "throwing money" at it?

Originally posted by whodey
Who spends more spanky?

you made a statement, i asked for proof. i am not gonna waste my time to gather evidence to counter every possible way you may have meant that.


if you have proof, link it. or simply admit you were talking out of your ass.

Originally posted by techsouth
As a percentage of GDP, no.

As an absolute amount per student, apparently the US does.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/oecd-education-report_n_3496875.html

And since whodey didn't mention a percentage of GDP, seems like he's correct.

that links tells us that the "spending" you are talking about includes that from actual citizens. you can't brag about how much you are spending on education as a country when you ask your citizens to contribute directly.

your post high-school education is insanely expensive and most of the "spending" on that one is actually student loans.

Originally posted by techsouth
I think measuring based on cost per student does a [b]better job of adjusting for population size because it considers the population of those being educated.

Although it is reasonable to debate which is the more meaningful number, unquestionably "cost per student" is a very reasonable choice.

And whodey's main premise is that the US already spen ...[text shortened]... ion and that is more than adequate to support the premise that lack of spending isn't the issue.[/b]

"unquestionably "cost per student" is a very reasonable choice."
when your college education is priced at an insane level, it doesn't become very reasonable, quite the opposite.


if i can make college education in romania be 1 million MILLION dollars, give it to a student in the form of a loan (have him pay it in monthly installments) can i brag that romania spends more than any other country on earth on education?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that links tells us that the "spending" you are talking about includes that from actual citizens. you can't brag about how much you are spending on education as a country when you ask your citizens to contribute directly.

your post high-school education is insanely expensive and most of the "spending" on that one is actually student loans.

You started out talking about public school expenditures, and move the goalposts to college education expense.

College education expense and its constant growth is related to the axiom that the price of subsidized things will always increase. When I graduated high school it was possible to "work your way through college". Now it is impossible to self finance without massive education loans, leaving students in debt for life.

Like everything that big government gets involved in, higher education is screwed up due to leaving it out of the free market.

Originally posted by normbenign
You started out talking about public school expenditures, and move the goalposts to college education expense.

College education expense and its constant growth is related to the axiom that the price of subsidized things will always increase. When I graduated high school it was possible to "work your way through college". Now it is impossible to self ...[text shortened]... nment gets involved in, higher education is screwed up due to leaving it out of the free market.

"You started out talking about public school expenditures, and move the
goalposts to college education expense."

yeh, you have no idea what moving the goalposts means.


"Like everything that big government gets involved in, higher education is screwed up due to leaving it out of the free market."
are you insane? it is messed up precisely because it is treated as a for profit industry. because the government subsidies have gone down, the universities jacked up their prices. you have less government involvement, not less.